Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was Tim Russert’s "guest" on “Meet the Press” Sunday, and it’s safe to assume the eloquent Georgian would have preferred something more pleasant for Christmas like a root canal, a colonoscopy, or an income tax audit. In fact, Russert gave Gingrich a grilling that many murder suspects don’t receive from hostile police officers in an interrogation room.
With that as pretext, while you read some of Russert’s inquiries, just imagine how incredibly unlikely it is that any Democrat candidate for president will ever face the kinds of questions Gingrich did this fine day. For instance, can you in your wildest dreams envision Russert asking John Edwards or Hillary Clinton something like this:
When you ran for speaker, you did call Democrats grotesque, dishonest, you said Jim Wright, the former speaker, was a crook. I mean, there’s a long history of very aggressive partisan rhetoric from Newt Gingrich. Do you regret that now?
Nice, huh? Or, how about this:
You said you’re not running for president yet. In every article that assesses your presidential prospects, starting with today’s New York Times, your home state paper, the Atlanta Constitution, it always talks about your liabilities. I want to talk about that and give you a chance to respond…This is how you’re—this is the Atlanta Constitution…Gingrich’s liabilities, as Americans would certainly be reminded in a campaign, run the gamut from personal to political. Twice divorced, he has been accused of having extramarital affairs—including one while he was leading the movement to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about an affair. ...
“And then there are the ethics charges first raised in 1996. ... The House Ethics Committee investigated Gingrich’s use of tax-exempt charities to fund a college course he was teaching at two Georgia colleges.
“Critics charged that the course was political in nature and violated the groups’ tax-exempt status. Gingrich was reprimanded and ordered to pay $300,000 for improper use of funds and for twice providing the Ethics Committee with false statements.” How do you deal with that in a presidential campaign?
Think Russert is going to ask Hillary about Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, or Peter Paul the next time she's on "Meet the Press"?
Regardless of the answers, there was a question that I bet Russert regrets asking:
MR. RUSSERT: But do you, do you regret pressing the impeachment of President Clinton so hard?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: President—you know, I’m—I’ve been divorced twice.
Both times I’ve been deposed. Both times I was told, “Perjury is a felony. You should tell the truth under deposition.” President Clinton lied under oath as a lawyer in front of a sitting federal judge in a civil rights case. This was not about his personal behavior in the Oval Office. That’s a matter of judgment, and people can render judgment. The question is, do you want to go down the road of Nigeria and corruption and have a country in which, as long as he’s popular, he can break the law? And if Clinton gets to commit perjury on this topic, then what does the next president get to commit perjury on, and then what does the next president get to commit perjury on? This was entirely about something I knew personally. We have an obligation as citizens to tell the truth to a federal judge under oath. The president failed that.
Think Russert wishes he could take that one back?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Think Russert wishes he cou
December 17, 2006 - 23:34 ET by MyKindaSpamThink Russert wishes he could take that one back?
Absolutely not. He just wishes that Newt hadn't answered so well. I look forward to Russert asking Hillary if she regrets claiming that a "vast right wing conspiracy" was behind her husband's problems when, it turns out that her husband's behavior was the real culprit. If they don't pitch questions like that, then there is no chance that the person being interviewed will swing, miss, have the bat fly out of his grasp and hit a small handicapped child and then fall to the field with his ankles around his ears.
MKS
December 17, 2006 - 23:36 ET by Noel SheppardMKS,
Don't hold your breath. ns
Yeah, I'm not expecting tho
December 17, 2006 - 23:50 ET by MyKindaSpamYeah, I'm not expecting those kind of questions for Hillary either, but there is a chance that the liberal attitude about her will sour and then she will be asked questions silmilar to the ones that conseratives are asked. Until they no longer think of her as a fellow liberal in good standing, she will be treated with kid gloves.
I thought Newt handled Russer
December 17, 2006 - 23:51 ET by EvilRoyI thought Newt handled Russert very well. I thought the "history professor" Newt handled the "attorney" Russert's questions with grace. He didn't flinch at the questions but answered them directly. Newt will never get elected President because he's almost too honest. But he would be a great one.
People like Russert aren't in
December 18, 2006 - 01:57 ET by mattmPeople like Russert aren't interested in reasoned and factual answers. If they were, not only would they show the same level of skepticism to politicians of all stripes, they would also ask questions that pertain to policies that affect the citizens, rather than either softballing their leftist buddies or playing 'gotcha' with conservatives.
The person I will support for the GOP nomination is the one (if any) who will go on a show like Russert's armed with quotes and questions of theirs to throw back at them. I want a candidate who can beat the MSM at their own game.
Evil Roy: Not quite yet, I fo
December 18, 2006 - 07:57 ET by Senior ChiefEvil Roy:
Not quite yet, I for sure WILL vote for Newt. I've heard some of GOP aspirants, but none of them is articulate and focus as Newt. Granted with Newt's "baggage", but whom of us don't and whom of the entire pool of wanna-be presidents doesn't have "baggages". Like what you said of his honesty, we need an honest, conservative pro-strong military in Newt. Romney is close though to my list.
This was not about his person
December 17, 2006 - 23:54 ET by bigtimerThis was not about his personal behavior in the Oval Office. That’s a matter of judgment, and people can render judgment. The question is, do you want to go down the road of Nigeria and corruption and have a country in which, as long as he’s popular, he can break the law?
I watched this segment....Newt said it all, the only thing Newt forgot to include is a 'D' behind his/her name...it is always, I mean always alright if you are a leftists, how could he forget that?
All the more to love with the leftist msm.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Until there is a qualified
December 18, 2006 - 00:14 ET by liberal_bug_zapperUntil there is a qualified check and balance to the current MSM, I can't see anyone like Newt getting elected President.
No matter how scholarly or intelligent he is, they will crucify him and concoct all kinds of scandals so that come election day, the spineless moderates will believe that he's not a good guy, or even that he is a crook.
I don't believe there will be any combating the MSM unless people who lie are taken to task. Lying in the press needs to be stamped out. The free market can handle this, but the political will isn't there to shut them up.
Free speech does not mean freedom from being held to account for lies that interfere with, or outright damage our country's ability to protect itself. Free speech does not mean that you can continually shape the news to reflect what you believe.... and not be held to account. The press is protected by the Constitution... and it is because of that, that we should hold them to high standards.... and holding to someone to a high standard means if they lie, or cheat, we punish them.
No more anonymous sources.... you either come out and say it.... or you don't. Because an anonymous source is the same as just "making it up".
You are absolutely right. T
December 18, 2006 - 00:51 ET by Red JeepYou are absolutely right. There is no way Gingrich can run for president with today’s media. I am sure that if he announced he was running, the first thing the MSM would drag out is his 1995 “...wither on the vine…” comment he made about getting rid of the Medicare bureaucracy, NOT Medicare benefits. Remember that?
To refresh your memories go to http://www.cnn.com/A.... This is an article about how the press distorted what Gingrich said by leaving out part of his statement about Medicare. Brooks Jackson wrote this when he was at CNN trying to honestly report the facts.
If Gingrich were to run I am sure we would hear “…wither on the vine…” until the MSM forced him out of the race.
For all the good Newt does
December 18, 2006 - 01:14 ET by spiderdanFor all the good Newt does for legitimate America and its citizens, those dwelling in the septic tank of illegitimate America will stink up the room tossing their little balls of dung at us for considering a Gingrich presidency. Not that we can't clean up the mess, but the Clinton era guaranteed us generations of bitter partisanship of the kind we've seen manifested during the Bush 43 administration. America was heavily damaged by the fraud and deceit of Bill Clinton -- how we rebuild depends on the resolve of conservatives and legitimate Americans.
It seems -- after the November 8 elections -- the fraud and deceit factor was huge, shouldered by the GOP and their feckless campaign centered on allowing Democrats to portray themselves as legitimate Americans (when we all know they are nothing of the sort). Our rebuilding process must have begun on November 9 or this nation is doomed.
We know, and that's a start
December 18, 2006 - 02:18 ET by liberal_bug_zapperWe know, and that's a start. But what we need to do is try and convince at least two people around us... and then educate them.... providing they are not already moonbats.
You and Spider are hitting th
December 18, 2006 - 06:10 ET by Andrew H.You and Spider are hitting the issue straight into its heart. Informing, educating the voters--a difficult mountain to climb given the state of many minds... I will do all I can. We know the DNA of the libs begins with self-centeredness, a bad public school education and ignorance of economics. To the libs, the myth of a never ending well of money should be aportioned to them regardless of worth or work. Finally and ultimately, we should pay for every abortion, every little cold they get and their pain pills... and to them, we have no war, no enemy.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Hi Andrew, Actually, to the
December 18, 2006 - 11:42 ET by liberal_bug_zapperHi Andrew, Actually, to the Libs, there is no endless pot of money.... to them, it is a zero sum game. To the Liberal mind, there is a limited pie, and the rich have taken more than their fair share.
Think about that for a little while. Allow that truth to settle in. Now can you begin to understand why they want to tax the rich? Now can you understand where they come from?
These people don't come from a position of hope. They come from a position of despair and of ultimate loss. They don't believe there is gold at the end of the rainbow; they only see a garbage can. Liberals are the cynics in us all. They are the hypercritical, the hyper-depressed. Liberals don't see the glass as half full, they see it as full of pollution that is killing everyone. Liberals are not happy people and so instead of trying to find happiness, they look to drag everyone else down to their misery. They are the radical egalitarians who believe that everyone should be equal. Yet the pie is too small for everyone to be rich, and it is too small for everyone to even be middle class, so, Liberals seek to tear everyone down to misery.
However bad it seems, there really are not many Liberals... and as soon as we can separate out the people who are not self loathing, we can begin the slow rehabilitation back to reality. Reforming a faux-Liberal is a long and arduous process that can be quite hard, but stick with it. I've been working on my parents for quite some time now (aging hippies).
Merry Christmas everyone!
The attacks from the MSM agai
December 18, 2006 - 06:02 ET by Indiana JoeThe attacks from the MSM against Newt were almost a "dry run" for the tactics they later used against GWB. Think about it. It started virtually from the minute Newt became the most visible representative of the conservative movement, and was by far the most vitriolic smear campaign against a Republican to that date.
Fast forward to 2000. As soon as it became apparent that GWB was going to be the Republican nominee, the same type of skeleton-digging commenced. And it rose to an even higher level than it did for Newt. AND it continues to this day.
The MSM has found a tactic that works. They won't abandon it. Expect the same treatment of WHOEVER the Republican candidate is in '08. Everyone has SOME skeletons in their closet. It's just a matter of digging hard enough, and banging whatever "drum" they find long enough and loud enough.
We have less than two years to figure out how to counter this, starting now. We need some conservatives with the spine and the ability to take these people on at their own game. Where are those conservatives?
Btw, I didn't catch this segment. I'd like to have heard some of Newt's other answers. A full transcript, or at least a link to the video, would have been nice....
Where are the Conservatives? Great question.
December 18, 2006 - 06:18 ET by acaiguanaWhere are the Conservatives? Great question.
Licking their wounds, I suppose. They got so much wrong and were led astray by a leaderless Congress I don't quite know what the solution might be. It certainly isn't in abandoning the President because the MSM drove his popularity ratings into the basement.
It'd be good to see a Conservative come out with clearly thought out refutations of the image and the ideas.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
ACA,Yeah, I look around and I
December 18, 2006 - 07:08 ET by Indiana JoeACA,
Yeah, I look around and I don't see ANYONE on the horizon right now. There was a time I thought Mitch McConnell was the next rising star, but haven't heard a peep from him since forever.
Idealogically, academically, AND spine-wise, Newt is probably the best we have at this moment. But the MSM made him a non-starter when he was speaker. Much as I hate to admit it, he's unelectable. A shame.
No one else has really caught my interest yet. Hope someone pops up, and SOON!
Otherwise, I'm afraid we'll be stuck with McCain! You KNOW that's who the MSM will side with during the primaries, right? The "moderate."
Lord, save us!
Newt is smart but NOT nationally electable
December 18, 2006 - 07:15 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasI do believe Newt is quite capable of leading Republicans as well as the rest of congress but he does not have the electability factor. He would not get the moderate or independent votes needed. He is good in a debate...SOMETIMES...but the average voters isn't tuned into what makes Newt so distinguishable.
Now maybe Newt can overcome his visible deficits but following Bush I don't believe Newt is the person. Of course I am a Rudy man whose temperment and leadership skills make him quite appealing.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.
I think Newt has grown tremen
December 18, 2006 - 07:32 ET by ChemicalOperatorI think Newt has grown tremendously from his days as the Speaker. He seems to have a poise and presence about him in debates against even the strongest attackers. He is also a great communicator on his ideas. Depending on what kind of campaign and how aggressive he wanted to be, I think he could be a definite contender.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Well, CO, I agree with what y
December 18, 2006 - 08:15 ET by Indiana JoeWell, CO, I agree with what you say about Newt. I've always liked him and thought he was a great representative of the modern conservative movement. He would be the "contender," if not for the media.
I just don't think he could overcome the attacks from the MSM that would assuredly start the minute he announced. I mean, that stuff is already written! All they'd have to do is comb their archives from '94 through '98 or so. Plus, any recent traffic-tickets he's gotten....
They've already destroyed him as a viable candidate. The term "failure to launch" comes to mind... and it's a great shame.
Well, Guy, when it comes to R
December 18, 2006 - 08:23 ET by Indiana JoeWell, Guy, when it comes to Rudy, I'll grant you the "temperment and leadership skills" argument. He did a great job with NYC. It's his politics I have a problem with.
Bush has turned out to not be conservative enough for me, especially financially, in re reining in spending. You'd have a hard time convincing me that Rudy is MORE conservative than Bush.
Rudi is more conservative tha
December 19, 2006 - 09:03 ET by midnight cowboyRudi is more conservative than GWB in "some" areas. He gave NYC a healthy dish of fiscal disipline, he shut down the smut houses, unleashed the NYPD on the scum of the city which brought the murder rate from 2200 per year to around 500. Imposed quality of life crimes so the squeegie kids and the bums sleeping and urinating on the sidewalk were no more. Had massive corporate investment in the city rebuilding Times square from a red light distict to a captialist mecca. As for foreign policy its refreshing to see a guy when shortly after 9/11 the Saudi Prince was awarding a check to the city to help rebuild, but in doing so took a shot at the Jews, Rudy therefore told the prince to take the check and shove it where the sun don't shine.
I was really surprised that N
December 18, 2006 - 09:03 ET by Dave RI was really surprised that Newt was allowed to even answer the question without constant interruption, as so often happens when a liberal is interviewing a conservative.
Yeah, they see the need to br
December 18, 2006 - 09:12 ET by Chris NormanDave,
Yeah, they feel the need to break up the train of thought behind a good answer, leaving the rest of it dangling. You can really see this when you read some of these transcripts.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Interruption and name-calling
December 18, 2006 - 09:46 ET by cunservatyveInterruption and name-calling is the only way they can "win" against a conservative's logic. Their own positions are so illogical (i.e., emotional) that they can't really debate.
Cunservatyve military medical guy
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote!
Does anyone have a side-by-si
December 18, 2006 - 09:39 ET by FastEdDoes anyone have a side-by-side comparison of questions to a republican vs a democrat? I'd like to see the questions to Newt vs. the questions to Hillary - oh wait, cowardly RussO can ask a repub anything but a cowardly over the Hillary doesn't even get to the studio,
no bias in the media shown on this show!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
I've always wanted to see a v
December 18, 2006 - 23:00 ET by mulerider24I've always wanted to see a video float around addressing the hypocrisy of our MSM and their whimsical interviewing tactics. It should show Russert really digging into Newt and his personal life then flip to a clip of him lobbing softballs to his political inverse. Then it should give a quick excerpt on follow-up questions. Show Russert hammering conservatives until they bleed from the ears, and then follow that with his typical "okie dokie" after every democratic dodge-ball routine (I'm picturing Russert playing Tommy Boy on his first sales trip. After promising not to take no for an answer, he subsequently dashes to the nearest door after every rejection).
That's just one of my many Christmas wishes this year. Any chances of Santa coming through on that one?
Mulerider
December 19, 2006 - 00:16 ET by Noel SheppardMR,
Fabulous idea. That will get elevated to the powers that be. ns
No, Hillary or another Democr
December 18, 2006 - 09:42 ET by cunservatyveNo, Hillary or another Democrat won't likely get the same treatment on their personal lives or scandals. But...there's no lefty media bias! Come on...they keep telling us this over and over. We need to believe it like the good little sheep they want us to be!
Cunservatyve military medical guy
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote!
Russert
December 18, 2006 - 11:33 ET by iveseenitallI think Tim Russert is leading the pack in the race to become the most obnoxious hypocrite in the media. He picks and chooses when to use the "Im going to ask tough questions " routine. He makes me and miliions of Americans sick to even look at that round face and unctuous smile. BAARF!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
hillary's lap dog
December 19, 2006 - 05:32 ET by foolnomore"rusted-nuts" would never-ever step off the reservation an address real questions like that to the queen of mean or the other underlings,he's still needs to get invited to all the cockerless parties..he's got a reputation to look out for..