Gingrich Wins SC … Media Help Big Time

You might figure Newt Gingrich was in a heap of trouble in South Carolina when his ex-wife Marianne told ABC News that he once said he wanted an open marriage.

After all, South Carolina is a conservative state with a lot of evangelical Christian voters, who don’t go for that kind of thing.

And he might have been in trouble, except CNN’s John King came to the rescue.

King, you’ll recall, moderated the GOP presidential debate two days before the primary and right out of the box brought up Gingrich’s messy former marital life.

The conservative in-house audience booed — and then Gingrich took over.

“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country,” Gingrich fired back., “harder to attract decent people to run for public office.  And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.”

Cue the wild, enthusiastic applause coming from the audience that rose to its feet.  Politico said,  “It was, simply put, Gingrich’s best single moment in any 2012 debate, and he’s had many good ones.”

Two days later, Gingrich won the South Carolina primary — and it wasn’t close.

Whatever else these results tell us, one thing is clear:   social conservative Christians may find open marriage repugnant, but not as repugnant as they find the so-called mainstream news media.

The news media should take notice, but if history is any indication, they won’t.  They’ll write the CNN debate episode off as just one more example of those nutty right-wingers bashing the liberal media – which they deny are liberal.  They continue to fiddle while their institution burns.

According to a CBS News poll, 53 percent of South Carolina voters made up their minds in the last few days before the election.  Several things happened in those last few days, and I think Rick Perry’s decision to leave the race and throw his support to Gingrich was the least of them.  More important was the Nightline interview with the former Mrs. Gingrich, which stunk to high heaven, and Gingrich’s put-down of John King.

Marianne Gingrich didn’t come off as a victim so much as a vengeful woman telling stories on TV about something she says happened (and he denies) more than 10 years earlier.  What kind of woman, I’m guessing a lot of voters wondered, reveals conversations that took place inside a marriage – not to her sister or her best friend, but to millions of total strangers watching TV.

And the debate:  Gingrich showed passion, something conservatives desperately want in their candidate and something Mitt Romney seems genetically incapable of showing.  Still, even though conservatives never felt at ease with Romney, he nonetheless had been the odds-on favorite to win South Carolina, mainly because  voters thought he had the best chance to defeat Barack Obama.  That was before the Nightline interview and the CNN debate.

A few days ago it came out that Romney lost Iowa after he had apparently won it.  So as things stand now, there have been three GOP contests and the only thing Romney has won is the New Hampshire primary; not such a big deal since New Hampshire is practically his home state.  The candidacy that once seemed inevitable now seems anything but.

Yogi was right:  It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • John Lamb

    I myself am not a Christian social conservative, and obviously S.C. is made up of more than that constituency. However, I would think if I were a Christian social conservative that Santorum would have been my preferred choice. That said, the media and Gingrich have both made a mockery of the debates. Gingrich has lashed out at the media in every debate and with the exception of King’s question really had no basis for doing so. On the other hand questions such as Perry’s ability to sleep at night over the death penalty or coming out of the box with the Gingrich open marriage question are beneath contempt. Watching the debates a viewer might be convinced that no serious news is actually occurring in the world. If Goldberg’s assessment is correct about S.C. basically voting for Gingrich as a protest to the media, then this country really needs to reevaluate what it means to select a president. Emotions overriding rational thought seems to be the new American Way. However, in the general election Gingrich is going to have to come up with a much better plan. A plan of substance and not childish jabs at the media even if some of those jabs are worth it and deserving. On the other hand, Gingrich has one thing the other candidates lack: a personality. The question is will his personality be enough to win the nomination and then the election. I don’t believe it will be. My prediction is that regardless of the Republican nominee Obama will win re election. The real issue is will the Republicans do so much damage during the primary that they lose the House?

    • ph16

      What makes you think Obama will win re-election?

  • Bill Coffey SR.

    Setting the record straight. Newt Gingrich Cleared!
    Now How About a Refund?

    By Carolyn Gargaro
    Rightgrrl Co-Founder
    February 16, 1999

    Newt Gingrich has been cleared!!

    Remember the uproar regarding Newt’s “ethics violations?” People can refresh their memory by reading an article I wrote in 1997 about these charges. In brief, David Bonior brought 75 ethics charges against Newt, 74 which were found to have no merit whatsoever (and people say that Ken Starr is on a “witch hunt?”). The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class “Renewing American Civilization” properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.

    The first ‘charge’ from the ethics committee is that he “may have” violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.

    The second ‘charge’ from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, Newt provided false information to the committee. And what was this “false information?” Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to “Renewing American Civilization.” He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide. But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions. For this, there was an uproar about Newt’s ethics, and he was fined.

    Basically, Newt was fined $300,000 because he didn’t read his lawyers’ documents carefully. I could really get into the hypocrisy of this in light of the fact that people want to excuse Bill Clinton for lying under oath, (maybe if the course Newt had taught was about SEX the Democrats would feel differently) but that’s not the point of this article.

    Well, after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. “The … course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician.”

    Well isn’t that nice – and isn’t that what Newt had been saying all along?

    In other words, the ethics charges David Bonior filed against Newt were ALL bogus. Every single one of them. In the end, what was Newt’s “ethics problems”? One of the papers filed by his lawyers had an error and Newt didn’t catch it. That little oversight cost $300,000.

    Some might say “vindication is vindication” and Newt should just be tickled about this. . . but would YOU feel better if you’ve already lost $300,000 and your job in the process?

    Where are the cries about how long and how much money was spent on this investigation? Where are all the news stories about this vindication? Granted, there have been some news stories but certainly not that many. Perhaps the news isn’t quite as big when it’s Newt who is the one in the right and his accusers are the ones in the wrong.

    Now, if some people already see the irony of Newt being blasted for “lying to congress” because one of his lawyers’ documents was in error while people argue that we should ignore that fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath, here’s a little more irony for you.

    Democrats have argued over and over again that even if Clinton DID lie in his deposition in Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit, it doesn’t matter because the suit was eventually thrown out of court. Thus, any lies were “not material” and so not valid grounds for punishment, and certainly not impeachment. Well, the IRS has found that there were NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS. Using the same rationale as Clinton’s supporters, shouldn’t Newt Gingrich be allowed to get his $300,000 back, since any misstatements he might have made are now “not material?”

    David Bonior stated a couple of years ago that “Mr. Gingrich engaged in a pattern of tax fraud.” Well, it now looks as if Bonior was way out in left field on all 75 of his accusations. How about a censure of David Bonior for filing 7 unfounded charges against him, so Newt can at least get his good name back? But how could I forget? We are in the age of forgiveness, where we just “forgive and forget” perjury and obstruction of justice, so I guess that means forgiving David Bonior too. Too bad people weren’t as “forgiving” when it was Newt Gingrich in the hot seat.

  • Steven G. Poyzer

    Are you kidding me? The fix was most certainly in for the South Carolina Primary. How do I know? Fox News first reported their prediction of Gingrich’s win when barely two precincts had reported in. How did Faux News know so early in the voting that Gingrich would win? It was fixed!

    • Fred Pasek

      You know they can take exit polls while voting is going on, they just can’t broadcast them until the polls close, right?

  • Fred Pasek

    Anyone who writes for a living knows precisely the tactics the media uses by manipulating stories, placing the emphasis in sophisticated and subtle ways on words, what they reveal, how it’s revealed, how they lead into the story, the premises they draw without setting a base of facts, and even the chronological order in which they place the thigs that are fact to make one candidate, one philosophy (theirs, the liberal one) seem the more intelligent way, and the more liberal candidates such as Romney the smarter choice. There is no objectivism in media that I see. (Except of course, Bernie)

  • Nalora

    What the main stream media does not know about evangelicals, and in fact, all Christians, is that we all know and have admitted we are sinners. We do not live perfect lives, and we do not judge the state of another man’s soul.

    They also do not know anything about southerners and how much distaste we have for “airing dirty laundry” in public.

    They also do not know after the complete falsehood that is Barack Obama, how much the American Public craves someone who speaks the truth.

    What Newt did during the Debate was speak frankly and truthfully. Nothing else mattered.

  • Bruce A.

    Newt gave it to King with both barrels. Everyone else seems afraid the moderators in any debate.

  • Bruce A.

    He gave King both barrels. Everyone else seems afraid to offend the moderator.

  • Jeannette

    Bernie, I left the lame-stream media long ago and return only for such things as the debate. It always surprises me to see how many of the young and sprightly anchors of old have now turned all silvery-gray.

    It surprises me, too, to find that some of them are still living. Yes, it has been that long since I left them all for the sake of daily doses of truth.

  • Drew Page

    How right you are, Bernie. The standing ovation Genrich received was because a Republican finally said what needed to be said to the liberally biased media that takes every opportunity to bash conservatives in general and Gingrich in particular. I felt the same way the audience did when they applauded Newt and for the same reasons.

    I also enjoyed Newt’s response to Juan Williams, who repeatedly tried to paint Newt as ‘insensitive’ to blacks because he called Obama the ‘food stamps’ president and because Newt suggested that there was a missing work ethic among poor urban youth. Despite Newt’s answers, Williams continued begging the question and finally, when the audience had enough, they began to boo Williams. Williams went on to assume the mantle of the ‘injured party’ at the hands of the obviously racist conservatives in the audience during subsequent interviews on Fox News. Hey Juan, it wasn’t the color of your skin they were booing, it was the thinness of it.

  • ginger

    Just glad SOMEONE called out the media bias and stood up and called it like it is….I am still not sure about Gingrich but sure like that he has the guts to say what he did…any one other than obama or clinton.

  • cmacrider

    Bernie: A few years ago some author wrote a book called “Bias” which was criticized by the mainstream media. I assume that author had a quiet smile on his face when he watched Newt pull the book out of his pocket and put the message into Practice during the CCN South Carolina debate.

  • bkbht

    Anybody But Obama!!!!!!!

  • EddieD_Boston

    I think the applause Newt received was pent-up anger at the MSM being released simultaneously after he threw the left hook at King.
    Let me say this about King: he’s from Dorchester and isn’t some goo goo headed liberal like Lawrence O’Donnell. He can’t be given where he grew up. He’s from the white inner city and grew up with many “street corner conservatives” and Reagan democrats. If anything he “gets” what other media members are too sheltered to understand. He was caught off guard by Gingrich though. In his professional circles there must have been some shock at Newt’s response and the crowd’s response to Newt.

  • Iklwa


    I feel like I am in league with many conservative voters when I say, I am tired of GOP milk toast candidates. If we (the GOP) are destined to loose…and I sometimes wonder if the establishment Republican Party is content with playing second fiddle to the Democrats…we should at least go down fighting with someone who is willing to mix it up with the leftists in this country. At least it will be a good fight.

    Look at past candidates fielded by my republican “leadership”: George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole and most recently, John McCain. Yes, I voted for each and every one of these folks even though I was bitterly disappointed by their performance during the presidential debates and campaigns…and we got our collective butts kicked!

    Once again I will postulate: What open-minded liberal, communist, socialist, Marxist, Leninist or moderate will ever vote for Democrat Lite when they can get the real McCoy by voting the Democrat ticket?
    I can tell you …NONE.

    Betting the farm on the “Most Elect able” is a thin bet these days. I say this because the prognostications of our leadership in this arena have been egregiously erroneous for decades. Perhaps if the leaderships’ presumptive nominees were more successful at the ballot box I would be more inclined to follow. Heck, the current “presumptive” can barely win a state where he owns a home. I find it interesting that we have yet to experience a primary limited to registered republicans only.

    For me, it comes down to this: It would seem the Leftists in the democrat party are willing to totally destroy America as we know it and the republican establishment are willing only to limit the speed of that destruction by dolling it out piecemeal. I for one am looking for someone who not only will firmly apply the brakes on that course of destruction but is willing to return to the core foundations of what America was in its original concept and drag the establishment along kicking and screaming all the way.

    As to embarrassing the liberal media: Even though they will attempt deflection it will be good for the Great Unwashed Masses (i.e. ME) to see someone kicking them in the ribs for a while instead of turning the other cheek.

    PS Yes, I can compartmentalize my Christianity and my political campaigns.

    • ginger

      Amen and again I say Amen !!

    • Drew Page

      Iklwa — I agree completely. I for one am sick to the point of nausea with Republicans who are so fearful of the MSM that they will stand still for any insult, half-truth or outright lie being thrown at them.

      When the British invaded the colonies to put down the revolution, they criticized the colonials for hiding behind trees and barricades and firing on the British, who chose to march into battle out in the open. If todays Republican candidates were in that colonial army, they would have succumbed to that criticism and fought out in the open – and would have been annihilated.

      It’s time to stand up for what we believe and stop being so fearful from the other side. It’s time to start fighting back like Newt did. I know Newt isn’t perfect, who among us is? But I do believe that he would fight to simplify the tax code, making it easier for businesses to compete internationally and create more jobs in the U.S. I believe that he would work to reduce the size and scope of government, repeal Obamacare, get rid of all the appointed ‘czars’, cut government spending and balance the budget. And I believe that he would support the strict interpretation of the Constitution, as currently amended.

      Recently, Santorom criticized Newt for his ‘grandiose’ ideas. Newt agreed that he grandiose ideas because America is a grandiose country with big problems that need lots of big solutions. I like his confidence and his unapologetic approach for putting forth his ideas. Romney is an accomplished businessman with plenty of business and political experience; he seems like a nice enough guy, but a little too cautious about offending any critic. We need a man who is not afraid of challanging his liberal critics.

  • Rick M

    I’m sure John King’s buds in the CNN newsroom have told him by now, Thanks, John.

    And wouldn’t it have been interesting (if less useful for the anti-Newters) if the Nightline interview with Marianne had included this question, ‘And how did you come to get involved with Newt Gingrich?’ Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    For all those crying hypocrisy regarding Newt’s female troubles, call me when he lies under oath or tampers with a jury. The party of no standards can throw mud all day at the party of some standards and convert no one.

  • Bill Hurdle

    I believe there is a general consensus that Speaker Gingrich’s skewering of the media was the most inflential factor in his SC win. Since the vast majority of Republicans feel that the media has a very heavy Democrat bias, it is easy to see how this event generated Gingrich support. However, the question remains in my mind if the independents hold the same view of this situation. Would it be possible to determine the impact on independents in the “battleground states” through polling? I cannot begin to express my satisfaction when Gingrich took Mr. King to task, but I also can see where this could be a case of winning the battle and losing the war. I continue to believe that the primary objective of the 2012 Presidential Election is the defeat of Barack Obama with anyone who supports more favorable economic/budget policies in place of the redistribution mania.

  • rick geiger

    You want to know why people like Newt, watch this video of him taking in MSNBC when they try to trash Sarah Palin. Who else would do this? Not Romney that is for sure.

  • IndependentLasVegas

    I switched from Romney to Gingrich.. Romney is too weak as a debater and can’t think on his feet. Obama will beat Romney like a Pinata during a presidential debate.

    Gringrich is articulate, smart and an agressive and he is fearless as a debater. Obama will have all he can handle.

    This debate will be watched like a Joe Frazier vs Ali fight.

  • Brian Saint-Yves

    Hallelujah! At last a hero to cheer! Someone with testosterone! Let’s organize “Newt’s Brutes” to win the nomination, the election and the country! At the same time we can cheer the comeuppance of the National Review, the Weekly Standard and all the other phony pundits who piled on Newt every time he scored even a few points in this protracted contest! Plus the phony “Morning Joe” and his followers, the crummy Republicans who have come out of the woodwork to malign Newt in his hour of triumph!
    Romney has all the excitement of a dripping icicle. Newt will grind Obama into dust! And who the hell is Al Green?

    • Michael

      Newt’s Brutes? I love it. Sign me up.

      I really mean no disrespect to Romney, but while we’re cheering the comeuppance of the conservative media outlets who tried to shove Gingrich off the road, while, in my opinion, shoving Romney down our throats, let’s not forget the uppity Wall Street Journal and even some folks at Fox News. Every time I logged onto Fox it was Romney this and Romney that, and “Did you miss our Google+ with Romeny?” and on and on and on. Sometimes I think those guys are turning into the same “we know better than you mugs out on the street” a$$holes as the MS media. At least they have the good sense to bring in Doug Schoen, Pat Caddell, Ed Rollins, and others who don’t mind giving Newt his due. And of course, as long as they have the Greek goddess Andrea Tantaros I will continue to overlook the rest of the fools just to watch and listen to her.

      I’m sure those guys were all looking forward to White House dinners and cocktails with Romney administration elites in a refined atmosphere of political sophistication, but now it looks like we may get a bunch of political hell-raisers sipping suds with ole Newt on the White House lawn, thinking all those “ideas a minute.” 😉

  • ProfChuck

    We now see how the “Main Stream Media” can be the agent of its own destruction. It is unlikely that King’s intent was to provide Gingrich with a boost in his support but that is exactly the unintended consequence of his lead in question at the debate. It is clear to all but the most zealous liberal that the media, for the most part, is a strong supporter of the liberal agenda in general and President Obama in particular. Most of the media pundits are convinced that their role is to influence rather than inform. This fact is not lost on the American public and is the primary reason that the press is regarded so poorly. An interesting exception is Fox News Channel. Fox makes no bones of the fact that they give conservatives a better than even shake in their coverage but because of their openness about their position it is a sophistry to accuse them of hypocrisy. (Consider the number of truly loony leftists that are Fox news contributors) Most of the other networks deny their bias even when it is blatantly obvious. They actually don’t think they are “in the tank” for the liberal progressives because they are completely convinced that anyone that is not liberal is evil, crazy, misguided or worse. Their idea of diversity does not extend to political orientation.

    Each of the GOP candidates have both strengths and weaknesses; Newt has a short fuse and can be goaded into loosing his temper, Romney gets the “deer in the headlights” moment when asked a truly challenging question, Santorum appears meek much of the time, and Ron Paul… well it is difficult to clarify the nature of the dichotomy between his periodic rational thinking and his exotic positions on important matters.
    The problem is that these weaknesses are fodder for the liberal assault that is inevitable once a Republican candidate is finally selected they will be used against him to the greatest possible effect.
    It is assumed that Gingrich would overpower Obama in a debate and this is probably true but if his sensitivity is prodded and he looses his temper he will also loose the election. Romney only has to appear indecisive once when asked pointed questions and the same result will occur.
    Santorum is an enigma in that he is very likable and clearly believes what he says, however, he comes across as a bit timid at times and that could easily be his undoing.
    Paul has a cadre of intensely devoted followers and because of this he can have a significant influence on the platform of the GOP but an honest assessment of his chances of getting the nomination much less a victory in the general election are somewhere between slim and none.
    Romney pointed out, quite accurately, that ammunition used by GOP candidates against their fellow Republicans can easily be turned against the final victor by the Democrats. It is unwise to provide the enemy with ammunition.
    Regardless of the events in the coming weeks I think the ancient Chinese curse comes to mind, “May you live in interesting times”. I suspect that the times will be more “interesting” that most of us would prefer.

  • Dan Farfan

    Imagine if King had appropriately framed the question thus:
    “One dynamic that governs news, business, politics and all walks of everyday life is the challenge of setting priorities – striking the balance between what is urgent, and not, and what is important and not. My favorite book on this subject is the “7 Habits of Highly Effective People.” In the news business what is urgent is what’s being discussed not this week, like the old days, but right now. And not just on cable news, but also online. With that in mind the first question is for you, Speaker Gingrich, because it’s on people’s minds even though it might easily be the least important issue in the history of modern American election politics. We’re going to dispense with it, I hope very quickly. And just as a fair warning, this is one time I absolutely will accept, because I expect and truth be told, I’m hoping for a single word answer from a candidate.

    Any reaction to your ex-wife’s recent comments to ABC?”

    My guess is, no one involved with debate prep for CNN plays much chess. Just a hunch.

  • George W

    I believe that Gingrich is a snake in the grass,but he turned the question back at the news media.I do not see a strong field in the Republican Party, Gingrich is a polished professional politition, Ron Paul a fool with some good points,Santorum a goody two shoes loser and Mit Romney the most presidential of the bunch but with a lot of baggage with all his flip flops, but whoever gets the nomination they will have a tough battle against Obama and his Chicago machine.

  • chuck.tatum

    The South Carolina audience turned against CNN’s John King with such force I doubt even Mark Wahlburg could have fought them off.

    • Michael

      That may be the funniest line I’ve read all weekend. :)

      • chuck.tatum



    If Newt is the GOP nominee for the Presentational election…we can be assured (unfortunately) that we will have 4 more years of Obama! I am hoping the GOP isn’t that stupid..but am starting to have my doubts. The Democrats must be “laughing their heads off”.

    • Rick Johnson

      I think you may want to take a closer look at Newt’s record. Balanced budgets and welfare reductions are two that come to mind. Personally, I feel exactly like you, BARBF. Only I feel that way about Romney

  • kayakbob

    Hey Bernie – We will never know for sure what would, or wouldn’t have, happened on Saturday if CNN had elected to be consistent in their treatment and template for other presidential candidates – John Edwards to name one. And I can’t argue with your overall point that conservatives dislike the so-called mainstream media a lot more than they dislike open-marriage.

    But there is another perspective on CNN and John King’s question. If Mr. King really wanted to mess with Newt he would have just held onto that question and made Newt and everyone else sweat for the entire debate, then bring it up at the end. Keep Newt off balance for 2 hours wondering – “when is that topic going to come up?” And what would people have said then? “Oh, they held it! They purposely kept Newt and everyone else on edge waiting for the 800 pound elephant in the room.” So in one sense, King and CNN were in a no-win situation. I am not saying they had courage by bringing it up. Oh paleese. But I do think they were in a no-win situation.

    Of course the easy way to deal with such a no-win is to be consistent. But that is too easy and too simple for the so-smart, so-educated media elite.

    When a conservative does “it” (whatever embarassing thing “it” is) the media pulls out the “public right to know” banner and wave it arould with glee. But when a liberal does “it”, the haul out the victim flag and say things like “how did such a smart man get caught up in something so foolish?”. They did that exactly with Edwards and just recently with MF Global and John Corzine.

    That is why conservatives (like me) dislike the media. For me the elite media are a great negative barometer. If they seem to be pushing something..anything. I tend to be more wary of it.

    • BARBF

      I will not support or vote for a serial adulterer. I do not want him in the White House, nor do I want a First Lady who knowingly committed adultery for 6 years.

      • ph16


        While I think what Newt Gingrich did to his two wives was rephrensible by having affairs (did Marianne forget that she was “the other woman” in his first affair?), I would hardly call him a serial adulterer especially when you compare him to JFK and Bill Clinton (two of the liberals’ heroes).

        In times of peace and prosperity, I think the vast majority of conservatives would agree with you. But right now, we are not so private lives unfortunately have to take a back seat especially since Newt could possibly going up against Barack Obama (and do you really want another four years with him?)

  • Ed DeCosmo

    Bernie, isn’t it amazing? In the past six months we’ve learned more about the professional and personal lives of a half-dozen candidates for the Republican nomination than the man who has been in the White House for the past three years (when he hasn’t been on vacation or playing golf). There is no conceivable way the lame stream media can justify this.

  • Ge0ffrey

    You forgot one other element, and perhaps the most important one. Sarah Palin said that if she lived in South Carolina, she’d vote for Newt. That came AFTER the evangelical leaders’ endorsement of Santorum.

  • Blakely1

    There is no doubt that many discarded wives are treated unfairly. That said, when they openly seek revenge, it seldom plays well.
    The ones that hold their heads up & move on, like Ivana Trump, Jennifer Anniston & Nicole Kidman are admired & treated with respect.
    ABC’s ambush turned into the proverbial,
    shot in the foot.

  • George R.Kalat

    Republican and Democratic partys in America are being replaced with German Labels. One is Christian Democrats lead by Angela Merkel and the Social Democrats who are out of power. Angela Merkel grew up in the former East Germany and learned the hard way Socialism is a failure!

  • Nancye

    Whatever else these results tell us, one thing is clear: social conservative Christians may find open marriage repugnant, but not as repugnant as they find the so-called mainstream news media.


    How true!!! We the People are sick and tired of the lame stream media and their bias. Will they ever “get the message”?

    I was also giving Newt a standing “O”, in my living room, the night he gave John King “what’s for”.

    I wonder if Newt sent King a thank you note for giving him South Carolina on a silver platter. :)

    And you’re right, conservative Christians surely do find “open marriage” repugnant, but not as repugnamt as the bias media.

  • post*tenebras*lux

    If the forefathers had seen this coming, freedom of the press would not have been in the Constitution. The press is supposed to be another arm of the government and have failed we, the people big time!

  • Kathie Ampela

    I don’t know if Newt will be able to sustain the momentum of the SC victory, but it was such beautiful, poetic justice seeing the tables turned on the MSM and the GOP establishment! It was as if Newt was saying, who’s country is it, anyway? I hope he can carry that message all the way to the top and reach across the aisle with it, because it’s amazing! :-)

  • Shirl

    I believe ALL the media should take a long look in the mirror and see who is being bias and trying to manipulate the audience whom happen to be the voters of the country and will decide what canidate will be our president. This election is going to be ‘by the people and for the people’; not by the media and for the elites. The establishment and elite media picked John McCain and then handled him and look what happened. Now they are doing the same with Romney instead of trusting the people. This time the people spoke!!!

  • Tim Ned

    This was like watching a good ole fight in front of a hockey crowd. King forgot to throw off his gloves and ended up with his jersey over his head and Newt pounded away. Best debate ever!!!!

    • Glen Stambaugh

      Great imagery, Tim. I could “see” the whole thing and was literally laughing out loud!

  • Mike K (Ontario, Canada)

    From the second that Newt began to hammer John King and CNN for it’s choice of opening question, and the crowd came to it’s feet, I wish the camera had focused for a few extra seconds on the face of Mitt Romney. I saw one or two quick glimpses of him from different camera angles, and he was looking sideways and sort of smiling at Newt, who continued his scathing rebuke of the entire liberal media machine, while King tried lamely to blame another of it’s guttersnipe attacks on a rival network. The look on Mitt’s face said it all, and in my opinion, that was “why can’t I do that?”.
    Again, and this is just the opinion of an outside observer relying largely on interpreting what I’ve seen and read almost daily on the internet and many of the major networks, Newt is the only GOP candidate who CAN deliver the goods when it comes to the finer art of live televised debate. His mental speed and agility, and organization of thoughts in response while standing there analyzing what his opponents have just said, is uncanny. It makes you wonder what chance someone, who relies almost completely on a scrolling teleprompter to formulate a sentence, has against him. As at least one moderator has now found, he does it in a manner which leaves no doubt as to his intended level of conviction. You know when he’s speaking about something which matters to him, whether positive or negative.
    One can only wonder what he would do as President, whether he can deliver that which he succinctly outlines in the debates, as they come and go, or will those ideas be swept aside to make room for things even greater, should he be given the mandate to implement them. Maybe all that has to happen is for America to ask itself, “can we possibly do much worse, than to have Newt running the show for 4 years, after the 4 years that we’ve just gone through?”.

    • Glen Stambaugh

      If Newt can manage his consistency issues, win over the ladies somehow and secure the nomination, I’d hate to be the Obama team preparing for a one-on-one debate. Of course they would count on some help from the “moderators”, but I’m guessing there’d be some debate dodging going on.

      Mitt gave him a big pass in these debates by not pounding Newt for his attacks on free enterprise. That’s not likely to continue and Newt may still have a price to pay. A good test of both camps’ political skills.

      • Nancye

        Newt would mop up the floor with Obama during a debate – that is, if Obama had the courage to debate Newt, which I doubt.

    • post*tenebras*lux

      Bammy will not debate Gingrich, I repeat will not. The set up has begun. He will sit back and say, look what I’m doing for you (i.e. free birth control for all, free healthcare, etc.) and that’s about it.

    • Darkcloud

      Thank-you Mike for an unbiased,friendly outsider’s view of our electoral process. I think you have stated it perfectly and I am a Santorun supporter.