Holy Moly. Sarah Palin was right. This afternoon on the Sean Hannity radio show, she said the MSM had “overplayed their hand” and predicted that Gingrich was ”gonna soar even more” as Republican voters, increasingly wise to the MSM’s unfair double standards, rally to his side over ABC’s decision to air the interview with his ex-wife Marianne, tonight.
When John King started off the CNN debate with a question to Gingrich about the salacious, bombshell interview, he cut loose. And the audience was with him every step of the way:
Video via Buzzfeed.
Listening to John King and the CNN panel which includes Ari Fleischer, Gloria Borger, Erick Erickson David Gergen, and Donna Brazile after the debate. They all seemed to agree that the question had to be asked – it was hanging in the air, and King said he didn’t want to sneak it in somewhere in the middle of the debate. He made the decision to just clear the air at the outset which seems fair to me if you agree with the premise that the question was fair game for a debate. I’m not sure that I agree that it was an appropriate question for a debate. In 2007 and 2008 did anyone bother to ask Obama about his past drug use at a debate? How about the notorious Rashid Khalidi farewell dinner attended by Obama that was rumored to be an anti-Semitic hate fest. There was quite a bit of buzz about the LA times sitting on a tape of that dinner - and maybe it would have cleared the air a little if someone had asked Obama about it. Did they bring up Obama’s membership in the Socialist “New Party” back in in Illinois?
To his credit, George Stephanopolus did ask Obama about his relationships with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Of course, by April 2008, Obama had carefully rehearsed answers to those questions.
January, 19, 2012 at 10:33 pm
These debates are Newt’s milieu. Mitt is my last choice(Paul doesn’t count) but he was very good tonight too
January, 19, 2012 at 11:25 pm
He hit that one out of the park. It looks like he has a lock on South Carolina. – which is kinda scary.
January, 20, 2012 at 1:15 am
[...] >> Favorites << >> Filter refresh subscribe unsubscribe The Blog Aggregator: The link to this post will be maintained for a week.You can vote for it or you can browse through [...]
January, 20, 2012 at 6:18 am
There are several sorts of “religious conservatives.” In some sense, I’m one — at least, I admire marital fidelity — but I find that I can’t dismiss Gingrich for his past sins of the flesh. They came before his conversion; he says he has repented of them. I believe him, and apparently so does his current wife. On the basis of Christ’s instruction that we love the sinner even while condemning the sin, I consider him acceptable, tentatively, at least.
The real story here is about the media’s immediate and gleeful embrace of this tawdry tale coming from a former wife. Have they no skepticism remaining to them? Beyond that, where’s the evenhandedness? Was Bill Clinton subjected to this sort of grilling? Weren’t his various accusers dismissed as fortune hunters by the media — until Paula Jones scored against him in a court of law?
Gennifer Flowers had an affair with Clinton of which there was hard evidence — dismissed by the media. Juanita Broaddrick made an extremely credible accusation of rape against Clinton — dismissed by the media. Newsweek had a tape of Monica Lewinsky discussing her liaisons with Clinton — and sat on it for an unknown time, until the story finally broke in the Drudge Report. When the media finally engaged the Lewinsky affair, it was to castigate Linda Tripp for bringing it to light!
Actually, it’s not all that new. If the media admires a public figure, it will self-censor about his peccadilloes. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s many affairs were protected from public scrutiny, as were those of John F. Kennedy. But the media will leap savagely onto any Republican accused of such sins, whether the accusations are substantiated or not. This obvious partisanry is a large part of the reasons why attentive Americans have been tuning out media political commentary for some time now.
January, 20, 2012 at 9:40 am
My ears really perked up when Newt said he got rid of his consultants and went to an “internet based campaign”. That seems to be making the difference for him. It’s about time a Republican presidential candidate started paying attention to what the base is saying.
January, 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm
If I were to rob a bank and get caught, I would have a penalty to pay. But that penalty is not only in prison time, it is also in a record that will follow me the rest of my life. There are many things I won’t be able to do because of that “indiscretion.”
Years later I “find Jesus.” Does that remove the “indiscretion” so I can now find employment in areas formerly closed to me because of my record? Hardly.
Each voter is going to have to decide whether 1) Newt’s conversion is/was real, and 2) whether that conversion covers the magnitude of said “indiscretion.”
There is no use in whining “Well, Billy Bub did a lot worse!” That is the poorest of arguments, both on the face and in substance. And most important, remember, Newt is a politician. By definition, then, he is a liar.
January, 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Yeah, Newt scares me. I don’t trust him. I don’t trust Romney, either, but he at least he doesn’t have the personal baggage and character issues Newt does.
January, 20, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Mitt’s character issue is that he has no character. I trust Newt far more than Romney.
January, 20, 2012 at 3:09 pm
No, Mitt seems to me to be a guy who has taken liberal positions and/or compromised his principles in order to be politically viable in a blue state. He claims to have had a change of heart on abortion, and I take him at his word on that. All the same, I have a hard time figuring out what his core values are.
But if you look at Mitt’s personal life, his wonderful family, his acts of charity, and I don’t question his personal character. And I believe character does matter.
January, 20, 2012 at 3:43 pm
“All the same, I have a hard time figuring out what his core values are.”
Aye, and there’s the rub, ND: Mitt has no “core values.”
So now the question is, is it better to have someone who has no “core values” or someone who trumpets “core values” while living a life that belies them, something along the line of “Fine for thee but not for me?”
Bottom line is, we wouldn’t have to make such a choice if the RNC and Repub “leadership” in general had “core values” and would present us with someone who not only did and lived them, but trumpeted them through thick and thin.
I just got a thinly disguised beg for money from the RNC, disguised as a “survey.” I will dutifully fill it out, then (as I did with the last two) write a scathing commentary on them as socialist-lites and send it back. In the end it doesn’t matter if we are taken to socialism in a flood like Duh-1 is doing, or in a slow drip, drip, drip. It’s still socialism.
January, 20, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Personally, I thought Newt went just a tad too far. If he stopped after the 2nd or 3rd sentence he would have been fine. I do like the fact that he is willing to stand up to the press, I had always wished the Dubbya had done more of that.
As for Newt’s conversion, obviously I can’t see into his heart, but I live in the same town as Newt and his wife. I run into to them occasionally, they are very devoted to each other. I do think he cheating days are behind him. For what that is worth.
The primaries are mute for me, I live in VA and I will not under any circumstances vote for Romney or Paul and those are my only options. So I will forgoing the presidential part of my ballot come Super Tuesday.
January, 21, 2012 at 2:20 am
So, just, in a fit of pique you will be willing to allow a person who’s sure to place at least two nominees to the Supreme Court a win by default? The only way I’d do that is if he was up against another nutburger like, say Paul.
Do I like Romney? Or Newt? Not on your life! And Santorum has his own bag of problems I find fault with, not the least of which is the attitude that the treasury is there at the disposal of Congress to line pockets however they choose.
But in the final analysis I would vote for a bran muffin before automatically acceding to Obhammud for 4 more years.
January, 21, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Hear hear!
That’s what it comes down to with me, as well.