Posted on 01/26/2012 5:48:34 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
After nearly a week on the defensive, CNN's John King reports tonight that Newt Gingrich's claim about offering witnesses to ABC News in his defense — to rebut the network's interview with his second wife, Marianne Gingrich — was not true.
"Tonight, after persistent questioning by our staff, the Gingrich campaign concedes now Speaker Gingrich was wrong — both in his debate answer, and in our interview yesterday," King said on tonight's edition of John King USA. "Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond says the only people the Gingrich campaign offered to ABC were his two daughters from his first marriage."
An important victory for John King in his ongoing effort to justify last Thursday's confrontation.
I take issue with the declarative "not true" -- it is quite possible that there were indeed several friends willing to come forward, and yet the Gingrich campaign only "offered" the daughters for an interview. The latter does not disprove the former.
No it won't. I can't wait until he lets loose on Obama. It is going to be delicious.
He’d better clear this up, one way of another, no mealy mouthing.
Lying and credibility are at issue, not opinion.
Politico is in big financial trouble. It’s losing visitors and money.
It would be good for our side if FReepers stopped posting garbage from Politico.
It was just about sex; aren’t politicians allowed private lives? Guess only if they’re Dems.
YAAAAAWWWWN......
Call me when the Speaker responds...
BTW, if there’s a SHREAD of validity to this story, it’ll come up in the next debate....right up front...
...just like last time....
and I am certain that we ALL recall how last time went..
RLTW
—————Politico is in big financial trouble.-—————
Do you have a link on that?
-——————It would be good for our side if FReepers stopped posting garbage from Politico.———————
Noted and I will try to remember.
I would hope you would say this more often to others as well.(and I could probably use a reminder myself every now and then. It’s easy to forget!) There are times when I myself feel that we freepers don’t treat the media enough like the enemy that they clearly are.
(Caution: language)
No, it isn't. Who gives a crap????
Talk about picking fly shit out of pepper...can we PLEASE talk instead about things that will impact our country as we move forward, instead of constantly look back?
As for John King, ignore the little turd.
No, it isn't. Who gives a crap????
Talk about picking fly shit out of pepper...can we PLEASE talk instead about things that will impact our country as we move forward, instead of constantly looking back?
As for John King, ignore the little turd.
Still nitpicking. That others would come forward and that ABC had not been given names doesn't mean he lied.
Yep, they are playing with words and third-party inferences (e.g., most people may be ready to produce affidavits confirming the account, but not necessarily "offer to do an interview" with ABC, etc.).
It's not surprising that WaPo's Politico is using words and snippets that will try to exonerate one of their own media (CNN, ABC etc.) "reporters" to continue the "Newt lied" meme, while the story itself has been public, so it didn't even need all the commotion. Talk about tempest in a tea pot:
From No-Fault Newt - WSJ, by James Taranto, 2012 January 20
As Mrs. Gingrich told the story, the then-speaker informed her over the phone that he wanted a divorce. "I said to him, 'Newt, we've been married a long time.' And he said, 'Yes. But you want me all to yourself. Callista doesn't care what I do.' "
Mrs. Gingrich: "Oh, he was asking to have an open marriage and I refused."
There is also evidence that the Gingriches' marriage had been troubled for years before the split. National Review's Robert Costa notes a 1999 Associated Press report on their separation, which revealed some background:
Gingrich, he said, came back to Georgia to find his home emptied out. Browning said the pair maintained separate residences for six years ..... < snip > < snip > ..... The interview aired on "Nightline" some 90 minutes after the debate ended, and the bombshell turned out to be a dud. The supposed big revelation — that "he wanted an open marriage," as she, not he, put it — turned out in context to be trivial.
< snip > ..... It's unclear from Marianne Gingrich's account whether Mr. Gingrich actually offered to remain married in exchange for tolerance of his infidelity, or if this was merely her inference. In either case, there is an enormous difference between offering such an arrangement as a "compromise" to a spouse who does not wish to divorce, which is what Mr. Gingrich appears to have done, and flat-out asking for an open marriage.
Gingrich met and started dating Callista (with intent to marry after finalizing the divorce) in 1993, 6 years after separation from Marianne (so Callista was not a "home-wrecker" or a "chased intern"), just when he was busy launching the Gingrich Revolution of 1994 and working on passing Contract With America and welfare and other reforms, while fighting 84 frivolous unfounded ethics charges, which took most of 1995-1998. Newt hardly had the time to finally settle his personal life by going through the divorce with Marianne (ex-wife-to-be) and marrying Callista (wife-in-waiting), which he did immediately upon resigning from Congress.
In contrast, during the same period of time, Marianne (who was financially supported by Newt all through the separation, with all the assets - earned by Newt from books and speeches - held in the accounts in her name) was openly saying how she would undermine and destroy Gingrich's career "with one interview" if he dared leave her and run for higher office. Some "wife" she was, eh?
I can only assume but, if anything, I doubt that since 1993 Newt has ever "cheated" on his bride-to-be Callista with his wife-on-paper ex-wife-to-be Marianne.
More timeline / chronology, ref:
The Inner Quest of Newt Gingrich (1995: Marianne Promised To "Undermine Everything" For Newt) - FR, post #143, 2012 January 18
Ok, so what we have is this:
He is 16 and his (to be wife) was his teacher and 24. They get married shortly after he turns 18. Have a life, after years the marriage is not working, wife wants a separation when she finds out she may have cancer, surgery is done and she is fine. She demanded he bring the divorce papers to the hospital, she just wanted the marriage over.
During the separation Gingrich meets the second wife, they get married. Marriage falls part, they keep trying finally file for separation (six years) at the end of those six years Gingrich meets wife three.
Divorce is finalized he marries wife three, became a repentant man, converted to Catholicism, and decides to run for president.
Not sure, abandoned wives, adultery (with in the church maybe but not in a secular sense) actually happened.
You are being too logical... :-)
I am sure that was given a serious consideration by the RC / Roman Catholic Chucrh which granted Gingrich the annulments.
Of course, trying to claim that on political circuit would bring Newt the full Herman Cain treatment, so his stance on this - to paraphrase, I regret the things I have done in the past in my private life and have asked for forgiveness - makes a lot of sense and, in theory, has (or should have) inoculated him from these kinds of attack, but it's a silly season and all is fair in love and war...
Sorry, no link for that.
The article appeared on FR a few weeks back. But I bet abb might have the article on file. Let’s ask.
Hello abb:
Do you have the article that talked about Politico losing money and visitors?
I didn’t see this before, but sure enough from a month ago!
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/as-political-season-heats-up-politicos-web-traffic-cools-down/
As political season heats up, Politico’s Web traffic cools down
Go Newt Go! Don’t let the losers grind you down!
Go Newt Go! Don’t let the losers grind you down!
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.