Image 01 Image 03

Here we go

Here we go

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?

Updates:  Marianne has spoken out before, so I wonder what she was holding back, or if it’s just going to be more of the same about how she was wronged:  Esquire 2010, WaPo 1999.

Via HotAir, NYT and Politico reporters think the segment will air tomorrow night, just a couple of hours before the debate.  (added)  AP reports it will run on Nightline Thursday night.  (added) NYT reporter confirms, but adds excerpts will be released before debate.

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.


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)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Yup, the damage is done. Now it really doesn’t matter what she said.

If you think this is bad, wait until they get a hold of Romney…next summer-

“Ain’t seen nothin’ yet…oh, baby, you ain’t seen nothin’…la..”

    Browndog in reply to Browndog. | January 18, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    Buzzed over to Hot Air-


    ABC: Romney has millions parked in funds in the Caymans

    just sayin’…..what the tip of the iceberg looks like.

    Obama’s got him dead to rights-

    Has for a year.

      herm2416 in reply to Browndog. | January 18, 2012 at 9:02 pm

      Bain has funds set up, legally, there.

        punfundit in reply to herm2416. | January 18, 2012 at 9:26 pm

        Fair enough… but that isn’t the point. The point is how the left media is going to use this for class warfare. We can protest all we want, but they’ll still do it. And the simple fact of the matter is the base isn’t all fired up to help Romney “get past” it.

I really don’t care what she has to say. The time for running her mouth was years ago, if anyone was interested.

I don’t care which candidate is targeted, I don’t want to hear from the Ex.

DINORightMarie | January 18, 2012 at 8:00 pm

I can only hope that most of the people in SC see this for what it is – another low, dirty attack like the one(s) they pulled on Herman Cain.

People are sick Sick SICK of these dirty games. I really don’t care what a spiteful e-wife has to say about Newt; some people will say anything – for the right price.

It ain’t beanbag. It is disgusting.

Esquire already did a hit piece interviewing her in 2010. She sounds like a bitter woman.
Also, there are always TWO sides to a divorce. Anyone who has been through one knows that.

His wife tries to make him out to be mentally ill.

Thanks to Democrats AND Bill Clinton, we now know that a persons extra martial affairs shouldn’t be taken into consideration when evaluating candidates. Its just sex after all, Right Bill? Anyway, right now we are all getting screwed by Obama, if Gingrich screw just a few secretaries, that will be a huge improvement.

tl;dr home wrecking ex spouse still venting, Old News, move on

Politics is a contact sport and is played for keeps. Plus, no sense in Marianne taking a pass on her second chance for her 15 minutes of fame. Ahh, the sweet smell of revenge.

I doubt there’s anything new here that most people don’t already know about—if there was, I think ABC would’ve had no qualms about releasing it.

I don’t know how much damage it will do, if any. It might prompt sympathy for Newt even, having to deal with a bitter ex-wife from how many years ago now? She’s already laid claim prior that she wanted to derail his ambitions to be president, so that doesn’t help her credibility.

Nevertheless, the Kafkaesque rumor mill now brewing in the meantime that “somewhere, somehow, there is a scandal…” will be very annoying to deal with.

Maybe she’ll talk about Newt’s friends who commited acts of sedition and killed people…OH WAIT! That was Obama…the candidate who didn’t get vetted by ABC in any of the 57 states.

I bet we’ll see her at a press conference podium with Gloria Allred next.

Obama gets his office with public release of private sealed divorce records. Never forget.

But he’s “clean” – his paws never touch the knife.

    McCoy2k in reply to Rose. | January 18, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Yeah, this is starting to look like Axelrod all over again. Remember the supposedly sealed divorce records of the Jack Ryan/ Jeri Ryan divorce coming out and destroying Jack Ryan’s chances for the Senate? That’s all Axelrod.

    Had that one event not happened, Obama would not be President, at least not yet. But we’d probably be in the middle of a Hillary Clinton reelection campaign, just someone else using the same dirty tricks. And Jack Ryan would probably be on the Veep short list for the GOP ticket.

Cowboy Curtis | January 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm

Fifth look Perry!

A 1995 interview of Marianne Gingrich that may be of some interest:

What happens if Newt runs?, I ask.

“He can’t do it without me,” she replies. “I told him if I’m not in agreement, fine, it’s easy” –she giggles at her naughtiness. “I just go on the air the next day, and I undermine everything…I don’t want him to be president and I don’t think he should be.”

Why not?

She could end his career with a single interview? Wow, that’s some power. She waited for the right moment, too, didn’t she? Sounds like a lovely creature.

But shouldn’t all the leftists come to Newt’s defense? Weren’t they the ones arguing for the firewall between the private and political when Clinton was under attack? For what, again? Oh, yeah — raping one woman, molesting two more (including a grieving widow) and having oral sex with an intern. “Nothing to see here, move on.” That was how started, no?

Cowboy Curtis | January 18, 2012 at 8:17 pm

Guys, this was always in the cards. Its not a dirty political trick, its a scorned ex-wife exacting revenge. She was always going to talk, she was biding her time so it’d exact maximum pain.

    Cowboy Curtis in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | January 18, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    And forget all the nonsense about double standards. Of course there’s one, so what? These are the rules of the game right now, and for the foreseeable future. It doesn’t matter that they suck and are unfair- they’re still the rules. Whining about it accomplishes nothing. Our candidates don’t get to do what democrats do. Plan and vote accordingly.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | January 18, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    I don’t know about that. To inflict “maximum pain” she would have held on to see if Newt was going to rise, really get some wins.

    Maybe she felt this was her last chance, if Mitt is “inevitable.”

    Newt has “cancelled a press conference to go deal with this” eh? We should know shortly what is coming – if Newt is smart, he will “out” the info. before she does. If there is really any there there, that is.

      Cowboy Curtis in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 18, 2012 at 9:27 pm

      Nah, SC is Newt’s Alamo. If he doesn’t win there, he won’t win Florida. That’s assuming he even had enough money in the coffers to continue.

      So here he is, do or die, and it looks like he just might do it. Florida is a whole new game if he pulls it off. Perry’s likely to drop out, and Santorum will be running low on cash. Just saying, if she were to keep quiet and Newt didn’t pull off SC, well, she’ll have saved her ammo so long that she missed the war- and missed the most savory chance at revenge she’ll ever get.

      I mean, if Newt won the nomination, it isn’t like she can torpedo that. In a general election, the party will rally to him. I also suspect she’s a republican, given that she was married to him.

        punfundit in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | January 18, 2012 at 9:33 pm

        I don’t know, Mary Matalin married the lizard who worked for Bill Clinton.

          Cowboy Curtis in reply to punfundit. | January 18, 2012 at 9:48 pm

          But they’re consultants, not politicians or dogmatists(regardless of what they say publicly), and to folks like that, the game is everything. Sides are all but irrelevant, just so long as you win.

          A movement politician, which Newt has always been, is a different creature.

          punfundit in reply to punfundit. | January 18, 2012 at 10:01 pm

          @Cowboy Curtis

          I was mostly “savaging” James Carville.

          Cowboy Curtis in reply to punfundit. | January 19, 2012 at 12:42 am

          Savage away, I certainly wasn’t disagreeing with the characaterization. Rather, what those two would accept in a spouse is something very different from what the rest of us look for. More so for a movement politician of Newt’s ego.

          I suspect her politics were pretty in line with his. How else could a lightening rod like Newt ever trust her enough (or be idolized enough by her) to marry her? Which probably goes some ways towards explaining her vindictiveness.

          I always end up coming back to the same thing with Newt- you look at him and just have to shake your head and think, “What might have been.” I like the guy, but his ego and appetites have always been his undoing. In a lot of ways, he and Clinton were perfectly matched as antagonists; just a little more personal discipline, and the sky was the limit to where their talents might have taken them. Clinton had the political talents to have been an utterly transformative president (not that he would have gone in a direction I liked). But instead he’ll always be a punchline. And he knows it.

Now that Drudge has reported on the existence of the interview and the internal conflict at ABC, you can count on either the content of the interview leaking out (drub, drub) over the next few days or ABC airing it before Saturday or Marilyn telling her tale elsewhere.

As for what she has to say, it doesn’t matter if it’s just whatever she told Esquire. That was then, this is now. That was print in a second-tier magazine, this is network TV.

How curious.

Have you ever noticed these women always seem to have these bombshell revelations on television right as the conservative Republican candidate is surging, threatening the squishy candidate the leftist Democrat would rather run against?

What an amazing coincidence.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 18, 2012 at 8:22 pm

They’re so concerned about ethics at ABC that someone there leaked this to Drudge to build suspense and pump up the ratings for when the interview airs.

I would not be surprised if the ethical ABC source decides to let specific details of the interview drip out over the next couple of days.

Sounds like Newt is going to get “Cained”.

BannedbytheGuardian | January 18, 2012 at 8:27 pm

Don’t know anything about her but Newt made the right decision to get out of that marriage.

Thank heavens Leonard met a different Marianne.

Stay on target, Newt! Stay on target!

“He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected,” Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s wife of 18 years, explained to ESQUIRE last year.

This is patently obvious to anyone who has followed Newt over the years. Frankly, it is obvious for Romney as well. In fact, some people appear to demand this in politicians, especially when it comes to matter of faith.

“You can say anything or believe anything you want, as long as you tell us whatever you say you believe won’t influence what you do…”

In other words, we don’t care about how deeply a politician claims to believe something as long as he tells us he doesn’t believe it deeply enough to influence what he actually does.

If what I believe doesn’t influence what I do, then I really don’t believe it enough to put my beliefs into practice…

9thDistrictNeighbor | January 18, 2012 at 8:42 pm

Perhaps Romney’s internal polling is showing his perfect narrative in a shambles….

Let’s put it this way: Anyone who is Catholic knows how much agony Newt had to go through for his first confession when he joined the Church…. Good enough for me.

What is with these revenge-seekers?

Waiting to see the interview and then how the rest of ordinary America views it. I want to beat Obama.

[…] Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview […]

News jackal: “Mister Speaker! What is your wife going to say about you?”

Gingrich: “Marianne is a grown woman who is perfectly capable of saying whatever she wants.”

New jackal: “But aren’t you worried what she might say?”

Gingrich: “What hasn’t she already said? Look, I’m trying to defeat the most liberal president in American history. A president whose economic policies have driven unemployment rates for minorities into staggering double-digit rates, a president who just signed a bill giving him the power to imprison any American citizen he sees fit but tells us he’ll ‘never’ use that power; a president who will sign one of the most destructive bills in history which gives the federal government the power to control and censor the internet…”

News jackal: “…uh, Mister Speaker…”

Gingrich: “…now wait a minute. What’s more important to our nation? What Marianne has to say about me or how this president is ruining our country?”

…cue media explosion…

    stevewhitemd in reply to punfundit. | January 18, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    Not a bad way to reply but I don’t think the news jackal will ask that question of Newt. The jackal will instead ask a panel of ‘experts’ back at the studio. Much easier to rip someone apart when the person isn’t there to defend himself, and we all know Newt can defend himself.

    I don’t know whose fingerprints are on this, but it had better not be the Romney campaign in any way, shape or form.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 18, 2012 at 8:51 pm

Assocated Press says ABC will “likely” air the interview during “Nightline” tomorrow night, whenever “Nightline” airs.

There is also the Vanity Fair article in 1995 by Gail Sheehy. I don’t think there will be anything new.

Well. I forced myself to read that unpleasant and wordy Esquire “interview”, which was quite lacking in substance. My take on Marianne Gingrich is that she is bitter and resents being out of the limelight, viewing herself as his political partner. She has nothing useful to say, and apparently the threat about having info that could destroy his career was made in the 90s.

holmes tuttle | January 18, 2012 at 8:57 pm

Very interesting tweet from PPP. Dovetails with CNN saying Newt had momentum on tuesday. Another outfit Insight20/20 showed Newt up a few pts yesterday.

Look we’re 2 days out of the primary. One of 2 things will happen. Romney will win and be the nominee, or Newt will win and Romney is still probably the nominee but at least there’s a chance he won’t be and Newt has tons of momentum heaidng into FL which I predict will vote for the nominee.

So, if you don’t want Romney, at this point Newt is the only option. The others are good and they’ve tried their best but things are what they are. Santorum had a huge bounce after IA and had momentum but for whatver reason it hasn’t carried over. He won’t in SC, and he won’t win in FL. Same for Perry.

Newt still has a chance to win in SC and to win in FL.

Newt wasn’t my #1 choice, but now he’s the last chance to stop Romney.

I don’t think a fri night interview will matter much. It’ll come down to the debate tomorrow. If it’s a repeat of Monday Newt will win on Saturday. If Romney is seen as doing better and winnig the debate he’ll win.

My thoughts on the media delay: there is nothing there as useful as the smoke they are generating.

    Dynamism in reply to janitor. | January 18, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    That’s what I think, too.

    Rumors of scandal will be more damaging than the actual facts themselves, once revealed.

If, and that is a big IF, Newt Gingrich really WAS a lying, sneaky, cheating slug and now you people are bashing the wronged wife, how are you any different than those Democrats who defended Clinton?

I don’t know what happened in that marriage, and NEITHER DO YOU, but now you are turning into exactly what you have complained about when the troops rallied around Clinton and savaged a young, stary eye girl named Monica.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 18, 2012 at 9:03 pm

Ehhh… we’ll see. I can’t imagine she would have anything new to add that she hasn’t already aired out in public anyway.

I’d like to think that the Gingrich campaign knew this would be coming at some point and had prepared for it. We’ll find out soon enough.

Personally, as a voter I’m much more concerned about a candidate’s policies and political record than I am about tawdry tales about their personal life. I don’t want government in my bedroom… and I don’t particularly need to know what others do in theirs.

Newt’s strategy on answering questions needs to be simply what our grandmothers taught their boys: “A gentleman never tells.”

As to the first wife. Newt has remained a gentleman and good father by not telling the truth. He was sixteen and emotionally and physically molested by a woman in authority, a teacher at his school. She met with him, until he graduated, secretly and behind his parents’ backs. I think we call that molestation, sexual harassment, and a few other things. Compare this to how it is presented here:
Note that the article says Newt’s father did not go to the wedding because of her age. Uhh, maybe he objected to her being a predator, his ex-geometry teacher, and an adult who encouraged him to sneak around on his parents and lie to them about his wherabouts????

As to the second wife. What a ditz. The foundation of the marriage was based on lies and deceit by both of them, so she can just get down off her high horse and start shoveling the sh*t!

    Canusee in reply to Canusee. | January 18, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Uh, maybe change my mind….I like what punfundit says at 8:49 (must have went up while I was formulating thoughts)

“No personal attack ever fed a hungry child.”

This was my concern when I read the Drudge headline. Has anyone heard anything about this?

A Buried FBI Investigation Revealed… Newt Gingrich, Marianne and the Arms Dealer

On October 5, Sarkis Soghanalian, once the world’s largest private arms dealer, died at 82. He had sold weapons to scores of dictators including Saddam Hussein, and he took many secrets with him to his grave… one secret he did not take involves Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. ~ Joseph Trento

DCBureau has learned that Gingrich was at the center of a U.S. Justice Department criminal investigation in the late 1990s for a scheme to shake down the arms dealer for a $10 million bribe in exchange for Gingrich using his influence as Speaker to get the Iraq arms embargo lifted so Soghanalian could collect $54 million from Saddam Hussein’s regime for weapons he had delivered during the Iran-Iraq War.

Soghanalian was an FBI informant and was responsible for launching one of the most sensitive and secret investigations in FBI history involving the former Speaker and his second wife.

According to Marianne Gingrich, it took the direct intervention of then FBI Director Louis J. Freeh to “get the investigation called off.” Freeh did not return emails and telephone calls for comment.

Re a backlash in Newt’s favor, I do hope you’re right. Read the Esquire piece and if that’s it, it’s not a whole lot: he’s human, with foibles, faults, and frailties. (After his Mitt-wealth-take-down today, I’m starting to wonder if ABC’s Ross isn’t a closet Santorum man.)

Half-way through McCain’s opp-research log on Romney, my head is spinning, gosh golly. Had it been my assignment, I would’ve been so frustrated I might have turned in a single page: “THERE’S NO WAY TO TELL WHAT HIS POSITION IS ON ANYTHING. THE END.”

Bottomline: we’ve got an Obamney (Robama?) situation on our hands. Newt had better capitalize on it now, while he’s still got a window.

    McCoy2k in reply to Lawyer Mom. | January 18, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    Yea, Romney/Obama doesn’t matter who wins. America loses. My god, why couldn’t have Sarah run. She’d be running away from this.

“If Kurtz is right and the ex-wife has nothing new to say, I predict a backlash in favor of Newt.”

I agree. The timing is also far too suspect.

Henry Hawkins | January 18, 2012 at 9:29 pm

The GOP nomination will be largely decided Saturday in SC. How this plays nationally doesn’t matter much, only how it plays in SC. Having said that…

Didn’t the political opposition to Nikki Haley try blowing her campaign up with allegations of infidelities and allusions to bad character? Ah, yes, they did. And the SC voters flat rejected it. They’ll reject this even quicker, being that much more sick of political sabotage.

I’m still a Perry man but since he’s going nowhere, I’m all in for Newt. Unfortunately, the only effect this might have is to give Santorum and Perry enough hope to stay in the race.

“Burying the pipeline”….

Is what we have here.

also, it seems to me that SC is the dirtiest state in the union every 4 years some disgusting last minute scandal comes up. These 4 year scandals are punctuated by Mark Sandford’s hiking trips and the last minute sliming of Nikki Haley

I’m not sure the anti-Romney forces will be swayed by this. This is DC Con and liberal media trying to stuff it down our throat. To quote Al Sharpton, “Resist we much.”

The leak of the story being damaging, without the actual news, is going to be more damaging than the actual info.

ABC isn’t doing anyone on our side a favor. They are, instead, helping their candidate, Mitt.

They WANT to run Obama against Romney. Obama wants to run against Romney. If Romney isn’t his opponent then Obama will have to adjust his entire campaign strategy, the one he’s been running for the past year.

They have to save Obama from having to do extra work since he has never had to live up to his billing even once. He’s been told he’s golden all his life and someone has cut slack for him each and every step of the way.

    Mary Sue in reply to Kerrvillian. | January 18, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    ABC isn’t doing anyone on our side a favor. They are, instead, helping their candidate, Mitt.

    They WANT to run Obama against Romney. Obama wants to run against Romney. If Romney isn’t his opponent then Obama will have to adjust his entire campaign strategy, the one he’s been running for the past year.

    I see plenty of evidence Dems want Gingrich. Read their comments or questions asked to pundits on Twitter and such. Really, I reject this premise that the Democrats have some superior insight to our candidates while they seriously underestimate the weakness in their own.

    Obama is locked in his campaign strategy because he has no other choices. He has certain groups he has to win back after he lost them over the last 3 years. He has a long road to hoe and there is zero evidence this income inequality strategy or class envy is working now any better than it has in the past. It never works.

    95% of comments I read on conservative sites sound like we are all hapless victims waiting for the political gods to pull our strings. Weak candidates beat themselves. This includes the weak one on the dem side as well as the lot we have lined up to run against him. There is nothing unusual here, this is a referendum election and the incumbent is very beatable. The MSM has not even registered how beatable. I would qualify that though, this is no year to be running on social issues as the swing district suburbanites are a key group Obama can’t be allowed to win back. THis is why now matter who we run they will try to paint them as a crazed social zealot. The same is true with the class warfare, that is all he has to run on.

This is really getting tiresome and predictable. The only this it will reveal, that we didn’t already know, is that Newt made the right decision in ending that marriage. Another smear campaign on a Republican front runner. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Can we just vote already without all the crap? Has anyone vetted Obama yet?

    McCoy2k in reply to Jenny. | January 18, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    No – all the horrible stuff will come out after he’s out of office. If he ever leaves office. Or 75 years after he’s dead.

    Our children will learn an Islamic radical non-citizen cheated his way into the Presidency of the United States.

So, this is how “compromises” are forced. It sounds like extortion in perpetuity. It’s a wonder that the human race hasn’t consumed itself yet. Although, it would explain at least one causal factor, maybe principal, for the increasing desire to escape or distort reality through drugs, alcohol, etc., if only for a moment.

Well, on the bright side, if nothing else, this matter could sew up the “divorced men with vindictive ex-wives” demo for Mr. Gingrich.

I want to see her bank account info. I’m willing to bet it got a nice bump recently. But I agree with Kurtz. Newt’s infidelities are well known. And if the media can successfully convince a huge number of people that Clinton freeing willy in the WH was a private matter, then this is nada. I don’t condone infidelity in any form, but this is ancient history in the world of politics. But while the media seems so interested in vetting candidates, let’s open the book on Obama, shall we?

There is an irony worth noting here. Our present crisis was the result of progressive leverage over years and decades. The same tactic which brought our economy to its knees, could accomplish the same outcome for an individual human life.

We knew four years ago that we would be presented a RINO stampede to run interference for Romney. It was McCain’s turn to be the nominee in 2008 and it is Romney’s turn this year. There is nothing we didn’t know then about that herd that we are learning now. Yet this all could have been avoided.

I even remember a news report that has Newt on video saying the things that Marriane is reportedly going to reveal tomorrow, that how he lives his personal life should not matter. He revealed he was a scumbag then and he is still a scumbag.

We made it clear in 2008 that running the very embodiment of what we rejected about the GOP was a big mistake in 2008, particularly after the bloodbath of rejection we had sent their way protesting the very special interests McCain represented. Then we had the Tea Party victories that returned control of the House to the GOP. Why the hell are they now trying to cram Romney our throats? Why is anyone fighting for Gingrich claiming that he is a conservative? That’s the best the Republicans can do? The GOP just doesn’t want to win.

There is not point fighting each other over which scumbag we think should be the “anybody but Obama” banner carrier. None of these guys will get the job done if elected. We need to press on for a brokered election. That is the only way we can bludgeon our way into the party access that might provide us with any hope for a solution that might save our republic.

It’s not just the corrupt elite establishment I have lost faith in, it’s people like us who buy into the kabuki hook, line and sinker.

You know, there are hazards to having twice as many ex-wives as the previous 44 presidents combined.

I think the interview will make it quite apparent why Newt left this woman. She didn’t become this vindicative because he left her. He likely left her because she was vindicative. I just donated again to the cause. I abhor the MSM and the left media with a passion.

    RightKlik in reply to gasper. | January 19, 2012 at 12:51 am

    Getting this tripe out before the primary will probably be better for Newt than having the sword of Damocles dangling until Monday. The reality of the interview will no doubt be less titillating than what many would be imagining.

Interesting update…I didn’t know that about Drudge. That is kind of sleazy, being tight with the Romney faction.

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to herm2416. | January 19, 2012 at 8:27 am

    Yeah, I’ve seen a good deal of that sort of thing from several ‘conservative’ blog sites. It’s very disappointing. If a blogger wants to be a cheerleader, that’s fine – have the integrity to be very upfront about it (this site is a great example of that). Too many sites this cycle have been acting as defacto campaign sites for ‘their’ candidate while trying to present themselves as being ‘neutral’ in their analysis. That goes for some big name pundits this time around as well. I’ve lost a lot of respect for some people and sites I’ve previously admired. Very sad and disappointing.

Just so you guys know: not one Democrat or centrist cares about Newt Gingrich’s prior marriage. All the concern is with the cultural conservatives. If he gets the nomination, it will be a non-issue.

    RightKlik in reply to Valerie. | January 19, 2012 at 1:01 am

    Really? The fact that his wife is a homewrecker isn’t going to bother women?

    Newt may be our best man to beat Obama, but the history of cheating will create challenges, as this ABC story illustrates.

      The irony is that Marianne is herself a “home wrecker”. She was Newt’s second wife, presumably the reason he left the first (the one he had the girls with).

Here’s a thought. Whatever Marianne Gingrich says about her private life with Newt is either old news or something everyone already assumes (he’s a philanderer, etc.).

But Marianne and Newt were together for 19 years, spanning all of the Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton administrations and the years if Newt’s power and leadership in Congress. That’s a lot of time for pillow talk about what Newt really thought privately about the events, issues and people of those two decades.

Marianne may have talked to ABC about stuff far more important than sex and marriage.

Reminds me of my ex-husband’s 2nd wife, standing on my doorstep, complaining to me about his behavior with another woman when she was the one he was cheating with when he was married to me! It was surreal – hey, woman, remember me? The FIRST wife???!!

Go away, Marianne! You’ve had your fifteen minutes!

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | January 18, 2012 at 10:50 pm

This is the same old standard attack theme from either the far left, or the Romney RINO right, which is- go after Newt with gossip trash tabloid personal attacks, when they can’t defeat him on the issues, facts, conservatism, and especially on the debate stage. This is the way they sank Herman Cain, and is now the way they are trying to sink Newt.

Not going to work, as the people are seeing a very disturbing political attack trend to what they are doing..  They are not fooled, and are even teed off by it.

As a Rick Perry supporter, I don’t have to worry what my candidate’s 2nd ex-wife will say. =)

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Astroman. | January 19, 2012 at 8:32 am

    True… but if you did, should it really matter? My view is that it’s just one piece of the mosaic that makes up a candidate. Is it the most important piece? That’s for the individual voter to decide. For me personally, its not a deal breaker. He’s been upfront about it and appears to be contrite about his mistake. IMHO, anyhoo…

    punfundit in reply to Astroman. | January 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    As a Rick Perry supporter, will you endorse Gingrich as your candidate did?

If this wifey-exposé-number-999-thingy is going to air on Nightline, we can expect that less than 2 million viewers will see it. After all, this is ABC news, for god’s sake – and ABC’s viewers in that time spot average about 7.5 million per week.

I am amused that the network would be concerned about Newt favoritism charges if it is not aired before Saturday. Who believes that such a story would even make it to the interview if a Dem candidate was involved?

I wonder how much the ex-Mrs G gets for this BS. Someone needs to follow the money.

Meanwhile the L.A. Times has STILL not released the tape of Obama’ speech at the big sendoff for terrorist Rashid Khalidi.

Think there’s any chance anyone will see it before election day? Yeah, me neither.

I’d say the L.A. Times burying this tape is a contribution in kind to Obama’s 2007 election campaign worth about half a billion dollars. Now, they’re about to do it again.

This woman broke up a marriage with children, and was the poison in the middle between the other two, the mistake.

If she had information worth anything, she’s had years to put it into a tell-all book and sell it. Plus all of 2011. I’m sure some Democrat publisher would have been happy to give her an advance in preparation for the upcoming election. To “interview” her at this late date is odd. Of course Romney and co. are behind it. I’ll say it, so the professor doesn’t have to.

    JEBurke in reply to janitor. | January 18, 2012 at 11:32 pm

    Before the last couple of months, nobody cared about Newt or his wives. Hardly a best seller.

      janitor in reply to JEBurke. | January 18, 2012 at 11:53 pm

      I suspect that if she had anything relevant, it would include information on other political insiders. If it’s not enough for a book it’s not much.

    retire05 in reply to janitor. | January 18, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    You seem to forget that it takes two to tango. Even if this woman stripped down to her skivvies and sat on his lap, Newt was given free will by the Good Lord and he could have said “No, thanks, I’m married.”

    But he didn’t did he, and the whole femme fatal excuse is a bit, well, absurd.

      janitor in reply to retire05. | January 18, 2012 at 11:58 pm

      I’m not saying she was such a femme fatale, but Gingrich started dating his geometry teacher in high school at age 16. And he was no jock. That possibly made him susceptible to the “missed out” thing.

Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond…released a letter to ABC News execs from Gingrich’s daughters, Kathy Lubbers and Jackie Cushman, who have become his biggest surrogates in answering questions about their family. The letter is below:

“The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.

We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.

ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future– about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having.

Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren – so they can inherit the America he loves. To do that, President Obama must be defeated. And as the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who has actually helped balance the national budget, create jobs, reform welfare, and cut taxes and spending, Newt felt compelled to run – to serve his country and safeguard his grandchildren’s future.”

(h/t Politico)

“Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren”

Oh, how Democrat of him. Remember, it’s for the kids.

    punfundit in reply to retire05. | January 18, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    Take it up with his daughters.

      retire05 in reply to punfundit. | January 18, 2012 at 11:55 pm

      They are the daughters by his first [ex] wife, not the second [ex]wife.

      Perhaps you can place your trust in a man who has no problem cheating on his wife and breaking his marriage vows, that’s your choice. But I guess we can compare Newt Gingrich to George Washington and tell ourselves “We’ve come a long way, baby.”

      Cheating on one wife, OK, a mistake. Cheating on two wives, a pattern. And what happened to the American idea that the president should represent the very best in all of us, not the worst? Are we past that point?

      And how are you any different defending Newt than the Democrats were when they defended Clinton?

        punfundit in reply to retire05. | January 18, 2012 at 11:58 pm

        They didn’t know the woman?

        punfundit in reply to retire05. | January 19, 2012 at 12:00 am

        I’m sorry, I didn’t know Gingrich lied to a grand jury to prevent an American citizen from having her day in court.

        janitor in reply to retire05. | January 19, 2012 at 12:05 am

        Maybe we can talk about the media’s lack of coverage of Vera Baker and Larry Sinclair.

        Canusee in reply to retire05. | January 19, 2012 at 12:15 am

        Newt was a molestation victim of the first wife. He was sixteen when she, his high school geometry teacher, started meeting him secretly. He was age 16, she seven (nine from some sources)years older when they s t a r t e d dating, which could mean she was flirting/preying on him even earlier. His sneaking around and then “coming out” upon graduation, alienated him from his family and many friends, which gave the “bride” a leadership role similiar to a cult leader or a — molester. Cheating and getting caught is a typical psychological response in an attempt to get kicked out of the relationship. I do not count Newt’s ending the first marriage as a broken promise or broken wedding vow. Today that biology teacher would have been arrested and on a sexual offenders list.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Canusee. | January 19, 2012 at 2:14 am

          Oh come on . Newton Leroy was no victim. The marriage was lengthy by any American standards . Besides producing offspring the marriage fostered the environment for Newt to gain a PHD , university lecturer career & a very influential political legacy.

          I am thinking of “oh what a night
          It was a night
          ooh what a night…..

          Every young man’s dream- an older woman . wohoo.

          Canusee -sorry you missed out .

          Milhouse in reply to Canusee. | January 19, 2012 at 5:45 am

          16 is old enough to consent in most places, including Georgia.

        I got news for you, we have BIG f’ing problems in this country. Number 1 on my criteria for a candidate is being able to change the direction of the government. Newt, the cheater, has shown he can do that. Democrat majority in the House? No problem, Newt is here. Budget deficit? No problem, Newt is here. He’s not running for good guy of the United States. We need a ball buster.

          Aitch748 in reply to conductor. | January 19, 2012 at 10:06 am

          Yes, some of us are still holding on to hope that we can get someone who can say “NO!!!” to the big spenders in DC. I for one am willing to overlook some personal indiscretions to get such a person.

          Maybe we can’t trust Newt completely, but I KNOW we can’t trust Mitt AT ALL.

        Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to retire05. | January 19, 2012 at 8:40 am

        I can trust and respect a man who screwed up and has the cajones to stand up and say ‘Yes, I made a mistake in my personal life. I shouldn’t have; it was wrong; but I admit my mistakes and have sought forgiveness.’

        I’ll take that any day over “That depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is….

    No, it’s very Democrat to spend the kids money.

Obama must be laughing his butt off. He doesn’t have to worry about doing much opposition research or attacking a republican candidate because the republicans are doing it for him. I just hope whoever comes out on top wants to attack Obama as strongly as he’s gone after his fellow Republicans.

Funny, this Newt hater (Curl: ) who also hates Sarah Palin it seems just for spite, is also on the payroll of a certain Matt Drudge. Curl is just another part of the Drudge Newtron Bomb given that the polling is turning to Newt’s favor in SC.

I say get the snakes out in the parking lot (not the tall grass). They don’t live long on the hot pavement (under Carhartt steel toe boots or better yet served up on spiked heels)!

Remember when Sarah gave the atta-girl to Nikki Haley about Will Folks and his scurrilous acuasations? I predict “Scene II” is when Sarah Palin gives Newt the attaboy about his vindictive and still angry ex-wife.

What a shame. Also I happened to notice a quick poll at NRO that just about captures how folks feel…some stuff should be off limits.
The more curious thing will be…if we ever find out…who whispered to ABC that a piece like this would be a good idea.
Drudge? I dont damn Drudge. In a way hes done about the same thing Newt has done sofar as Bain….yet of course its different when “our guy” is the target.
When we look and think about all this..I try and find some logic. Logic here points to the less obvious beneficiary. I can make a case that democrats have benefitted the most by eliminating competition. Do we really think its so impossible that the left is somehow behind all this? You know…take out Newt….we want to campaign against Romney.
I hope Newt survives this. Hes as close as well ever get to a “peoples President”

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to jimzinsocal. | January 19, 2012 at 8:43 am

    “Drudge? I dont damn Drudge.”

    Ehhh…. sleaze is still sleaze regardless of if its spread by a ‘conservative’ site or a ‘liberal’ site.

It’s time for the GOP to call “time out.” Or send everyone into the time out corner. If I were a Democrat, I’d be pretty optimistic at this point.

To MG: Sour grapes don’t make good whine.

RexGrossmanSpiral | January 19, 2012 at 9:45 am

This makes his wife look petty, and even manages to make Romney look a bit desperate.

[…] not alone in predicting a pro-Newt backlash. Print PDF Categories: Uncategorized 0 […]

[…] “…Newt was a molestation victim of the first wife. He was sixteen when she, his high school geometry teacher, started meeting him secretly. He was age 16, she seven (nine from some sources)years older when they s t a r t e d dating, which could mean she was flirting/preying on him even earlier. His sneaking around and then “coming out” upon graduation, alienated him from his family and many friends, which gave the “bride” a leadership role similiar to a cult leader or a — molester. Cheating and getting caught is a typical psychological response in an attempt to get kicked out of the relationship. I do not count Newt’s ending the first marriage as a broken promise or broken wedding vow. Today that biology teacher would have been arrested and on a sexual offenders list….” […]