The conventional wisdom is that the ABC hit piece (which I suspect was deliberately leaked to Drudge) featuring a much-hyped interview with Newt Gingrich’s angry ex-wife Marianne is an attempt to derail the man’s candidacy, or even put the coffin’s nail in it. I think it’s just the opposite. ABC is surely savvy enough to realize that conservative Republican primary voters deeply distrust the MSM, and do not like to see them meddling in elections. That this will backfire in Gingrich’s favor is a certainty. I think it already is, and Perry dropping out at this time is icing on the cake. So is Sarah Palin’s all-but-endorsement. If Santorum’s supporters could persuade him to drop out, I think Gingrich would probably win South Carolina.
A shame, because I am an ABN (Anyone But Newt) Republican. While I would — barely — vote for him over Obama, he makes me not want to be associated with the GOP in any way shape or form.
The worst thing about the ex-wife hit piece is that I don’t believe in judging candidates by such personal dirt in their lives. We all have it, and it is a major reason most people never become involved in politics. I repeatedly defended Rush Limbaugh over his drug use (even though I can’t stand his position on drugs), and were Newt discovered to be a junkie, I would not hold that against him or want him to go to prison, even though he wants to execute people for drug offenses. So if forced to take a position on the ex-wife smear, I would probably have to come down on the side of Gingrich. Which sucks, because I cannot stand the man.
Seeing him smeared, of course, does not translate into supporting his candidacy, because it is irrelevant.
As to the South Carolina Republicans, they might not consider it irrelevant, but they are already familiar with Gingrich’s past. Those who hold it against him are probably not his supporters. Those who already know will resent the timing of this media smear, and it will most likely incline many of them to support him out of sympathy.
Too bad they can’t realize that that may be the whole idea.
I’m not alone in predicting a pro-Newt backlash.
UPDATE: I said Romney and meant Perry (who endorsed Romney Gingrich.) Error(s) corrected.
PDF 
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
16 Comments until now
She comes off as the absolute worst, bitter ex-wife ever. All I get out of her angry rants is a good understanding of why he left.
This will help Gingrich. (At least, in the GOP primary in SC….)
Typo alert: Perry dropped out. Not Rommeney (as if!)
Thanks! Correction made.
One would think her cheating with Newt on his first wife would have given her a clue.
I think it might be a smart move by the Republican leadership. After all, if Mr Gingrich wins the nomination, he will be running against President Obama –
. . . and in every contested election, Mr Obama’s opponents have either had their sealed divorce records released or suffered front-page accusations of marital infidelity.
If this will destroy a candidacy (Mr Cain) it would be best get this issue out of the way while there is still time for an alternative candidate to be nominated.
Shove aside all the personal and policies issues of the remaining candidates, and which one of these four would make a better president? Which one will repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, start the country on a path of practical energy production, put a halt to rule by administrative fiat, halt civil liberty erosion, eliminate needless federal agencies, take divisive issues like same sex marriage out of the national dialogue through federalism, make a serious attempt to reform monetary policy by starting with a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve, and who shows by past action and personal history that he would actually do what he promises?
The only answer is Ron Paul, as out of touch on foreign policy as you get, he never the less is the only one with real personal integrity. I’m going to vote for him and support him, and hope that if by some miracle he gets elected those carryover career people in the military and state department would be able to drive some sense into him.
If he isn’t the Republican candidate I won’t vote, knowing that a likely Republican congress will throttle Obama at least to the point that he will be unable to do any more harm than the other Republican/statist clowns, should one of them get elected with full legislative support. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum would be worse than Obama with that power at their disposal.
Santorum is a religious crackpot as shown by his bizarre behavior after his wife had a premature child die at 5 months, and they took the limp corpse home for his small children to cuddle. He has the belly fire of an Elmer Gantry.
Gingrich is just a plain old demagogue. Death penalty for drug dealers, and caning for users? Could anyone in their right mind vote for this?
And Romney is a completely unprincipled politician. (Or am I being redundant?)
Name an issue and you will find that he’s been on both sides it. He is a man who can be swayed if he thinks there is something in it for him personally, either money or power. Ivy League educated with the intellectual tools to achieve his goals, whatever they are at the moment, he is a wild card and as a result very much a danger.
I don’t care if my reps marry their dogs or 3 women (or men) at a time. But when they start telling me what to do I cry hypocrite. And all of these men (don’t know about Paul, who does?) are hypocrites.
Best comment I read onl;ine about this (rough paraphrase from faulty memory): “Better a candidate* who screws a woman than a candidate who screws the country.”**
*Gingrich
**The Red Diaper Baby in the White House.
First off, I’m not a fan of Newt’s. In my estimation he has milder versions of the “go along to get along” and “big government” flaws that most bother me about Mittens.
That having been said, it seems to me that the [P]resident would to prefer to run against Mittens as that would effectively nullify Obamacare as an issue.
Lastly, your headline is an accusation of bribery yet the body of the post contains nothing to substantiate the claim.
Rodney G. Graves:
Lastly, your headline is an accusation of bribery yet the body of the post contains nothing to substantiate the claim.
Couldn’t you call it hyperbolic sarcasm?
Frank,
I could call my ass my elbow, but it wouldn’t make it so.
You’re right, sarcastic hyperbole is the more appropriate term.
Rodney G. Graves,
I think seeing you put an elbow to someone’s ribs would be most amusing.
[...] few days ago I predicted that the ABC smear via the ex would “backfire,” and it has. Gingrich trailed Romney by [...]
[...] red-meat primary voters are unaware that there might be such a thing as reverse psychology. The ABC stunt worked in South Carolina, so why not do it [...]
Add your Comment!