« Santorum's Last Gasp | Main | Obama's Fair Share »

January 20, 2012

Here's Where I'm Confused

Watching Newt Gingrich take down CNN's John King was refreshing, even invigorating.  It would have been even sweeter had Gingrich asked King whether or not he was aware of the affair between John Edwards and Reille Hunter at the time he was reporting on the 2004 Presidential campaign.  If yes, why didn't you ask him about it?  If no, how do you call yourself a journalist?

But here's where I'm confused. 

Gingrich finally got around to declaring Marianne Gingrich's allegations “false” and said that his campaign had offered several mutual friends who could disprove the charges but that ABC declined to use them.

How would a mutual friend be able to disprove Marianne Gingrich's allegations?  Were any of them present for the conversation that she described in her interview?  Seems unlikely, unless maybe Callista was hiding in the closet at the time.  But then how would Callista qualify as a "mutual friend" to Marianne Gingrich.

Posted by Tom Bowler at 08:58 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Here's Where I'm Confused:


I consider Marianne Gingrich's marital problems with Newt to be a self-inflicted injury. She had an adulterous relationship with Newt when he was married to his first wife.

If you marry a man who will cheat on his wife, you will be married to a man who will cheat on his wife.

OTOH, William Jefferson Clinton is the the man who made the world safe for adultery.

Posted by: CHLTX | Jan 20, 2012 9:06:04 AM

Good one on Clinton's contribution.

I don't mean to be sanctimonious about Newt's relationships, but I think he should have stopped talking right after he said her accusation was untrue. But he didn't. He kept talking, and he said he had friends who could prove what she said was not true. That makes no sense to me, and it does not enhance his presidential aura.

Posted by: Tom Bowler | Jan 20, 2012 11:07:56 AM

Actually, WJ Clinton may not have made the world safe for adultery, but only for liberal/progressive adulterers. Newt may be a wonderful debater, but his personal life is going to be an albatross around his neck, because the MSM holds conservatives to a much higher standard than liberals. I also have a problem with Romney, a guy who believes in, and wears, Magic Underwear. Why can't the GOP do better than these two? Why are they even still in the running?

Posted by: CHLTX | Jan 20, 2012 5:08:12 PM

Newt should stick to interns.

Posted by: jorod | Jan 20, 2012 9:42:58 PM