The mainstream media basically gets to choose our president based on the degree to which they choose to scrutinize each candidate. Those they champion (Obama) are barely vetted at all, whereas those they disdain are dissected to the nth degree. Hopefully the American people will awaken to this phenomenon and not allow themselves to be so easily manipulated. Ideally, the elite media will regain a sense of responsibility and integrity as they carry out a most important function in a society blessed with the freedom of the press.
I just listened to an interview with ABC’s Brian Ross on Washington’s WMAL about his interview with New Gingrich’s second ex-wife, Marianne, scheduled to air tonight on "Nightline." It doesn’t sound like it warrants the Matt Drudge siren of yesterday, like there’s anything in it that we didn’t already know about Newt’s chaotic private and public lives.
Especially if we read in the summer of 2010 John Richardson’s long (eight pages in the online version) and mesmerizing Esquire story on Gingrich. Romney and his aides must have missed it.
If the biggest shocker in the Brian Ross interview is that Newt asked Marianne, to whom he had been married for 18 years, for an “open marriage,” that’s there in the year-and-a-half-old piece. In Richardson’s words: “He asked her to just tolerate the affair [with current wife Callista Bisek], an offer she refused.” Also, there is Newt calling Marianne to ask for a divorce shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, having installed Callista, 23 years his junior and a congressional aide, in their Washington apartment and in their bed.
UPDATE (7:25 p.m., Mon., Dec. 19) —
Today Josh Block misstated and mischaracterized what I wrote in this blog. He headlined my piece pertaining to him and apparently sent this distorted version of what I wrote and intended to his mailing list:
"Lanny Davis: CAP sandbagged me; Josh Block is right — CAP needs to clean up its act."
This is the kind of loose language and mischaracterizations that gets Block into difficulty.
I did not write nor intend to imply I was "sandbagged" — I believe Clifton sincerely thought I understood he would be emphasizing my disagreement with parts of Block's statements.
Nor do I agree that Block is "right" — he did not include the section of my column where I disagreed with his characterizations and attacks on CAP and its leadership.
Nor did I ever state or imply that "CAP needs to clean up its act." Those are Block’s words, not mine.
I resent his attempt to put words in my mouth, words I did not use or not mean.
What happens when you are wrongly accused in a posting on the Internet and you call to correct the false or misleading assertion?
This happened to me on Dec. 8 — not the first time — on a post on a website associated with the liberal Democratic organization the Center for American Progress (CAP) — an organization I strongly support and whose leader, John Podesta, is a close friend of mine of over 40 years.
The CAP-affiliated website, Think Progress, and the author of the piece, Eli Clifton, wrongly accused me of supporting the “coup” in Honduras in 2008 and of defending the military strongman, Laurent Gbagbo, who had been defeated in an election in the Ivory Coast. He did so in the context of criticizing my business partner, Josh Block, for accusing CAP bloggers of using language that was “borderline anti-Semitic.” And Clifton never called me first to check his facts before attacking me.
MSM, seeking to frame OWS in context, brings some unfortunate editing. The hardships these kids suffered — one lost his computer cable — and comparisons to the Civil Rights movement exhibit inexperienced and youthful prose selections which poorly represent a rising generation. But there is here the feeling of a movement striving for a voice. A feeling that something is wrong; a dread, but it is not clear what the source is. It seems it has been wrong for a long time — most of these young people’s lives — and wrong at the center. In the last debate, for example, at least three Republicans announced that they willfully support the use of torture. It is not that they shouldn’t be elected. They should be sent into exile.
There was no excuse for CBS virtually blacking out Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul from the Saturday evening debate. The inadvertently released email from CBS's John Dickerson essentially suggesting Bachmann disappear from the debate was appalling. The mere seconds given to Ron Paul, who has important positions on foreign affairs that deserve a hearing, and who served in the military and deserved better, was equally appalling.
I believe Scott Pelley, the new CBS evening news anchor, is trying — to his credit — to make the broadcast more serious. And I believe Major Garrett of National Journal is an excellent reporter. But what happened in the debate Saturday evening was flat-out inexcusable.
I was working out at the gym this morning (I know, miracles never cease), and I looked over briefly (I know, you don’t believe me) at the television and saw one of the hosts interviewing Rachel Maddow.
I am not the biggest Rachel Maddow fan in the world (OK, I am not really a fan at all) and I immediately assumed that the topic of conversation was on the president’s decision on “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” an issue that apparently is important to the MSNBC host.
Chris Cillizza, politics reporter for The Washington Post, writes over at “The Fix” today that President Obama doesn’t have a “women” problem. Problem is, he’s wrong. Very wrong.
No, the Ron Suskind book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President, which describes a hostile work environment for women in the Obama White House, is not the reason for this “women” problem. Nor is the book going to be the downfall of his presidency.
But Cillizza grossly underestimates the gender dilemma facing this president.
Several recent books see the end coming. John Birmingham’s “After America”: Fighter bombers rushing at us on the cover. You get the picture. Paul Starobin’s “After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age”: Planet of the Apes with nerds instead of apes. Be afraid. But not that afraid. Mark Steyn’s “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon”: Self-explanatory. Andrew Breitbart said, “May puke I’m so happy.” Meaning he liked it.
These books see America as an idea rather than a place because the authors don’t understand place and have probably never been to an American place they were inclined to stay in. They would get a rash in real places like Tobaccoville, N.C., Haverhill, N.H. or Luckenbach, Texas, where Waylon, Willie and the boys hang.
The most important thing that has happened in the last two years is the states have learned that they don’t have to do what the federal government tells them to. The turning moment was when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) turned on a reporter who asked if her House bill was in compliance with the Constitution and shouted, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
The Tea Party brought it, but the MSM media tries its best to push it aside. Hope there’s not a Tea Party debate here on out, because the redneck rant doesn’t help anyone. Don’t encourage them. Seth Lipsky has a better idea. In The Wall Street Journal today he calls for a televised debate on the Constitution.
I’ve always seen similarities between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton: the white fluffy hair, the out-there philandering, the lack of discipline, the big appetites, the lies, the hypocrisy — and, yes, the brilliance: the off-the-charts IQ, the love of history and ideas, the hyper-articulateness.
During the Fox News-sponsored Republican debate last night in Ames, Iowa, when former Speaker Gingrich blasted Chris Wallace, it brought me back to a day five years ago when former President Clinton set the stage for attacking the Fox News anchorman.
Wallace was left a sputtering puddle by Clinton; he did better in his tense exchange with Gingrich, but still, I think, came out the loser.