Why Newt Gingrich Is Right To Attack The Mainstream Media

Newt Gingrich was blindsided by a story that had been in the media for more than a year (and actually quite longer than that).

How was it “newsworthy” to dredge up and old story and give it the face of a bitter ex-wife?

The most salacious detail of all – the “open marriage” thing – is almost certainly completely false.  There is no reason whatsoever to believe – even on Marianne Gingrich’s account – that Newt Gingrich was demanding an “open marriage.”

Several years ago I wrote a couple of articles about the blatant bias demonstrated by the mainstream media in refusing to cover and literally covering-up the affair and child that John Edwards had with a staff worker while his wife was in the process of dying of cancer:

LA Times Proves It’s Blatant Bias For Democrats

Sleazy Tabloid Rag Morally Superior To Top Democrat, Major Media

And the media most certainly did everything they could to help Bill Clinton deal with and put into the most favorable context his multiple affairs.  That is simply a documented fact of history.

So would the media return the favor of protectionism if a front running Republican presidential candidate’s career was at stake?

Well, given what it did to first Herman Cain and now to Newt Gingrich, the answer is most certainly not.

And, again, this wasn’t a “fresh” story that was just breaking.  We have known about Newt Gingrich’s marital “troubles” for YEARS before this story “broke” timed to do maximal damage to Gingrich immediately before the most critical Republican primary.

This is a media that says, “We want to hurt Newt Gingrich and undermine him.  How can we do it?”  And the thing they found most toxic was to dredge up a story that was old news.

The UK Mail underscores what a wet rag this “story” was:

20 January 2012 6:12 AM
Was that it then? Marianne Gingrich interview more damp squib than bombshell

Was that it then? After 24 hours of hype, angst and eager anticipation, ABC News aired its interview with Marianne Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House’s second wife. Brian Ross had indicated earlier that he had interviewed her for two hours. About two minutes of that was shown to televison viewers.

There was precious little that was new. The “open marriage” allegation had been playing all day. Not only had it been levelled at Gingrich before but it was clear that the term “open marriage” was Mrs Gingrich’s, not his.

And then Ross went all chocolate boxy, reminiscing about how Newt and Marianne once enjoyed “holding hands on the Mall, hiking the mountains, dressing up on Halloween”.

Much of the six-minute segment had the air of an attack ad against Gingrich with Brian Ross’s portentous voice intoning that Gingrich “regularly expounds on family values the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman” and how Callista Gingrich (his third wife) is “probably best known in this campaign for the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of jewellery Gingrich bought for her at Tiffany’s”.

The “family values” thing is a standard justification for going after conservatives over their private lives while giving liberals a pass. And Ross’s phrasing disingenuously conflated personal morality and Gingrich’s views on gay marriage.

Marianne Gingrich alleged that she has Multiple Sclerosis when Gingrich told her about his affair with Callista. “And he also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress,” she said. “He knew [she had MS].” But, as James Taranto points out, her account tonight conflicts with a previous version she has told.

ABC then went off onto a weird tangent about an attempted FBI sting that involved Marianne Gingrich meeting an arms dealer in Paris. Again, this is an old story and anyway it involved Marianne much more than it did Newt. She dismissed it as “all made-up, fabricated hogwash” and then gave a laugh worthy of a horror flick.

To give ABC their due, they included clips from Gingrich’s angry denials in tonight’s debate as well as an interview with his two daughters from his first marriage. Kathy Lubbers said: “The truth, Brian, is that our father and Marianne had a difficult marriage, they had a difficult divorce. She’s unhappy and this has been over for over a decade. He’s a much different person than he was then. He’s grown.

Jackie Cushnam added: “He’s gotten closer to God, his faith in God has grown. And I think what people need to remember is this happened a very long time ago and we wish Marianne no ill will. We wish her the very best. But it happened a very long time ago.”

Truth be told, the daughters came across much more sympathetically than the ex-wife.

The ABC agenda was apparent though when Ross noted that in the 1990s the couple were “without power or money” and then asked the leading question: “Did that create a desire to be rich?”

Marianne Gingrich answered: “I think we always talked that money would come when he left Congress.” Some might try to say that was a foretase of Gingrich using his political connections to enrich himself. But really, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

Any sympathy Marianne Gingrich might have elicted from viewers pretty much evaporated at the end when she showed her animus towards Callista, remarking: “He did tell me once that she was going to help him become president.” she then snorted: “Didn’t look like help to me.”

Well, Marianne Gingrich’s interview didn’t look much like help for Newt either. But as I suggested earlier, this bizarre episode might just end up assisting his White House campaign more than it hinders it.

This is kind of like the Romney Bain thing.  Going after Romney because he participated in free enterprise doesn’t chase me away from him; it makes me rally behind him.  Going after Newt Gingrich in such a hypocritical and biased ideological manner doesn’t turn me – a social conservative who is otherwise repulsed at the despicable personal character Gingrich once displayed – off.  It fires me up for the need to go after the REAL enemy of America: the mainstream media.

Conservative Republicans are something that liberal Democrats are not: Christians.  We believe in sin and we believe in personal accountability and we believe in the need to have a true moral climate.  But we also believe in forgiveness and redemption and moving forward.

This account from Newt Gingrich’s very bitter ex-wife who had every incentive to hurt him.  And her account is one that is purely a he-said-she-said issue.

We’ve already seen the media create a myth about Newt Gingrich’s divorce horror stories.  It is a proven historical fact that the mainstrem media created a horrendous-sounding but completely false version of events designed to make Newt Gingrich look as much like a monster as possible.

So did ABC – the network of Mark Halperin’s inexcusable bias before Democrat spindoctor George Stephanopoulos took over- due any due diligence to confirm the hatchet piece before swinging the axe?  Not even close.

Newt Gingrich angrily told the host of the CNN debate – there’s another “objective” media outlet if there ever was one –

“my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.

[…]

Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren’t interested because they would like to attack any Republican.”

– And we find out that the networks that went with this didn’t want to bother talking to those personal friends.  It was a chance to hurt a Republican.  And that was all that mattered to them.

I’m most certainly not happy about what Newt Gingrich did in not one but two marriages.  But the man claims that he converted to Catholicism and that he is now an older and wiser 68-year old granfather who has changed his ways.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media hasn’t learned anything and continues to demonstrate that it is the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.

So if I’ve got to vote for Newt to vote against the mainstream media, that’s what I’ll do…

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

10 Responses to “Why Newt Gingrich Is Right To Attack The Mainstream Media”

  1. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: I am glad Gingrich stodd up them the msm. And I sure loved how Gingrich slammed Juan Williams up against the wall here:
    *****

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    Newt is great at debate, there is no question about it.

    I dread thinking about the train wreck of his personal life; I can’t stand some of the remarks he’s made about free enterprise as a ploy to attack Romney; and I seriously question his ability to raise the kind of big money he will need if he hopes to defeat Obama.

    But I love the way he debates.

    If Newt Gingrich is the nominee, I’ll support him because you’d have to go to guys like Hitler to be worse than Obama.

    But I’m just kind of appalled at the way the Republican primary is going and I sure hope we can pull our heads out of our backsides in time to defeat the worst president in American history.

  3. HL Says:

    “So if I’ve got to vote for Newt to vote against the mainstream media, that’s what I’ll do…”

    Me too! It is gratifying to see Newt stand up to the despicable msm.

  4. Penumbra Says:

    Michael,

    In Sweden, media has massive influence in political issues, which I see as a democracy problem, because media essentially is socialistic or leftwing liberal. I thought it was different in the U.S.. Apparently not.

    Actually, the consumers of news and political analysis should determine by what they are willing to pay for, but here we have tax-funded press subsidies, which in itself is considered a pro-democracy action – “money shall not determine what gets published or not”. The result is that the socialists and left liberals own the public debate, and in practice control our politicians. The conservative Christians have no chance. In fact, no conservatives have any chance to reach the parliament in Sweden.

    Obviously, this is a problem in the entire western world, which explains why it is going so bad for us – on every level – financially, morally, spiritually. Nothing seems potentially strong enough to change that. My hope is still on the conservatives in the U.S.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    HL,

    There is no question that Newt is a verbal Tyrannosaurus who can just devour critics.

    I worry about his incredibly tainted personal history, about his tendency to attack valid free market enterprise (such as his demonization of Bain) and about his ability to raise money.

    But I will support the Republican nominee. Even Ron Paul would be better than Obama.

  6. Muh Says:

    Don’t blame the media for a lot of this stuff, the Republicans are doing it to themselves. They’re doing more damage to each other then the Democrats could even hope to. It’s hilarious.

    But it’s so much easier and mindless to blame the liberal media!

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    Muh,

    I can’t disagree that the Republicans are helping in their own firing squad.

    But allow me to also say that the one who is “mindless” in absolving the media is YOU.

    In 2008 the media circled their wagons around John Edwards to protect him against not just “allegations” of a sexual affair on his wife – who was dying of cancer, mind you – but a child.

    That same media savaged Herman Cain and tore him apart with a series of women who had histories of dishonesty and serial accusing. Until it was Newt’s turn.

    You seem to believe it is A-OK for the media to be a gross side-choosing participant in ideological politics even as it dishonestly depicts itself as “objective.”

    How do you expect EITHER party to ever get things right when we have the mainstream media serving the role of propagandist?

    The American people now blow to whichever direction the media propaganda directs them to blow. Anyone who tries to do the right thing is demonized and destroyed.

    It’s “game over” for this country as long as people keep thinking like you.

  8. Muh Says:

    Gee, and the media gave Bill Clinton such a free pass. I don’t think right wing Fox News didn’t run the story a lot either. I’m not counting guys like Rush Limbaugh or O’Reilly as legitimate reporters, they’re entertainers. I didn’t really follow that story so I could be wrong about it, but no one covered it a lot, even the right leaning networks.

    And since the story was broken in The Enquirer of all places, don’t you think there should have been some investigation done? The story was eventually covered. With Cain, the problem was it just kept coming and coming. Women kept coming in to report this stuff, Edwards had ONE affiar that he was hiding. Don’t you see any difference?

  9. Julie L. Says:

    I suggest everyone stop accusing others and turn on your brain for a moment.

    For example, are any of you paying almost twice as much more for a gallon of gas today than you were 3 years ago? Not even a close call for me. Last fill up: $3.18/gallon (in Dallas). If gas had actually risen by 83%, then I would have paid $1.73 in January 2009. Does anyone remember when gas was under $2/gal.?

    Seriously, at least run this stuff through the stink-o-meter before you spread it.

    Another lay-up from the baloney detector: After being pressed multiple times by multiple organizations, Newt finally “cleared up” a “misstatement.” Today he admitted that the only Newt-defenders offered to ABC regarding Marriane’s interview were his two daughters. Which is precisely what ABC has said all along. ABC accepted all he offered. No further rebuttal was offered to ABC.

    With such glaring errors, credibility is lost.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    Julie,

    Maybe you could try turning on your own brain before you lecture others to do so?

    From Consumer Reports, “National Regular Gasoline Prices,” Janary 19, 2009:

    Regular gasoline/gallon: $1.85

    Versus:

    Consumer Reports, “National Regular Gasoline Prices, January 23, 2012:

    Regular gasoline/gallon: $3.39

    Percent increase = 83%

    As much as you love to accuse other people about their accusing, you are somebody who is wrong, WRONG, WRONG.

    So run that little bit of reality through your own personal stink-o-meter and try to spread it through your head.

    And then reflect on your own shredded credibility.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: