Oh Boy: ABC News Plans Explosive Interview With Newt's Second Wife

Oh Boy: ABC News Plans Explosive Interview With Newt's Second Wife

Guy Benson
Political Editor, Townhall.com
Jan. 18, 2011

This story is getting the flashing light treatment on Drudge, so it's destined to blow up. Here we go:

Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview. Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours. Her explosive revelations are set to rock the campaign. But now a "civil war" has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!

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. Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter. "He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected," Marianne Gingrich, Newt's wife of 18 years, explained to ESQUIRE last year. "When you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don't like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new ... you lose touch with who you really are."

Rumors are swirling that the controversial interview could air as early as tomorrow night, which may coincide with the scheduled Republican debate on CNN. Let's face it: This issue (Newt's ample personal baggage) has been the giant elephant in the room throughout the nomination contest. None of Gingrich's GOP rivals have tackled it directly, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Democrats wouldn't hesitate plumb the depths of personal gossip to make Newt as toxic as possible in a general election setting. It is an indisputable fact that Newt cheated on two successive wives, and is now married for a third time. He has also blamed his indiscretions on his own inflated sense of patriotic duty. It's also true that some of the whispers about him are maliciously false. But when a national candidate has at least one estranged ex-wife out there who's willing to dish dirt, that can't be dismissed as a non-issue. Also, since Newt has justified his supporters' dishonest explorations of Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital as a legitimate part of the "vetting" process, and that he was simply "asking questions" about topics that would surely arise in a general, I don't see how this situation is materially different. If a major shoe is going to drop, let's have it drop now. A few questions, as we ponder this possible game-changer:

(1) Are these supposed "bombshell" revelations anything new and uniquely damaging, or will they be a recapitulation of sundry unpleasantries we've heard about in the past?

(2) Did the former Mrs. Gingrich come forward on her own volition, or did a rival campaign nudge her toward Brian Ross? This is irrelevant in terms of the story's impact, but would still be interesting to know.

(3) Will South Carolina voters see this as an unfair MSM ploy to destroy Gingrich (as many viewed the Herman Cain/Politico imbroglio, at least initially), or will they grow nervous that Newt is a ticking political time bomb?

(4) Will ABC News release the infamous Rashid Khalidi tape, in which then-State Senator Barack Obama reputedly toasts his great friend and Palestinian Liberation Organization activist at a going away party in Chicago? ABC has had that tape in its possession since the 2008 campaign, but has steadfastly refused to disseminate it in any form.

Also, ABC News is under fire tonight from the Romney campaign for a story that alleges Romney used a Cayman Islands bank as a tax shelter. His campaign has adamantly denied the story, calling it "flat wrong," and demanding a retraction. They'd help their case by releasing the former Massachusetts governor's tax records, as they've indicated they eventually will. Quite a night ABC News is having, isn't it?

What do I keep saying? The media is doing everything they can to stop anyone except Romney.

We have to make sure that the media doesn't pick who they want to face and control the outcome of this process.

TexasBlue wrote:What do I keep saying The media is doing everything they can to stop anyone except Romney.

The MSM are a fucking disgrace to journalism. There's scarcely a single one of them that shouldn't be fired and jailed for treason IMHO.

Yeah, it's too bad they can't at least pretend to be objective and not wear their bias on their sleeve.

Unfortunately, Gingrich carries this baggage in much the same way Uncle Bill carries Monica... well, if he were to ever dare run for office again. But in both cases, the stories are old and both have paid the price for their filandering. I would like to see the Newt win or lose based on his abilities and not his personal family history.

Arx Ferrum wrote:Unfortunately, Gingrich carries this baggage in much the same way Uncle Bill carries Monica... well, if he were to ever dare run for office again. But in both cases, the stories are old and both have paid the price for their filandering. I would like to see the Newt win or lose based on his abilities and not his personal family history.

This is what I mean... this is old news and most political junkies (like myself) already know all this bullshit. It reminds me of the John Kerry crap (Swiftboat stuff). That was stuff I didn't care about back then. It was "gotcha" journalism from the right just like this crap here.

My major point is... has anyone even bothered to pay attention to this? Each candidate that started to make headway was "slandered" by the media. Cain, Perry, Bachmann and now Gingrich.

It's the media picking who they think will lose against Obama. If Paul gets the nod, he'll lose also due to his "out there" comments. Romney will lose because the right won't take to him just like they didn't with McCain.

The media are nothing but attack dogs for Obama. Pisses me off what they are doing.

Mark85la wrote:The media are nothing but attack dogs for Obama. Pisses me off what they are doing.

Sad but true. All we can do as consumers of their product is tune them out and stop buying their papers and magazines. Their ratings have already taken a heavy hit over the last decade or so.

In the end, the news "business" relies on readership/viewership/listenership numbers. As more people stop reading, viewing and listening to their biased crap their influence will begin to wain, as it already has when one considers the last mid-term election results.