...So, it's ok once again to be concerned about the personal, private, in the bedroom, lives of politicans again?
Because you taught us that that being concerned about that kind of thing was bad, bad, bad when it involved John Edwards and Bill Clinton.
So, I'm confused.
Please explain.
Very Truly Yours,
America
They hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a butter knife. Ed Morrisey writes:
If Newt so lacked the "moral character" for the Presidency, why did it take Marianne eight months to tell us? Her relative silence in 2011 gave voters the impression that she had nothing to add to the debate over who should represent the GOP in the presidential race. It's also unfair to her former stepdaughters who have been working tirelessly for their father for the last several weeks to help broaden Newt's appeal, and for Newt's grandchildren who have to hear about this now. It's also a large dollop of hypocrisy from the national news media who ignored reports of an ongoing affair involving John Edwards during the 2008 presidential campaign itself, complete with love child, until the National Enquirer ended up scooping everyone else. Suddenly a 12-year-old affair is prime-time news? It's hard to come to any other conclusion that the party affiliation makes a big difference.
Professor Jacobsen points out the obvious "hackery" of the interview with Gingrich's second wife:
There were only two sensational aspects of Marianne’s statement, neither of which ABC News tried to put in context or challenge.
First, Marianne stated that Newt wanted an “open marriage.” Ross never attempted to clarify whether Newt used that term or whether that was Marianne’s interpretation. While Ross noted Newt’s denial at the debate, he made no mention of the context which would have raised questions as to Marianne’s story.
And:
Second, Marianne stated that Newt asked for a divorce after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. Again, Ross did nothing to challenge the statement even though James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal reported earlier in the day that Marianne’s account was not consistent with an account she gave to the Associated Press in July 2000:
We would like to raise a note of caution about Marianne Gingrich’s credibility. According to both Esquire in 2010 and ABC in 2012, she, like Mrs. Romney, was diagnosed with MS in 1998. But according to a July 2000 Associated Press dispatch, she had not yet received the diagnosis even then.
On the two key inflammatory statements made against Newt, ABC News presented the statements without challenging his accuser based on readily available public information casting doubt on her version of events.
I'm not supporting Gingrich at this time - based on my belief that we need someone with proven executive experience - but I think Gingrich showed some real leadership ability in his response to the first question in last night's debate in South Carolina:
Also, wouldn't it be nice to have an articulate President.
Posts
