Posted on 01/18/2012 6:58:25 PM PST by Lakeshark
From Drudge:
"Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.
But now a “civil war” has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!
ABCNEWS suits determined it would be “unethical” to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.
A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.
Well now that this is out there, and we have no idea what the revelations are, isn’t the damage done?
**snip**
Howard Kurtz, who is pretty keyed in on media stuff, tweets:
I’m told Gingrich’s ex-wife says nothing to ABC she hasn’t said before — but simply saying it on camera makes it a big television story
If Kurtz is right and the ex-wife has nothing new to say, I predict a backlash in favor of Newt.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
|
|
More: Robert Costa of NRO tweets: “Newt World tells me ABC intvu is “retread” of Esquire piece. Negotiations have been going on since Tues. Leak to Drudge sped up airing”
Something to think about – If Drudge doesn’t report this, it sits until after S.C. and is less of a big deal. Drudge is tight with Romney advisor (Matthew Rhoades)and has helped Romney with coverage in 2007 as McCain surging (as reported by Jim Geraghty) and 2011 (as reported by Ben Smith). Not saying Romney campaign involved, but fits Drudge pattern.
Now it all makes sense: Insider Advantage – Newt up 3 pts in SC (h/t Dynamism in Tip Line)
She gave an interview awhile back and it was a bunch of BS. I read the interview and there was nothing to it. This is just a desparate attempt to stop Newt’s momentum. The Dems are desparate to run agains’t Willard.
If, indeed, they have truly damaging goods on him, they may not want to do anything to get him out of the race prior to SC in order to prevent the concentration of the more conservative end of the party against Romney. With him in, it is split more ways, thereby increasing the odds of others dropping out (followed by the bomb they are preparing), and Romney having a higher percentage.
just submitted this:
*****************
SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE
Promoting ABC in its efforts at personal destruction of (Republican) candidates (with old tired news) using disgruntled ex’s is beneath you Drudge -— you just lost your position as my homepage. I may or may not be back.
Precisely.
Thanks very much, Lakeshark.
Yes. Demonic-rats want Romney and GOP-E and Romney want Romney.
ALL FEAR NEWT GINGRICH!
GO NEWT!
When will Mush Mouth Ross Interview the Daughters? Probably Sunday Morning
Perhaps it always was, and veering to the right was the aberration? Look at the heavyhanded Federalism present from the very beginning.
Dixicrats, with all their racist baggage but with all their inherent traditionalism, conservatism and preference for small, unobtrusive government, are what ultimately gave us a conservative Republican Party, beginning to build with Nixon in 68 and culminating with Reagan. It's been downhill since.
Southern evangelicals are derided now. It's code for former Dixiecrat. The party is returning to its roots.
It's waiting for her in an account in the Cayman islands.
I think you mean "beginning to build with Goldwater in 64".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.