South Carolina – This Week’s Presidential Hotbed

Here’s the run down:

Take this time to discuss on how Rick Perry’s endorsement helps/hurts/doesn’t do anything and who will win tonight’s debate in the comments below.

17 comments

  1. John Konop says:

    I wonder if this will come up in the debate? I am not one to judge people on their personal choices, but if you are pointing fingers at other people……………………..WOW

    FROM USA TODAY:

    Ex-wife: Gingrich wanted ‘open marriage’

    ………Newt Gingrich sought an “open marriage,” his former wife, Marianne, told ABC News in an interview airing tonight.

    Marianne Gingrich told ABC’s Nightline that the former House speaker asked her if he could remain married to her while also seeing another woman, Callista Bisek, his current wife………..

    ……..She said she discovered that the affair had occurred “in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington.”

    “He always called me at night,” she said, “and always ended with ‘I love you.’ Well, she was listening.”

    In an interview with The Washington Post, Marianne Gingrich said she learned of Gingrich’s divorce request while having dinner with her mother on her mother’s 84th birthday. The next day, his former wife says, Gingrich gave a speech on values.

    “How could he ask me for a divorce on Monday and within 48 hours give a speech on family values and talk about how people treat people?” she said to The Post……..

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/newt-gingrich-ex-wife-interview-/1

    • Dave Bearse says:

      Newt can argue it’s a principled position demonstrative of his respect for conservative tradition and the one man-one woman rule of law, unlike Mormons that had to be forced to abandon polygyny.

      • Dave Bearse says:

        “So Newt wanted an open marriage. BFD. At least he asked his wife for permission instead of cheating on her. That’s a mark of character, in my book. Newt’s a victim.” Rush Limbaugh, conservative icon.

        Cuz nothing marks character like impeaching the President about a BJ during the course of six years of banging an employee, like requesting an open marriage of your wife after the fact.

        • Dave Bearse says:

          I jumped the gun on Gingrich, writing before I was aware he had unequivacably denied the story.

          It’s disingenous however, for a guy that rose to power on destructive, vicious, negative tactics that have made the country harder to govern ro complain nearly 20 years later that a destructive, vicious, negative media makes it harder to govern. Newt, reap what you have sown.

    • Three Jack says:

      As the reporter Brian Ross said about the story, “I think we start by knowing that what an ex-wife has to say we all take with a grain of salt, I hope, because that’s what ex-wives can be known for,”.

      I think that about covers it.

      • John Konop says:

        Three jack,

        Newt was sleeping with an employee while maried. Newt works for the people and that would be automatic grounds for termination in most places.

        • Three Jack says:

          And after being terminated, he would seek employment elsewhere as is happening now. It is up to voters to decide if having an affair disqualifies one from public office.

  2. SallyForth says:

    Re the Iowans needing to take off their shoes to count….. This evening’s news reported that 8 or so of the precincts have lost their ballots since the caucuses, so there’s actually no way to tell who might have won. I’m thinking those 8 probably went for Romney, but some Newtonians up there conveniently lost the ballots in order to deny him a clear victory. I’m just sayin’

  3. seenbetrdayz says:

    Noticed something about the debates last night. The crowd seemed to be rather unhappy about the way the questioning occurs.

    In a debate, you’re supposed to ask each candidate the same question and give them a chance to reply. You can’t skip around on a varied range of topics every time you switch between candidates and then feel like you’re giving people the whole picture. Sometimes it didn’t even make sense to change subjects, like when they asked a question about the medical system and then conveniently tried to skip Dr. Paul. Anderson Cooper had to be steered back on track a few times, at least. If they ask Ron Paul a question, they should pose the same questions to other candidates. If they ask other candidates a question, they should pose the same question to Ron Paul. That’s how you get a fair look at each candidate’s position on each issue.

      • ted in bed says:

        King v. Cooper ….. different faces same In the Tank For Obama Media.

        Back on topic, Perry’s endorsement will help Gingrich but its so small that its imperceptible.

        Gingrich is going to do well in SC based on his performance last night. He’s a tiger vs Mitt’s pussycat performance. Santorum’s attacks on everyone looked pathetic, like a little boy annoying his parents so he can get attention.

    • Engineer says:

      Yeah, I noticed how King had to backtrack several times after the crowd strongly booed him for trying to skip Ron Paul. The biggest/loudest came was when they were discussing the health care issues and he tried to skip him. Kinda strange to leave Paul out of the health care discussion considering he is the only medical Doctor in the bunch.

    • Andre says:

      It is simply a case of the media overstepping its bounds by only posing questions to the candidates they believe are viable.

      By the only measure that counts, the delegate count, the final four GOP presidential hopefuls are within striking distance of each other.

      Until one candidate receives the requisite 1,144 delegate votes to claim the Republican presidential nomination, all candidates are viable and should be treated as such.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        People laugh at Newt’s suggestions that there be a good ‘ole fashioned Lincoln-Douglas debate, but to be honest, it’s one of the few ideas Gingrich has that I could go for. I mean, if the American people saw what a REAL debate looked like, then we might stop voting for people based on talking points instead of substance.

        Think about it:

        If you are a candidate who is lying to get people to vote for you, it’s entirely possible to survive a 30 second response. But it would be hard to go for 30 minutes on a topic without contradicting yourself and revealing that you don’t really have any conviction in your positions, but rather you’re just pandering for votes.

        Of course, not many people would want to sit through a debate that takes half a day, much less a series of such debates, even though the fate of the nation depends on it.

  4. benevolus says:

    Actually Andre, the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987. Our Hero Ronald Reagan preferred free speech over government imposed media responsibility, so this is what you get.

Comments are closed.