Gingrich Scolds CNN's King Again for Ex-Wife Question: 'You Could Have Ignored ABC'
As NewsBusters previously reported, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich severely admonished CNN's John King for beginning last Thursday's debate in South Carolina with questions about the former Speaker's ex-wife.
King asked Gingrich about this highly-publicized incident on his program Tuesday, and the former Speaker told his host, "You didn't have to take the bait. You didn't have to pick it up. You could have ignored ABC" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
JOHN KING, CNN: We had a bit of a moment the other night in South Carolina. I asked a question at the beginning of the debate. You took offense. Here's part of your answer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWT GINGRICH: Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested, because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor; they're attacking me. I'm sure they'll probably get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul. I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: I want to come back to your point there, sir. You were attacking me, and you were calling me part of the elite media. And we can debate whether it was an appropriate question for the beginning of debate. My business is debating that. But I could not have asked you the question if your ex-wife had not come forward. She's a Republican, sir. She says she supports much of your principles. How was that an example of the elite media trying to protect Barack Obama?
GINGRICH: Well, you have to ask yourself the question. Why would ABC go back many years, why would they dredge up something which had already been reported several years ago? Why would they do it two nights before a primary? Why would they refuse to have other witnesses rebut her?
We offered them a number of people who were there at the time, who said what she was saying just wasn't true.
Now I would just suggest to you that, when the only person you get is an ex-wife who wants to testify on the air just before a primary with nobody allowed to rebut her, there's something a little goofy about that design.
And my point to you, John, was simple, and I repeat it. You didn't have to take the bait. You didn't have to pick it up. You could have ignored ABC. We could have gone straight to energy policy, the economy, balancing the budget. There were lots of big questions we could have talked about instead of taking the time on something like that.
KING: We did talk about other issues, but a lot of people in the state were talking about that issue that day, as you well know, sir. A lot of people think that exchange worked to your benefit. That's not for me and my calculation.
But again, have you spoken to your ex-wife at all? Why did she come forward at that time? ABC can speak for itself. It says -- I can't speak for ABC, but it says if you had offered people, it would have interviewed them.
GINGRICH: Oh, that is just plain baloney. I mean, I'll check with R.C. Hammond in a minute. But if they're saying that, they're not being honest, because they said explicitly the opposite. So I will check with R.C., because he was briefing me on this the whole way through. We had several people prepared to be very clear and very aggressive in their dispute about that. And they weren't interested.
KING: Mr. Speaker, thanks for your time today. We'll see you on the trail in Florida soon.
GINGRICH: Good to be with you, John.
KING: Take care, sir.
As King said, there has been a lot of speculation that this moment helped Gingrich win the South Carolina primary. Do you believe that, and if so, how much of a factor was it?
On the other hand, some pundits of late have claimed the former Speaker's anti-media message can only go so far and could begin wearing thin with the electorate.
Do you agree with that, or is the public's outrage over the double standard between how President Obama and the Republican candidates are being covered so strong that this media bias issue is going to be a winner for Gingrich throughout this campaign?
(H/T James Crugnale)
Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Keep poundin' 'em, Newt.....
Submitted by nonncom on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 9:55am.
Never give the suckers an even break.....the media are the new McCarthyists....only their objective is to discredit anything Republican....and to protect anything obama....
Part of Gingrich's appeal is
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 10:00am.
Part of Gingrich's appeal is due to anger directed at the LSM and part is because he has some good answers. One thing I look at is what can the President do and will Gingrich do it. Some promise things they cant do or is not feasible because it is congress' area.
Any President saying they are going to pass laws is spouting BS as congress makes the laws and the President signs and executes them. Now the execution of the law is where the President can exert power; it is where this President is exerting power.
Losers
Submitted by bmacdmac on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 10:36am.
The only one's interested in this story (non-story) is the media. 15 years ago when the facts are fuzzy they can spin this as they want and 90% of the public has no idea if it's fact or fiction. There's very little the media cares to bring up about Obama so they simply attack whom evers leading for the Republicans.
Someone needs to remind John.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 10:42am.
Isn't he supposed to be a J-O-U-R-N-A-L-I-S-T?
Just because one person tells ABC something, a journalist 30 years ago would not have assumed that it was the truth without checking the facts and getting to the bottom of the story first.
John King is the NEW face of reporting. Just throw it against the wall and see what sticks. It's especially easy when you have your own agenda.
More points to Newt for going back on his little CNN show and once again answering the question that he knew had to be coming. Bambi doesn't have the balls to go anywhere near a Fox news show.
The real funny thing?
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 11:04am.
I'm guessing John King and his lapdog buddies see the whole thing as something of a badge of honor for King
He just proves the point that urinalysts should be licensed.
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 11:33am.
The governments at all levels license various professions simply for the fact that SOME professions need a minimum set of standards for the 'public good'.
Pilots, doctors, nurses, taxi drivers, truckdrivers, pharmacists, and every other field the 'government' feels the need to 'license'.
I see another field that REQUIRES licensing and strict adherence to minimum standards.
"Reporters" should be licensed as "reporters" whose job description is to "REPORT the news as it happens. NOT as they wish it would have happened.
"Commentators" should be licensed as "commentators" and they can 'comment' any way they so choose as long as the public/viewing audience know it is merely the talking heads opinion, and political agenda being pushed forward.
Reporters that violate their license by pushing forward a personal agenda instead of reporting ACTUAL occurrences FACTUALLY loses their license for 6 months for a first offense, and permanently for a second offense.
No reporter barred for life from 'reporting' may be issued a commentator license for any reason.
Commentators will have their "Freedom of Speech" unencumbered by such things as "Adherence to the truth" requirements.
"Reporters" will have a "ZERO TOLERANCE" policy strictly enforced.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
The state of NC charges me to
Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 12:01pm.
The state of NC charges me to exercise my 2 Amendment rights when it comes to a gun permit or conceal carry. If I should be convicted of a felony I lose those rights Why shouldn't reporters have to pay for a permit to exercise their rights? Why shouldn't they lose that right when they are drunk and run a biker down with their car?
WLJ,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 12:08pm.
Sounds good until you realize that in a bureaucracy it will eventually be liberals administering the license and deciding what is appropriate.
I recall the days
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 5:10pm.
"reporters" whose job description is to "REPORT the news as it happens.
"commentators" and they can 'comment' any way they so choose as long as the public/viewing audience know it is merely the talking heads opinion
I'm old enough to remember the days when (local) TV news programs sometimes would run a commentary (or "editorial") from the station manager, and clearly displayed at the bottom of the screen would be the word COMMENTARY or EDITORIAL or OPINION.
For todays journOlists, "fact
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 12:02pm.
For todays journOlists, "fact checking" consists of verifying that they received their "facts" from a Demoncrat.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
five jounalist questions
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 12:18pm.
Who (person or group) will be damaged by the information (determines if investigated with a team (Palin or Bachmann) or a junior volunteer makes a phone call (Obama, Gore or Edwards)
What must done to the deliver the information in such a way that it has the maximum impact (the spin)
Why is the information being made available (make sure it is not going to discredit a media theme)
Where and When should this information be released to make the biggest splash (ratings are still important and so is the impact if you are trying to bring down or prop up a politician)
How can this information be used to promote the 'truth' (according to liberal media POV)
Like a recent quote from someone?
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 11:16pm.
"I have an email here from the DNC"
Speaking just for
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 10:51am.
myself, the more Newt attacks the democrat media, the more he draws me in. So it will play a long time with me.
Me too, bee.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 11:02am.
Your tagline applies to Newt, also. The flak is getting thicker and heavier everyday.
Newt used his daughters from his 1st wife to convince
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 11:33am.
conservatives that his second wife was lying about his third wife.
Round two of the King- Gingrich soap opera:
We have Newt using Paul and Santorum as cover. Newt's whopper that he is defending Paul and Santorum from the media is a doozy.
"I'm sure they'll probably get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul. I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans." ---N. Gingrich
Well,Newt the media has been busy in this area for quite a few years. Rick was knocked by MSNBC a few days ago for not "correcting" a woman for calling the prez a Muslim and a socialist." The media in the form of mouth drooling Chris Matthews and Rev' Al Sharpton believe it's senator Santorum's job to "correct" Americans of how they feel about a guy that nationalizes healthcare like socialists all do. On the religion question, people do have a right to believe what they will, especially when they see YouTube videos like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY
I missed something, Irgon.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 11:45am.
"not 'correcting' a woman for calling the prez a Muslim and a socialist."
What was there to correct?
Interesting word that, "Correct"
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 12:05pm.
That's one of those subjective words that change depending on the person using it. In the libs case, "correcting" someone doesn't mean setting them on the right path, it's on the defined path as spoken by the libs regardless if it's true or not. Just like they are "correct" when they say that Soetoro gave 95% of the people a tax cut. See how that works?
There are so many words that I despise now because of stuff like this.
-Jon
⇒ You are correct
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 7:55pm.
It's just like when Obama said "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith", and was quickly corrected by Stephanopolos with "You mean your Christian faith"
After which, Candidate Obama said in perfect Arabic "Aha Salami Ham".
Yea, what do family members know?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 1:17pm.
"Newt used his daughters..."
Yea, what do family members know? It's not like his daughters ever even met his other wives, right? They couldn't possibly know anything about their own father's relationships, correct?
How many proverbial straws can you add to that Camel's back, anyways?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Keep your fingers crossed for Florida, Irgon.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 1:37pm.
Millions of retired Jews will probably come out big for your boy, and Lord knows he does really need a win.
"We've come too far to turn back now" — Jacob Donner, 1847
irgon
Submitted by RCB on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 11:43am.
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people
Eleanor Roosevelt
Someone is still a little sore it seems...?
Submitted by NeoKong on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 12:01pm.
King just can't let it go that Newt humiliated him on TV and he has to try and resurrect his image.
The question was not appropriate for a debate and for King to justify it because people were talking about it doesn't hold water. There are many real and important issues as well that people talk about that do not include Newt's ex-wife.
King got called on his hackery and he should just move on.
Except, of course...
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 1:05pm.
"ABC can speak for itself. "
Except, of course, when you bring it up during the debate.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Just another "but" head, I see
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 1:09pm.
"I can't speak for ABC, but it says if you had offered people, it would have interviewed them."
Humm, you can't speak for ABC, but you did! King, is "constancy" even part of your lexicon? We all know "dishonesty" is...
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Same old line
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 11:21pm.
After two idiot talking heads say "some say", it becomes, "well everyone knows"
Do "I" agree with that?
Submitted by Guapo Diablo on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 1:30pm.
"...some pundits of late have claimed the former Speaker's anti-media message can only go so far and could begin wearing thin with the electorate."
The MSM is emboldened now more than ever because they have competition from FNC and talk radio. They have no problem being open cheerleaders for left-wing politicians and they're way past the point of no return. For references watch MSNBC - if you can stomach it.
commie
Submitted by angelann1 on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 1:40pm.
He just followed the commie media directive !!
ZOMG!! He called him "John!"
Submitted by Immortal Fish on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 1:53pm.
ZOMG!! He called him "John!" What a racist.
CNN's John King isn't part of the elite media?
Submitted by Conservator on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 4:00pm.
Of course not; he's just another leftist in the world of journalism who will brutally assault any conservative to get their hero, President Obama, reelected. BTW, as I recall it was only Brian Ross who conducted the interview who denied that Gingrich offered a number of people to rebut the charges of his second wife.
Take-off from Sarah Palin.
Submitted by the struggler on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 6:47pm.
The Panties In A Bunch Media
C'mon Noel
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 7:30pm.
You're asking this question on a website devoted to the exact same thing - exposing and confronting Liberal Media bias?
Newt. Pound the LSM. Keep it
Submitted by Zippy on Wed, 01/25/2012 - 7:44pm.
Newt.
Pound the LSM. Keep it up.
They are not your friends.