MY VIEW BY DON SORCHYCH | JANUARY 25, 2012
Happy Birthday – ME
Gingrich’s roundhouse punch
On this occasion, Jan. 25, my 81st birthday has arrived and this is an age when you are glad to be alive. The bad side is I have lost many dear friends. The picture previously adorning this column was taken in Colorado during Elk season by my niece Linda Bennett in about 1998. Some call it my high school picture but it is far from it. We'll use this more recent one taken a couple of years ago by Shari Jo for a while. This is a great birth date in numerology, so Happy Birthday to all with that birth date.
Will any Republicans be left standing after their current blood letting? You have to wonder. Republicans ratting on each other is causing glee among the libtards in the national media. Candidates are doing their job and arming the electorate for the upcoming presidential election.
The latest is two interviews with Newt Gingrich’s second ex-wife Marianne. She was interviewed on ABC and in the Washington Post, both obviously on the Democrat side.
Marianne said Newt asked for an open marriage so he could continue his affair with Calista, his current wife, which caused the eventual divorce. According to Marianne, Calista did not require fidelity but she did. All we need in the White House is another president with the morals of Bill Clinton.
There is a full court press against Gov. Mitt Romney aided by Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and, of course, the liberal establishment.
All the candidates are guilty of breaking President Reagan’s 11th commandment by savaging their Republican opponents. They justify this pique by claiming it is necessary so voters can make a decision with all facts at hand and before Democrats will use it against them in the national election. That is rubbish because the candidates know what they have done in life and will have defenses. It is all about egos.
In South Carolina Gingrich won a so-called stunning victory. He got 31 percent of the vote, but under South Carolina laws he was granted all 23 of the delegates.
Romney got 28 percent, Santorum 17 percent and Paul 13 percent.
The accusations of Marianne did not devastate Gingrich as was expected. He was helped by support of his two daughters and his response to the campaign inquisitor. When he was asked about Marriane’s assertions, Gingrich flew into a rage. This online discussion lays it out:
“John King, in his polite way, tried to play a little “gotcha” journalism to start off Thursday night’s presidential debate. Instead, he got burned.
“King asked candidate Newt Gingrich to respond to his ex-wife’s assertion that the candidate once asked her to accept an open marriage. This as the first question of a presidential debate? Gingrich was ready to pounce.
“I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” Gingrich said as the South Carolina audience applauded. “… To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.”
“In my book, Newt Gingrich is a philandering hypocrite who hides behind a veneer of pious propriety. This is, after all, the moral man who led the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
“But last night, in the eyes of the Republican faithful, he floored King with a roundhouse punch. (Though I couldn’t for the life of me figure out his assertion that the “elite media” are “protecting President Obama.” From what?)
“This morning, the buzz in media circles keyed on whether King should have asked his question, especially to start the debate. The New York Times quoted public television’s Jim Lehrer, who said, “This is a two-hour debate. CNN would have been much better off if they’d waited.”
“But that’s the wrong issue. The key question isn’t when King asked his question, but why and how he asked it. That Nightline aired an interview with Gingrich’s ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich, two days before the South Carolina Republican primary, raises some legitimate ethical questions. Was the timing fair? Was the information meaningful or merely salacious? Did the story say something about the candidate?
“The answer to the last question is “definitely, yes, but only in context.” John King should have considered that context, informed his question by conveying where it fit in the Newt Gingrich narrative. Because the overarching narrative is fair: Issues of trust and credibility are central to concerns about Newt Gingrich as a presidential candidate. And so, John King could and should have started right there.”
This was written by Jerry Lanson*, a professed liberal.
So now it is on to Florida, and beyond. Will Mitt Romney turn his candidacy around? We hope so.
“I teach, write, coach and sing, though you're not required to listen to the latter. I'm a journalism professor at Emerson College in Boston. My third book, "Writing for Others, Writing for Ourselves," was published in November by Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. You can read a sample chapter at www.jerrylanson.com. My passions are politics (generally liberal in outlook), music, mountains, golden retrievers and my grandchildren, though not in that order. Please stop by and mix it up with me. I always answer those who post.”
View all posts by jerrylanson →