Newt Gingrich earned the wild applause of the audience in the hall for last night’s Republican presidential debate when he termed the media’s publicizing his ex-wife’s charges against him as “disgusting.” The tactic may have worked, at least in the short run, especially because Marianne Gingrich’s interview on ABC’s “Nightline” Thursday night didn’t contain much that anyone who had followed the story didn’t already know. Those who suspect the motivation for running the piece on the eve of the South Carolina primary may have been to derail Gingrich may not be far off the mark.
Yet for all of the fact that Gingrich may not suffer any negative consequences from the accusations contained in her interview in the coming days, it must be said that his attempt to turn the tables on his accusers seemed as contrived as ABC’s defense of its decision. Gingrich is a past master at conjuring up a spirit of righteous indignation at the drop of a hat, but given the fact that the issue is the result of his own sleazy behavior and hypocrisy and not any actual wrongdoing by his accusers, his assertion that it is the media that is “despicable” sounded a false note.
Some observers have rightly noted that we are not electing a moralist or a husband-in-chief but a commander-in-chief, and it is entirely possible a person with flaws would still make a great president. But the issue again here is not just that Gingrich appears to have behaved in a swinish fashion to both of his first two wives but the level of his public hypocrisy about it. He clearly thought and obviously still thinks those who espouse morality and indeed, seek to hold others accountable for their failings as he did President Clinton, need not necessarily practice what they preach.
It would have behooved Gingrich to display some humility when asked about the question and to have simply repeated his standard statement about having caused pain in the past and asked God for forgiveness. But the surly and vindictive Gingrich did not content himself with such an effective and hopefully honest answer. Instead, he sought to scapegoat those who questioned him about his past and even called his ex-wife a liar and illogically asserted that he could prove her words to be false.
This is neither the first nor the last time we will have to deal with the intersection of politics and personal morality. The last time we dealt with this was when Herman Cain was forced to account for the fact that several women had accused him of sexual harassment and one of having had an affair. He, too, tried to turn the tables on the media and also earned some applause for that effort.
At that time I argued that though the discussion was regrettable, I’d still rather live in a country where the press sought to hold politicians accountable for their behavior than one in which journalists chose not, as it used to be the practice, to report about politicians’ peccadilloes. The people have a right to know what kind of person they are being asked to put in the Oval Office. By responding to questions about his past conduct in a manner consistent with the hypocrisy alleged by his ex-wife, Gingrich has provided an unfortunate answer to that query.
The issue is hypocrisy of the MSM. That is what is despicable. The media goes after Cain and Gingrich, they go to court to have Bush II's military papers released to them … but they won't go to court to get Kerry's military documents (in spite of the controversy regarding his military service), they don't want to see Obama's college transcripts (as an American Thinker article noted, also noting …) , and they don't want the video released of Obama's farewell dinner with Khallid where they toasted the death of Israel? n nI like Gingrich in the debates, but Obama doesn't have to debate him, or if he does, do it in any way that would allow Gingrich to shine. And, it may well be, tip of the hat to all the Gingrich haters, that the drama-queen-ness of the Speaker will eventually wear thin (and it's not even unlikely, I suppose). But, this ex-wife bit is all about the Democrats in the media trying to outdo each other in bringing down Republicans.
And, Clinton was not impeached for having sex, but was impeached for having sex with only one of his many underlings who then got special privileges the others were denied because they didn't get equal opportunity … and then going to court, swearing to tell the truth, and lying. That is not the same as a couple of ex-wives. n
I don't mind journalists digging up stuff on candidates. But I recall that journalists ran away from the rumors about John Edwards until the National Enquirer broke the story. And if there was a white candidate who as close to David Duke as Obama was to Jeremiah Wright, that candidate's career would be over. While you say that you wish to live in a country where journalists hold politicians accountable, remember that, for the most part the way to ensure such scrutiny is for a politician to have an "R" after his name.
Gingrich is the bum. And now that he's played right into the Democrat narrative re: class warfare, with his absurd attacks last week on Mitt's business success, he is conning loads of GOPers with his vast leftwing conspiracy schtick.
…. (in our opinion it is possible Mr Gingrich) thinks those who espouse morality and who seek to hold others accountable for their failings as (the house of reps, various victims and the courts) did Bill Clinton, need not necessarily practice what they preach …. n nWhat a bunch of twice spun crap built on a leaped-upon opportunity to repeat the tired old canard that the treasonous, recidivist, lying, looting, thieving, co-serial-rapist, charged, convicted, fined, disbarred and impeached perjurer, suborner of perjury, witness-tampering, office-abusng (pardons-for-cash) civil rights denying and only incidental "president," Bill Cli'ton was impeached for sexual dalliances. n nHe was not! n nAnd/or that Mr Gingrich's improprieties reached even one per cent on the scale of Bill Clinton's! n nMeanwhile, that the Fascist (formerly "mainstream") Media is once again running Billions of Dollars of airtime informationals for the "Democratic" party in general and for 0=Zero for "president" ("pretender's" probably pretentious) in particular is the really despicable situation. And Mr Gingrich will score full marks with the electorate for as long as he continues to say so. n nFormer Speaker Gingrich, 1 : Fascist Media, Zip!
I don't see how Gingrich's thought through ju jitsu of King's first question hurts him long term. The campaign is in large measure incremental, a step by step journey to the next step. So if Gingrich's ju jitsu is an element of his South Carolinian primary victory which then itself generates a dynamic that helps push Gingrich on to Republican victory, the long term will take care of itself with nary a thought on Gingrich's short game ju jitsu helping him win South Carolina on January 21, 2012.