Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Gingrich Admits He Never Offered Witnesses to ABC

I was so distracted by Newt Gingrich tearing CNN’s John King’s head off at the South Carolina debate that I didn’t even notice this pretty serious charge the former speaker leveled at ABC. In the middle of his rant, Gingrich claimed he offered the network interviews with several of his friends who could rebut his ex-wife’s “open marriage” charge, but the news organization turned them down.

That could have been a major black eye for ABC. But as it turns out, it wasn’t true. Fittingly, John King got the story:

“Tonight, after persistent questioning by our staff, the Gingrich campaign concedes now Speaker Gingrich was wrong — both in his debate answer, and in our interview yesterday,” King said on tonight’s edition of John King USA. “Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond says the only people the Gingrich campaign offered to ABC were his two daughters from his first marriage.”

Needless to say, not a smart move on Gingrich’s part.

The supposedly bombshell ABC interview with his second ex-wife fizzled out on its own. But this brings it back into the news cycle, and it will almost certainly be brought up at tonight’s CNN debate. He turned this story from one that could have been construed as an attack against him (the timing of the ABC interview right before the South Carolina vote) to one where he now appears to have been caught in a lie. And while the lie may have been relatively inconsequential, it still plays into public uneasiness with his personal character.

The best response Gingrich can give tonight is to explain the miscommunication, move on, and hope this story dies out as quickly as the open marriage one. If he draws undue attention to it by going on another rant during the debate, he’ll only open himself up to more questions: who are these friends? Will they agree to go on one of the networks and reject the open marriage charges? If so, when? If not, why not? That could keep the story in the news for much longer than it otherwise would have been.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.