What We Really Learned from ABC News and Marianne Gingrich
Anyone who made the decision last night, as I did, to watch Nightline’s appallingly tawdry interview with the second Mrs. Newt Gingrich learned nothing new about the target, whose marital infidelities are well known, but did, however, witness two of the most dangerous pathologies of the mainstream media (MSM) on vivid display.
ABC and its MSM colleagues claim to purvey news and opinion that are both serious and impartial. This interview was neither, indeed was the opposite of serious and impartial.
Last night’s performance couldn’t have provided a more vivid illustration of the double standards applied to the coverage of Republicans and Democrats. It was a classic case of an abject lack of the fairness and objectivity they claim to epitomize — even as they attack Fox News as unfair and unbalanced.
Let’s start with seriousness. Is ABC News serious that last night’s Nightline was serious?
One could begin by saying that ABC “correspondent” Brian Ross’ interview with Marianne Gingrich was “tasteless” but that would be inaccurate. It wasn’t tasteless at all: it was odious-tasting, the way one might imagine, oh, skunk à la mode would taste, if the “mode” were an acrid ice cream confected with the skunk’s own vile-smelling liquid squirt.
Both sides of this interview seemed to have a lot to gain, and neither succeeded. Especially considering how Marianne began her relationship to Gingrich — by being his girlfriend on the side during his first marriage — she seems to me to be in one of the world’s worst positions to whine, wail, point an accusing finger, and raise the “character” issue.
Turning to ABC so-called “News,” and leaving aside for the nonce its enabling interviewing tactics, the network hardly managed to produce any Peabody-Award-worthy ground-breaking journalism with its blatant attempt at a grab for ratings and, of course, an effort to sabotage the campaign of the most lively and articulate Republican candidate.
And where can voters who missed last night’s Nightline see the entire tacky display now? Not on ABC’s website, which includes only a few grim-faced tidbits — no, not at all. For the full performance, one must go to
which, although it has only 132 subscribers, boasts it has 84,320 video views, the latest being today’s addition of last night’s Nightline interview. The YouTube video bears the visible stamp of “facebook.com/ RonPaulUSA.” No doubt Ron Paul would disavow any association with this group.
ABC News’ introduction is an almost sexually aroused Terry Moran, hyping the upcoming interview in the breathless tone normally reserved by the broadcast media for tales of Michael Jackson’s activities at his estate, “Neverland,” Anna Nicole Smith’s death, and, the locus classicus to end all garish loci classici, the O.J. Simpson slow motion chase in the white Ford Bronco on California’s route 405 in 1994:
“Good evening, I’m Terry Moran and we begin tonight with a story at the white hot intersection of presidential politics, private lives and” – melodramatic pause while the audience collectively draws in its breath in captivated-can’t-look-away mode, “character.” All ABC needed to add for the full effect they were seeking was the dramatic dum-da-dum-dum of Dragnet or the equally evocative and suspense-producing “DUM, DUM” of Law and Order: Criminal Intent.
Just in case it went by too fast, Terry Moran actually said, “the white hot intersection of presidential politics, private lives and character.” White hot intersection?
This was not your father’s ABC News. It was the late British tabloid News of the World loaded for bear on performance-enhancing televised steroids.
In a ludicrous faux effort at “serious news,” Moran next confided to viewers, dropping his voice into a would-be meaningful lower pitch, “Gingrich has had a complicated private life.” No kidding, Terry, we’re all on tenterhooks, now.
Moran is followed by a grim-faced Brian Ross, the U.S. attorney for ABC News to Terry Moran’s Attorney General Eric Holder, who sternly announces, to what he takes to be his rapt audience of millions, that Marianne Gingrich “does not believe that Gingrich has the moral character to be president.”
Both sides — ABC “News” and Marianne Gingrich –were tawdry. Watching them was worse than viewing porn. With porn you know you’re being a voyeur to a reenactment by actors and actresses, and you get what you pay for. Here, you were sitting in on a vengeance-seeking-missile attempt to crash and burn its way into Newt’s campaign for the presidency, aided and excitedly abetted by a self-described unbiased media outlet.
Brian Ross’ “questions” consisted of such cringe-producing nudging as, “You know his secrets, you know his skeletons…”
“I knew there was somebody else,” a spiteful and still-hurting Marianne Gingrich stated, pursing her lips.
Displaying a full screen shot of Mr. Gingrich with his current and third wife, Callista, both looking gloriously happy, Brian Ross announced in prosecutorial tones, “Gingrich is now married to that ‘somebody else,’ the other woman, Callista, devout Catholic [pause for implicit sneer], who has claimed she was Newt’s mistress for some six years, while he was still married to Marianne.”
Welcome to the new ABC drama: Plymouth Rock: 1620. Witch trial at 10.
Ross never misses a chance to egg her on, as if she needed egging on. “It started with a phone call at my mother’s house when he asked for a divorce,” Marianne states. Interrupting, using the repeat the worst thing the interviewee has just said lest the viewers missed it technique perfected by Mike Wallace, Ross interjects, “On the phone,” not as a question — Marianne has just stated it as a “fact” — but just to engrave it irrevocably into the memory banks of his viewers.
“If he’s running for president, he has answers to give,” she says, just in time before her interlocutor interrupts again with, “You know his secrets, you know his skeletons.”
Secrets! Skeletons!
I leave it to any reader who wishes to immerse him- or herself in the quicksand of an experienced TV interviewer, reveling in the opportunity to sandbag the — as of the moment when the interview was taped — front-runner in the South Carolina primary. You will feel as if you’ve entered the malodorous swamp that is the mainstream media. You will feel empathy for Marianne’s unfortunate love life, and you cannot but be struck by her downtrodden affect, a dolorous mixture of mordant self-pity, obvious sorrow, and the ill-concealed and eternal rage of a woman scorned.
But you’ll also wonder, as did attorney and blogger Lauri B. Regan this morning at the American Thinker, and as did I, why ABC, like the Los Angeles Times, is so aroused and so inspired to provide every nuance of the second Mrs. Gingrich’s condemnation of her former husband, while, in Ms. Regan’s well-chosen words, they are utterly lethargic to the point of inaction when it comes to revealing anything negative about the incumbent, either now or during his 2008 campaign. No interest whatsoever in informning the public about him, their darling. Ms. Regan writes:
I am once again reminded of the double standard afforded to the Democrats and Barack Obama in particular. Coming on the heels of the Herman Cain melee in which the press had a field day parading one accuser after another before video cameras, it is difficult not to repeat the question of why the Democrats get a free pass. Why are calls for Mitt Romney to release his tax return not met with calls for Barack Obama to release his college transcripts — something that is just as customary for presidential candidates?
However, of greater importance in my view is the silence, save for a few journalists and pundits on the right, regarding exposing a videotape recorded in 2003 of Barack Obama at the farewell dinner for terrorist-supporting Palestinian Rashid Khalidi. News of the videotape’s existence came to light while Obama was a candidate, and the free pass given to him by the mainstream media was only just beginning to come to light when the enamored Chris Matthews’ shared news of the tingle up his leg.
…No one seemed to notice that Obama had not written a single article while serving as editor of The Harvard Law Review, and no one pressed the issue of Obama’s suppressed college and law school transcripts since it was a given that his brilliance was perhaps surpassed only by the likes of Albert Einstein.
But there is a videotape sitting in the vaults of the Los Angeles Times, and every American should be screaming from the rooftops for its release. In light of the Arab Spring, Obama’s endless attempts to bully Israel into succumbing to all sorts of unprecedented and unsafe demands in the hopes that he would go down in history as the POTUS who made peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and the administration’s ineptness in addressing Iran’s nuclear program and military threats, exposing this videotape is of utmost importance.
In April 2010, Roger L. Simon published an article on PajamasMedia entitled, “Why is the L.A. Times Burying the Obama/Khalidi Tape?” Of further consequence is why the media — and Americans — are not demanding that the L.A. Times immediately release the tape.
So there you have it, a biased “report” by ABC “News” aimed directly at the most prurient interests of its viewers, tantalizing Americans all day yesterday with morsels of the grand banquet Nightline would present last night, and, in four years, not a single MSM effort to uncover or present anything that could possibly injure the chances of reelection of their own chosen one, the Constitution-flouting, Rashid Khalidi-embracing, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn-befriending Barack Obama.
It’s enough to make you wish for an investigation by the Department of Justice. Just kidding!
If you want an accurate description of a man and his character, the best source of unbiased info would be his ex-wife. You will get the unvarnished truth every time.
Uh….wait….
Being an elegant lady…your “wrapped around his finger” has them placed in a different part of his anatomy than I would have chosen, but well done again. Bravo.
Thanks, cfbleachers.
For the record, although I don’t condone Marianne Gingrich’s actions, I place one billion percent more blame on ABC “News.” She is a woman scorned, which doesn’t grant her license to do what she did, but ABC News opened its corporate “news” doors to her, welcoming her in, as any self-respecting tabloid would. I have little doubt that Nightline’s ratings hit a high last night, not seen since the self-important and creepy Ted Koppel’s departure.
One of my issues is this: ABC shouldn’t dignify this rubbish by calling it “news.” Put it where it belongs: in the entertainment division. Or better still, don’t air such drivel at all.
Why Mitt Romney is Barack Obama’s dream candidate!
nobody really gets it.
It isn’t that pravda once again has set new lows for shilling for their BF. They’ve been keeping the mansions warm for four years doing exactly that.
It isn’t that the hypocricy of a woman who destroyed Newt’s first marriage (the one with CHILDREN) sitting in judgment on him is worthy of a SNL skit. The left, by definition, is an SNL skit.
It isn’t that the only new charge isn’t actually news because it simply can never be proven. It’s been known for decades that facts and truth are irrelevant to the criminals in pravda.
No, the key lesson of the sordid incident is that there is one candidate who won’t lie back and let the marxists and pravda shove the shiv up his rectum. And the candidate isn’t Mitt Romney.
Dead on the money Pro. I see him in a new light….very favorably.
And this is a gem too; “The left, by definition, is an SNL skit.”
A HIT piece is designed to HIT the subject with the intent to HARM him.
The ABC piece was a HIT piece; the CNN question was a HIT question.
Newt has my vote.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/the_myth_of_newt_the_great_debater.html
I saw that article and think it has some good points. Ziegler is interesting because he thinks outside the box.
btw, I have never thought that little lenin would agree to Lincoln Douglas debates, and fear that Newt might end up embarrassing himself if he actually follows obama around. pravda will mock him mercilessly about it. Stewart will lead every show with it. SNL will make it the centerpiece of a 3-month campaign. I’m sure that Gingrich would try it for a while, but quickly abandon the tactic.
If your ONLY reason to vote for Gingrich is debates, then you probably shouldn’t.
But also don’t make the mistake of thinking that debates are Newt’s only bullet. They have been so far. Why? HE HAS NO MONEY. But if he gets the nomination, he will have a lot of money, won’t he? Game on.
Voters who are swayed by the ‘revelations’ of the former Mrs. Gingrich are like amber waves of grain – the wind shifts and blows the other way. I just hope it shifts before it destroys Newt’s candidacy. Newt will make mince-meat of the Teleprompter President in any debate – even if Obama is given a teleprompter – to which Newt has already said it’d be ok with him.
From what I’ve read this morning on other sites these old ‘revelations’ don’t seem to have put a big enough dent in Newt’s polling numbers to give Mitt much of a bounce. Good thing ABC has such a small media share of the market. Mitt isn’t ‘inevitable’ – he’s won New Hampshire. Big deal! An eclectic mix of voters if ever there were one.
The former Mrs. Gingrich appears to be a bitter woman. Perhaps she fashioned herself First Lady. FWIW she can’t match the demeanor of any of the First Ladies other than maybe Michelle Obama. Not something she should be proud of being compared to. Discrete is something she isn’t – for that matter neither is/was Newt.
I don’t much care for Newt’s philandering and I don’t know anyone who does. But these are extreme times – we need someone that can do the extreme and Newt is that guy. He’s fully capable of taking on the MSM as we witnessed last night. I’m betting he’ll make Obama wish he’d never agreed to any debates – if Obama even does.
We can’t know if Newt is currently practicing monogamy – we can only hope. I still support him in his run – have done so with words and money and will continue to do so to whatever end it comes to.
If the tactic ABC used yesterday doesn’t derail Newt look for them to trot out some obscure girlfriend somewhere down the road from 20-30 years ago. This assault on Newt and the other conservatives are distasteful to most of us but are red meat to the MSM. I just can’t understand why tales of philandering by then candidate Clinton didn’t interest them. Bias? Maybe? – probably? – or the only possible answer?
Excellent column, Belladonna!
And now for the rest of us, when any liberal makes some snide remark about Newt’s past, the reply should simply be, “You’ve already demonstrated that you have no problem with the behavior. You’re only problem is that he’s a Republican.”
Actualy, all that needs to be said is “Bill Clinton, John Edwards.” End of discussion.
…..Ted Kennedy, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Joe Kennedy Sr., Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton….. Al Gore…. for heavens sake Ted Kennedy left the scene of an accident leaving the young girl to drown, and it was ‘all good’ with the press. I always wonder how the girl’s parents lived with that horror. Let’s not forget Barney and his ‘houseboy’ episode. I believe the voters in South Carolina are simply sick and tiried of the bias of the liberal media and refuse to be swayed by this.
It’s hard to feel sorry for the ’2nd wife” given she was the ‘other woman’ prior to her stint as wife. And if no one has ever heard of a wife’s ‘pay back’ then you aren’t living in the real world….
As (I think) Mark Levin said yesterday…(I paraphrase)…if this is ABC’s standard for a “character” interview…what about Obama’s drug dealer? You know in his book he talks about taking illegal drugs.
Why can’t we know about Obama’s drug dealer…what’s his take on Obama’s “character”?
Exactly. What about the drug dealer? Larry Sinclair? The murder and cover-up at Wright’s church? Why not have some of the Davis kids on with an expose, “You say the president is your brother. Why does he claim to be another man’s son?” As long as ABC wants to get down in the dirt, why limit themselves to just Republicans? The Dems offer so much more “material”.
Indeed, this is perhaps the best argument I’ve seen. Well said.
It’s not that liberals do or don’t have a problem with that sort of behaviour, it’s that conservatives DO (or at least claim to) have a problem with it. Liberals aren’t going to be voting for newt, so to them it’s just a bit of a laugh seeing the “party of morals” trying to brush aside the sort of stuff that gets smoke coming out of their ears when somebody else does it.
It actually doesn’t make a great deal of difference what gingrich does in the privacy of his own home. It’s what he does as a politician that more or less writes him off as a credible candidate in their eyes.
Be aware that techno is a troll in troll’s clothing.
Thanks for posting that. I’d noticed it, too. Clearly on someone’s payroll, likely in Chicago. techno’s employer isn’t getting his money’s worth: the comments are hostile, devoid of content, and too obvious. Reeking of desperation.
If you want to see desperation, look in a mirror. You get a guy on the blog who’s not agreeing with you and maybe you can’t quite think of any decent responses so what do you do? Blame it on a vast conspiracy. Awesome. You guys really are the brains-trust of the conservative movement.
No, I’m not on anyone’s payroll, chicago or otherwise.
…Neither fair nor balanced: the MSM is wrapped tightly around Obama’s little finger….
Why is anyone surprised at this? They are the agitprop arm of the Democrat party.
The Long March, folks, the Long March. To counter the Left is going to take a generation at least, and will require conservatives to be as relentless as the Left has been for the past century.
No one is surprised. This isn’t about being surprised, only outraged and sickened.
okay, pure gossipy malice time. b/c I am not a nice person.
Wife #1 accomplishments: beautiful children, supporting him through grad school in New Orleans. In poverty, I might add. Which is a degree of poverty more awful than in clean, orderly middle-class cities. Try keeping kids sheltered during the months ( Months!) of Mardi Gras. and then the other nine months of the year. Tulane, the student patch, is in a decayed section of a nearly royally wealthy, inbred neighborhood. Try keeping your dignity and self- possession un-embittered in the middle of that. And drunken students. Lots of them. on your porch, studying.
Wife #2: accomplishments as a wife? cashing his paycheck? living in a seperate city? yassir arafat’s wife did that, and people got upset with her.
Wife #3: got Gingrich to face the moral disorder of his soul and enter the Catholic Church- a strenuous exercise in adulthood- so many sins to confess, so many wrong attitudes to repent, such moral certainty like an iceberg against the titanic of one’s ego……
I know this is being unfair and unbalanced…..it might not even be what I think about the situation….which I think makes me a media genius.
You may have not meant it, but it sounds good to me. Callista strikes me as a pretty sharp cookie who is willing to do all she can to help Gingrich realize his dreams. Nothing at all wrong with that. If you have not done so already, read up on her. From what I can tell with the research I have done, I think she’d make a fine First Lady.
To add to the Wife #1 part: she slept with him while she was a 23-year-old teacher and he was her 16-year-old student. They kept the relationship a secret until he graduated from high school. They married when he was 19 and she was 26. Neither of the first two Mrs Gingrichs impress me much with their integrity, and considering the way they “got” him, neither Mrs. Gingrich #1 nor Mrs. Gingrich #2 should be terribly upset that there was a little bit of “what goes around comes around” when he moved on.
” Neither of the first two Mrs Gingrichs impress me much with their integrity, and considering the way they “got” him,…”
I wonder why you are exempting wife #3 from that indictment. She fits exactly the same sleazy pattern.
Exempted because in 1987, Newt & Marianne separated. Newt claimed that he received a phone call on his birthday from Marianne declaring that she was leaving. When he got home, he found only the guest bed and a TV. Yet Marianne goes on tv to garner sympathy for Newt’s returning the favor when it was clear there was nothing remaining in their marriage. A marriage of convenience for Marianne given she became “the subject of an FBI sting operation in Paris in the late 1990s, involving an arms dealer working undercover for the U.S. government. The investigation was dropped but that the then-Mrs. Gingrich had claimed that she could “get things done” in Congress and had sought a $500,000 down payment as part of a $10 million bribe to influence her husband.”
Newt and Marianne maintained separate residences for 6 years and worked out a separation agreement that was notarized, but never filed, contained a clause that both could date other people during the separation and it was during this time that Newt met Callista.
Apparently Marianne was not as fortunate to meet someone new and move on. After a few years, Newt and Marianne reconciled ( Gingrich probably got guilted out by her) but this didn’t last long and they finally divorced. After he resigned from Congress in 1998, he no longer had any need to maintain the marriage and the divorce became final in 1999.
Also consider this little tidbit not mentioned in the exclusive ABC interview: In May 2002, Newt asked the Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta for an annulment based on the fact that Marianne did not disclose she was reportedly previously married.
“White hot intersection”, huh?
Raaaaacists!!!eleventy!
The whole load of ‘newsies’ are long overdue for a trip to the woodshed. It is not news anymore, it is sensationalism headed to wicked gossip in the whirlwind of national interest self destruction. It is about entertainment not revalent information. The town criers over push the adrenal buttons to get attention.
Geraldo Rivera of Fox spilled the beans this morning when he described how news broadcasts were designed for “maximum impact.” This tittalating story had been locked and loaded and timed for just before the primary.
again, why can’t we just run commercials saying ” our guys are a million times hotter than their guys?” and leave it at that? Do a darn near men’s aftershave commercial- ” women can’t keep their hands off our candidates!” while dems have to go begging: cue up anthony weiner’s begging.
and then just do a few un-narrated- of conservative women- commentators, politicians, all of it- as if it were miss america? and at the end: Ours.
then youtube: theirs: with Michelle Obama, Bella Abzug, and Hillary with those awful chip-clips in her hair the day her kid got married.
Even I know to go to a salon on that day, and the last hair-cut I got was a Walmart special ( hey, there’s one walmart, at least, where their practice did make perfect- the last five great haircuts I’d seen had all been to this one wal-mart. half the line was new people, same reason)(line out the door)
Volunteer for Republicans if you believe in pretty babes, and having pretty babies? ( R’s have a no-abortion plank) Volunteer for Dems if you want: so many choice pictures of crazy, homeless people rioting= and a shot of an after-abortion….
I mean, I’m shallow. I like guys in blue blazers drinking scotch.
Candy? Rachel? Gloria? PU-LEEZE.
Meanwhile bachmann, coulter, malkin are like stepford wives set to “nuts”. Of all fox blondes, the only one who ever had a shred of independent intelligence or humanity was megyn kelly … and she’s losing it, fast. She’s developed the nailed-on paranoid stare of michelle malkin and looking like an imminent burnout case. I can’t believe she actually believes the stuff she says at times. What does that do to a soul, shrieking about things you know aren’t true. Anyone know? Is there someone still alive in that elegant exterior?
They might be attractive when they’re not shouting at the traffic, but damn … there’s no way I’d let any of them inside my home. There are things I care about there.
What a rich fantasy life you have, Techno. I can assure that no one with an IQ above room temperature wants to enter into your home.
I assume that you say that to all the girls. After they’ve walked away.
Zeit, you hit the nail on the head with your comment to techno. His misogyny would make it unlikely that any woman would be welcomed in his home.
“Zeit, you hit the nail on the head with your comment to techno. His misogyny would make it unlikely that any woman would be welcomed in his home.”
Misogyny? Rubbish. I don’t dislike any of those people because they’re women. They freak me out because they behave like scary individuals (at least on camera), hyperventilating hatred and paranoia (in varying degrees). It’s nothing to do with misogyny, I think that’s pretty obvious.
I was responding to an article claiming that conservatives are “hotter”, then attacking hillary for hair-clips (I assume – I’m not sure what chip-clips are). Conservatives are (apparently) prettier and have prettier babies. My response said appearances weren’t everything, and that humanity counts … and somehow I’M the woman-hater? Go back to the drawing board and come up with something that at least makes sense.
Dear Techno, you underestimate how entirely shallow I am.
Yes, I do have a problem with Hillary having weird little butterfly clips in her hair on the day of her daughter’s near million-dollar wedding. I have a problem with how she sits, too. She does not sit like a lady- she crosses her knees, rather than her ankles. Laura Bush crosses her ankles.
There is a whole continent of behavior called “feminine.” Femininists and I’m not sure who else makes fun of it as restricting, old-fashioned, and not- important. Then they get upset when their husbands fall to the wiles of more feminine women.
I say, beauty, grooming, deportment and manners are important. I’m not a shining example, but I recognize it when I see it, and I know I’m looking at a worthwhile human being. Women who behave with class and take care of themselves aren’t, de facto, stupid. My best friend is simply the most beautiful person I know. She is always made up, her hair is perfect, she walks with grace ( seriously- book on head level grace) her clothes match and are in perfect condition, she accessorizes well….she’s also got a near master’s level in Latin, b/c she likes Latin, she reads more complicated fiction than I read, and she’s an amazing teacher. Oh- and her kids and husband are flourishing, and she’s a great cook. And, taking care of herself when she was sixteen- learning to do her hair and makeup- is simply part of that.
Hillary Clinton thought only ideas mattered, and that anyone who bothered to live in this world, or conform in any way, or be feminine in any way, were contemptible people. It’s borderline gnosticism. For that matter, how she approached…..well…everything. She’s for Tillich’s reading of scripture, she’s for prostitution as a human right, she’s for abortion…pretty much, she’s against normal women.
Hillary looked upon Bill’s mother with close to complete contempt. You might not like country beauty rituals- I’m not sure what the attraction of blue eyeliner, permed, ratted hair, Rocky Jeans, etc etc et is…That’s what I see when I see Hillary: someone who not only doesn’t know, she doesn’t care to learn. Bill’s mother was a nurse, and politically active, enough to get her fair-haired boy national attention, from an early age. Do you think no-counts got to do that odd political thing in high school-the one that netted Bill that picture of him shaking Kennedy’s hand?
She knew Ann Richards- how did she not think to call her- “Hey, my daughter is getting married…how do I dress?” It’s a chapter in most books on marriage- the mother-in-law look. It’s in makeup books. It’s in hair-care books. She just didn’t care to learn. Looking presentable was filed under “staying home and baking cookies.”
George W Bush sent his wife to Scaasi, for custom suits and dresses when he was about to head out on foreign trips as President. It was really expensive, enough to have him wince. She hadn’t dressed like that before, nor has she, since. It was to present a good face to the world, of American design and craftsmanship. It showed respect to the rest of the world.
Am I getting across?
And yeah, I’m joking about R’s being more hot, except, well the media is doing the joking for me. B/c you know what? I don’t think Herman Cain grabbed at women. But they trotted out a blondie-slutty A-team to do him in. We all concede that Sarah Palin is gorgeous. Amazing numbers of liberals have sex fantasies about her- men and women- Sarah Bernhardt going on about a mass rape is particularly memorable. Mitt Romney has a beautiful wife and lovely children. This is driving people to distraction. People said they hated Perry for being handsome. What on earth? People slimed Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, for being handsome, for his wife being beautiful, and for his children looking well-kempt, on the day of his swearing in. The most important day of his professional life, to that point- and reporters were making snide comments about his family’s appearance.
And, yeah, conservatives are way, way, way hotter. Britney Spears, Carrie Underwood, Sarah Michelle Gellar, vs janeane garofalo, rosie o’donnell, and roseanne barr? Ann Coulter is lovely. Amy Alkon? gorgeous! Dr Helen? Pretty!
ewww. you just totally skipped over the bit where Republicans are fans of LIVE babies, not mangled itty bitty corpses. B/c that’s what funds Democrats- the abortion industry.
Nothing humane about that.
And, honestly, being pulled together–that’s not a size or age or wealth issue. Clean track-suits work for me, clean jeans, clean work clothes before work… it’s not a chanel suit world, where I live.
“ewww. you just totally skipped over the bit where Republicans are fans of LIVE babies, not mangled itty bitty corpses. B/c that’s what funds Democrats- the abortion industry.”
The abortion industry doesn’t have that much money to throw around.
Nobody is a fan of mangled itty bitty corpses. Nobody sane thinks abortions are a GOOD thing. Nobody. Not even the doctors who perform them. Everybody normal can agree than fewer abortions is better. The difference between the pro-life crowd and the pro-choice crowd is that the latter has looked at history and realised that, while you can’t actually prevent abortions, you can make them much more dangerous for the women who seek them. It’s a question of the lesser evil.
And let’s define the scope of the argument here. Itty bitty corpses mean abortions fairly late in the term of pregnancy. Make it easier for women to get abortions early, when they question is over a few cells, and later-term pregnancies will be reduced. And everybody agrees that late-term abortions (i.e third trimester) should be rare, and should require some sort of justification. Personally, I think it should only really be late second and third trimester abortions that anyone even has a disagreement about. Somebody who is tearing their hair out over first trimester abortions really ought to get a grip and face reality – nature aborts more pregnancies naturally in the first trimester than by any artifical interventions. Apparently, god just isn’t as big a fan of babies as he’s made out to be.
So I suspect we agree about late-term abortions. Trouble is, put a committee in charge of deciding what’s allowed and what isn’t, and it’ll get stacked with ideologues from one side or the other (but probably the pro-life crowd, because they seem to have a lot more power), and women will go back to using coathangers again. Simple solutions are hard to find, and liberals “get” it – that’s the difference.
okay, I’m thinking we’re maybe working from different information bases. I think we started with the same ones- the stuff coming out of your mouth is the same sort of things I used to say. So, would you bear with me, while I talk this through a bit?
First off, I’m okay with birth control.
Second off, your numbers are entirely off-base. The abortion industry has crazy money to throw around. And, bluntly, politicians are cheap whores. Emily’s List, which funds abortion-positive candidates, has, like, ten to twenty times the funding of the Susan B Anthony Fund. It’s an industry that charges for a service, cash on the barrel-head. The pro-baby crowd- not so much. They give stuff away at crisis pregnancy centers, and I’m not hearing that Carter’s is funding pro-life efforts, or any of the fancy stroller companies. Just sayin’.
A pro-abortion president sits in the White House, a pro- abortion Health and Human Services director had her campaigns financed by a third-trimester abortionist. Bill Clinton got millions, Al Gore got thousands….
Books don’t have volume settings,since loud noises seem to freak you and Steve Carrell’s weatherman out, so I’d suggest Ann Coulter’s book Godless, to go over the numbers. I will say, 3,000 abortions a day- that’s a 9-11 every day of the week- enough to kill the residents of 26 states–is enough to have me pause and think. 60% of all black women’s pregnancies in New York City—that’s dizzying. Maafa 21 is a documentary about this. I haven’t seen it, I don’t think I could stand it. I have nightmares enough, already.
Okay, back to that early trimester abortion thing. First off, when Glamour magazine frames unintended pregnancies as a bad thing, which they do, I’m thinking women’s magazines have an agenda. Women, most women, have slept with three or less men. Which, to me, looks like they are usually in committed relationships of some sort. Or highly selective. A couple that chooses abortion usually breaks up after that. So, to me, advocating abortion as a solution, is advocating that people throw away a viable relationship b/c of a passing fad.
And make no mistake- I hold that wide-spread acceptance of abortion is a passing fad. It’s on the order of advocating “open marriages” or “socialism.”- clever, but not workable in the long run for most people. There are groups that manage both of those for a while: polygamous Mormons, group marriage Oneida communities, group financed Amana communities. Oneida is now a joint-stock company, and Amana formed up companies, as well- your “amana radar-range microwave oven.”
As for positive good: the third-trimester guy? Would whistle as he loaded bags of dead babies into his basement incinerator. If that doesn’t give you nightmares, I’m not sure what could. In more modern times, google Merle Hoffman, saying that abortion kills babies, stops a beating heart, and is a positive good. She just published a book saying this.
So, yeah, if my daughter came home with a guy saying he “understood” abortion- I’d pitch a controlling mom fit. B/c she’d be wasting her time on a no- spine, no commitment, lazy bum weasel who doesn’t know how to man up, marry her, and raise the kids. And that she could do so much better than that.
And, yeah, if that means getting married at 18- the kids next door did it, and their son is beautiful. He’s headed to the Marines, she’s doing something. The kids three doors down have a kid headed to kindergarten.He’s gotten promoted at his tech job. I’m pretty terrific- and my parents were married with two kids by the age that I could buy a cocktail on my own.
And if it means adoption—so be it. America didn’t break when we had adoptions going all over the place. Half our fast-food empires are built by guys who were adopted. And fast food- that’s where most of America’s millionaires are made.
So- hamburgers, pizza, cute babies, families, weddings–
versus: dead, mangled itty bitty corpses.
I’m not seeing this as too complicated.
I think we agree on all of that. As much as anne coulter is generally about as reliable as michael moore on most issues, the figure of 3000 abortions a day sounds about right (it’s comparable with a couple of other western countries I’m aware of). But try to remember that’s in a country of 300 million people. Get enough people together and all the numbers get big. Go work out how many people die in the US on any given day, or (probably impossible to find) how many miscarriages are reported, or how many traffic accidents happen. That first one will surprise you. 9/11 sounds really huge … until you compare it with normal daily mortality.
But other than that, everything you said is fine by me. That’s your choice. The problem starts when you want to force that choice on everyone else.
whoa! car wrecks, miscarriages, deaths……those are big deals. They hurt people. Agreeing to have your infant killed is a big deal. It’s a big deal personally- the stats on suicide after abortion are just heartbreaking- and it’s a big deal macro-scale- since 1972 we’ve smoked the equivalent of all the population of 26 states. That doesn’t bother you?
That’s Holdren-level population wipeout. That’s Ukraine famine level death. That’s the Black Death Plague level wiping out. 1/3 of all births-gone! poof! down the drain! incinerated! grinded up in kitchen sink disposals!
You’re saying the Black Death wasn’t a big deal in Europe? In the Middle Ages?
I want something worse than force majeure. We can write laws all over the place. We can even write constitutional amendments that get ignored and repealed. I want something far, far more effective: I want the culture to change. I want the sort of person who thinks that putting their future down a garbage disposal is an icky, unsuitable, and mentally defective jerk. All sorts of things are legal, and we jeer, and nobody does them, or, very,very,very few.
I keep tripping across articles about “alpha” guys and “beta” guys. Well, I want the guy who “understands” abortion to be an “omega” guy- as in-can’t get any, ever. b/c he’s a nelson algren level creep.
There was a Glamour article last year that had a line of pregnant women, just showing their bellies above jeans, no heads. And rather than saying ” Wow, aren’t they beautiful?” the article was framed as ” too many women having unintended pregnancies that they keep.” When I read true crime paperbacks- nobody has sympathy for the killer. This article was ” that poor, misunderstood killer does not have enough victims. That’s what I want to change.
I want Margaret Sanger snickered at as a creepy swinger, and a revolting alcoholic and a bad mom. I want Annie Besant made fun of,as a British eccentric gone native. I want that really funny article making fun of Merle Hoffman to be mainstream humor. I’d link, if I knew how. I want that as the normal, not the odd.
Saying something isn’t tragic, just b/c lots of people suffer? Should I shrug when I hear about Multiple Sclerosis? Should I not give water bottles to homeless women begging on the side of the road? Should I say ” Hey, other women get beaten up by their husbands- learn to make a better meatloaf”? Can I ignore the Children’s Hospital fundraising- lots of kids get sick?
We had a culture that was built around men and women marrying and having children. Even after nearly a century of hard advertising, most women are not sport-f***ing. They feel awkward and a little left out, a little immature, rather than in the mainstream. That’s what I want to change. I want the mainstream re-ordered. The baby boom is, statistically speaking, the most “open” ( read: louche and degenerate) generation in America’s history. I don’t think any of their social innovations can stand. We don’t wear disco polyester suits, right? Why have disco suit morals? and, honestly, right now all their social diseases are going fulminant as they age- I worked in healthcare with a guy who worked at a nursing home. All I can say:: EWWW!!!!
I’m good with judgmental name-calling. Even Tucker Max can come out and say ” “Yikes! I was wrong!”
I want Tim Tebow to be the ideal. I want that ??phoebe?? on friends- the actress waited to have sex for the first time until she got married- I want that to be the big deal.
Right now, we have this whole slew of tv shows, commercials, everything- making fun of married, suburban guys. Okay, reputable surveys: that’s the guy who’s getting it the most. And, apparently, practice makes perfect. The happiest wives? Religious, married, Protestant, sheltered. If you hadn’t noticed- cialis ads are all in a vaguely southern milieu. That’s not a mistake. The advertisers of a billion-dollar product know their market: happily married couples with healthy appetites.
Have you read the book about the fraternity that was the basis of Animal House? They were having fun. They were, ah, high-spirited. They weren’t getting laid. That’s what I want- I want people having fun. I want people being safe. I want people to get married, and have the most hot-awesome, amazing, memorable wedding nights. That was normal, that was expected, that was usual. up to, maybe, the seventies. I don’t see that the new normal is better.
Kay Hymowitz has a whole series of articles in City Journal, if you’re curious, about hookup culture, and so forth. I was a peer- educator in high school. I don’t think the kids taking my certified advice are happier than the kids who were “repressed.”
Thank god. Somebody with a decent argument. That’s what I’ve been fishing for here (not, as one bozo suggested, “trolling”). Hooray!
Stay tuned. Due to the miracle of timezones, I’m actually at work right now while you’re probably asleep. You’ll have to wait until my tonight for an answer to that, but at least you’ve got some posts worth responding to.
I’m very pleased to meet you.
More later.
tea for two, and two for tea. trolls like green tea, right? I like coffee. that’s a joke- I’m pleased to make your acquaintance, too.
You’re in tech? What sort? Do you like it? How did you end up doing what you do?
I think I finally have a 3,000 explanation. Okay, there is a high school about two miles from here with 3,000 students. There’s one two miles the other way, another 3k. Ten miles up the road, there’s the main one in town. I’m going to say another 3k. Five miles up the road, in a different jurisdiction, there’s a premium high school, but it only has 2,000 students. Within driving distance there are about five elementaries, grades pre-kinder to fifth grade. They each can handle about six hundred students. When they go over- the lines get re-drawn.
So: the main high school in town. Pre- 1900 founding. Has a big granite block out front laser etched with the students from that school who died serving in World War I. Poof! Gone on Monday.
The big suburban, prairie-style block of upper-middle class achievers, the sort of school I went to first- the school that the engineers of tech companies send their kids to. Poof! Gone on Tuesday.
The terrible- performing school with the interesting principal who keeps attracting great teachers and throwing them at future jail residents and current throw-aways from other school systems? Poof! Gone on Wednesday.
The premium school in the district filled with houses of owners of tech companies? The one where a 3,000 square foot house is considered tiny? The one where I can think of at least one billionaire,and a few millionaires? and their children? and the children who live here b/c their families bought in when it was farmland? It’s only 2,000 kids. We’ll call it an off day. Gone- Poof! on Thursday.
Friday- the elementaries that I drive by on my way around my errands. Five schools, six hundred kids each. Poof! Gone! That’s a day’s catch in abortion numbers.
So, what’s left? The middle schools. That’s it. Three grades of awkward, pimply kids starting to fledge into teenagers. And toddlers. That’s all that’s left.
And that doesn’t even include Saturday. That’s one week of 3,000 kids per day, every day, gone. Not here, not imagined, not living, not adopted, not anything. We went to war and splatted flat two countries b/c one day, one day, one day, one day one group of grownups got killed. Do you see why people get really, really excited about this Poof! They’re gone! business? B/c it’s every day, every day of the week, for forty years. That is a whole lot of ghosts walking around.
You get excited about lynching, and the KKK. Lynchings occured, on average, one per year, for about sixty years. Which is- less than 100. That won’t even get you to ten o’clock in the morning on January first, in the year in abortion averages. There are more registered fans of crush videos than there are members of the KKK. Margaret Sanger would give speeches to the KKK. Margaret Sanger wrote of a plan to enlist black preachers to calm their congregations down about the implications of family planning. There are Jews who worked with the Nazis, to calm down other jews, to persuade them to march orderly and calmly into the gas chambers. We spit on their names. You and I are both upset about the same bad actors. We’re just picking different time periods, different victims.
The guy who founded NARAL stated that he’d made up his statistics. I don’t think we can make laws that effectively eliminate abortion. Any dentist could perform a basic one, with just the tools used for your twice- yearly check up. Roe vs Wade is the law of the land b/c nine guys thought it was a good idea. Before that, it was at states’ discretion. New York thought it was a fine and dandy idea. Okay, well, Nevada has brothels. Localized mores are just that-local. I live in Texas. I find it perplexing that someone can’t own a whole bunch of guns. They advertise pink guns in the same sales circular that they advertise pink tee-shirts and pink bicycles for girls.
However, right now, we’re good with regulating the cr*p out of things icky people do. Bloomberg is telling people to not put salt on their fries, and no smoking in clubs. Sha-ah. You can go have public sex in a club with a bunch of strangers- but you’d best not light up afterwards. Cocaine is a glamorous party favor. Crack will get you jail. I’ve seen marriage announcements in the Times where the couples are obviously high, and met following Phish.
So, what I want? I want the guy who says ” We’ll have random, meaningless sex, and I’m not ready for a baby, so I understand your right to choose abortion” be translated to the equivalent of ” We’ll have random, meaningless sex, and then when you have the baby, I intend to rape it every single orifice until it dies of a venereal disease and starvation.” B/c ain’t nobody understands a grown man wanting to rape a baby, and ain’t nobody should understand a man who expects to kill a baby. That’s the omega guy.
“I mean, I’m shallow. I like guys in blue blazers drinking scotch.” And then some!
Great line, ari. It reminds me of one from one of my personal heroes, Otto Bettmann: “The life of the mind is our true wealth, but the ambiance in which one lives it is not to be sneezed at.”
you and me at the cigar bar, babe! it’ll be like carrie bradshaw at the cupcake factory!
nah. married to a guy who wears grey suits to go with his steel blue eyes. He’s gorgeous.
you’d think it’d be easy to get a guy into a blue suit jacket with pants with leather suspenders, feed him scotch, and have him smoke a decent cigar or some clove cigarettes, but nooooo…..apparently that look went out with the eighties. you can’t even really get a guy to do the week of conventioning, so he’s all puffy and hungover all the time, about like hugging your favorite teddy bear all grown up…
not that I know what that’s like, or anything….
God!!! You *would* have to go and mention cigars. I’m not sure which is the greater aphrodisiac: the smell of a good cigar, or (and now I’m really dating myself) a whiff of Alfred Dunhill cologne……the last of my glamour-puss aunts just packed it in and announced she’s moving into assisted living, so I was already on a serious nostalgia jag here, and now you’ve gone and tripped me right over the top. What a gas! Now that her mantle has passed to me, it’s so good to know I won’t be alone in the mission. Just remember, it’s all up to us now!!
Okay, you’re tall- you get the guys sitting on bar stools. I’ll handle the ones in club chairs. Rock, paper, scissors on the ones walking around.
good times………
Deal, Ari! Adn no “flamboyance vacuums”!
How do you make a smiley icon? I don’t see any buttons for smilies. Is it a code? B/c I wanted to smile at you, rather than say ” good times!”- so see that as a smile.
What’s a flamboyance vacuum? It doesn’t sound good, whatever it is. Like if Anderson Cooper and his houseboy were fighting over the Dyson. although, I shouldn’t make nasty comments about him- he’s the first to interview Amanda Hocking on TV, and she’s adorable.
Glad you didn’t mind the smiley. If I want to use them, I cut and paste my comments in from word-processing software, and they translate into the little yellow gems as soon as you plop the text into the PJ window. (Actually I have a tendency to cut and paste my comments anyway because my always weak spelling seems to be deteriorating rapidly into ESL phonetics…and also because I edit relentlessly as I write.)
ROFL about your “vacuum” comment—it’s just a colorful expression for a terminally dull person, aka a “grind.” It’s from an article by David Brooks, “A Nation of Grinders, (6-29-03, NYT Mag). I liked it so much I kept a copy. He also used the term “rocketing,” used by market researchers to describe what he called “mixed-up, no-class consumption” that most of us engage in, e.g., buying your tires at Sam’s Club, but your undies at Saks.
Great piece. I believe you are preaching to the choir however. Having been divorced amicably I still would not want my ex to define me for the country. What a shameless tactic to go forward with. Every divorce has TWO sides. Anyone foolish enough to only present one side is either evil or the msm. But then I am redundant. If Newt has asked for forgiveness and does not receive it from the Christian Right then they deserve Obama and the Godlessness that he believes in. Never in my lifetime has a president done so many things that attack the religions of our nation as this poseur.
I guess the tea party has abandoned CHARACTER! You forget that Calista is the woman he was having the affair with. I’m happy she got him to church but she is not blameless in this mess. Now the question – are there more out there that he didn’t marry?
Man I bet obama’s people are scouring the country trying to find out.
Newt is not conservative!
I’m turning in my tea party card. Character still matters to me!
Wow, I thought we had a better class of troll here?
Troll! Puleese! The left is going to crucify newt! I want obama gone and this is not going to do it!
tea party has never been about character
it was a universal and spontaneous movement based on the desire to halt the growth of government that had exceeded its constitutional limits nothing more nothing less
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/the_myth_of_newt_the_great_debater.html
I have nothing but contempt for my fellow citizens that, unquestioningly and uncritically, just lap up this in-your-face bias. These are the same fools that used to jump on the ‘we need a level playing field’ bandwagon whenever the media would tout it for one of their pet causes. Where the hell is the level playing field now, with candidate after candidate being brought down like ducks in a shooting gallery? Are there any sentient beings left out there? Anybody that sees this naked manipulation? And gives a s**t about it? Part of what bothers me even more is that these media whores and charlatans don’t even have to work hard at this. They just pump out anything that comes rolling by and the fools out there lap it up like the good dogs that they are. It’s times like this when I start feeling that this country isn’t worth fighting for anymore.
PJ Media: Watching the MSM so you don’t have to. I haven’t watched MSM ‘News’ in years. Conservatives are the real main stream in the population and yet the MSM’s primary aim – so obvious once it is pointed out – is to discourage and demoralize any semblance of conservative sense that may remain in their audience. They are the Tokyo Roses (or Lord Haw Haws, for our British chums) in the Left’s war on our society.
Is the MSM unbalanced? Yes.
Would the person who wrote the article and most of the commenters have lapped it up if it had been about John Edwards now, or some Obama sexual indiscretion/outrage ten years ago? For sure.
Fox intro’s are often bizarrely provocative, not so much about sex, but the last POSSIBLE question about Obama or some Dem. Some say…blah, blah, blah.
Am I the only one who thinks that Callista seems kind of creepy with that plastic hair and all the jewelry? Apparently, they make a great couple.
If Newt gets in, I hope he does prove to be our Winston Churchill, but Nixon II seems more likely.
Dwight writes:
Is the MSM unbalanced? Yes.
Would the person who wrote the article and most of the commenters have lapped it up if it had been about John Edwards now, or some Obama sexual indiscretion/outrage ten years ago? For sure.
Hi, Dwight. I’m “the person who wrote the article” and while I can’t speak for anyone else, I can assure you I would not “lap up” anything about John Edwards now or in the past or Barack Obama now or in the past.
I consider myself more than sufficiently informed about them both. Life is short and I wish to devote myself to people, subjects and issues that do interest me, about whom and about which I’m insufficiently informed.
Please don’t try speaking for me, again. Thanks.
How about Rashid Khalidi?
And if you tell me that you would not watch a Nightline with a person who claimed to be a former lover of Obama, I don’t believe you.
Maybe the issue is that you already knew, or claim to have known, all the things which wife II revealed. I had only a rough and distant knowledge. Everyone has been acknowledging that Newt had bad personal baggage. Is the point that it should have just been left at that?
The lecturing about family values and spouting against Clinton’s infidelity, WHILE he was having the affair with Callista, is especialy galling to me, and therefore worthy of note.
Dwight, you don’t know me, and have no idea what I would or wouldn’t watch. Give it a rest.
It should be evident by now that “family values” have nothing to do with heterosexual families. It’s only code language about opposing abortion and same sex marriage.
Being faithful to one’s wife? Well, that’s entirely aside from family values. And one is still considered an upholder of family values if one has an open marriage while opposing same-sex marriage for others.
I see that someone from Obama’s Office of the Director of Progressive Media and Online Response has dropped by to leave a comment.
I’m with ya on the Winston Churchill personage. And Calista’s hair, I call her “helmet hair.” And yes, we’d be in orgasm if Obama was the subject. But with the way the left (you?) would hide all evils-Obama, we wouldn’t find out just as we have found out so little about him. It’s as though he’s the MSM’s Manchurian candidate, or some other kabal.
That’s funny, I don’t seem to remember ANYTHING about John Edwards on “the news”.
Oh that’s right, he’s a Democrat.
Just wanted to add a note…
Belladonna is obviously a much finer person than myself. And to Dwight’s point … Yes, I would be VERY interested in the MSM response to the indiscretions of a prominent Democrat. It would be informative to see how they would handle the coverage … How fair and balanced would they be?
But wait, we HAVE seen this haven’t we? Of course we have … and the MSM does such a FINE job …
John Kennedy remains patron saint of Democratic history, despite his serial womanizing and the real damage he did to Jackie. Clinton remains beloved, despite behavior that would have caused the dismissal of any other American business manager. And John Edwards … well there we have a weak hero of personal restraint, don’t we?
Look the point is NOT the sexual peccadilloes of our political class … or of anyone. I suspect that the French understand and tolerate this much better than we do. The point is the double-standard. Newt is no saint … neither is Clinton. I’ve heard it said that Obama has a boyfriend … and, frankly, I don’t care. What matters is insight and an ability to get the job done. Likewise, from the MSM, I expect a mature sense of what matters in office and seasoned insight.
Clinton’s sleaziness with women – to me – mirrored his sleazy behavior in office – the Presidency seemed to be about him … his “grandness,” certainly NOT about the country. Obama feels – to me – like an extension of the same … only more so. Newt DOES seem grandiose and it concerns me, but he’s the ONLY candidate to speak “what’s so,” clearly.
Democrats – especially media Democrats, which is to say ALL of them – rejoice over the tiniest hypocrisy exposed in a Republican. They see hypocrisy as invalidating the person’s argument. Instead of applying logic and reason – thinking the argument through – they taunt “nanny boo boo” just like the “in-crowd” school-yard clique that was so annoying in the 6th grade. Let me be clear: The MSM are a bunch of snotty little cool-kid 6th graders. They have the same in-crowd attitude and just about as much real knowledge of what matters. They are concerned with appearances, having the right opinions, and being “cool.”
Its nonsense. Childish. Time for an end to it … If one of their darling candidates trips over his shoelaces … hooray. Pardon me if I enjoy a little schadenfreude.
I have often wondered why the great mass of people here in the U. S. haven’t come to realize just how totally deceived and shafted they were, and continue to be, by the MSM that so proudly (and falsely) trumpets its “truth seeking,” ”objectivity,” and “Journalistic ethics” but which–from the ever increasing mountain of evidence–is nothing more than the Left’s “Ministry of Truth,” which has been increasingly, and now almost totally, and entirely, 24/7, giving our citizenry the “mushroom treatment” i.e. “Covered in shit and kept in the dark,” for decades now.
The MSM is the “spellbinder,” and that pair of very carefully and deliberately constructed blinders that keep the public ensorcelled, and its vision controlled and constricted by a few simple techniques—report some things, ignore others, and give what you report a lot of spin, turn the road signs, craft the pieces of the puzzle to form an alternative, artificially constructed “reality,” (their own little MATRIX), play police Captain Renault at Rick’s Café, and collect your gambling winnings at the same time you are proclaiming yourself “shocked, shocked” that gambling is going on; and they have been quite successful at this charade.
It’s because old habits and beliefs die hard. There was a time when the MSM were not so firmly the the democratic party’s back pocket.
That would be from about 1690 to 1901.
Romney has me remembering the maxiskirt. Long ago, after miniskirts were a big hit, fashion talking heads decided that American women were going to wear maxiskirts. The stores were full of them. But no one wanted to buy what the tastemakers said we were inevitably going to buy. And the maxiskirt stayed on the racks. Kinda like Romney.
That’s a great analogy.
Speak for yourself, Friend! I’m tall, mostly legs, and I wore a lot of maxis. It was my 30-second “turn.” And if they came back tomorrow, I’d be in ‘em again, preferably with tall, high-heeled boots.
IMO, they’re graceful, ergo much more seductive in terms of genuine feminine allure in the classic sense. (In any case, I seemed to do just fine in that department while wearing them.) Personally, I find the spectacle of females in the public eye going through their laughable contortions trying not to show “France”—or worse, too much “thunder thigh” (think a certain SOS)–while expecting to be taken seriously as intellectuals embarrassing, pathetic, and undignified. (And don’t even get me started about décolletage in a business setting!)
End of rant, no offense intended, and thanks for the trip down memory lane.
If we’re all about arm-wrestling in the mud, personally, Me? Non- reporter? television set on history channel courtesy of the boys?
We haven’t heard from a single d### girlfriend of Barack Hussein Obama. Why not? He’s a guy? He’s pretty sure he looks good, right?
is it :
A. The media are incurious, and Obama has girlfriends with class and discretion? One can hope- but Hillary got sold out by her co-rrespondent. So I’m thinking maybe discretion is a republican thing?
b. He doesn’t have any because:
he’s a sexually repressed serial killer? It’s the explanation in Silence of the Lambs. Maybe he’s going for the long march version: why one or two, when you can wipe out 25% of the USA?
he’s a sexually repressed gay guy? That’s the left’s take on conservative priests in Catholic Orders. He’s not Catholic, but maybe that’s his solution?
He’s a sexually disordered monster on the order of Hitler and Eva Braun? he does hava a Michelle. Historians speculate about what Hitler was up to with her. It’s not flattering.
Him and Michelle are a folie a deux? No idea how that plays out. Saw it in a novel. Maybe nobody else could float his boat.
I’m not saying any of these is true. If BHO were a Republican, we’d know which of these were true, and all the creepy little side-theories already. As it is, the guy has the life narrative outline of a boy scout- school, wife, job, kids- without any of the accompanying structures- boy scouts, baseball, study buddies, dates with other women, testimonies from the ob-gyn that Michelle’s kids are Barack’s children- made in a lab, or at home (why not- Trig was the daughter’s kid, according to Andrew Sullivan) I’d even listen to the Troy McClure story- Barack Hussein Obama likes fish. Or maybe he was molested by his mentor, and shut down, and Michelle has to comfort him as he freaks out every other night. Or maybe he liked it. Or he needed the connections.
We have no idea about Obama-style sleaze,b/c the MSM hasn’t applied their filthy little minds to the task at hand. They have, to Republicans. Enough reporters and tv folks have been divorced, to know that divorced partners say awful, self-serving, repellent things. And that in any bad relationship- you do bad things to get out of it.
Will we ever find out about the extra wives Obama collected while visiting Kenya?
Winner!
Seriously. This has been the worst media taking ibuprofen for a tooth-ache silence, ever. Nothing funny about Obama ( they can’t even get Will Smith to dress up like him on SNL?)They can’t even make the joke that people think they are voting for Will Smith, b/c you know- they’ve both got big, flappy ears? No weird gossip about interns, or secretaries, or anybody. I read foxed, yellowed books with jokes about Kennedy secretaries…and books about Gerald Ford giving golf advice- along the lines of ” First, don’t trip over your caddy…”
This presidency- there’s this whole hushed, reverential, slightly brain-dead tone. It’s creepy. It’s like reporters behaving how they think people behave in church. Since I actually go to church- I can tell them- nope, not quite like that. First off, people in church have babies- so it’s not hushed. Second, it takes a mighty fine preacher to get reverential. And then to stay that way past the sermon, when you’re out the door, and drinking coffee in the narthex or the courtyard? And slightly brain-dead? Are you nuts? Have you ever met someone at a church in your own neighborhood? B/c I know reporters go to small, poor towns in the deep South, and report on poorer, less well-educated folks to get local flavor- think Forrest Gump at the black church- so they think this is all there is- they don’t know the church-goers in their own neighborhood. Since I taught Sunday school with a guy with a PhD in physics- “yeah, so I was at CERN last week……”
Anyway- no Michelle having affairs with her staffers- why not? Hillary had Vince. Eleanor had someone else. Nobody wanted to touch Rosalyn with a ten-foot pole, and Jackie was pregnant all the time. Michelle’s young, healthy, fit- why isn’t there gossip?
There isn’t humor, there isn’t gossip, there isn’t critical think pieces, there isn’t anything. There’s just this grey, foggy concern. I wish Kal Penn would do a satirical movie about an ambitious White House aide done in by pot smoke. He wasn’t afraid to mock Bush. and he’s worked in the Obama White House….I mean, we know Obama smoked pot and snorted coke. Why can’t we have a movie where a President is trying to avoid his Secret Service guys and get to White Castle, after smoking a bowl? Is that too hard?
We can shoot the messenger if we wish.
But does anyone here doubt the fact that Gingrich was a sleaze toward his first two wives?
Nope.
At the risk of sounding like a total sleaze myself, I consider Gingrich’s age in the first case (16?!), if true, to be a mitigating factor, and in the second marriage the woman herself to be another one. In the first instance, she probably fell for his brain–shades of Emlyn Williams’s “The Corn Is Green,”(although the power differential is also problematic for me) and he was “in his hot youth.”
One of the first things that revolutionary movements do is to seize the centers and the means of communication and it is no coincidence that the Left has accomplished this in America, albeit in slow motion. They’ve been working at it for the last 40-50 years and eventually have become emboldened enough to be brazen about it – especially since their infamous success in 2008 – getting one of the most unqualified and certainly most un-vetted candidates in American history elected. They held a revolution and nobody even noticed. Their tools are lies and deceit, distortion, omission and repetition. Their enemies are truth and candor. That is why they screech like scalded dogs over the very existence of FOX News and talk radio and the internet. It is this constant dishonesty that upsets me the most. If the Left were open about their goals and the American people knowingly and willingly voted for Socialism (and eventual Communism), I think I could live with that. I wouldn’t like it but I would accept it and hunker down and hope I weather the storm. But to do it the way they have, relying on and taking advantage of the basic good nature of the American people and the fact that many, if not most, of the people don’t have the time to watch their politicians and the media like hawks every minute of every f**king day – that is their true betrayal and that is an outrage. A betrayal of their supposed profession *spit* and a betrayal of the very people they supposedly serve. They are the enemy and must be revealed for what they are if there is to be any hope for this country.
Are the media biased? Absolutely.
But that’s entirely apart from Gingrich’s actions and whether those actions disqualify him for the Presidency. I believe they do.
Even many conservatives KNOW that he was a serial adulterer and even demanded that his second wife agree to further adultery on his part. All of Gingrich’s attacks on the media aren’t going to shield him from criticism on that basis.
Gingrich has demonstrated repeatedly that he has no moral compass whatsoever. His behavior toward these women is just one example of it. His willingness to take a page from the left-wing playbook and play the class warfare card against Romney was another. By doing so, Gingrich (and Perry too) legitimize that class warfare card. Now all Obama has to do in debates on the free enterprise system is quote Gingrich verbatim.
He’s also a hypocrite. Here’s a man who has repeatedly denounced same-sex marriage as “threatening the stability of traditional marriage”–while he seriously suggested to his second wife that they open their marriage so he could see other women on the side.
This man has NO RIGHT to be lecturing anyone on moral values, a subject he has zero competence in. He has no right and no basis to be lecturing about “traditional marriage” while he has done so much to trash it in his own family’s lives.
And a man who’s a hypocrite with no moral compass should not be President.
It’s sad to see how so many conservatives, mesmerized by this fantasy of Gingrich clobbering Obama in debates, are willing to look past behavior that is totally at variance with a Republican party that is supposed to stand for the institutions of marriage and the family.
Gingrich does not deserve the Presidency. He’s personally despicable, despite his conservative politics.
Yes, it’s despicable – that his second wife has the gall to complain about Newt when she was the “other woman” while Newt’s first wife was sick. Talk about a hypocrite. As a Republican, I don’t condone the behavior by either Newt or MA. However, just turn on the tv and name the actors who HAVEN’T done similar things. Or watch the adultery portrayed on TV or in the movies. Or, the perverse relationship on “Modern Family.” That’s as offensive to most as any adultery. How about this. Let’s hear your outrage over Clinton and Edwards. Equally despicable? To the left? NO.
I don’t “know” that Gingrich demanded an open marriage. The former Mrs. Gingrich says so, but she had an affair with a married man, so I have doubts about her moral compass.
At last someone sees what’s going on. Princess nanci can’t wait for the dems turn to take him on and leak the ethics charges against him. Believe me obama has leaked information before to get rid of his competition.
We all hate the press but don’t be fooled by our hate – the indies will never vote for newt. Not beating obama is not an option. He has to go!
I’m not so sure Newt can’t attract the Indies. Whenever people get exposure to his speeches, they are excited & inspired. If he wins SC tomorrow, that will serve as the first glimpse of evidence that he can attract Independent voters, as he will need them in large numbers to overtake 3 other candidates.
I am starting to think this way too after the last two debates. Romney does not look so inevitable anymore, in my opinion.
Well, sure. Too bad we don’t have a spotless conservative candidate. Guess we’ll just have to suck it up and vote for the Massachusetts Moderate because he married his high school sweet heart.
Really??
#1 I am pleased to have my judgement not to watch that drivel validated
#2 Only place we disagree is that I think they pretty much protect all Democrats
not just obummer
Again, I ask this question because I have yet to find the answer: How much $$ was paid to Marianne Gingrich to appear on ABC’s Nightline to discuss details of her marital difficulties with Newt?
As for what I’d really like to see take place on Nightline: An interview with Obama featuring one of their finest asking him for details about Larry Sinclair’s speech laying out details about joining Obama in a limo to partake of cocaine, crack & giving dear Obama a BJ. Is Obama really gay? Is he bisexual? How big is Obama’s dick? IMWTK!
As for Gingrich as a candidate & how that all fits with his past: I prefer to look at the significance of his record as Speaker where he oversaw welfare reform, a balanced budget & Republicans in positions of power in Congress after sucking hind tit for 40 YEARS. I prefer to look at his potential as reflected in the things he is saying these days on the stump. That is far more pertinent & important than what has happened with his various wives. He appears to be in a stable, monogamous relationship with his current wife. That matters more than what went on 20 or 30 years ago. People can change for the better; it happens all the time.
“It was a classic case of an abject lack of the fairness and objectivity they claim to epitomize”
Well, I don’t know about that. I seem to remember the MSM giving a fair amount of coverage to the Slick Willie/Monica Cigarinski story.
I don’t think they were too enthusiastic about it, but they did splash it all over the news.
Well, that’s pretty easy to explain: All things about sex & sexuality sell big time.
Agreed. They way they totally ignored the story about clinton’s affair, left john edwards alone and didn’t even think to as anthony weiner any questions at all clearly points to a vast left-wing media conspiracy to attack conservatives and protect democrats.
Get a grip. Is the focus on scuttlebutt stupid? Yes, absolutely. Is it bipartisan? Yes, absolutely.
Proceed to try to make out this is different somehow … 3, 2, 1, now.
Clinton and Edwards were not Obama. With Obama the msm has given him one pass after another. No investigation into any of his mysterious refusals to release his college and law school transcripts, his medical reports, no investigative reporting into his close association with convicted felons, the “gift” he received from a now-convicted felon, the notorious Tony Rezko who gave Obama a huge piece of real estate in Chicago and has since then also become a convicted felon, sentenced to 10-12 years prison for taking $6.8 million in kickbacks from Illinois state contracts http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/politics/9001435-418/tony-rezko-sentenced-to-10-12-years-in-kickback-scheme.html , his sitting in Wright’s church for 20 years, including more recently with his young, impressionable daughters where they were exposed to such anti-American rants as this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnlRrxXv-v8
A man is known by his choice of associates. Birds of a feather do flock together. The msm covered Clinton’s & Edwards’ sex scandals because sex sells. But when it has come to Obama’s questionable group of friends and associates, his underhanded way of making his political opponents disappear (releasing sealed divorce records of one) the msm says and does nothing.
To fail to see these double standards, and to say ‘the msm covered sex scandals among dems” is totally beside the point: the point is that they’ve let Obama get away with acts of commission (his DOJ, his recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess), as well as his low-life friends and associates) and omission (no transcripts, no medical records) that have never gone uninvestigated in the past. Their support of Obama is obvious and it’s suspect.
I’m sorry, but what do you mean by “investigation”? Everyone knows he hasn’t released those records. What’s to investigate? I guess somebody could be trying to get them by other means (and they have tried) but apart from that … what is there to investigate? I’m a bit stuck here. College acquaintances have indeed been interviewed … and they seem to all like the guy. By “investigate”, do you mean “cook up wild conspiracy theories”?
Question: What question, exactly, do you want the press to be trying to answer. Do you want to find out what’s IN those transcripts? I’d say they’ve tried – there have been court cases to try to get access, the law’s apparently on obama’s side. Ok, so how about WHY he won’t release them? That’s pretty obvious, I’d say – he knows what will happen if he does (i.e. they’ll become the subject of the sort of nonsense that every other detail of his life provoked, e.g. the birth certificate). But until they ARE released, all anyone can do is speculate – and that’s not “investigating”. Do you want them to just be digging up dirt? I’d say they also already did that. There was no shortage of dirt during the campaign. You guys keep talking about it. So what is it that they’re supposed to be “investigating”? What piece of information are you looking for?
The problem with a lot of that chicago conspiracy talk is that people HAVE investigated it, and there’s actually not a lot there. Yes, we know he knew the weather underground guy. We know the extent of their relationship. Is the problem that you don’t LIKE the version of reality that the facts present you with? Do you want a picture of them building a bomb together or something? Because there isn’t one.
And the rezko business is pretty straightforward. It’s been raked over. Are you hoping to find a picture of obama involved in some sort of mob hit as well? No amount of investigating is going to find that picture. It doesn’t exist.
Is it beyond belief that obama would meet ayers? No, it really isn’t. Ayers is, like it or not, a bit of an “establishment” figure these days. He gets awards, he’s active in politics, he runs trusts. I’d say most people in chicago politics have met the guy, whether they like him or not. It doesn’t mean obama’s a terrorist, any more than the carlyle group means GWB was funding al quaeda.
Are you an extraterrestial alien??
Probably not. Here’s your problem, as I see it:
You’re convinced that there’s some piece of dirt out there on obama that’ll sink him. Trouble is, nobody seems to know what it is. There’s been a whole stream of allegations, but they turned out to be hogwash – the birther thing, the muslim thing and so on. Everyone knows that he knew some people that nobody likes. But you’re having trouble turning that into something that actually holds water. Maybe (and just consider the possibility) that’s because there’s nothing actually there. It is actually possible that he doesn’t share the crazier beliefs propounded by rev wright. If you’ve got something that says otherwise, just tell us what it is. No? I didn’t think so. I’ve got videos of church sessions that palin attended that were pretty freakin’ insane as well. I just think they’re funny – I don’t think she actually believes we’re in the end times.
There are plenty of conspiracy theories, but nobody seems to be reporting them as news. Have you considered that maybe this is because actual journalists have looked into them and realised that there’s nothing there? Some brave journalist might decide “hang it all – I’m going to say it anyway!” and find themselves in the position that dan rather did – looking like an idiot for believing something they had no credible evidence for.
When people say there’s no “investigation”, I think that means they they’re not hearing the sorts of allegations they’d like to be hearing, and assuming it’s because of some grand conspiracy because those people are sure, in their heart of hearts, that obama truly is the devil spawn sent to earth to destroy god’s creation. But actually, it’s probably just because there’s no evidence to support those allegations. Not because nobody’s looking. Or maybe you’d like to see nothing BUT gossip and innuendo, rather than actual journalistic coverage about things that, you know, actually affect real people.
So explain to me – what “investigation” do you think has been missing? We know about wright, we know about ayers. So what’s the story that you think has been buried?
Of course, we know there’s ONE brave news organisation that doesn’t let the mere absence of evidence get in the way making insane claims about obama. They’re great fun for the fact-checkers of the world though, because they’re so easily (and regularly) debunked. Guys like you don’t know that though, because you don’t think to look, and you think it’s everyone ELSE who’s wrong. No. It really isn’t.
gingrich has a messy private life. So does Clinton. We elected him. Let Gingrich have his crack at the big-time. Maybe he’s got ideas we can use.
“Maybe he’s got ideas we can use”
Maybe he’d like to tell people what they are, first? Say what you like about obama, but he never left anyone in the dark about his intentions.
The GOP candidates could have explained to the American people why Keystone was so important.In 2008,the democratic candidates devastated Bush and the GOP instead of each other.McCain never had a chance.Every GOP debate drives Obama closer and closer to reelection. These bums can’t even articulate what O is doing,except in vague derogatory phrases,Obviously,none read PJMedia.I fear Romney only reads the NYT.
Since this is 15 years old and he’s been with his present wife for about 20 years now and has admitted to and asked forgiveness for his past — Gingrich has my forgiveness. Everyone makes mistakes, me included.
As for Marianne, as one poster stated, she took a man away from a woman AND his children. Calista did not do that. And if you look at the timeline, it looks like he may have taken up with Calista sometime during the time and Newt and Marianne lived apart. She needs to move on and stop living in the past — she’s rusting herself with bitterness.
Newt’s not perfect, but he has a good record in Congress and he’s a fighter. He will fight Obama and his media schills.
For my spiritual needs, I’ll go elsewhere.
Did you just say “she took a man away from a woman AND his children.” I for one would like a president with enough intestinal and moral fortitude not to be taken away. So, Newt had nothing to do with it. This chick just swooped in like an Eagle and stole him. Bah! What double-speak. What’s the old cliché? It takes two to tango.
I don’t care if it’s tawdry. CHARACTER COUNTS. Gingrich is a bully. Just the other day, he asked Santorum to get out of the race, when he, himself, didn’t win Iowa or New Hampshire. And it wasn’t only this ex-wife whom he cheated on. In fact, he cheated on the 1st wife with Marianne. Gingrich is a great debater, but Obama and Obama supporters will walk circles around him because of his infidelities and bullying ways. Even though Obama is a hypocrite, a phony, an arrogant elitist bent on class warfare, a socialist at heart, blamer-in-chief, anti-Defense, anti-free market, loser of trillions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and a typical tax-n-spend Chicago thug, he has not been unfaithful to his wife and kids (that we know of) and the Beyonce, Oprah and Kardashian crowd are in awe of the Obama’s. In the end, if Gingrich is the GOP nominee, he will lose to Obama because he just looks like an angry, white, fat, ex-Washington insider with a messy past. Reminder that there are more people in America who follow the Jersey Shores and American Idol, than know about Keystone pipelines, Solyndra, the systematic decimation of the Defense Dept, union thuggery, Iran’s nuclear program and high corporate taxes causing American jobs to move offshore.
Only Romney can beat Obama. Romney and Allen West, or Romney and Marco Rubio, or Romney and New Mexico Governor Suzanne Martinez, or Romney and John Thune will hands-down whip Obama-Biden.
No. We hate Romney. We’ve been telling you people that for well over a year now. He won’t inspire conservatives to turn out for him, and Obama will win.
Jeannette, it seems to me that what you mean is “I hate Romney.” Yes, there are others who agree with you, and at the moment, many of them are voting in South Carolina. But to bark at 888 “No” is not only rude, it also doesn’t reflect the entirety of the Republican Party. It certainly doesn’t reflect my views and I vote. I’d prefer Romney to the other three remaining candidates. I want Obama out of office. You don’t speak for me at all.
“he has a good record in Congress”
OMG. You mean apart from the corrupt bits?
Obama wants to face newt so any claims of his team trying to slander newt this early is the right continuing its false claim of white male victimization. It’s pretty pathetic you old white guys. Lose weight, get better clothes, practice what you preach, wash your face and quit pretending you are the new minority. It is pathetic.
I think we can agree that no matter WHAT happens, it’ll be the fault of the MSM and the vast left-wing conspiracy. If mitt gets the gong and loses, it’ll be the MSM’s fault. If newt gets the gong and loses, it’ll be the MSM’s fault. If either of them actually wins, it’ll be against the wishes of the MSM. This MSM is a pretty powerful thing. It has to make you wonder how any republicans ever get elected, with all the power in the MSM to control every last detail.
Fair or unfair, Obama campaign propaganda or not Newt Gingrich is a slime ball. I have always said he is our Bill Clinton without the charm and grace. Gingrich is shallow and a conservative by convenience. If by some chance Gingrich is the nominee I will advocate a boycott of the Presidential contest while we work for strong Republican turnout so conservatives can keep control of the House and take the Senate. We can then use the reconciliation process to directly attack the illegal actions by our rogue President..
What is the take-away from the Marianne Gingrich/ABC New story? Duh and Duher.
The MSM is not interested in real journalism. That’s a fact.
The MSM is not interested in telling both sides of a story. That is a fact.
The MSM is out to select Mitt Romney to run against Obama because Obama has decided he can beat Romney. That is a fact.
Any candidate that could possibly displace Romney as the GOP frontrunner will feel the brunt of the MSM attack. That is a fact.
Facts are you shouldn’t get your facts from the MSM.
Politicalreacharound @31 – see above. See what I mean?
What happened to the even more “white hot intersection” of hate speech and the Presidency that emerged from President Obama’s religious cocoon of some 20 years duration including baptisms for the children?
Where were the people the most informed about Rev. Wright and James Cone and United Trinity’s odious library of mingled racial hate and advocacy? Cone and Wright are two of America’s most unflinching bigots and yet the media not only gave Obama a pass on them but actually defended this black version of the KKK.
Er … you do know that the klan actually killed people, right? They set fire to churches, with people inside. They hung people from trees. Dragged them behind cars. Actually went around terrorising them, in person. Stuff like that. So when you compare people with the KKK just for banging on a bit about black people not getting a fair shake, try to keep things in perspective.
It’s hard to believe anyone has such a short memory. Jeremiah Wright ranted from the pulpit , “God bless America? No? God damn America!” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnlRrxXv-v8.
He also consorts with Louis Farrakhan (and of course had Obama in his congregation, a congregation Oprah found too odious to countenance and left) unlike Obama, who was only too happy to expose his young daughters to this raving anti-American, anti-Semitic “reverend.” He said and did far more than “banging on a bit about black people not getting a fair shake.” You’re either a Wright-sympathizer or don’t remember the vile vitriol at its heart.
The KKK did, indeed murder and rape. But nowadays they hold meetings where they’re comfortable spewing their hatred of Catholics, blacks and Jews among like-minded individuals. How is the Klan of the present era different from Reverend Wright’s church in terms of enjoying and expressing hatred?
It’s time to stop “banging on” and wake up to the reality of that church and Obama’s 20 years of comfort in its pews and close friendship with its pastor, whom he called his “mentor” before throwing him under the bus when his association with Wright became an inconvenient truth for Candidate Obama.
I was making a comment about the intellectual and philosophical space both entities share, not making a threat assessment. You are taking it for granted that given a majority with a relatively free hand that those who share Rev. Wright’s views would not indulge in violence.
There are enough flash mobs assaulting whites simply because they are whites right now today to give a glimpse of how much worse that would be given a white minority.
I appreciate the difference between an actual reality that has happened and one that has not but the vitriol is the same. The United Trinity Church is the equivalent of the KKK, just without the wherewithal to use violence. To say they do not use violence because they eschew it is another story – the fact is they can’t and the view I have of Farrakhan, a Trinity ally, as Hitler without an army shows my opinion of what such entities would do to whites if they had a free hand.
And don’t forget that even disagreeing with Obama is called racism; the Tea Party has been a conspicuous target in this regard. Can you imagine any white politician associated with a church that said things about blacks that Trinity says about whites being in any way accepted in America?
Let’s keep this argument in the 21st century where it belongs and with that as a parameter the hate from today’s klan and neo-Nazis and United Trinity are indistinguishable.
“And don’t forget that even disagreeing with Obama is called racism;”
And how you’ll show us an example of simply disagreeing with obama that was called racism.
You’re making a ridiculous attempt to justify a godwin. Give it up. No, Rev. Wright is not comparable to the KKK, with or without the capacity for violence. That massively under-represents just how bad the klan was at its height, with or without considering their violent activities. Get a grip.
And when you look at the stuff james cone wrote, try to remember the context in which it was written. Remember that slavery stuff? And the jim crow era? Try reversing the roles of black and white and ponder how white people might have felt about it. A bit grouchy, I’d say. We can argue about how much that world-view is relevant to this era, but once upon a time there was amble justification for african americans to dislike the whites who exploited them. Do your best – try denying that.
As for “Cone and Wright are two of America’s most unflinching bigots” … I guess you must not pay very much attention. If you think THEY’RE bigots, spend a bit more time checking out white supremacist web sites, and get an education.
Hey bonehead, the kkk were demoncrats.
Stupid is a stupid does.
You are in way over your head.
Wow. That’s a brilliant come-back.
Yes, the kkk was founded by democrats. So what? Once upon a time, the republicans were the crazy radical reform-minded party of ideas. Things change.
And what was their crazy radical stance? Smaller government, more freedom. Yeah, they sure have changed.
Little wonder he left this idiot. Proof positive this man learns from his mistakes.
The MSM is biased to the left no doubt. B*tching about that for the next 10 months is not going to win us the election. It seems the only rationale for Newt being the nominee is his presumed debating skills. Well, his righteous indignation act isn’t going to play well in the general election.
Throwing red meat to Conservatives won’t win it for him either. We will lose with this moron as our standard bearer. He has set expectations so high for his debate performance against Obama all Obama has to do is hold is own and it will be reported as a win for him. Newt’s got more baggage than Southwest Airlines and Axelrod and Co. will throw all of it right back at him.
We won’t get independents or the women’s vote with Newt and we need a decent number of both to win. His negatives are enormous. His unfavorable rating is close to 60%. Forget him, he is a loser.
Have you noticed that during debates Newt does great with the public being the smartest, quickest on his feet, with obvious depth of knowledge and experience ? Who else has had standing ovations ? Between debates both liberal and half-liberal media are ever so busy trying to put Newt back in his place – as a man with baggage, being too gruff, defending himself, and worst of all putting the moderators and networks in their place. Between debates the media elite lick their own wounds as they come to gather as the brotherhood who must re establish their public persona of superiority and saintliness. These so called elites are so in bed togather including Krauthammer, Hume, Baier, Williams, and the ever glib but ever shallow Cavuto. These jerks are extremely angry with Newt for not putting up with their loftiness. How dare the lesser mortals defend themselves. Not complicated, media loves media and hates anyone who doesnt. Newt is their worst nightmare- as he is unafraid to speak truth and his ex is still trying to extract revenge, money, and face time with anyone dumb enough to watch ABC.
Mitt can blast those who are running the debate with short=term impunity, because there is no way in their roles that they can respond in kind. It is a safe taget, as he must have figured out. Go after any candidate that way, and there will be heavy return fire. There is a moderate chance that Newt could go all the way to the Presidency, but you still would have to say that it is a long-shot, in that a majority of Americans probably do not want to take that risk.
Er, Newt, obviously, not Mitt.
The National Enquirer was scorned and ignored when they consistently broke more news about the sociopathology of John Edwards and his very real lies and deceit in the middle of a campaign. Why that was just a tabloid report! Nothing here! So here’s the question: if a derided tabloid story gets no attention in the MSM, but that same media goes on to conduct a TABLOID interview with someone whose “news” is hardly relevant or contemporaneous with events, which reportage should be scorned and ignored? Furthermore, the words “double standard’ should really be reinvented because they no longer shock and make anyone think anymore. There, in fact, are no “double” standards. There are left wing standards for everyone else and “special indulgences/privileges” for those who push their agenda. John Edwards is “special”. Gingrich is not. The “special ones” are like those teacher’s pets, the spoiled kids who got away with everything while the rest of us had to go sit in the corner. John Edwards was a media “pet” and was coddled and protected like all little pets. Obama is their number one “special boy”. And maybe if you start putting it in terms that everyone can identify with (after all, it is childish) the outrage would grow. In reality there are standards for the schlubs and NONE for the anointed.
This is more politics of distraction, from the master and his Chicago henchmen. Does Newt have the ability to destroy Obama in a debate? Yes. Does Newt have ideas about how to dismantle the Obama big govt. “achievements” and return the country to greater prosperity? Yes. Can Newt challenge the power grab by the elites and lessen the impact of their co-conspirators, the MSM? Yes.
For all his talk of fairness, Obama does not want a fair competition. He’s never had to and knows he cannot win. Of course Newt is a huge threat to the separate vacations, voter registration fraud, and the poor thinking the Dems will help them.
I do regret that wife #2 was used by ABC, in a far more public and humiliating way than what appears to have happened years ago. I am sorry when any family suffers.
Newt, you have my support. The other side sure is afraid of you and not because you’ve been married three times. I haven’t checked lately but are any of Obama’s ideas getting standing ovations?
This is a very interesting column that readers of Belladonna’s column might also find of interest: http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/2012/01/20/blinded_by_hate/page/full/
LeighB: It’s not that Newt can’t overwhelm the WON; he can easily both intellectually and passionately. The question is whether Newt if just another example of RINO blue-blooded GOPers who want big government-just the RINO GOPers kind of big government.
There is only one candidate who has consistently stood for a small, Constitutionally restrained government. And despite Mitt’s alleged knowledge of economics this candidate can go toe-to-toe with Mitt. And this is THE only candidate who has expressed the willingness to cut the budget and shutdown whole departments.
If Newt’s not electable, then the CMA (Communist Media of America) isn’t defeatable (sic).
The CMA has long ago, given up reporting “news”. If it isn’t salacious innuendo, or personally devastating attacks on some one who doesn’t fit their mold of “gifted” individuals, then it gets no coverage.
And “gifted” means attaining the status they have with gifts from politically/CMA connected hacks and cronies.
It’s obvious what the CMA is doing. But, there’s nothing crude, rude, or socially unacceptable that they will not use to wound a conceived enemy.
It is this specific tactic which illustrates whom they fear the most.
The problem I have with all the news concerning this smear,is that while, in passing, they say Newt is an ethical man, they again focus on a woman whom took a man from another woman and caused Newt to be investigated for actions SHE took while he was speaker.
The problem I have with all the news concerning this smear, that while, in passing, they say Newt is an ethical man, they again focus on a woman whom took a man from another woman and caused Newt to be investigated for actions SHE took while he was speaker.
Well number one: Democrats don’t pretend to be holier than thou like Republicans so they can be lying, cheating scumbags. They get a pass. Number two: It’s really all about ratings and money. Number three: People are stupid enough to watch it. And the Democrats get the benefit of filling the peoples heads with stuff that actually doesn’t matter. And what’s the result? The country is going down the tubes because people are not thinking about the things that really matter. The politicians don’t care as long as they get reelected. They’ll pass any ultimately stupid damaging law written by a special interest group, unread handed to them as long as they get the campaign contributions.
Gingrich was cheating with Marianne while his 1st wife was deathly ill, just like the slimy John Edwards. Then, Gingrich fools around FOR YEARS with Calista while she’s supposed to be a good Catholic girl and he’s supposed to be married to Marianne.
Contrast that with with the caring, compassionate Romney who stood by his wife when she was deathly ill with multiple sclerosis, and stayed with her throughout the years in a faithful marriage and happy family. You see, one guy is a liar, a cheat and a hypocrite (because he was cheating with Calista while he was going after Clinton for the president’s personal dalliances, and that’s why his ownHouse Republican members turned against him, especially after he was caught on those ethics violations.)
On the other hand, Romney, is a gentleman, has class, humility and integrity, and is a successful, job-creating businessman who throughout his Bain tenure as a CEO, and even afterwards, taught Sunday school. Don’t get fooled by Gingrich’s angry and patronizing lectures during the debates and the standing ovations; the bottom line is, Gingrich has NO history and experiencin CREATING JOBS or running ANY organization, unlike Romney and, unfortunately, Obama. Keep that in mind, people. Don’t get fooled again.
A couple of points. Wasn’t there something about the FBI investigating Marianne Gingrich for taking bribes in order to influence Newt’s votes? Second, when a married person is having an affair, it is the married person who is doing the cheating. Not the person s/he is having the affair with. Blaming Marianne (or Callista) for Newt’s adultery is shifting blame – something I would expect from liberals. I don’t condone Newt’s behavior, but I still se him as the smartest man on the stage during the debates.
How many have actually seen the Nightline report? The bribe incident was in it, and they asked her about it. She said that it was her word against some felon regarding her alleged statement re: a potential $500,000 bribe and a related conversation in which she supposedly said that she had a lot of pull in the House blah, blah.
Maybe Newt could say, I turned my life around by leaving that evil woman.
Dwight, thanks for the info. So, the bribery issue was one person’s word against another’s, just like her allegations against Newt.
The MSM is all in for Obama. Just why they would throw in what’s left of their journalistic lives and sacred honor for this Marxist is beyond me. Even after decades of reeducation and purging the MSM is supposed to have at least a fig leaf’s worth of integrity left, right?
It’s quite possible that Obama will try to get away with things this year that would have the MSM screaming, puking, and writhing around on the floor if a Republican were ever to attempt them. The only people that can’t see through this kind of hypocrisy are the ones that don’t see it to begin with.
Something happened on the way to beating up Gingrich by the liberal press……they created a winner and a new successful political strategy for Republicans – the Conservative-Populist.
This thesis is presented with a lot of common sense in the piece “The Creation Of The “Conservative-Populist” at http://www.RAChronicle.com
They argue that Republicans have now discovered how to turn the attacks of the Press against themselves and win popularity in the process.
Gingrich will not, cannot, beat Obama in the general election. There are many reasons for that, but the obvious ones are the personal character and ethics issues, besides the fact that he’s a true Washington insider and also has never had executive or business experience. With Obama as president, now Obama can say he has executive experience. Also, Obama’s marriage and family are attractive and intact. But just consider Calista (“the other woman” for SIX YEARS and home breaker) trying to be First Lady of the great USA, versus loving mother, wife and daughter, Michelle Obama. That’s what the liberal establishment will exploit going into November if Gingrich is the GOP nominee.
I agree but this is because only a black guy on the Left can get away with conspicuous racism, admitted drug use, transparency defined as a locked vault and having ACORN as corrupt allies.
Were there not this double standard, Obama’s version of Camelot would look a lot more like a KKK nullification jury in the not so old south.
I agree, Salle. There are lots of double standards where race is concerned. I’m a minority and a Christian, so I didn’t appreciate when people (mainstream media) were mocking and criticizing Tebow because of his strong faith, but none of them said a thing when a black wide receiver in the end zone, raises both hands up to the air to apparently thank God for his just-performed great feat, or when Hispanic baseball players make the sign of the cross before or after a home run. And the liberals talk a lot about the separation of church and state, but they don’t say a word when “Reverend” Jesse Jackson or “Reverend” Al Sharpton march and campaign in support of a Democrat. Bottom line is, if you’re white and religious, you have to be quiet about it, or you’ll be ridiculed. Sadly, that’s what’s happened to this country.
The Tebow thing is kind of weird. Anyone who’s watched a lot of college football or more importantly actually gone to the games knows that it’s rather routine to see Christians from both teams kneel together on the field before a game. I don’t see them going after Tebow cuz he’s white but I do think they wouldn’t dare do it if he was black. People can no longer figure out the rather easy to discern difference between disagreement and racism and throw it all into the land of “code.”
I personally would love to see Thomas Sowell be President – that’s cuz of the quality of his clear thoughts and has nothing to do with race. Even the entire GOP field doesn’t have the incisive wit of Sowell. If they did, they might get somewhere.
Sure, the voters will recoil from the reprobate Gingrich and give Obama four more years to ruin the economy. But if you’re just despairing about the intelligence of independents I agree with you.
yep, it’s all about character with swing voters. They may be unemployed or fear unemployment, they may be angry that their retirement savings have disappeared, they may fear a nuclear war, but there’s no way they are going to vote for a guy who had some tacky sexual escapades a couple of decades ago.
But of course, they will overlook cutthroat capitalism, the kind where thousands of people get laid off while the nouveau owner make 80% profits. Karl Rove will explain to them why that kind of stuff is ok.
Just a few thoughts (insofar as I am not enamoured with anybody in the race): First, go with the Palinism, LSM, in place of MSM. That’s either the lame-stream-media, or the left-stream-media. Also, when providing an adjective for the NYT, it should the leftist NYT (via Ron Radosh) and not the ‘liberal’ NYT.
It is too bad Gingrich, in his response to John King, didn’t take the opportunity to recite a liltany of things not reported on by the LSM or minimized in importance by them: the Black-panther case, Fast and Furious, Solyandra, Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn, his college and law school grades, and so forth and so on. (Also did he sleep through all the ‘Reverend’ Wright’s sermons for twenty years?)
Another thought: The distinction between Clinton and Gingrich is that Clinton lied under oath. That’s called perjury. It was for that, that Clinton was impeached in the House.
Finally, while Gingrich may be a great debater, I am most unsure about what kind of President he will be. One of the criticisms of him towards the end of his Speakership was his lack of focus. He would flit from one non-issue to another non-issue. By non-issue, I mean things like the three ways to do X, the six way to do Y. I think Romney will be more focused, but I don’t know if he’ll even make it to the nomination. He just doesn’t seem to have the moxey on stage that Gingrich does.
Gingrich was ousted by his party due to his many government cuts and getting in the way of their power utopia.They don’t want him back because they can’t control him.What we’ve learned with the Gingrch X,is that we the people are wise to the media’s lies and demonizing of ANYONE that will up set the power brokers kingdom, including the RINO’S.
People are worried about the future of this country and their children and grandchildren.Obama has all the negatives of hurting this country with his policies,while Gingrich with his policies has grown and helped America time and time again.
We need smarts and love of county not a cool rock star who’s main intention is to level the playing field of America to a third world country.
Gingrich’s 15 year old affairs, I don’t like , but fact is he helped my country and obama has taken us down a rats hole. I’m voting for my kids and grandkids period……
GINGRICH 2012
Wow Belladonna! You mean to tell me that you are just now learning this? I’m truly amazed that you, or any conservative, would be surprised by the mainstream media attacking a conservative, and trying to shape the outcome of elections to favor democrats. Most of us have understood that the mainstream media is an arm of the Democrat party for a couple decades or longer. Welcome to the realization.
Not at all surprised. Merely sufficiently offended to write this column.
I think this is among the most vital info for me. And i am glad reading your article.
But want to remark on some general things, The
website style is perfect, the articles is really nice :
D. Good job, cheers