On the eve of the South Carolina GOP Primary, ABC News televised an interview with Newt Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne, where she claims the presidential contender asked her for an “open marriage” so that he could see the woman that would become his third wife, Callista. Truth be told, this is a re-hashed interview, the original having run in Esquire Magazine in 2010. Which leaves us this to consider: the execution and airing of this interview is either an attempt by a woman scorned to even the score, a politically motivated hit-piece, or both. Whichever it turns out to be, the one thing it won’t be is a game changer.
That Newt Gingrich has had marital issues in his past is common knowledge. Anyone shocked by this news should not consider themselves well-informed. Anyone offended by the marital transgressions of his past should heed the words from a follow-up Esquire Magazine article:
“…Love makes fools of us all, etc., and liberals who believe in parole and rehabilitation really should think at least once before they snicker at the religious folks who have decided to believe in Newt’s remorse for his past behavior.”In a recent article titled, Political Baggage: Establishment & Media Manipulation, in which I wrote about Mr. Gingrich’s infidelity issues, juxtaposing them to the sexual peccadilloes of myriad Democrat and
Progressive politicians, I argued:
“In an age when the world is being enveloped in darkness – both ideologically and violently; when our country stands on the brink of deteriorating from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy; when government has grown into such a behemoth that it is on the precipice of being the master to the very people who created it, We the People had better look beyond the imperfections of the personal man where “political viability” and “electability” are concerned.
“Today, as we advance in the 2012 election cycle, We the People need the smartest man in the room at the helm of the Ship of State. We need someone who has humility enough to learn from past errors, correcting course when it is the best choice to make, leading our nation in this tumultuous time. We need someone who understands and respects the knowledge that only history can afford as we – as a nation; as the guardians of liberty – navigate the future.
“What we cannot afford is to allow the narcissistic mainstream media talking heads, self-absorbed political pundits and the self-aggrandizing political strategists to talk us out of the smartest guy in the room simply because they believe his ‘baggage’ is too heavy to carry.”These words are worth repeating in light of the Marianne Gingrich interview.
What is interesting about this moment in time is the timing. This interview – and remember, it is a recycled item from a 2010 Esquire Magazine interview – was manufactured, produced and “in the can” for use by ABC News for whenever they chose. In fact, the Drudge Report had initially reported that there was a “civil war” among the ABC News hierarchy over whether to run the segments before or after the South Carolina GOP Primary. In the end, they decided to schedule the segments to air on the eve of the primary, a contest in which Mr. Gingrich’s campaign is seeing some mounting momentum. As of this writing, Rasmussen Reports has Mr. Gingrich taking the lead over national frontrunner Mitt Romney. It would seem that just as Mr. Gingrich was experiencing some reward from his efforts in South Carolina, just by coincidence ABC News thought it so very important to “break” an old story.
Interesting…interesting, indeed…
In a November 11, 2009, article in Human Events, Ann Coulter wrote about a disturbing penchant possessed by one David Axelrod, now a senior advisor to the Obama 2012 re-election effort. It seems Mr. Axelrod, an old Chicago Democrat newspaper man, has a fondness for advancing stories about sexual indiscretions – both real and not – about opposition candidates.
Ms. Coulter writes:
“…the only reason Obama became a US senator – allowing him to run for president – is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama’s Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama’s Republican opponent.
“One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the US Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.
“But then The Chicago Tribune – where Axelrod used to work – began publishing claims that Hull’s second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.
“From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a ‘wife beater.’ He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.
“Hull’s substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.
“Luckily for Axelrod, Obama’s opponent in the general election had also been divorced.
“The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan…”Now, I’m not claiming that David Axelrod is behind the coincidental airing of a potentially damaging interview by a GOP candidate’s ex-wife, but when all signs point to “he did it” who am I to argue?
But why would Axelrod, the quintessential poster boy for disingenuous sleaze politics, want to attack Gingrich? Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and the rest of Obama’s Progressive operatives are certain that Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP candidate in the fall. Why would they want to destroy Gingrich? Simple: They are pushing for Romney because they believe he will be easier to beat.
Defendable or not, in Romney, as the candidate, Obamacare would have to be off the table due to the similarities between the insurance mandate currently in place in Massachusetts and Mr. Obama’s signature socialized health insurance legislation; the Massachusetts mandate instituted under Mr. Romney’s watch. Mr. Romney is vulnerable on his financial history and on many of the positions he took in the past while an elected official. Axelrod also feels that Mr. Romney’s debating style is one that would pale in comparison to Mr. Obama’s. So, in an effort to misdirect – a favorite tactic of the Progressive Left – Mr. Axelrod, Ms. Jarrett and the rest of the non-transparent Obama team float the falsehood that they believe they will run against Mr. Romney in the fall. The media is falling for it – or at least complicit in the canard, and, therefore, the mass of the “I’m too busy and too important to do my own homework on the issues and the candidates” populace drinks the Kool-Aid.
In Mr. Gingrich, Axelrod fears a slaughter in the debates. Even a half-awake second-grader would be able to tell you, with confidence, that Newt Gingrich would have Barack Obama weeping and in the fetal position behind the podium after the first ten minutes of the first debate. In fact, I believe that if Mr. Gingrich does win the GOP nomination, Mr. Obama will be counseled to opt out of any and all debates with Mr. Gingrich. Honestly, if he chooses to debate, we will all understand that Mr. Obama has become a victim of his own media manufactured persona.
Mr. Axelrod also fears a Gingrich nomination for the fact that Mr. Gingrich – even though some of his brethren Conservatives and Republicans try to make the case against his Conservative credentials – has a record of accomplishment in the face of partisan adversity.
As Speaker of the House alone, he presided over:
▪ The successful negotiation of four consecutive balanced budgets with federal spending held to an average of 2.9 percent per year, the slowest growth rate since the early 1950s.
▪ A negotiated Capital Gains Tax cut that saw the investments by the “dreaded venture capitalists” explode by 500 percent, allowing for the creation of over 11 million new jobs through the execution of non-governmentally interfered with Capitalism.
▪ A negotiated bi-partisan Welfare Reform Act that saw child poverty drop by nearly a quarter, child poverty in single-parent households reaching an all-time low and nearly two-thirds all those who left the welfare rolls gainfully employed.
And the most important…
▪ Over $400 billion of US national debt paid down during the years he presided over a Congress that produced balanced budgets.
By contrast, Mr. Obama has given the country a trillion dollar stimulus that turned out to be a golden goose for green energy giveaways and election grease for his union benefactors and “thugtarians,” Obamacare, Congressional gridlock, a diminished stature in the world, $4.6 trillion in new debt and a country so bitterly divided that one is moved to vomit when viewing his speeches about being a “uniter and not a divider.”
So, I will watch the interview with Marianne Gingrich with a skeptical eye, not that I disbelieve her story. As I said before, if you are shocked by the news of Newt Gingrich’s marital issues who are grossly unaware. No, I will be skeptical as to the catalyst for the timing of the interview; for the motives of the interview. And all the while I will try – very hard – not to see David Axelrod’s fingerprints all over it.
As for Mr. Gingrich and the election, my belief remains:
“What we cannot afford is to allow the narcissistic mainstream media talking heads, self-absorbed political pundits and the self-aggrandizing political strategists to talk us out of the smartest guy in the room simply because they believe his ‘baggage’ is too heavy to carry.”
For that matter, I’m not going to let a mealy-mouth Progressive smear-merchant like David Axelrod talk me out of voting for anyone who stands opposed to Barack Obama.
Big Government
