Standing Ovation Supressed by Minitrue

I have not closely been following the political race here in America. My first impression is one of disgust toward all the candidates except for Rick Santorum.

But first impressions can be swayed. I admit that Mr Gingrich gained back the smallest possible increment of my good will that he lost when he slandered venture capitalism when I heard of these remarks.

These remarks prompted a standing ovation, which was not reported in any major news outlet covering the debates. We can no longer call then news media: they are the Ministry of Truth from Orwell. I myself only heard about it through new media sources.

 

As best I can tell, everyone in the audience is standing. It is more disgust for the so-called news media than respect for the candidate perhaps, but he handled himself in a manly fashion after the schoolgirlish Mr John King of Minitrue tried to play catty with him.

Since the days of President Clinton, whom the press closed ranks to protect, this behavior was labeled by the Left as ‘sexual McCarthism’ a phrase audacious if not sublime in its utter lack of sense and content.

H/T to The Anchoress. More here.

27 Comments

  1. Comment by AndyHat:

    Er, does the New York Times not count as a major news outlet? http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/gingrich-attacks-the-news-media-and-creates-a-stir/

    Or http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/us/politics/republican-debate-south-carolina.html if you want a story that ran in the print edition. “Mr. Gingrich met the question with cold anger, winning roars of approval from the debate audience.”

    I assume Fox News covered it as well, and as they’re proud of proclaiming themselves the #1 television news source and therefore the very definition of a major news outlet, I believe it’s hard to argue that the media is somehow suppressing this story.

    I know I saw this story covered all over the place. Maybe you’ve been busy and not paying attention, but that’s hardly the same as the story being “not reported in any major news outlet”.

  2. Comment by Manwe King of the Valar:

    It was quite the show, the look on John King’s face was priceless! To say he didn’t expect what was going to happen would be a massive understatement. I wonder if he’ll ever want to host a debate again? As for Newt, I thought he handled himself very well.
    However, I still have mixed opinions about the man himself. I used to like him alot more, but over time, hearing of his sordid past..ugh! And this lastest thing, an ‘open marriage’, disgusting.
    Considering that Newt just won the S.C primary, and that it turns out Santorum was the actual winner of Iowa, this really might not be a lock for Romney. Not sure if that is good or bad though(don’t like Romney, but Newt is troubled guy, Santorum is good however, but plenty on the left don’t like him, thanks to his record on social issues).

    • Comment by robertjwizard:

      And this lastest thing, an ‘open marriage’, disgusting.

      Hold it. This story, merely by making it onto the news, is therefore true? Do you believe everything that is put on the news? By evaluating it as disgusting means you already evaluate it as true.

      • Comment by Manwe King of the Valar:

        No need for the curt reply, no I don’t believe everything I hear on the news, but given Newt’s sordid history, (snd the fact that is was his ex-wife that accused him, not a reporter), it is quite possibly true. If it is not, then good! By all means I hope it is false, I don’t dislike him at all, but my opinion of him has been hurt by some of his actions, both past and present.

        “By evaluating it as disgusting means you already evaluate it as true.”
        True or false, an ‘open marriage’ is a disgusting thing. That is why I said it was disgusting.

        • Comment by robertjwizard:

          My apologies, I was not trying to be or sound curt, although on second reading it reads so.

          There is the timing of the accusation to consider. There is also the unrelenting wrath of a woman wronged to consider.

          I also am under no misconceptions, the man is a creep in at least one department of life. And I don’t believe such a thing is containable.

          • Comment by AndyHat:

            I’ll point out that this interview hasn’t really added any new information; Esquire reported it all back in August 2010: http://www.esquire.com/features/newt-gingrich-0910-8

            However, the story was generally ignored back then as noone really believe Gingrich would come back as a presidential candidate. (The fact that Newt was cheating on Marianne for years isn’t really in dispute; the part of her interview that he claims false is the proposal of an “open marriage” as an alternative to divorce).

          • Comment by Manwe King of the Valar:

            Apology accepted!

            “There is the timing of the accusation to consider. There is also the unrelenting wrath of a woman wronged to consider.”

            That is all true, and I should take that into consideration. I guess I just feared it was truem given Newt’s ugly past. I really hope it’s not, but regardless, as you said “the man is a creep in at least one department of life.”

            • Comment by John C Wright:

              There are things I like, even admire, about Speaker Gingrich, BUT — sorry, as a conservative, I could never in good conscience vote for another Bill Clinton.

              I do not care what his other qualifications for office might be, if you cannot keep your Love Sausage in your trousers, you need to find another job than leader of the Free World. It is like hiring a deaf man as a telephone operator.

              As a Catholic I am not sure I can vote for a man who divorces his wife, even if the other rumors and stories about him are untrue, that is not disputed.

              • Comment by Tom Simon:

                Do bear in mind, he has converted to Catholicism since the collapse of his first two marriages and of his Speakership of the House. Are there no sins in your past, Sir, from the days before you were received into the Church, that you would be ashamed to see aired in public now?

                • Comment by John C Wright:

                  “Do bear in mind, he has converted to Catholicism since the collapse of his first two marriages and of his Speakership of the House. Are there no sins in your past, Sir, from the days before you were received into the Church, that you would be ashamed to see aired in public now?”

                  Yes. If there was a divorce in my past, I would not stand for public office. I would not insult the voters by tempting them to vote for me. There are plenty of qualified men, equal to me in merit, who have no such past.

                  Come. Suppose an ex-murderer converted and repented. Suppose time travelers and prophets assure us without doubt that the man will never murder again. Should he be elected over an non-murderer equally qualified?

                  I do not consider breaking the commandment against adultery to any lighter than breaking that commandment against murder. Call me a romantic.

              • Comment by robertjwizard:

                Divorce can have many reasons. I think the fact is this: Gingrich is a man that can look his wife in the eye – and lie. Not only lie like “no, dear, that dress doesn’t make you look fat”, but lie on the most fundamental level of trust possible. He can fact reality on a dnagerous level. That type of person is not fit to be president I don’t care his stated policies.

  3. Comment by robertjwizard:

    That is the Newt Gingrich I used to have a soft spot for. He can be quite implacable, and sometimes he nails it on the head really, really well.

  4. Comment by Boggy Man:

    Granted I watch as much CNN as I do Taiwanese folk dancing, but I seem to remember this little puke. I was at the gym on the day of the Fort Hood shooting, and he was telling us how there was NO RELATION TO THE GREAT RELIGION OF PEACE. No not at all, and even if there was it shouldn’t reflect on Muslims anymore that Timothy McVeigh should reflect on his fellow Christians.

    The fact that he still has a head is proof that I unfortunately have no Sith powers.

  5. Comment by Iapetus:

    I’m of two minds about Gingrich but I have to admit, if nothing else he knows how to handle himself in a debate. This isn’t the first time he’s stirred up the crowd, either. He did the same thing a couple days or so ago when taking a question from Juan Williams.

  6. Comment by robertjwizard:

    I concede the point.

    Doesn’t the circumstances of the divorce make any difference here? Jane Wyman filed for divorce against Reagan because of a disagreement in Reagan’s desire for a political career.

    Newt Gingrich sticks his wee wee in a younger woman everytime the older one loses her bloom.

    No difference?

    On top of that you guys feel obligated to forgive him because he has joined your church? A church, btw, that he was pursuaded to join at the urging of his now wife, who was such a good Catholic she committed adultery with him. I mean talk about a free pass…

Leave a Reply