Subscribe
RSS
Mobile
What should a media outlet do if it has a bombshell news story on a candidate for president of the United States? Should it run the story? Should it wait until an "appropriate" time... say, perhaps after a major primary election? If a media outlet does "sit" on the bombshell news, is it even news or are they deciding the outcome by not running it? These are the questions to consider as ABC News ponders when to run an interview of Newt Gingrich's ex-wife... an interview that is said to be "explosive."
According to the Drudge Report, ABC News correspondent Brian Ross had a two-hour interview with Marianne Gingrich in which she "unloaded" on her former husband. She has said in the past that "she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview." Is this the interview in which she does it? Or is it hype?
What Drudge is reporting is that there is now a debate within ABC News as to whether to run the story before the South Carolina GOP primary election.
ABCNEWS suits determined it would be "unethical" to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.
A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.
Ok, so now we are back to the questions. If a news outlet has news, isn't it the job of the outlet to run the news? Why would there be a need for debate? It's not up to a news organization to help pick winners or losers in an election. If it's news, go with it. Which leads to another question. What if it's not news? What if the "news" is just this leak that an interview might be run at some point? Isn't that damaging to the candidate as well?
It seems strange that there would be a debate over a news story. And now, the people of South Carolina will be wondering if there IS a bombshell coming regarding Newt Gingrich. If there isn't, then ABC "News" is doing a disservice by leaking the "story."
Fox News' Greta Van Susteren thinks that the news story should be held:
What I DO know is that we are only 2 days out from the South Carolina primary and there is a high risk from the Drudge Report description of an explosive interview of unfair poisoning of those going to the polls. There simply is not enough time for a candidate to respond to the explosive report and fairness also includes fairness to the candidate.
This is not to say that news should be suppressed (it should not) but news should also not be used to ambush. Thus...in light of the close time to the South Carolina primary...if I were ABC, I would hold this interview until after the polls close on Saturday (or I would have showed it a week ago.)
I agree that news should not be used to ambush, but the news is already out.... just not the details. Isn't that a kind of ambush? After all, Newt Gingrich cannot respond to the charges when he doesn't know exactly what they are.
It appears from Breitbart.com that ABC News has decided to run the story on Nightline on Friday night. What timing! Winners and losers should be determined at the ballot box and not by "stories" that materialize just at the right time. Let the voters decide. The media should get out of the "hit piece" business once and for all.
---
Update: Apparently ABC will run the interview with Marianne Gingrich tonight on Nightline according to the Associated Press.
Update: ABC posts teaser for interview with Marianne Gingrich.
January 19, 2012 @ 9:29 am
This interview has been plastered all over the web and I think it’s totally despicable for any so-called news organization to even air these “revelations” at such an appropriate time for Romney and the Republican establishment.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that someone is behind this, and I doubt if it’s anyone other than the Republicans that are backing Romney. Gingrich was winning in several states putting Romney in a distant second until the Super Pac ads destroyed Newt’s chances. In the interim, Gingrich has won over a lot of the SC crowd by his policies and debating skills. Like him or hate him, he’s brilliant as even his worst enemies will admit. I suspect that the Romney supporters started worrying again as the ads and Newt’s baggage wasn’t making any difference in this state, so they brought out the infantry with his ex-wife!
That’s how I see it, and that’s the only thing that makes sense to me considering this woman did not come forward when he was winning in the polls. She didn’t have too because the ads were eliminating Gingrich as a contender. Do I think it’s the Democrats? No! It’s the Republicans that want Gingrich out because Romney is “their” man. There are some that think this kind of action is justified because of Gingrich’s past infidelities, but I don’t, I think these tactics are rotten to the core and so does Newt’s daughters who wrote a letter and gave it to the press in behalf of their father. To sum this up, the perpetrators of this latest fiasco stink to the high heavens including his ex-wife!
January 19, 2012 @ 9:51 am
Ah yes, it has to be Romney’s fault that Newt Gingrich has been a womanizer.
Marianne Gingrich has been a ticking timebomb for Newt for many years. She is just one of the timebombs lurking in the Newt’s history. He was banging Calista for several years while still married to Marianne and he was banging Marianne for awhile before divorcing Jackie. We all know that, we’re just supposed to pretend we don’t because it’s considered off limits to tell the truth about Newt.
And it was just this week that Newt said that Mitt needs to get all his history out before the nominee is picked. Newt said it’s too late when baggage comes out in September.
Ah but that was yesterday, Newt supporters only care about Mitt’s baggage. Newt’s is not fair game.
All of that said, I sincerely doubt there is anything new here. But it will be the first time that many voters have heard about Newt’s womanizing. Best they hear it now, not in September.
January 19, 2012 @ 10:03 am
Who said that it was Romney’s fault, Leonidas, I said it was the Republicans meaning the establishment who are backing Romney which my post clearly states. Insofar as anyone on this planet not knowing about Newt’s infidelities, then they occasionally must spend a lot of their time outside of the earth’s sphere.
January 19, 2012 @ 10:11 am
Newsjunky, this is not the Republican’s fault. It’s not Romney’s fault. It’s not even ABC’s fault, even though we all know they will do all that they can to reelect Obama.
Newt’s history is what it is. He made that history himself.
Isn’t it better for voters to know about it now than it to find out in September?
January 19, 2012 @ 10:45 am
I think it is fairgame, since it is a question on character of our nominee and possible POTUS. So I dont see anything wrong. If Mr Gingrich is crying foul, then it shows the sheer double standard. Like what Mrs Palin, says, lets have all the candidates vetted and according to the Speaker and Gov Perry’s own words. lets have it all out in the open so we dont get any surprises that Obama and his PAC can use in September. I am aware that Speaker is married 3x but I like to know more about his personality and character.
One other thing, I didnt see Mrs Palin declining to be running mate with Sen McCain. McCain maybe a maverick but it did not alter the fact that he is a moderate. So my question is what is so wrong if our nominee is a moderate (I dont know if Romney is, since he had to govern for the people in MA who voted for him, he got things done for his constituents, isnt that what each an every consitutents want???) All I know is we need to defeat Obama and we better unite asap to stick it to the Dems!
January 19, 2012 @ 10:47 am
Leonidas:
It’s always better to bring these things to light so that people can be informed as was done in the case of Gingrich before and during his campaign. However, I don’t agree with how these revelations from an angry, ex-wife is being politically maneuvered. If this is someone else’s idea of how Christian conservatives should react, so be it — but it’s not mine.
January 19, 2012 @ 10:58 am
I have no idea if she is a Christian conservative or an Obama supporter. Neither one would change the facts of Newt’s marital history.
Maybe she’s just getting even with Newt. Maybe she sees it as saving the GOP from a certain defeat if Newt’s record is covered up until the general election.
Maybe she’s paid. Maybe she’s not. Still, Gingrich has 3 marriages, in each case having affairs with the new one before divorcing the old. Facts are inconvenient things.
All of the drama with Marianne and Calista was going on at the same time Newt was impeaching Bill Clinton for his BJs in the Oval Office. That too is part of Newt’s record.
Newt’s marital history is the least of the bad news about Newt. There will be much more to come from the Obama campaign and you can take that to the bank.
January 19, 2012 @ 11:00 am
So be it, Leonidas!
January 19, 2012 @ 11:05 am
newsjunky, Could it be that Gingrich’s ex-wife still harbors ill will toward him. I have personally known sever women who would do anything to make an ex miserable. I had friend who paid all his child support in advance so he could be done with it. His son was 14 at the time and he paid $48,000. His ex proceeded to spend it all on ATV’s and other recreational items. She then took him back to court to get more child support. My friend got lucky as the DA overheard her say she would have to get a job if he didn’t have to pay more.
I’m not saying that Republicans can’t be behind this but I can say a woman scorned is very capable of doing this on her own.
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! ! !
January 19, 2012 @ 11:18 am
onewildman:
I agree, she could be doing this on her own as she’s been complaining about him for a long time. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” is and could be the only reason why she’s coming forward. Considering the timing of this interview, my instincts tell me she’s been encouraged. If I’m wrong it won’t be the first time — it’s just a hunch. I suspect this whole scenario will get much uglier as the days go by.
January 19, 2012 @ 11:28 am
I for one would not underestimate the Obama camp doing this to create chaos, or she is getting even with Speaker. Either way, Obama wins because it causes in fighting amongst GOP voters pointing fingers at each other and the Dems are smiling from ear to ear (we know Ms Pelosi is )We should not be pointing fingers amongst the GOP candidates, watch the interview if you wish then decide for yourselves if Mr Gingrich has an upstand character and to be POTUS, If so, then vote for him if not then vote for another candidate. Just dont bicker, point fingers and give Obama the upper hand!
this 2012 campaign from the OBama camp will be the dirtiest, ugliest and deceitful in many of our lifetime!
January 19, 2012 @ 2:34 pm
“We all know that, we’re just supposed to pretend we don’t because it’s considered off limits to tell the truth about Newt.”
Leonidas, why is infidelity and immorality so disturbing when committed by a Republican, but it’s OK for a Democrat and actually doesn’t affect their job performance or their approval rating? I am so sick of the damn double standard displayed by the Democrat party and their supporters. If it’s so destructive for a Republican, why is it acceptable for a Democrat?
January 19, 2012 @ 2:45 pm
I’m not sure that it is destructive for a Republican. Why are you automatically assuming this will hurt Newt? There’s a lot of people here and on other Internet sites defending Newt.
But, to answer your question, GOP supporters used to have a higher standard for their candidates. It was one thing that made Republicans and Democrats different.
Now, you can’t tell what party someone supports by their emphasis on character and moral values. Gingrich supporters think Newt’s lack of character isn’t important, which is exactly what Democrats thought about Bill Clinton.
January 19, 2012 @ 3:10 pm
Comment to Leonidas: I find your wording disgusting as follows:
He was banging Calista for several years while still married to Marianne and he was banging Marianne for awhile before divorcing Jackie.
Show respect for the other people on this blog. There are ways to get your point across without resorting to low life verbage! Also, you would have had to be in the room with Gingrich and his ex-wife to know if he actually said what she is saying he did. A woman scorned can try to ruin an ex-husband in many ways when the opportunity arises and her choice of doing it on ABC one of the MSM Liberal shows tells a story in itself!
January 19, 2012 @ 3:13 pm
Bna42, I will tell you it is accepted for Democrats. Simply put they have no morals and are on a quest to control everybody and every thing in this Nation.
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !
January 19, 2012 @ 3:24 pm
SAnn, I accept that you are far more offended by my description of Newt’s marital history than you are by the facts of his marital history.
Nevertheless, I apologize for my graphic description of Newt’s multiple affairs and divorces. It isn’t a pretty visual. Btw, the affairs and divorces are documented and admitted by Newt himself. I will take his word for it.
On the other hand, I have no idea if Marianne’s claims about open marriage or other claims may be true or not. And I have no reason to think they will matter to Newt supporters either way. Nothing else has.
January 19, 2012 @ 3:28 pm
This is not her first interview; she has given several over the years. This is not someone “suddenly” coming out in the media for revenge. All of those who are oh-so-willing to give the admitted adulterer the benefit of the doubt should consider givng a bit of it to his ex who was treated badly by Newt. She had been diagnosed with scoliosis and was dealing with that when her husband of 18 years decided he had to have an open marriage or move on. (Not unlike his prior wife dealing with uternine cancer when served with divoce papers.) Note this story originally ran in 2010:
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/newt-gingrich-0910?page=all
Maybe this woman is telling the truth as she remembers it. And maybe she is doing us all a favor. As I have written before, make no mistake about it, if he is the nominee, the DNC will be running commercials about Newt’s lack of character, indicating his first two wives trusted him, can you? He cheated on them and he’ll cheat the American people, too.
To be clear, although I think it would be a big issue in the general, his serial philandering is not why he will not get my vote in the primary. It’s statements like he intends to replace Obamacare. (Will Newtcare be better?) His connection to Freddie Mac, his big government solutions, Cass Susstein nudging, etc. etc. His support of Rockefeller over Goldwater shows his feelings about conservatism; only when expedient. The ethics violations, the financial shenanigans, and on and on and on.
He insults my intelligence when he claims to be a Reagan conservative, after he declared the ‘era of Reagan is over.’ He was just a house freshman and barely met Reagan. He was not an integral part of Regan’s economic strategy as he likes to claim. Reagan mentioned Newt ONCE in his diary to mention he had met some young freshmen and one of them, Newt Gingrich, suggested freezing spending levels at 1983 levels whch Reagan rejected because it would cripple the military. Newt was NOT mentioned in his autobiography, although Jack Kemp was mentioned many times. I could go on and on and on and on.
I could post dozens of links and have this post end up in moderation purgatory. But most of you already know all these things. Please put them together to get the big Gingrich picture. It’s not just the womanizing; it’s that the womanizing is part of who this man is; his personality, his worldview. After all, according to Ann Coulter, in his doctoral dissertation he criticized Christian missionaries who discouraged adultery in the Congo on the grounds that adultery was “the essence of tribal stability.” This is who we want running the country?
It’s a sin and a shame the media was never interested in vetting Obama, or any democrat for that matter, but in my opinion, people should know for who and what they’re voting.
January 19, 2012 @ 3:57 pm
“All of those who are oh-so-willing to give the admitted adulterer the benefit of the doubt should consider givng a bit of it to his ex who was treated badly by Newt.”
Don’t forget that this “poor woman” was Newt’s SECOND wife and she was guilty of having an affair with him during his FIRST marriage. So she should have known what was in store for her. The fact that she has given several interviews just enforces the idea that she is vindictive, spiteful, and looking for payback because Newt treated her the same way he treated his FIRST wife. She had it coming. Why do women always think that they can have an affair with a married man and then not expect it to happen to them when they finally land their prize?
January 19, 2012 @ 4:01 pm
Lin,
As I said prior, this is fair game. Speaker wants to challenge Romney’s character on Bain, so why should his womanizing NOT be challenged. Character is character, it does not change just for Mr Gingrich. Now that the tables are turned he does not like it. He cant take the double standard defense out of the Dems playbook! Still if he becomes the GOP nominee, I will support him (just not in the primary), and pray that he does not morph into angry Newt and give us four more years of Obama.
I just heard on Fox, that he was questioning President’s Clinton character when Clinton was having an affair with Ms Lewinsky whilst he himself was having an affair. Santorum is right, Mr Gingrich is an arrogrant man. He has not even clinched it in SC and already saying that if he wins SC he will become the nominee. Some humility would be nice!
January 19, 2012 @ 4:49 pm
Whatever happened to just “Know the truth and the truth shall set you free” ????
Guess what, the truth is free, Political truth or otherwise, so why do so many people allow their votes to be bought with multi-million dollar political packaging and marketing of candidates whose image is nothing close to the true actual core values that their behavior in default displays. I am appalled by the number of American voters who get sucked into the packaging, marketing, advertising and emotional pandering of their worst fears, to convince voters to vote for candidates who are antithetical to the voter’s basic beliefs.
Newt Gingrich is what he is, and people need to quit associating edifying characteristics to a man who clearly has the core values of a dog in heat. Are we so desperate to glean a clean candidate from the basket of fruitcakes that we embrace the first most glistening of rotten apples in the basket, only to find out when we bite into them with probing investigation find they are ridden with worms and rotten to the core?
I warned you about Gingrich who is just like you and me when pressed to the wall, we find out who and what we really are made of. Newt when pressed reveled he will default to his Clintonian core values which are anything but Christian in action, and just like Dick Nixon prove that one bad apple DOES spoil the whole election and the whole party, sometimes for three electoral cycles of voter rememberance. Vote for him at your risk.
I remind you again, seek the truth and the truth shall set you free, and it costs nothing to acquire if you just listen to your conscience which is the very voice of God. I’m supporting Santorum and an actual Tea Party man of Principle on this go around, because his core is to love and respect his marriage contract and the woman that completes him as a man. If our still uncompleted candidate Gingrich displayed even a modicum of character he would have spared the party and spared the voters exposure to the dark side of his human experience. The voters and the party deserve better. Let Newt follow Perry to the exit. The American people have had enough of surpise candidates with our current President.
January 19, 2012 @ 5:04 pm
To Quote Leonidas “He was banging Calista for several years while still married to Marianne and he was banging Marianne for awhile before divorcing Jackie.”
Right on buddy, and he will be banging the American people the next chance he gets a better offer of either pleasure, power, or money. He who does not honor his word before God and man, or even in written contracts will not honor our sacred Constitution when offered the keys to the kingdom. The same key opens the door to heaven or hell and we know which one Newt’s free will has led him by way of temptation.
It’s time to move on to another and end it for New in South Carolina.
January 19, 2012 @ 5:55 pm
Oh, man! You speak for God and who gets into the kingdom! Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell as you say this is where Newt’s going. I think you are becoming way too fanatical with your interpretation of christianity and your interpretation of yourself.
January 19, 2012 @ 7:04 pm
bna42, thank you for pointing out that Calista Gingrich is also an adulterer, at least in my book, just as much as was Marianne. Some first “lady” there. Calista had a 6 year affair with her married and 23 years older than her boss. However, I hold the married person as the most responsible for the adultery, which in both cases, was Mr. Gingrich. Leonidas said it all — “Newt’s history is what it is. He made it himself.”
I cannot understand why all the upset over what Newt himself has admitted is the truth. Lies bother me a lot more. Like Newt calling himself a Reagan conservative despite co-sponsoring over 400 pieces of legislation with Nancy Pelosi. Sounds more like a Pelosi conservative to me. Were you aware that the 2010 election brought in more republicans than Newt claims to have engineered? Are we to give Boehner credit for that? Or were both more a response to radical liberals in the White House?
Again and again, he shows who he really is with his support for liberal/moderate Dede Scozzafava instead of the Tea Party candidate, his support of Cap and Trade (infamous Pelosi on the couch), his support of amnesty for illegals, etc. etc. etc. You want him anyway, that’s your choice to make. And my not blaming his ex for what he did is my choice.
January 19, 2012 @ 7:20 pm
All around well said, pypypypy. Thank you for being a voice of reason amid the indictments of this woman when we haven’t even heard what she’ll say, yet! I agree that Newt is arrogant and think that he could give Obama a very close race in that department. He actually declared himself the nominee when he was ahead in the polls in Iowa. How about him telling the others to get out so the voters could coalesce around him when he hadn’t won a single race and in fact, Santorum ran ahead of him in both of the prior votes! Yes, turns out Rick won in Iowa and placed 4th in New Hampshire, not 5th as projected.
What has helped Newt in these races are his debate performances. Democrat strategists have already opined that Obama will just refuse to debate him. “Pressing affairs of state” and all that. That was where Carter made his mistake, debating Reagan, and Obama won’t do it. And according to people that were in the anti-Bain video put out by the Newt PAC, they didn’t say what it appeared they said; they weren’t talking about Bain or Romney. http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/1400369675001/
January 19, 2012 @ 7:29 pm
PS – Let’s not forget Mr. Gingrich has in the past opined the constitution is outdate, even writing the forward to a book indicating same. Here’s a 1999 article I ran across when researching Mr. Gingrich:
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1199third1.htm
Some of these articles make him seem just plain nutty.
January 19, 2012 @ 9:57 am
Never underestimate the hatred of a woman scorned. Women took down Herman Cain. Now we have Gingrich’s second wife ready to undermine his run for President. And the press, especially the lamestream networks, just love it, because finding a women to dish on a man always has more legs in our culture then just about anything. It is hard to guess as to how far she I’ll go but based on her prior comments, it sounds like she either hates him or is being paid a lot of money. I hope ABC admits how much this women is getting paid by the network and “under the table” from Newt’s enemies.
January 19, 2012 @ 11:40 am
No we have the media wanting to ruin Newt.
I would bet there is money involved to get her to talk.
January 19, 2012 @ 5:08 pm
The media is doing their job and the Republican Party a favor by culling out Gingrich before he wastes any more Conservative money that needs to be directed against Obama.
January 19, 2012 @ 10:12 am
I think voters should do their own homework and then vote with their guts.
Talking about the media. The other day after Gov Huckabee’s forum, Judge Jeanine interviewed Gov Palin about it. Mrs Palin started to defend Speaker Gingrich, that he was right to do what he did to Gov Romney. Then the judge challenged her and said that the Speaker knows what the rules are, ie you do not attack another candidate. Mrs Palin response was she was not aware of the rules. Now dont get me wrong, I love Mrs Palin, but she was not being very honest in this respect. She is a Fox news contributor, and if she didnt watch the forum how can she objectively be a contributor?? She must have watched and saw Gov Huckabee, telling the Speaker that he should stop what he was doing. Mrs Palin said that we need a true conservative, so why did she endorsed Sen McCain during his re-election in AR??? I hardly think that Sen McCain is a “true conservative”
Gov Romney kept to his word as Gov of MA. Majority are moderates in MA and governed accordingly for the people who elected him. So I dont buy it when the media says he is a moderate. Sen Santorum said he had to vote against RIght To Work to represent his state, isnt that the same thing Gov Romney is doing whilst he was Gov of MA??? If Sen Santorum is so true to his principles he should have voted for Right to Work. I dont blame either Santorum or Romney doing what they have to do.
Just because someone say something, it does not mean you have to agree or accept. Just because someone offer you a tasty cupcake, you dont have to accept, you can say, NO. the last time I checked, it is still a valid word in the English dictionary
January 19, 2012 @ 10:25 am
What a crock! This woman was paid just like Cain’s women. If she will smear Newt’s chances after all these years, then obviously she deserved to be dumped. Just look at Clinton’s behavior. Infidelity should be a plus in the general election because Democrats think a man’s personal life should have no effect on his ability to govern the country.
January 19, 2012 @ 5:15 pm
And look what the Democarats gave us. Bill CLinton, Gingrich’s Bizzaro Superman alter ego, and Barak Husein Obama.
CHARACTER DOES MATTER!
Gingrich would market himself and have you believe he is the heir apparent to divorced Ronald Reagan and his economic legacy. Reagan however was not the cheator but the cheatee in his marriage and did everything he could as a Christian man to sustain it. Do not buy the packaging, buy or refuse to buy that which resides within the glitter of the packaging. Do not act like a Democrat or we will just get the Republican version of Bill Clinton.
January 19, 2012 @ 10:26 am
Leaking that there is a story then deciding not to run it until after the primary stinks to high heaven. I think that is the point Eberle is trying to make in this article. Then you wonder if they are holding back the reporting because it is so damaging or because it isn’t damaging at all. If it is truly damaging, are they holding back in order to keep the conservative vote split for Romney’s benefit? If it isn’t damaging at all, are they doing more damage to Gingrich by holding it back with the implication that it will destroy him?
This really is a case of “he said, she said” anyway. Most people come out of divorce pretty bitter. Marriage is supposed to be a safe place where you can share everything with your spouse without worrying about who will find out about it later. Certainly Newt betrayed that by having an affair, but it is no wonder that people are leery of opening up to their spouse when they see cases like this. The Communists set out to destroy the family back in the ’60s and they have done a bang-up job. Unfortunately, the churches waited much too long to do anything about it.
January 19, 2012 @ 10:34 am
My sentiments as well. Stinks to high heaven is what I meant to say, unfortunately I had my “s” in the wrong place. One of these days I’m going to be able to type at my own leisure instead of rushing. However, in this day and age I should be glad I even have a job.
January 19, 2012 @ 10:30 am
My first question is: How much is she getting paid and by whom? The timing is suspect, just like Cain’s accusers. And where are they now? Beyond, that, it makes Marianne look just as bad. What does it say about her judgement of men? I am not excusing Newt’s behavior, but we don’t know about her behavior in the marriage. Relationships between a couple are complicated and private, and should remain so. My mother-in-law was married 4 times, to good men, and her example translated to 2 of her 3 boys being married multiple times, and 1 committing suicide because he felt abandoned by his mother as a child. In her later years, she returned to her Catholic faith and remained faithful to her 4th husband until he passed away. After her re-affirmation of her faith, she became the best mother-in-law and grandmother to my kids. Before she passed away she told me that she regretted her behavior, but that she was young and stupid. As Christians, if we want forgiveness and our prayers answered, we must be willing to forgive others. As much as I don’t care for the Clinton’s, at least Hillary never said anything bad against Bill. And I never heard a negative word from Jackie Kennedy Onassis about her philandering husband.
January 19, 2012 @ 8:26 pm
I read your comment earlier today, twice. I came back and read it again. Excusing Newt’s behavior is exactly what you and many others here are doing. “…we don’t know about her behavior in the marriage…” I think is the part that galls me the most. Each time I read it, it seemed like someone wondering what the domestic violence victim did to provoke the battery. They must have done something, right? No, that’s wrong.
http://www.newtfacts.com
January 19, 2012 @ 10:46 am
I’m sure Marianne Gingrich believes that she has valid reasons to wait until now to attack her ex-husband in the mist of a presidential campaign. We already know that she was one of the spouses which Gingrich has admitted that he wronged. Therefore, her only reasons for coming forward at this late date, insuring that her ex-husband will have little time to respond, must either be vengeance, possibly money, or both.
Regardless of the motive, voters must view the timing with suspicion and view any new accusations based on their intent. We must also recognize that many presidential, other candidates, and some of this country’s Founders have unfortunately succumbed to human frailties. And if I were in charge of ABC, I would insist that any accusations made in this interview be subject to verification by independent sources before the interview is released. This may be too much to expect, since most of our major news networks tend to bias their work and have become little more than soap-operas.
January 19, 2012 @ 8:36 pm
jqcitizen, she didn’t wait until he was in the middle of a presidential campaign. Here’s an article from 2010 where both she and he are interviewed:
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/newt-gingrich-0910?page=all
Make no mistake, the networks are all gunning for all of the candidates. Unfortunately, Newt just has so much from which to choose… No doubt they’ll save some for September, in case he actually gets the nomination. According to Brian Ross, they were originally trying to track down information on the ethics scandal, you know, when the republican house convicted him 395-28 and fined him $300k; and the fizzled FBI investigation of the money improprieties.
January 19, 2012 @ 10:56 am
Sara Palin said South Carolina should vote for Newt only to keep this vetting process in play. I am just now realizing how smart is she.
January 19, 2012 @ 11:24 am
What a bunch of “horse hockey”. Same old character assassination that was used on Cain. Allegations which come from a vindictive ex-wife who obviously just wants her full measure of revenge. Is there any way to authenticate this woman’s “charges”? Probably not.
If one is to look for an absolutely perfect pristine candidate, he (or she) would do better to just crawl into a snug hole somewhere and pull it in after themselves because perfect does not exist…….never has, never will. Only God can claim or have perfection attributed to him.
Frankly, I have no respect for people who engage in the flinging of smut, but had to give Gingrich a pass on this……..Romney started it, what did he think was going to happen. Oh, sorry, I forgot Romney has absolutely NO control over his super-pac. While it’s true that he may not contact them directly, he can absolutely state publicly that he wants the mud slinging stopped.
January 19, 2012 @ 5:31 pm
What you call mudslinging others may prove to be truth. Gingrich dove head first into the maelstrom of mud through allowing a person like himself in such a high office to become tainted through his own actions, and subject to blackmail by ex-wives and Democrats. Why would anyone in a sane mind not pass on this gas bag and embrace a cleaner candidate?
You sound more like the Democrats who give up in the battle of life to pursue perfection and just wade into their own well earned corruption. I could forgive Gingrich if he got covered with mud in battles against the Democrats which is indeed a dirty job. But this mud was acquired by Newt himself in self-chosen acts of personal and marital perfidy and he has to realize there ARE consequences for poor life choices. If he does not then he belongs in the other party. If we give him a pass on this we are just like the Democrats who enable the worst passions of men in ignorance. Believe it or not, NEWT WAS NOT JUST BORN THAT WAY, he did himself in with his own God given free will. Now let him pay the price and just go away.
January 19, 2012 @ 11:25 am
Of course the media is trying to pick winners and losers and their favoriteis Mitt Romney as evidenced by the fact that they crowned him winner of the Iowa Caucuses. Now we learn today the Santorum may have won, but there seems to still be some missing votes so we don’t actually know who won. Now this did not affect the out one of New Hampshire, but it sure is nice for Mittto have theropod in SC think that he is the inevitable candidate with Iowa and NH under his belt. I wonder how things would appear today if Santorum had been crowned the winner.
As for Marianne’s interview, let me ask if anyone is questioning HER character. Afterall, she was having an affair with a married man prior to becoming his second wife. So why isn’t her character under attack? Now, in an obvious case of sourgrapes, she wants to give an interview exposing Newt? Give me a break. I have yet to meet a person on the face of the earth who is perfect in character or otherwise. I don’t think Newt is my candidate based on his philosophy but it is not because of his
character.
Folks, we are in the primaries. Listen to the candidates and their position on the big issues of the day and vote your heart. Don’t let the media tell you who is the inevitable nominee and then vote for that person. Make up your own mind and this country will be better off.
January 19, 2012 @ 11:30 am
Sorry about the typos. Typed from my iPhone.
January 19, 2012 @ 12:04 pm
I know how you feel, as I’m always making them, as I have to type in a rush and can’t collect my thoughts as well as I should. At least we both realize that we make them and can admit to it which is rare these days, as everyone else seems to be perfect or at least portrays themselves as such.
For what it’s worth, I think your commentary displays a lot of good old common sense. Thanks — you made my day.
January 19, 2012 @ 1:33 pm
Newsjunky, I appreciate the understanding. The media influence on the Republican primaries is a sore spot as far as I’m concerned. I had to post. It’s challenging trying to follow these threads and comment while at work and trying to do it on a smartphone. They are great devices, but not ideal. Kind of like our candidate selections. Glad you enjoyed the post.
January 19, 2012 @ 8:48 pm
TeaPartyLoyalist, most here seem to be questioning the character of Marianne. Can we all assume you have just as much venom for Calista who for six years had an affair with a married man 23 years her senior? Are you going to attack Calista’s (lack of) character? I mean, it must be her fault that Newt left his second wife for her, two months after she was diagnosed with scoliosis and her doctor advised Newt that she was to avoid stress and it would affect her treatment, right? Just like it was Marianne’s fault that Newt cheated with her and left his wife who was dealing with uterine cancer, right? Coming soon to a DNC ad near you: He has betrayed at least two wives and he’ll betray you and the country, too.
http://www.newtcantwin.com/
January 19, 2012 @ 10:03 pm
Lin. Allow me to sound like a politician and say that you took my comments out of context. I was addressing the premiss of the article and commenting on the fact that the news media is playing up this story on the eve of a primary. My comments about Marianne were simply to highlight the counter argument that a good news organization might question the accuser and investigate character here as well. Given that the affairs are public info we can all form our own opinions as to the significance of their actions and the relation to our own feelings. My opinion is that they BOTH made poor decisions and THEY must live with those decisions, not me. I also have the opinion, who am I to judge any of them. It’s really none of my business.
As for your comment regarding venom, let me say that I don’t hold any venom for Marianne, Calista, Newt’s first wife (don’t know her name), or Newt for that matter. I don’t KNOW any of these people well enough to hold any venom towards any of them. And as far as I know, none of them have done anything directly against me to warrant any venom (excluding perhaps some of Newt’s bills that have passed, but that is probably indirect at best). If you are aware of anything I should know, please tell me.
What I will say is that I have read a lot of venomous statements from people on this site and others that make me think that many here and elsewhere read too much of the National Enquirer (is it still published)? These people that we are talking about have done nothing to any of us, I presume, and unless you have (or had) a close personal friendship, I would think that their known personal actions would be a footnote at best in helping you form an opinion of them.
I don’t know any of you for that matter, but in reading your comments I would like to challenge any of you to stand up and identify yourselves if you are perfect. How many on this and other sites have ever lied to a significant other or perhaps cheated? Have you ever stolen anything, coveted your neighbors property, or seen a beautiful or handsome member of the opposite sex and thought to yourself hmmmm……? Have you fought with someone out of pettiness, ego or just outright nastiness? My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has not walked the earth for some time. I doubt that anyone here can live up to that level. I know I can’t.
As a Christian Conservative let me say that their faults will be judged by one far superior to me. If they have truly asked for forgiveness, I believe they will be forgiven. I will not judge them and I do not have the power to forgive an act not perpetrated against me.
Some argue, perhaps rightfully so, that given Newt’s actions in his personal life and in government, that he can’t (or shouldn’t) be trusted. That may be so, but I have found few poiiticians that I would actually trust. There is too much power and money in the office to be naive about that.
Once again, I do not defend Newt. I do believe he is highly intelligent and an excellent speaker. He is obviously an experienced politician and i do support some of his positions, but there are plenty I do not support. We must all determine who it is we will vote for given what we know about the candidates and then vote for the nominee even if we must hold our noses to do it. Finally, I believe we will be affecting this nations future more from the House and Senate than from the Office of the President. The media IS going to select our candidate if things keep going in the same direction.
January 19, 2012 @ 11:13 pm
Teapartyloyalist
I was just grading a few papers when I decided to check this forum and came across your commentary. With great interest I read every line and if I had the opportunity to grade your post, I would have given it an A+.
I like your philosophy of life, the way you define your thoughts and opinions, and your sensible personal views. Above all I admire your Christian philosophical beliefs. People don’t always agree, and never will, but your approach to a difference of opinion is remarkable. Being a teacher I couldn’t help but comment.
Goodnight and God bless.
January 19, 2012 @ 11:45 pm
TeaPartyLoyalist, I did not take your comments out of context. In fact, here are your words:
“…As for Marianne’s interview, let me ask if anyone is questioning HER character. Afterall, she was having an affair with a married man prior to becoming his second wife. So why isn’t her character under attack? Now, in an obvious case of sourgrapes, she wants to give an interview exposing Newt? Give me a break…”
Please contrast your words and your emphasis with your repeated assertions that none are perfect and other biblical references. In fact, I don’t see any way to read those words as anything other than venom toward the woman with, “an obvious case of sourgrapes.” Well, that and judging her.
When you make your primary selection, I hope you use good judgment, pray a lot, and consider the character of the men left in this race. While none may have done anything to you, personally, their actions and the way they have lived their lives are part of who they are and how they will govern. Of course, using the standards you laid out in your reply to me, I suppose if none of them have done anything to any of us personally, then we shouldn’t hold it against any of them, or as more than a footnote, right? So, when man that cheats on two wives, leaving one, Jackie, dealing with uterine cancer and leaving the other, Marianne, dealing with a recent diagnosis of scoliosis and instructed to avoid stress, since he didn’t do it to us, personally, we really shouldn’t consider that as more than a footnote, in your opinion? To me, it speaks volumes. But then again, I judge the candidates based on all of the information available to me, regarding their history, experience, qualifications, intellect, actions, record and a myriad of other things, because I want to make an informed decision, or judgment.
I wonder how Marianne would have felt reading your words that you say were not defending Newt and that you say were not venomous toward her? Maybe she’d agree with you that no one is perfect. Of course, in my opinion, what that cad did to two wives is not an ’oops, no one is perfect’ kind of thing. Literally billions of people have not cheated on their spouse or left them for another while the spouse battled a serious health crisis. In fact, as far as I know, there are three in the race currently. Newt has done that twice. You can excuse his despicable behavior if you like by saying ‘no one is perfect,’ but to me, it’s not a small matter — it’s a small man.
January 20, 2012 @ 11:35 am
Newsjunky. Thank you for the kind words. I simply don’t have to hate people I disagree with. I am trying to walk the path. I do not always succeed. Like everyone else, it’s a struggle everyday. I appreciate the A+. With any luck (and it shouldn’t take that much given the current administration) we will win in Nov. Teacher huh? Not a job I could do. I am glad someone can though. God Bless you as well. Teach the children well.
January 20, 2012 @ 2:42 pm
Lin. It can be difficult to pick up tone and perspective in written correspondence. I was not writing from my perspective. I was writing from the perspective of the media trying to create some drama for Newt before the primary. I think I gave a thorough explaination. If you choose not to accept it, well there’s nothing I can do about that. You can’t have an extramarital affair unless there is a woman (Marianne, Calista) willing to go along. I find it difficult to feel sorry for her. My point was about the media’s purpose to bring Marianne on the air and have her trash her ex. Yet her behavior is not above reproach. She is a poor witness. An interview like that will disolve into a he said, she said affair and I don’t need to know the sordid details. Once again, it is none of my business. Now I DO know he had two affairs, and I will consider that along with many other issues when I vote.
Regarding the “sourgrapes”, let me ask, why would a woman who had an extramarital affair, and then was also cheated on, want to do an interview? You can fill in your own answer. Once again, I don’t need to hear the sordid details. Perhaps if it was his first wife, she would have a leg to stand on. My wife told me a story that I find applicable here. Perhaps you’ve heard it. I’ll keep it short. A woman came upon a snake and was startled. The snake said don’t be afraid, I won’t bite you. The woman said she did not believe him, but the snake convinced her that he would not bite so she took the snake home. After living with the snake for some time, the snake struck out at her and bit her. The woman was surprised and asked the snake why he bit her when he promised he could be trusted. The snake replied, “You knew what I was when you picked me up”.
January 20, 2012 @ 4:43 pm
Thank you for your reply, TeaPartyLoyalist. You’re correct; I’d have never guessed your first person statements and questions were from the perspective of the media, especially as you wrote, “…let me ask…” which I, apparently incorrectly, thought meant you were asking for yourself.
Unlike you, I feel sorry for anyone who, after 18 years of marriage and during a serious health crisis, finds out their spouse has been cheating for six years and is leaving them for their newest lover. And, to add further insult, in this instance, the aggrieved spouse had stood by the adulterer through the worst of his times.
As far as an explanation other than, “sourgrapes,” I’d suggest that perhaps she’s telling the truth as she knows it. Perhaps she loves her country more than her privacy and reliving that particular nightmare and is attempting, in her own way, to save us all from the indignities she suffered after believing in this liar, believing he was a changed man, had found the love his life, etc. After all, who would know him better, know his arrogance and narcissism and the pitfalls that await us in the general election with his financial dealings, than someone who spent 18 years with him? But who am I to judge her? She’s not running for president and what she does has no impact on me.
Good luck to you, TeaPartyLoyalist.
January 19, 2012 @ 11:32 am
There is no doubt that Gingrich supporters will vote for him if he’s found in bed with 3 dead women. They would simply say Mitt Romney killed them and brush it off.
The problem for Newt is that many people are put off by his history on many fronts. Many more are put off by his association with liberals, global warming, his past support for nationalized health care, his former praise of Romney’s MA healthcare plan, his cutthroat tactics as Speaker of the House, the $1.6 million he collected from Freddie Mac, and on, and on, and on.
These things will continue to trickle out and siphon off Gingrich voters. There will not be enough who are willing to close their eyes to everything in this man’s past to elect him.
January 19, 2012 @ 1:28 pm
Wow, you really are a Gingrich hater. He isn’t my first pick, but I am willing to give the guy a chance if my favorite drops out.
I don’t think the Gingrich base is nearly as blindly loyal as the Paul base. All this infighting in the Republican party certainly isn’t helping us out.
January 19, 2012 @ 1:49 pm
No, I’m not a Gingrich hater. I’m a Gingrich realist. The man is deeply flawed and he is unelectable.
His lack of moral character matters to some voters but not enough to hurt him seriously. After all, over half of Americans have been divorced. The interview with Marianne may actually elevate him for awhile in the current moral condition of America. It’s obvious that even many calling themselves conservative no longer care about such things.
What will hurt him seriously is his record of flip flops, many of which are on video, his association with Freddie Mac, his past support for national health care at both the federal and state level, his video on global warming with Pelosi, his $300K fine assessed by the House Ethics Comm., as well as numerous other unsavory bits of information in his history.
Just before posting this I saw that Mike Huckabee has issued a statement calling out the Gingrich campaign for using Huckabee’s words in a campaign ad out of context. Huckabee wants everyone to know that he is not endorsing Gingrich in spite of the way the ad was constructed to make it appear that he is.
I’m not sure any GOP candidate is electable. Santorum appeals to a limited base because he is not a fiscal conservative. There are not enough social conservatives to elect him.
Romney’s fiscal experience is proving to be a disadvantage instead of an advantage in a country that increasingly dislikes those who are wealthyl. America is not yet the 99% but they well over 50% against monetary success now.
Ron Paul is out of touch with about 80% of the country.
I will vote ABO but it’s increasingly looking like 4 more years of Obama.
January 19, 2012 @ 2:31 pm
I am a conservative and I’m not in the habit of hating anyone to the death. Those who are willing to forgive and give him another chance have their rights as well as you have yours. It doesn’t seem from reading your comments that there are a lot of people that you really do like.
January 19, 2012 @ 3:53 pm
Leonidas. Every Republican candidate is electable if Republicans take my advice and vote for who you support in the primaries and then rally ’round the nominee. It’s as simple as that. Obama is vulnerable given his penchant for implementing policies the majority detests and his desire for flawed economic policies.
As for Republicans and their family values/morals, I submit that I do not delude myself in thinking that Republicans as a group are any better than Democrats on these issues. However, they do tend, as a group, to support the meaning of family values/morals. If I can be allowed to use a big broad brush, many espouse a clean and moral life, but often fail in their attemps. We also tend to change behavior as we age. What one would allow themselves to do as a younger person, one might find detestable in an older state of age. I am not defending Newt. He can do that on his own. I am pointing out that it is hard to judge another human being in the area of character. We all have our flaws. So vote for the Republican you support, stop throwing stones, and once again, rally ’round the nominee.
January 19, 2012 @ 6:48 pm
teapartyloyalist, well said! Excellent job with your broad brush.
January 19, 2012 @ 11:52 pm
Leonidas, sadly, you are much too right in your first sentence. I cannot believe the defense he’s getting after what he’s done and even worse, the attacks on the woman he clearly wronged. Calista could show up at E.R. with a broken arm and two black eyes and some would insist she provoked it. And he had the nerve to say in the debate tonight that opening the debate questioning this story was about the most despicable thing he could imagine. Really? More despicable that what he actually did?
January 19, 2012 @ 11:42 am
This is exactly the kind of stuff Obama discussed with his lefty news friends at his coffee klatch with them on December 19, in the White House. How rto ruin the opposition
January 19, 2012 @ 12:07 pm
You’re right! It’s written in the book by Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals.” It’s just one of Alinsky’s suggested tactics used by his followers.
January 19, 2012 @ 12:30 pm
You know, I have been thinking about what Speaker Gingrich said in his Monday night debate, something that got him alot of applause, that he wanted to get children from poor families to work as janitors in schools, etc that the school could have just one main janitor instead of just 5 then put the children to work to learn the values of money and disclipine.
It all sounds very good but thinking about it now, wont it mean having to get rid of the other 4 janitors??? Isnt that heartless?? Now you have 4 janitors out of work. Can families afford such action in this economy where jobs are scarce! I dont think it is the responsiblity of government to be teaching children responsiblities, it the responsibliites of parents!
Just a thought and my 2 cents worth
January 19, 2012 @ 1:32 pm
Hey LEONIDAS….you need to get your facts straight. Newt was not leading the impeachment charge on Clinton because of a few BJ’s in the Oval Office. The media loved to spin it that way to diminish the REAL reason for impeachment proceedings…which was “perjury” in a U’S. Court of law. The same laws that are applied to every single citizen in the U.S. So stop sugar-coating felony offenses from our sitting Presidents. None of them is above the law…..except for King Obama, of course. Puke Puke….
January 19, 2012 @ 1:55 pm
I just read the Fox News story on this interview. It sounds like she thoroughly trashed him in this interview. She also did an interview with the Washington Post. She told the Post, “granting an interview on their marriage was “unavoidable,” since she had so many requests from the media.” Umm….does she not know how to say, “No, thank you” when asked for an interview? What a ridiculous excuse.
January 19, 2012 @ 2:28 pm
So she had a lot of “requests from the media,” which others on this forum have suspected.
January 19, 2012 @ 3:19 pm
This is really old news dredged up by the liberal media whose mission has been to vilify all GOP presidential candidates from Cain to Gingrich and I’m sure they are trying their best to dig up anything they can find re: Romney’s past.
Too bad they didn’t do the same for Obama – he has had too many past negative associations to count from Wright to Ayers and others.
This women was probably tossed money by the media to give her sordid interview. No wonder Gingrich divorced her.
January 19, 2012 @ 4:11 pm
This is a reflection on Gingrich’s ex-wife as much as it maybe on Gingrich. Furthermore, this was over ten years ago, Gingrich has owned up to his past and asked for forgiveness. There isn’t anyone who hasn’t made stupid mistakes of one kind or another. As far as I’m concerned this is a non issue.
Right now, the most important thing is to elect the best person to turn this country around before it is too late. Whether you think it is Gingrich or not, his private past history is not the top priority in this election.
January 19, 2012 @ 4:55 pm
This is not about doing what is right, it’s about helping nominate a Repulican canidate that Obama can defeat in the election. Newt, in a lot of ways, would be tougher for Obama than Romney, or anyone else, so they want to destroy him before he can get the nomination.
I agree with AMVoter, this is really a non issue but one a “news station” is trying to make into an issue. I think Republican’s should decide who they want to run for presdient not the news media. If they had done their job in 2008 Obama would never have been elected in the first place.
January 19, 2012 @ 6:00 pm
Long before this interview with Newt’s 2nd ex wife, I had REAL reservations about his morale character and that is important to me. I had a very hurtful experience and am not vengeful about my situation but I think it’s despicable for a man or woman to break their vows and lie, HURT and cheat. It’s the epitomy of being arrogant and VERY SELF CENTERED with low morale character. It turns me off to see Newt standing there with his young, blond trophy wife (with the helmet hair). He can repent now because he has the young chick, what does he have to lose now, I think he’s insincere. So, I haven’t personally supported Newt, but I would vote for him over Obama. He’s by far not my first choice and in spite of what some people say, I think some independants will look at him as a hypocrit, too (and we need independants to beat obama). I am a tea party person and have supported Romney since Herman Cain bowed out.
January 19, 2012 @ 6:23 pm
Gingrich has asked for forgiveness years ago for his sins. What I care about is who is the best person to turn this country around, if it isn’t too late already.
January 19, 2012 @ 6:30 pm
This is nothing more than “He Said, She Said”, so Newt is absolutely right in refusing to get drawn into this game. Unless she is willing to be hooked up to a lie detector there is no way to know if she is telling the truth or is just a woman scorned and bitter that she will never be the first lady.
January 19, 2012 @ 7:14 pm
One can only hope (before realizing it just is never going to happen on ABCBSCNNBC) they’ll drop huge exposes on Solyndra and Operation Fast & Furious a few days before November 6.
January 19, 2012 @ 8:08 pm
Objectivity is non-existent at ABC, therefore calling them a news organization is a bit of a stretch. The old networks have come to a bitter end in terms of legitimacy. Even an underhanded third rate news agency would be inclined to undermine all polititions the same. The fact is this would never see the light of day if the candidate had been from the other party (Think John Edwards) so in my opinion ABC has no credibility at all.