It appears the long-suspected theory many of us have held is correct . . . that it is no mere coincidence with the similarities of these two dreaded objects of doom. With the "breaking-but-not-yet-broken" "story" (yes, that's a lot of air-quotes . . . for good reason) of Marianne Gingrich's career-ending interview regarding her ex-husband, our worst fears have been confirmed. To our great surprise, we have emerged from hyperspace to encounter a fully-armed and operational battlestation!
Preface 1 - This was originally derived from my comment number four-hundred-and-something under Erick's post regarding Rick Perry as Kingmaker. It was getting long for a comment so I turned it into a diary entry.
Preface 2 - This is authored by someone who has been and continues to be a public and enthusiastic Rick Perry supporter, someone who is not vehemently opposed to Romney as the nominee, and someone who has not necessarily been kind to Gingrich in his commentary.
Enough referring to myself in third person. To the point:
Although rotund, Newt is not Alderran. . . but he's sure being treated like it.
A great debate performance, probably THE debate performance, from a “non-Romney,” coupled with poll numbers that seem to indicate that said “non-Romney” could actually provide a bump on the road to inevitable nominee-ness, and all of a sudden, this happens.
We learn, in time to have a negative effect on the election but probably not enough time to recover, that (partly based on a story from last year), Speaker Gingrich’s ex-wife Marianne could “end his career with a single interview.” And, after leaking the existence of this interview to, um, fellow media outlets, the
Imperial Propaganda Ministry ABC News Execs (that’s where Georgie Stephanopolos works, right?) are now debating if it would be “ethical” to release the interview before the Palmetto state primaries.
1. If Marianne Gringrich hated her ex-husband enough to “end his career with a single interview,” and had more to divulge than she already has, don’t we think she would have done it before now? Newt didn’t exactly emerge from obscurity or a self-imposed exile to make a run at the White House. He’s been at the forefront of political commentary and an influencing force on public policy (Drill here, drill now) for years since leaving elected office. So if what Mrs. Gingrich had to say was SO damning and she was SO bent on “ending his career,” don’t we think that this would have happened before now? (End it here, end it now). Maybe she should have started a Super PAC.
2. What does the establishment, the Status-quos, the Democrats, and the
PR Firm of the Democrat party The Media not want? They do not want a conservative nominee, because a conservative nominee would win, and be, probably **conservative**. Given the current field of prospects, it's no great secret their favorite would be Romney, and Romney is who the administration most wants to run against (Pon Laul does not count). So it seems a bit consequential that all of a sudden when a “non-Romney” that might actually hold some core conservative convictions starts to get a little tailwind . . . WELL, we have a blockbuster, career-ending, deal-breaking story here. But . . . (leading to point #3)
3. ABC does more damage to the Gingrich campaign by noting the story exists, but NOT releasing the interview, than it does by actually releasing it. Why? My guess is, much like with most any movie featuring Ashton Kutcher, the trailer for the interview (a.k.a. ‘leak’) is much more sensational than the interview itself (for the record, I did really like That 70's Show). If they really fear Gingrich as a conservative and had a blockbuster interview that could bury his big mouth forever, does anyone really believe they’d take the “ethics” of the thing into account. Heck, actually, I think it would be far less ethical to hold a story that could effect an election versus actually running with it and letting the people decide. Isn't that what the media is for . . . to report, and then we decide? It would seem that they think they should be in charge of deciding when we get to decide. Not sure I read that in the 1st Amendment, unless maybe Ruth Bader Ginsburg has "discovered it" as a right (oh those, tricky, tricky, Founding Fathers, hiding all those rights like that!).
ANYWAY, all of this tells me that the interview itself is not that damning or even forthcoming with new information. But the suspense of what the interview might contain is. Remember, these folks understand and have worked hard to condition the public that it is not the nature of the evidence but rather the “seriousness of the charge” upon which we must all be judged (unless you're elected with a -D by your name . . . see Eliot Spitzer, William Jefferson, William Jefferson Clinton, etc.).
As a conservative who would rather see a non-Romney as the nominee, my plea is this: Release the d*mn interview. If it's that bad, then we shouldn’t support Newt. If it's not, as I suspect, then this is one of the most blatant instances of media-based election engineering that I have ever seen.
But the Death Star didn't exactly go to any great lengths to disguise its purpose, either. I mean, the thing was called the DEATH Star. Of course it was a trap.