Video: Gingrich rips CNN moderator for asking about his ex-wife, of course

posted at 9:01 pm on January 19, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite. BuzzFeed cynically titles this exchange, “Gingrich Wins The GOP Debate In The First Five Minutes.” Really? He won a policy debate with the sort of paint-by-numbers media-bashing grandstanding that literally everyone knew was coming? If that’s enough to win a Republican presidential debate these days, we’re in worse shape than I thought.

Let’s face it: The real winner of this debate is Mitt Romney for saying he’s lived in “the real streets of America.” Wait, what?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Frankly, I didn’t like this segment, but I’ve never gotten a huge kick out of Newt tweaking the media to be honest. It’s not like its very hard, you just have to be willing to do it.

What really turned me off though was his response that, “It’s not true,” followed by assertions he could prove it.

So, his wife is lying about him asking for an open marriage? And how can he prove this, was Calista on the speaker phone or something?

Yes CNN shouldn’t have asked, but I don’t like how he handled it, and that little remark left a bad taste in my mouth.

WolvenOne on January 19, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Well said.

Allahpundit on January 19, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Thanks!

Rational Thought on January 19, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Does anyone really think the Obama campaign is just going to let this go?

V7_Sport on January 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Newt is right. Starting the debate with that was just lame. And a waste of time.

Dongemaharu on January 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM

These MSM Biased attacks on Team Right,and Newts
Retalation is long overdo!!

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 10:15 PM

I for one will be happy when this is over. Unfortunately I fear it is already over. We definitely need to stop eating our own. lets go after Obama. I’m lucky I live in Ca. where my vote won’t matter because I can’t bring myself to vote for Newt…

sandee on January 19, 2012 at 10:15 PM

America loves tough…Hillary, Reagan, Thatcher, Jax from ‘Sons of Anarchy’. If Newt can stand up to the media, he can stand up to the Democrats, Congress, Al Queda, and our other nations.

Deep Timber on January 19, 2012 at 10:16 PM

America loves tough…Hillary, Reagan, Thatcher, Jax from ‘Sons of Anarchy’. If Newt can stand up to the media, he can stand up to the Democrats, Congress, Al Queda, and our other nations.

Deep Timber on January 19, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Until he doesn’t, like in 1998 when he quit in the middle of his term.

haner on January 19, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Newt’s pandering to the crowd reminds me of much from “Thank You For Smoking”, where the lobbyist was showing how to win an argument without ever actually having to prove you’re right.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 10:17 PM

That’s gonna leave a mark.

Ol’ John King was looking decidedly uncomfortable.

AZfederalist on January 19, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Basically, Newt just said F-U. I know, he’s guilty, and today is the day we’re all supposed to reflect on that. But F-U is really the only answer. Good for him.

bernverdnardo1 on January 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Hopey Weighs In!!
==================

markknoller tweeted:
********************

While his GOP rivals debated in SC,

Pres Obama was telling supporters in NYC that

“I am very confident about our prospects” for re-election.

Story metadata:
Submitted 3 mins ago from twitter.com/markknoller by editor

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Newt is a cheating douchebag. I’m ashamed of my fellow family values Republicans for defending this piece of s***. They are worse hypocrites than supporters of Al Gore and his 10 million megawatt mansion.

BocaJuniors on January 19, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Yes…Newt knew this was going to come up..
He had to have an answer..
His answer was spot on…..

Electrongod on January 19, 2012 at 10:19 PM

It’s about d*mn time,that GOP stops rolling over,
on the MSM Narrational Attempt Operative Missions!!

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 10:19 PM

While his GOP rivals debated in SC,

Pres Obama was telling supporters in NYC that

“I am very confident about our prospects” for re-election.

Story metadata:
Submitted 3 mins ago from twitter.com/markknoller by editor

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I’m not surprised he feels confident. He owns the media and is a pro at destroying his opponents…

sandee on January 19, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Newt is a cheating douchebag. I’m ashamed of my fellow family values Republicans for defending this piece of s***. They are worse hypocrites than supporters of Al Gore and his 10 million megawatt mansion.

BocaJuniors on January 19, 2012 at 10:19 PM

And you are perfect?

Pragmatic on January 19, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Newt is a cheating douchebag. I’m ashamed of my fellow family values Republicans for defending this piece of s***. They are worse hypocrites than supporters of Al Gore and his 10 million megawatt mansion.

BocaJuniors on January 19, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Funny. I don’t remember Newt trying to screw me….

WryTrvllr on January 19, 2012 at 10:21 PM

“I am very confident about our prospects” for re-election.

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM

He was very confident in Nov. 2010. too.
He lives in a different world.

Electrongod on January 19, 2012 at 10:21 PM

But he knew it was coming. Any one of you guys could have prepared an equally sharp media attack. We’re giving him tons of credit here for the single easiest question he’ll ever get. It’d be like if King had asked him, “Are terrorists bad?” and Newt had unloaded with a “damn right they’re bad!” monologue. True enough, but — c’mon.

Allahpundit on January 19, 2012 at 9:44 PM

This is why I respect you AP. It was a planned performance and Newt never attempted to answer.

I also have a real problem with Newt dragging his children and grandchildren into this mess and using them for cover.

JPeterman on January 19, 2012 at 10:22 PM

There’s a limit to the utility of tubthumping the media for their manifold sins and weaknesses. The ability to do that has little to do with leadership. Gingrich lacks focus and always has; he’d be better than Obama, but not terribly effective. I do think he would, if he had a Republican Congress, go further in fully repealing Obamacare than the other remaining candidates would. I think he’d have to be poked and prodded along by movement conservatives in Congress.

J.E. Dyer on January 19, 2012 at 10:23 PM

He takes on the media directly because it’s the easiest thing to do to earn points on the right. There’s no surer applause line, ever. So he rolled it out here, and sure enough: APPLAUSE!

Allahpundit on January 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM

If you get applause, you must being doing something wrong! Right?

Any Good points made effectively in a debate must be just pandering.

/

WhatNot on January 19, 2012 at 10:23 PM

I didn’t care about Clinton playing cigar games, but I did care about him lying under oath.

I don’t care about Newt’s sexual escapades either. He can shack up with 20 women for all I care as long as he doesn’t start spitting on the Constitution that he swore to uphold.

Marital fidelity is just something I don’t care about in a politician.

ButterflyDragon on January 19, 2012 at 10:23 PM

First of all AP is just flat wrong on his take. We, the conservative voters, want a fighter for our side.(1) We do not need another manager who will nibble the edges. Newt shows that he will not put up with false premises posed by the media.(2) How many of you are stupid enough to get into someone else’s divorce and declare what is true and what is false? Only the left wing media would do that and then only if it were conservatives involved. Brian Ross is a slimy left wing hack and he couldn’t care less bout fairness.(3) Newt was after Clinton for LYING under oath and not for adultery. You sycophants that keep saying this over and over are just like the idiots that say Palin is a quitter when you all know the truth. But hey, this is the internet and you can say anything you want whether it’s true or not.(4) I like Mitt and would vote for him in a heart beat over BHO but he is not gong to change this country enough to make any difference. Newt will. (5) Santorum made a fool of himself with his little boy pique and thin skin attitude. All he can talk about is his pro-life stand and his puny record in Congress.(6) Paul, go home.

inspectorudy on January 19, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Does anyone really think the Obama campaign is just going to let this go?

V7_Sport on January 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Of course not. Just like they won’t let go of Romney’s Bain experience and Wall Street connection (what do you think the whole OWS thing was about?) as well as Romneycare. Just like they won’t let go of Santorum’s social conservative viewpoints and any dirt they find in his background. Just like they won’t let go of Ron Paul’s wacky foreign policy viewpoints. Just like they won’t let go of any dirt on any candidate that the Republican party would nominate. If you are looking for someone above reproach whom the Demorats won’t be able to attack, there isn’t anyone, anywhere who qualifies. Even when Christ himself was on earth, the pharisees and sadducees were able to get disreputable men to level false accusations against Him. … and you think we can find someone who would pass a purity test against a determined enemy?

This is typical Obama field-clearing politics. It’s how he won almost all of his political races. 2008 was a fluke because the Republicans nominated a guaranteed loser, so he didn’t have to clear the field, although the attacks on Palin were certainly designed to do that as well as the early NYT story about the alleged McCain affair.

AZfederalist on January 19, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Newt Gingrich the man who supported DEDE the gay marriage supporter and the man who advocates adultery.

Mormontheman on January 19, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Not really impressed with Allah about Newt. Meh. But the first hour of the CNN debate was certainly something to watch….especially during the first five minute of on-the-air spanking of King witnessed by millions. Sweet. Now, I need to find the 2nd half of the debate after returning home and see how that half fared.

Kokonut on January 19, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Can anyone here say that Obama cheats on his wife????
No.
But there is something else about Obama that is destroying this country.
What can that be?
Does Newt possess this?

Electrongod on January 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Newt’s night stick…!

… I think I just heard half of the Country stand up and cheer for someone finally expressing our outrage over our “Free and Independent Press”!

Newt’s numbers will rise because of this…

… more so as a referendum to the corrupt biased media in the tank for the Left and Obowma.

Seven Percent Solution on January 19, 2012 at 10:28 PM

I remember during W’s eight years many times wanting to see him unload on the media in a dignified, but serious way–which Newt did tonight. But W never would or did, always shot blanks.

Bigger sight scope now…Newt has added 2 extremely important weapons to his arsenol this week–Perry and Palin. If he can get both to do rallys for/with him in the next couple of weeks, Newt can win Florida also (yes, I think he’ll squeak by in SC).

Deep Timber on January 19, 2012 at 10:30 PM

The outrageous outrage is laughable. ‘Hey, don’t you DARE ask me about my questionable character and sordid affairs…bad media, bad!’

He didn’t feel that way when the Lewinsky affair blew up in Clinton’s face. Such a gigantic hypocrite.

changer1701 on January 19, 2012 at 10:34 PM

So what’s Gingrich going to do if he wins the nomination and the Democrats (including the MSM, of course) go after him with a hit piece on his personal life every hour and twice on prime-time? It’ll be saturation coverage, an incessant drumbeat played by a too-loud billion-dollar band, drowning out any real discussion and debate of the issues and diverting attention away from the abject failure that is the presidency of Barack Obama.

Like many of you, Newt seems to think a few Lincoln-Douglas-like debates with President Obama and he’ll have this whole election thing wrapped up. Does Gingrich (or you Newt supporters) think for one moment President Obama would ever give him the opportunity? Obama is the incumbent president. He’s the one who dictates the terms of the debate. If he chose, he could elect not to debate Gingrich at all. Who but we on the Right would protest such a decision? By now, the Progressive rank-and-file must be hip to the fact that Obama is not the intellectual shining light they had been led to believe. They would wholeheartedly support the strategic retreat a refusal to debate would represent.

All that said, I’ll vote for Gingrich if he wins the nomination. Not happily, mind you, but I’ll do it. I’m a Republican and I want to win.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Gingrich, Palin & Perry are set to embark on the “Standing Ovation for Philandering Pigs” tour of the south.

JA on January 19, 2012 at 10:37 PM

OMG – I think I may be falling into the Newt camp after that clip. Come on Rick S. do something fast or lose me forever.

mechkiller_k on January 19, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Well, this is the 1st debate I have watched at length. On balance, I think better of Mitt than before. I certainly admire Newt’s skill at rhetoric, and his big ideas, but Romney strikes me as the better CEO, and that’s what we need. A strongly conservative Congress, coupled with Mitt’s managerial skill, will get us where we need to go. And, I am a TEA party member, having been one since the beginning.

tngmv on January 19, 2012 at 10:39 PM

But he knew it was coming. Any one of you guys could have prepared an equally sharp media attack. We’re giving him tons of credit here for the single easiest question he’ll ever get. It’d be like if King had asked him, “Are terrorists bad?” and Newt had unloaded with a “damn right they’re bad!” monologue. True enough, but — c’mon.

Allahpundit on January 19, 2012 at 9:44 PM

AP, love to read your takes…but. Newt has been the best debater in every one of these GOP moments. Period. Every. One. Of. Them. What he did tonight he’s been doing all along either to the media, moderator, Obama, or another candidate on stage.

Deep Timber on January 19, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Awesome moment. Allahpundit casts it aside as lame, of course.

nicktjacob on January 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM

He takes on the media directly because it’s the easiest thing to do to earn points on the right. There’s no surer applause line, ever. So he rolled it out here, and sure enough: APPLAUSE!

Allahpundit on January 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM

If it’s such an easy thing to do why aren’t more of the candidates doing it? Instead they fall in line in these debates and get sucked into talking about the issues that the moderators want to keep them focused on which is anything but the important issues. If it was so easy to stand up to the media, more of them would be doing it, wouldn’t they?

saspepper on January 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM

He didn’t feel that way when the Lewinsky affair blew up in Clinton’s face. Such a gigantic hypocrite.

changer1701 on January 19, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Once more, real slow for the slow libs in our midst. The Lewinsky scandal was NOT about extramarital sex. I’ll say that one more time, pay attention: the Lewinsky scandal was NOT about extramarital sex.

Now, pay attention, this is important. You apparently have missed this over the past what, 15 years? Paying attention? Look close:

The Lewinsky scandal was about the fact that the President of the United States committed perjury. One more time: The Lewinsky scandal was about the fact that the President of the United States committed PERJURY.

Again, for the slow libs: Perjury is a felonious crime in which one lies, while under oath. Again, read this real slowly and carefully, you seem to keep missing this: Bill Clinton lied under oath. Lying under oath is perjury. Perjury is a felony. A felony is a high crime. High crimes are a justification for impeachment. Once more: Bill Clinton did not get impeached over extramarital sex with Monica Lewinsky: He got impeached because he lied under oath to a grand jury. Which is a felony. Which is a crime you or I or Martha Stewart would be convicted and serve time for.

Gads, liberals are dense.

AZfederalist on January 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Newt’s public spanking of the moderator’s attack was appropriate. All too often, I’ve witnessed GOP leaders choose to stay “Above it all”, as if they’re in front of a boardroom full of suits where everyone speaks in measured, unruffled tones.

Carl Rove eventually admitted in an on air interview that Bush’s lack of response to attacks worked against him. So it’s refreshing to see a candidate stop acting like a lofty, limp d..k and take the measure of the enemy.

Louis on January 19, 2012 at 10:44 PM

While I do understand that the 0bamaGanda Media is demanding that I be shocked by the report coming from his shrew, the thing that shocks me most is that he ever married her. That lady female has issues!

Wasn’t Reagan married twice? Also, why isn’t there any reporting of how 0bama’s wife often leaves on vacations without her hubby? I guess they believe that a happy marriage is measured by degrees of separation.

Finally, comparing Newt’s relationships to Cigarmans is comparing apples to oranges. You see, Newt MARRIED his women, and he wasn’t found to be in contempt of any court proceeding.

Cigarman left his to be chewed up by his ‘Sluts and Nuts’ propaganda managers.

DannoJyd on January 19, 2012 at 10:45 PM

I would rather go with Mitt and not have to defend a serial adulterer and liar but that’s just me.

echosyst on January 19, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I’m not going to defend him. If by some miracle they can haul him over the finish line… they can defend him themselves.

Murf76 on January 19, 2012 at 10:45 PM

The outrageous outrage is laughable. ‘Hey, don’t you DARE ask me about my questionable character and sordid affairs…bad media, bad!’

He didn’t feel that way when the Lewinsky affair blew up in Clinton’s face. Such a gigantic hypocrite.
changer1701 on January 19, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Memory Lane:

Headline: Gingrich Orchestrated GOP Ads Recalling Clinton-Lewinsky Affair

The GOP’s multimillion dollar ad campaign invoking President Clinton’s relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky was devised by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and tested before more than three dozen groups of likely voters before Republicans unleashed the assault, party sources said yesterday.

In reviving the presidential sex scandal just one week before Election Day, Gingrich and his chief strategists aimed to energize their most loyal supporters, whose enthusiasm appeared to be waning after House conservatives lost the budget fight and the Clinton scandal fell off the front pages.

In April, Gingrich told supporters, “I will never again, as long as I am speaker, make a speech without commenting on this topic,” referring to the presidential scandal….

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 10:46 PM

I think you don’t just go after JugEars…I think you go after the MSM equally! They always go out of their way to pull down the GOP’s pants! Yet, they are the suspenders of the party with no pants!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM

More:

On the other side, amid reports the GOP was thinking of pulling the ads, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh urged listeners to call the National Republican Congressional Committee and complain. One unlucky staffer there received angry messages on a pager such as: “Don’t pull the ads, you wimp.”

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM

But he knew it was coming. Any one of you guys could have prepared an equally sharp media attack. We’re giving him tons of credit here for the single easiest question he’ll ever get. It’d be like if King had asked him, “Are terrorists bad?” and Newt had unloaded with a “damn right they’re bad!” monologue. True enough, but — c’mon.

Allahpundit on January 19, 2012 at 9:44 PM

And King and his staff should have known that Newt would be ready – anxious even – to rip them a new one on that question. Any moron would have seen it coming.

AND THEY WENT AHEAD AND ASKED THAT QUESTION ANYWAY!

They handed him the ball and went off to the sideline to watch him run the touchdown.
How smart can they be?

Solaratov on January 19, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Allah, I would agree that CNN and that moron King pitched a predictable hanging curve ball. What I’m not clear on is what would you recommend Gingrich do? Hot Air readers use this a resource because we loathe the MSM like CNN. And we loathe them because they are biased, corrupt and are merely enabling stenographers for the the Obama administration and the Democratic Party. King and the CNN producers chose to ask the question. Gingrich did a masterful job of articulating the view of a majority of Hot Air Nation What did he do wrong? So would Mittens have done a better job?

HatfieldMcCoy on January 19, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Newt was impassioned, forceful and right on.

We knew this election cycle would be vicious beyond anything we can remember, its good to hammer the biased little minions early.

Speakup on January 19, 2012 at 10:52 PM

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I’m not surprised he feels confident. He owns the media and is a pro at destroying his opponents…

sandee on January 19, 2012 at 10:20 PM

sandee:Agreed,but,as long as the MSM supports Hopey!:)

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Remember when righteous indignation required the indignant to be righteous? Yeah. Those were good times.

Well said.

Allahpundit on January 19, 2012 at 9:16 PM

But it’s not infidelity. It’s Newt, happenin’ swinger. And that’s harder to take, because it’s a whole new poster. Infidelity is hand wringing and a moment in the sun; swinger involves big gold medallions and a person you don’t want in your living room.

Axe on January 19, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Don’t underestimate the power of counter-punching Obama’s Royal Guards in the liberal media. George H. W. Bush basically assured himself of winning the 1988 election the night he told Dan Rather where he could stick it during a live TV interview.

Doug Piranha on January 19, 2012 at 10:56 PM

He got impeached because he lied under oath to a grand jury. Which is a felony. Which is a crime you or I or Martha Stewart would be convicted and serve time for.

Gads, liberals are dense.

AZfederalist on January 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM

You’re being disingenuous. Clinton was impeached because he lied about having sex with a woman not his wife under oath to a grand jury.

It’s about context. There is no way–no way–Republicans would’ve succeeded in removing Clinton from office under those circumstances. The perception was–and is–that Clinton was forced to lie in order to save his marriage. To the public, the whole thing had the feel of a setup verging on entrapment. Another thing, too: while the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal was playing out, then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was telling one of his now-former mistresses that he preferred oral sex because then he could say, if questioned under oath, that he didn’t have intercourse.

So yes, in the end the Clinton impeachment imbroglio was about illicit sex, with more than a little hypocrisy thrown in, and Americans were having none of it.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 10:56 PM

“I award you no points, and God have mercy on your soul.”

Lord of the Wings on January 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Gingrich knows how to work a room. He had that audience going right along with him several times tonight. If you gave the exact same words to Santorum, he couldn’t deliver them in a way that would get that kind of reaction. That is one of Newt’s strong points.

And yes, I would like more real content and answers from these guys, including Gingrich, but I can’t deny what is effective. Can you act that way in the general? No, but it may win you the SC primary.

McDuck on January 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM

NickDeringer on January 19, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Teaming up with his own ex-wife and giving her all the time in the world to spew whatever she wants to before a crucial election for him to win and even dripping statements out too, is pretty pretty bad.. By the time it gets to Obama vs. Gingrich’s first debate, I have no doubt believing he will be a ferocious opponent to take on. If they think they know where ‘This Side Up’ is on the Newt Gingrich package … they are sorely mistaken.

The Nerve on January 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Newt is so racist towards white people. Did you hear how he called John King by his first name?

The Notorious G.O.P on January 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM

OK, I think my previous content didn’t post for some reason. Anyway, I would like more content from these guys, yes, but on the other hand, I can’t deny when something works. Newt worked that crowd beautifully tonight.

McDuck on January 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Newt missed a great opportunity to really score a TKO on the media. He should have said, “John, if my name were Kennedy, or Clinton, or Edwards, you would never have asked me that question. Therefore, I am not going to answer it. Period. Now can we please move on and discuss what the American people are concerned about right now?”

(h/t to a commenter at Ace’s for the comparison)

rockmom on January 19, 2012 at 11:02 PM

The questions about Gingrich’s marriage should be expected.

For one thing, Obama has never won any election except by using his opponent’s divorces. It might be ABC and CNN that are doing the scut work, but everyone knows they will do anything they can to support their candidate.

If they don’t do this for him they’ll surely be singled out as “racists”

As for the debate, I never watch until it’s over. I don’t like to see Republicans beating each other over the head for the amusement of the political class.

Will the best man win? I don’t know. I’ll vote for whoever it is as long as his name is not Obama.

schmuck281 on January 19, 2012 at 11:06 PM

I’m just a voter, but I get the distinct impression, I’m supposed to feel ashamed that Newt said about the press what we all know to be true. That we’re supposed to be so sophisticated, that we’d roll our eyes at the obvious nature of Newt’s reaction. So it’s obvious, granted, so it’s something that the base wants said, but said on a national forum in a format the media can’t hide or deflect. Millions saw this tonight, and how many of those.. have never seen it openly expressed before.. not everyone has the net,.. not everyone reads a paper or watchs the news.. I’m lower working class,.. lots of us fall into the news void.

I’m saying, the only hope many of us have, that it will ever change with the horrific unfairness we get at the media’s hands.. is if in a national campaign like this, it gets dragged out into the daylight, and not quietly discussed amongst ourselves.

CNN will never admit on it’s own, let alone MSNBC that they’re actively working to get Obama elected.

We need a national level firestorm of attention to it. One that even liberals can’t ignore, and will have to address. It’s a given Americans don’t trust our own media anymore,.. what’s not addressed is how to change it.. any legislation would be a nitemare, with a host of 1st Amendment issues.. so the only workable solution, is to force the media to admit they suck at basic fairness, and police themselves.

What the sophisticated see as pandering, us more common folk see as a chance to have our issues addressed. True the economy must come3 first, but is there no room to ask why the media refuse to give both sides a fair hearing… no more 3 liberals discussing why the GOP sucks, but twoconservatives against two liberals, taking on why both sides fail at what they do wrong.

The media could gain alot of trust back by just being the fair umpire, instead of one of the uniformed players.

A pipe ndream, that I can watch any news show,.. and not have my principles insulted, or called racist, sexist.. half this country is sick of being the butt of the medias jokes..

If slapping down the press in a national debate can get that ball rolling..

I can hope can’t I?

mark81150 on January 19, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Frankly, Allah, I cannot get enough of Newt’s MSM media bashing. I like it I surely do!

Sherman1864 on January 19, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Re.AZfederalist

Of course not. Just like they won’t let go of Romney’s Bain experience and Wall Street connection (what do you think the whole OWS thing was about?)

I think OWS was about a bunch of spoiled socialists demanding a handout.

If you are looking for someone above reproach whom the Demorats won’t be able to attack, there isn’t anyone, anywhere who qualifies.

Sure, does that make the whole “open marriage” thing OK? Or leaving a wife who had been diagnosed with cancer to move on to leave a wife who had been diagnosed with MS?

Even when Christ himself was on earth, the pharisees and sadducees were able to get disreputable men to level false accusations against Him.

Please, Neut Gingrich is no Jesus Christ. (Besides, Christ couldn’t get the Jewish vote in FLA)

2008 was a fluke because the Republicans nominated a guaranteed loser, so he didn’t have to clear the field,

I think you underestimate Obama and the willful blindness of his followers. Regardless, lets not nominate another guaranteed loser.

V7_Sport on January 19, 2012 at 11:10 PM

And you are perfect?

Pragmatic on January 19, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Are you trying hard to be stupid? Or does it come naturally?

Of course I’m not perfect. But I don’t defend pious adulterers who play the victim, whether it’s Clinton or Gingrich.

Funny. I don’t remember Newt trying to screw me….

WryTrvllr on January 19, 2012 at 10:21 PM

You’re probably not a female staffer of his.

BocaJuniors on January 19, 2012 at 11:11 PM

You’re being disingenuous. Clinton was impeached because he lied about having sex with a woman not his wife under oath to a grand jury.

It’s about context. There is no way–no way–Republicans would’ve succeeded in removing Clinton from office under those circumstances. The perception was–and is–that Clinton was forced to lie in order to save his marriage. …

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Speaking of disingenuous, that grand jury to which he lied was investigating a sexual harassment charge against Bubba Clinton. What he did by lying to the Grand Jury was nothing about saving his marriage (you think Hillary didn’t know?), it was about saving his sorry a$$ from the harassment charge.

Yeah, the media spun it the way you wrote, but that only provides further proof of the mainstream media being nothing but a propaganda arm of the Democrat party. It is the perception because the media has made it so, not because that is the cold hard facts of the case. Despite what you’ve been told, perception is NOT reality.

If that had been a Republican president who had committed harassment, then engaged in a Lewinsky-like affair and lied to a grand jury about it, how much sympathy would the media have for that act of perjury to “save the Republican’s marriage”? I think we have our answer in the way they are treating Newt right now.

AZfederalist on January 19, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Gads, liberals are dense.

AZfederalist on January 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM

They can’t help it, poor things. They are, after all…..liberals

Solaratov on January 19, 2012 at 11:15 PM

That was good. I think the days of Chris Cristie pr0n are gone and the days of Newt pr0n are here to stay!

El_Terrible on January 19, 2012 at 11:16 PM

So it’s refreshing to see a candidate stop acting like a lofty, limp d..k and take the measure of the enemy.

Louis on January 19, 2012 at 10:44 PM

All the candidates have warts, some with larger warts than others. Some may have some really bad warts we aren’t even aware of yet. But it looks like they are what we are going to have to work with and it now becomes necessary to pick one and rally around.

Then again, apparently, we are much better at just standing around and pissing in each others corn flakes until the cows come home. That’s a winning plan. /

Yoop on January 19, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Gads, liberals are dense.

AZfederalist on January 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM

They can’t help it, poor things. They are, after all…..liberals

Solaratov on January 19, 2012 at 11:15 PM


That.

Axe on January 19, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Newt neuters John King.

Mirimichi on January 19, 2012 at 11:23 PM

HOLY SCHMOLIES….

newt kicked butt….king looks decimated…

LOLOLOLOLOL

protecting dear leader and attacking gop

LOVE IT!!!!

cmsinaz on January 19, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Re.AZfederalist

I think OWS was about a bunch of spoiled socialists demanding a handout.

So, you think that OWS was just a spontaneous gathering of those spoiled socialists? Astroturf is much more likely. Even if it were spontaneous, the press and Obama campaign certainly seized the opportunity to use it as a foil for future attacks on Romney.

Sure, does that make the whole “open marriage” thing OK? Or leaving a wife who had been diagnosed with cancer to move on to leave a wife who had been diagnosed with MS?

First, what you have stated regarding the wife with cancer has been debunked and even his daughters have stated that story was bogus. Secondly, you aren’t listening. What I said was, it doesn’t matter who the candidate is, the media is going to find something in that candidate’s background to allow you to ask the question, “Sure does that make that whole [fill in the blank for this candidate] thing OK?”

Please, Neut Gingrich is no Jesus Christ. (Besides, Christ couldn’t get the Jewish vote in FLA)

Your reading comprehension needs an upgrade. I didn’t say Newt was Christ. [I did however expect that someone attacking my comment would use that line of attack]. What I did say was that even if we nominated Christ, our modern day pharisees and sadduccees would attack him, even if they had to make stuff up to do so.

I think you underestimate Obama and the willful blindness of his followers. Regardless, lets not nominate another guaranteed loser.

I don’t underestimate anything from that bunch. There is a guaranteed 33% base that will vote for Obama even if he is filmed mutilating small animals and sacrificing their entrails. It’s the other 66% we need to work on. The fact is that Obama, in all but his 2008 election has chosen the path of eliminating his opposition vs. actually contending with them.

I think it is far from settled that Newt, Romney, or Santorum are guaranteed losers. I fear Romney because he has too much of the accommodation trait in him. I don’t want another “Obama is an honorable man, we have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency” Republican candidate.

V7_Sport on January 19, 2012 at 11:10 PM

AZfederalist on January 19, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Who’s the Beta Boy I want for president, CF? You can’t possibly be suggesting it’s Romney; you’re a regular reader of the site so you know my feelings about him. So who?

Allahpundit on January 19, 2012 at 9:25 PM

WTH is some of you guys pouncing on Allahpundit? Heck he is running this show and you’re bugging him? I don’t care who he roots for, as long as he continues to do his job and takes over the evening round.

Just focus on the topic at hand and lay off the rest-there’s plenty of blog posts on the FP to vent frustrations and taunt other folks. Just be thankful he’s not in bed with a cold.

ProudPalinFan on January 19, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Hell?

haner on January 19, 2012 at 10:05 PM

All sins get you hell, so it’s not different in that regard.

Darth Executor on January 19, 2012 at 11:33 PM

All I was waiting for was Newt to pound the podium, wag his finger and say “But I want to say one thing to the American People I did not ask my wife for a swinger relationship with that woman – Miss Calista”

ak90049 on January 19, 2012 at 11:34 PM

You’re probably not a female staffer of his.

BocaJuniors on January 19, 2012 at 11:11 PM

So now it’s gone from having an affair with one woman – whom he married – to boinking any or all of his female staffers?

Did you pull or strain anything when you made that leap?

Solaratov on January 19, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Can anyone here say that Obama cheats on his wife????
No.
But there is something else about Obama that is destroying this country.
What can that be?
Does Newt possess this?

Electrongod on January 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Absolutely, he’s totally screwing Lady Liberty.

msupertas on January 19, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Newt is a cheating douchebag. I’m ashamed of my fellow family values Republicans for defending this piece of s***. They are worse hypocrites than supporters of Al Gore and his 10 million megawatt mansion.

BocaJuniors on January 19, 2012 at 10:19 PM

So, If he’s the nominee, you’ll be voting for that stellar family man, Barack Obama.

Uh-huh.

Wendya on January 19, 2012 at 11:41 PM

The media could gain alot of trust back by just being the fair umpire, instead of one of the uniformed players.

A pipe ndream, that I can watch any news show,.. and not have my principles insulted, or called racist, sexist.. half this country is sick of being the butt of the medias jokes..

If slapping down the press in a national debate can get that ball rolling..

I can hope can’t I?

mark81150 on January 19, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Problem is they’re being umpires, but looking away when the team that they get perks from is not fair to the opposite team, or those who have rarely a clue or give a crap but still watch the game anyway.

I am still mad and quite ticked at that play where Tebow had a nasty facemask and the referees were right next to it didn’t call it (click for the video here). Coach Fox lambasted them non-stop. We went on commercial break and he was still on them. Couldn’t care less.

Same here.

Media likes to look away at other politicians’ transgressions, political disasters and do not inform properly any bill that may have serious consequences to the country if passed into law.

Just interview the subjects and report the issue at hand and let people decide. Not even snide remarks at the end.

Yes, Shep, I am writing about you.

ProudPalinFan on January 19, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Sarah called this before it even happened:

Palin said that Gingrich, who she identified this week as the candidate she would vote for in the South Carolina primary if eligible, would ultimately benefit from the media attack.

I call them ‘dumb arses,’” she said. “They think by trotting out this old Gingrich divorce interview — that’s old news and it does feature this disgruntled ex- that claimed that it would destroy a campaign. All this does is, Sean, is incentivize conservatives and independents who are so sick of the politics of personal destruction because it’s played so selectively by the media.”

“Their target in this case, Newt,” Palin added, “is now going to soar even more because we know the game now and we just won’t put up with it. So you know, good call media. Way to go to covertly hype this, even with Gingrich opponents. For being so brilliant, they sure are dumb.

Heh. I watched a bit of the CNN post-debate coverage, and they would only show the small segment where Gingrich said he had friends who would say it’s not true and that the media has been attacking Romney and him, and would soon get to attacking Santorum and Paul… CNN WOULD NOT SHOW NEWT’S SMACKDOWN OF JOHN KING!!! Nor the audience’s standing ovation, nor John trying to pass the buck to another network after he himself asked the question.

Sarah Palin tried to warn you, John King, but you were a ‘dumb arse’ and didn’t listen to her! She’s smarter than you, John!

ITguy on January 19, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Need to add that the first link points at a non-call at a Steelers’ game; the second-the video clip-is of the game I wrote about.

Getting late, meds kickin’ in. ‘Nite all.

ProudPalinFan on January 19, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Link to the earlier HotAir story with Sarah’s warning/prediction:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/19/sarah-palin-media-overplayed-their-hand-with-gingrich/

ITguy on January 19, 2012 at 11:47 PM

It is the perception because the media has made it so, not because that is the cold hard facts of the case. Despite what you’ve been told, perception is NOT reality.

If that had been a Republican president who had committed harassment, then engaged in a Lewinsky-like affair and lied to a grand jury about it, how much sympathy would the media have for that act of perjury to “save the Republican’s marriage”? I think we have our answer in the way they are treating Newt right now.

AZfederalist on January 19, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Yeah, right. In my slow and clumsy way, even without your benevolent guidance, I think I get the difference between perception and reality–but hey, here’s a reality for you: had Clinton been removed from office as a result of the Lewinsky scandal, the will of the people would’ve been repudiated by an impeachment proceeding orchestrated for the sole purpose of trapping Clinton into giving the answer he gave. The political reality is that Republicans would’ve been viewed as staging a kind of courtroom coup d’état and the country would’ve been thrown into an uproar. Whatever else you might think, chaos is not a good thing, and neither would have been an Al Gore presidency. Bottom line: impeachment is the biggest of guns and should only be used to protect the Republic from imminent danger, not stage a partisan hit on a sitting president.

And you’re right: a Republican would’ve had a harder time of it than Clinton. And yes, Hillary certainly knew of Bill’s affairs, and I would guess they’ve stayed together for the last few decades purely out of political expediency.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 11:48 PM

So now it’s gone from having an affair with one woman – whom he married – to boinking any or all of his female staffers?

Did you pull or strain anything when you made that leap?

Solaratov on January 19, 2012 at 11:34 PM

No strain involved. One of Gingrich’s former aides has already related a (corroborated) story to the press involving an in-office affair between Gingrich and an intern (not Callista) while he was Speaker.

Do try to keep up.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 11:51 PM

I still trust Santorum more than Gingrich, but the two of them pull from roughly the same voter block, and if that block is split, Romney wins. So, voters in each state must choose who to “consolidate” around. In Iowa, that was Rick Santorum. In SC, I suspect that it will be Gingrich. In Florida, who knows?

ITguy on January 19, 2012 at 11:52 PM

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Link?

Solaratov on January 19, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Who’s the Beta Boy I want for president, CF? You can’t possibly be suggesting it’s Romney; you’re a regular reader of the site so you know my feelings about him. So who?

Allahpundit on January 19, 2012 at 9:25 PM

WTH is some of you guys pouncing on Allahpundit? Heck he is running this show and you’re bugging him? I don’t care who he roots for, as long as he continues to do his job and takes over the evening round.

Just focus on the topic at hand and lay off the rest-there’s plenty of blog posts on the FP to vent frustrations and taunt other folks. Just be thankful he’s not in bed with a cold.

ProudPalinFan on January 19, 2012 at 11:31 PM

~~~~~~~~~

Hi PPF, thanks for inviting me last night to the open thread tonight! I was slow to get over there! I think it’s so cool that AP comments, I like his snark and I did agree with his point. That’s Newt’s thing, he’s done it before and will do it again…I want more from newt than just him calling out the media…now I really understand those people who are afraid that if Newt wins the primary, this will be all we’ll hear.

ellifint on January 19, 2012 at 11:57 PM

BNurreTODAY tweeted:
——————–

Gingrich daughters were set to appear on network am shows tomorrow am… Just called to say Newt had “sufficiently answered” & cancelled.
************
************

Story metadata:
Submitted 56 mins ago from twitter.com/BNurreTODAY by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 11:57 PM

LOVE IT!!!!

cmsinaz on January 19, 2012 at 11:27 PM

cmsinaz:

CM,I’ve got all the Debate soundbites,on the Open Debate thread,
as they rolled in,btw,Morning Joe should be a hoot,in the morning!:}

canopfor on January 20, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Yeah, right. In my slow and clumsy way, even without your benevolent guidance, I think I get the difference between perception and reality

Hey, nice attempt at condescension there. “My benevolent guidance”? Isn’t that what you were trying to provide me by telling me how the Clinton affair was set up?

–but hey, here’s a reality for you: had Clinton been removed from office as a result of the Lewinsky scandal, the will of the people would’ve been repudiated by an impeachment proceeding orchestrated for the sole purpose of trapping Clinton into giving the answer he gave.

Kind of like the Watergate scandal overturned the will of the people by getting Nixon to resign? IIRC, he won his last election by a true landslide. Clinton OTOH, barely squeaked by and only because H Ross siphoned off the Republican vote. Twice.

The political reality is that Republicans would’ve been viewed as staging a kind of courtroom coup d’état and the country would’ve been thrown into an uproar. Whatever else you might think, chaos is not a good thing, and neither would have been an Al Gore presidency. Bottom line: impeachment is the biggest of guns and should only be used to protect the Republic from imminent danger, not stage a partisan hit on a sitting president.

Absolutely. It’s so much better to have a perjurer remain in office and be able to demonstrate the ability to flaunt the rule of law.

And you’re right: a Republican would’ve had a harder time of it than Clinton. And yes, Hillary certainly knew of Bill’s affairs, and I would guess they’ve stayed together for the last few decades purely out of political expediency.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Harder time of it? That’s a bit of an understatement. The Republican would have been impeached or would have resigned in disgrace. We have the historical analog as demonstration.

AZfederalist on January 20, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Hi PPF, thanks for inviting me last night to the open thread tonight! I was slow to get over there! I think it’s so cool that AP comments, I like his snark and I did agree with his point. That’s Newt’s thing, he’s done it before and will do it again…I want more from newt than just him calling out the media…now I really understand those people who are afraid that if Newt wins the primary, this will be all we’ll hear.

ellifint on January 19, 2012 at 11:57 PM

You welcome! Now that you saw we have drinking games, we pass beers around I was laying on the bed with Mr. PPF going through a little cold, tablet on HA watching the debate and bossing the kids to bed.

Nobody had hot cocoa :( Should’ve asked for one.

ProudPalinFan on January 20, 2012 at 12:02 AM

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 11:57 PM

Tee hee hee! *lulz* Good night, dude!

ProudPalinFan on January 20, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Re.AZfederalist

So, you think that OWS was just a spontaneous gathering of those spoiled socialists? Astroturf is much more likely. Even if it were spontaneous, the press and Obama campaign certainly seized the opportunity to use it as a foil for future attacks on Romney.

It was started by “adbusters in Canada and joined by the labor unions. It really doesn’t have any credibility with anyone with a triple digit IQ, even among the democrats. Regardless, OWS was not an anti-Romney thing, it was an anti capitalism thing.

First, what you have stated regarding the wife with cancer has been debunked and even his daughters have stated that story was bogus.

Gingrich, the presidential candidate and former House speaker, and his first wife, Jackie Battley, had already separated before she was hospitalized. He had filed for divorce, and she was seeking alimony and custody of their two children. And while Battley had earlier undergone cancer surgery, this time she was in the hospital recovering from surgery to remove a tumor that — according to one of the couple’s daughters — was benign.

Secondly, you aren’t listening.

No. I’m reading.

What I said was, it doesn’t matter who the candidate is, the media is going to find something in that candidate’s background to allow you to ask the question, “Sure does that make that whole [fill in the blank for this candidate] thing OK?”

Sure. So are we to expect that all this baggage isn’t going to be brought out, trotted around until people are disgusted by it? The point was; This isn’t going to go away or be brushed off by the general electorate.

Your reading comprehension needs an upgrade.

Here to fore I have been congenial and have read what you have written with due attention, no need to be pompous.

[I did however expect that someone attacking my comment would use that line of attack]

Maybe you shouldn’t see disagreement as an “attack”.

What I did say was that even if we nominated Christ, our modern day pharisees and sadduccees would attack him, even if they had to make stuff up to do so.

And my point was that they wouldn’t have to make anything up, Gingrich has a long history to draw from.

It’s the other 66% we need to work on.

That’s basically correct, I’d say the percentage was in the mid 50′s but we are agreed that we are going to have to get some of what are called “the moderates” here.

I think it is far from settled that Newt, Romney, or Santorum are guaranteed losers.

I think Gingrich and Romney present varying chances of success and will require varying amounts of work and contribution to their campaigns, which is harder then blowing off steam on hotair. I don’t think Sanatorum can win.

I fear Romney because he has too much of the accommodation trait in him.

It’s a legitimate concern. As is the worry that Gingrich has a legion of people who are willing to go on the News and talk about his bad temperament, his questionable character and his flip-flops on important issues.

I don’t want another “Obama is an honorable man, we have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency” Republican candidate.

Agreed, but above all: I want Obama out.

V7_Sport on January 20, 2012 at 12:08 AM

canopfor on January 19, 2012 at 11:57 PM

Tee hee hee! *lulz* Good night, dude!

ProudPalinFan on January 20, 2012 at 12:04 AM

ProundPalinFan:Great seeing you again,haha,night PPF:)

canopfor on January 20, 2012 at 12:08 AM

It looked like a LOT of fun! I will definitely participate next time!!! That will be the ONLY way I’ll get through the debates! Thanks!

ellifint on January 20, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Newt destroying the “media’ is exactly the right thing to do. The re one sided and in the tank for Obowma and only present one side of any argument, the side that makes conservatives look bad and democrats look good.

Remember, BJ Clinton said “the Lewinsky affair was a private matter” and the media swallowed that line whole, pun intended. As with all liberal indescretions the media cover for liberals and go out of their way to denigrate conservatives.

I reject what Newt did, I applaud him for calling out the one sided media.

dthorny on January 20, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Spin it however you want. Nobody can ever take social conservatives seriously again. This is a great day in American history.

RightOFLeft on January 20, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Gads, liberals are dense.

AZfederalist on January 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Let me know if that technique works, it looks promising but liberals really are that dense…

Alinsky on January 20, 2012 at 12:11 AM

“I award you no points, and God have mercy on your soul.”

Lord of the Wings on January 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Hahahahahahaha…

One of the best lines in any movie ever.

ButterflyDragon on January 20, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3