I can't believe I am dedicating blog space to Newt Gingrich. If he's the Republican choice to run against Barack Obama, I am sure our president will laugh his way all the way back to the White House. Let's just say I don't think much of the former speaker. Really, I never have.
His resurgence as a candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidential race has always kind of befuddled me, but I figured the slate of candidates was so odd, he fit right in.
But after watching Thursday night's debate in South Carolina, hosted by CNN, where Newt blasted the media (again) because John King had the gall to ask Newt about the fact that his ex-wife came out that very day with damaging allegations that had to do with his infidelity toward her, and how he cheated on her with his current wife, which led to the demise of his marriage.
First, Newt is the one who cheated. He made the mistake. Supposedly, he's asked for forgiveness from God and moved on. That's fine. Great for him. I'm glad he did, but does that absolve him of blame, questions and allegations?
I don't think anyone who runs for president of the United States would be naive enough to believe that any mistake, no matter how minor, or the mistakes of their family members wouldn't make headlines at some point or another. If Sarah Palin's daughter's out-of-wedlock baby continued to make news for years after she and McCain were defeated, then why wouldn't Newt's extra-marital affairs be on the nightly news?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not condoning this, but it's the facts of life in the U.S. We know too many details about a blue dress, a cigar and Oval Office happenings, thanks to Bill Clinton, so why wouldn't the media question Newt's affairs? Especially since it was Newt himself who came down hardest on Clinton when Clinton was in hot water ... Well, until Newt's misgivings came out that is, and he lost his job in Washington.
As much as I don't like hear about the personal lives of politicians, doesn't it hint a little bit at their character, and isn't character important to the office of president?
But beyond that, I was confused by Newt's attack last night on the media. Is it the media's fault he cheated, or that his ex-wife came forth? But Newt loves to blame the media. He should take my husband's advice. Henry always wonders why any public figure would blast the media. As he says, "I don't care how much I didn't like the media, I'd be their best friend. I sure wouldn't piss off the one thing that can destroy me."
Of course, the media isn't out to destroy anyone, not the average media anyway. We try to be fair and report the news, not create it. But a lot of people, especially public figures, like to blast the media to the cheers of the American people. Everyone loves to hate the media.
But why? And where would we be without it?
Where would you get your news? How would you know what the nation's deficit is, or what your politicians in Washington are really doing? How would you find out about the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, or even on a local level, how would you even know who represents you on the city council or county council? And how would you know if they're representing you at all?
Obviously, you could go to every meeting yourself, but I think for most that's not going to happen. They rely on the local newspaper, radio and regional TV stations to know what's happening in their world at the same time they're blasting the people for telling them the news.
Newt, the people of the United States wouldn't even know who you are if it weren't for the media you love to insult. Think about it.