In response to the Drudge Report’s scoop about Marianne Gingrich’s interview with ABC News, Bob Walker, a senior Gingrich adviser, tells National Review Online that the campaign will fight back. “It is pretty nasty to use personal tragedy for political exploitation,” he says. “That was a very bitter divorce, and you’re talking about somebody who is still, probably, very bitter.”
Beyond Walker, several sources close to the Gingrich campaign agree on the merits, but predict that Gingrich will likely ignore the story. They tell NRO that the interview is a “retread” of an Esquire magazine article published in 2010, and that Gingrich will not respond to the broadcast, at least in any official capacity.
“He’ll answer questions from voters, he’s not running away from anything, but these are old issues from the divorce,” says one source. “He has addressed these issues before, and there is nothing new here.”
Other sources familiar with ABC’s editorial direction on the segment shrug off the newsflashes, guessing that Matt Drudge, the site’s editor, was playing up a leaked scoop, nothing more. “Marianne Gingrich’s unhappiness with how things ended is something people close to Newt have known for a long time,” says a second source. “The real response from people who know him is disappointment with Marianne for doing this, and sadness about the whole situation.”
A prolonged battle with her over quotes, or with ABC News, is likely not on the horizon. There may be concerns voiced about how certain anecdotes are presented, and about specific claims, but “Gingrich has addressed this time and time again,” says a third source. “He is out there all of the time, in all of these forums, acknowledging that he has made mistakes.”
ABC News wanted Gingrich to come on Nightline to offer a rebuttal of sorts but Gingrich’s advisers declined. “This is a sideshow, a distraction,” the third source says. “Is it helpful? No. But is it a game-changer? No.”
EDITOR’s NOTE: This post has been updated to include new reporting.
Below, Gingrich’s daughters issue a memo to ABC News:
To: ABC News Leadership
From: Kathy Lubbers, Jackie Cushman
Date: January 18, 2012
The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.
We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.
ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future– about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having.
Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren – so they can inherit the America he loves. To do that, President Obama must be defeated. And as the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who has actually helped balance the national budget, create jobs, reform welfare, and cut taxes and spending, Newt felt compelled to run – to serve his country and safeguard his grandchildren’s future.
Kind of a perfect scenario for ABC News, isn't it? They can now let this fester and work against him for days, and then lay down a whammy afterward. It'll be especially sweet for them if he does well in SC, getting votes from people who are mad at ABC and want to express it by voting for him instead of maybe Santorum or Perry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe good news is that we will all survive another four years of BHO. It is not like anyone but Paul really offered a serious alternative, anyway.
Estimated national debt by 2016 election: $25 TRILLION. That's 25 million million.
Meantime, let's engross ourselves in arguing about whether ex-felons should vote and other matters of great urgency. Also, let's hold by the line that there can be absolutely no cuts in defense spending and that passive income earned by Romney should be taxed at half the rate of a plumber's wages.
The Republican party is a flipping joke.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis poster is the joke.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am assuming that Mr, Ryan approved of Clinton's multiple affairs while married.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHypocrisy on the Left is astounding.
Your post is correct. The Left's hypocrisy is laughable-they covered all the sordid details of Bill/Hillary Clinton & the Arkansas Mafia. But now, they become holier than thou, in using the "Obama Smear Machine" to bring down Mr.Gingrich. At least
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehe talked w/his then wife about their situation-Before-seeing someone else. She does
sound like a 'angry, scorned, bitter person-who apparently seeks revenge in going so public, with The LapDog media Leftists, who are 'in the tank for Obama'.
Odd thing is, WHY didn't ABC, Washinton Post, etal. Do THIS TYPE OF REPORTING WHEN OBAMA WAS RUNNING? THEY DIDN'T AND THEY ARE STILL "COVERING UP HIS HIDDEN PAST". They could have started of late, with the reports by LARRY SINCLAIR AND HIS ADMITTING TO A TRYST WITH SEN.OBAMA TWICE. MAYBE IT WILL TAKE THE NAT'L INQUIRER TO DO THE STORY, SINCE THE LAPDOG MEDIA WON'T. EXPOSE OBAMA, BEFORE YOU HYPOCRITS TRY TO SMEAR HIS OPPOSITION. You are just like Dan Rather, who
did HIS best, at giving bogus papers against Bush, trying to influence an election.
What scum....
Thanks for sharing your assumptions. Sorry though, I didn't approve of Clinton's affairs or of his perjury. I am not one of the fools that thought it was "all about sex". Likewise, I'm far from "on the Left".
Republicans have offered up a platter of garbage candidates and will lose the White House to a failure like Obama because of it.
Once again, let's all focus on idiotic non-issues dictated by Focus on Family and the Tea Dimbulbs. That should ensure more Democrats in the WH for many years to come.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince the signature issue of the Tea Parties is cutting the spending you Copperheads adore and removing the government collective from our wallet, you're either a Romney supporter or a Democrat. You're also a liar.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with you completely. The lunatics are running the asylum in the Republican party of late. Time for the party to just grow up and admit people like sex and that there are FAR more important issues to be dealing with.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm a democrat and Clinton has always disgusted me. Gingrich disgusts me too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you are a Libertarian you can not pick and choose what you like. Romney's "passive income" has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. Its what he has left over after the Govt steals what they want from his labor. TAXED, DEPENDING ON WHEN HE EARNED IT, ANYWHERE FROM 42%-35%. On top of that.....this money he and millions of other investors LOAN to banks so they can in turn make loans to Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, etc in the form of a mortgage , car or business loans. Like the Govt, Banks do NOT have money. They depend on people like Romney to NOT put their money under mattresses but allow banks to reloan it. SO THIS MONEY IS NOT PASSIVE. Its the spine of Capitalism. It builds communities and businesses. The interest paid on these personal loans is then split between the investor and the bank so the bank can pay for buildings and the people who work there. Romney's split is called CAPITAL GAINS and is taxed by the FEDERAL Gov't at 15%. RON PAUL has already said this is not an issue!! If you think investment money needs to be taxed higher than you must realize NO ONE WOULD loan their money to a bank unless it was worthwhile. SO THERE WOULD BE NO HOME LOANS,NO CAR LOANS, NO BUSINESS LOANS. I think you must learn more about economics before you say such things.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlausible scenario.
What will happen in reality is that Conservative women, who actually do take the potential First Lady's character into account, will now turn away from Newt - not so much for his past smarminess (he's the one who can most certainly rid the White House of Obama) - but because of Callista's smarminess. Ask 200 Conservative women this: Callista Gingrich or Ann Romney?
I'm afraid Newt is finished.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe question should be Callista Gingrich or Ann Romney or Karen Santorum. My answer is Karen Santorum-although I'm not a conservative woman. And my answer to the question of who should be President-Rick Santorum. He does not have a secret South Caymen Islands bank account to answer for, and I definitely get the impression he has not been chosen by "the party" as the next man. I get the impression Romney has been "chosen", that's reason enough to say no to him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's to answer about with regard to the bank account? It's not illegal to move money around and form a tax shelter. Sounds like you should get an accountant or read a book called "personal finance for dummies".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow "secret" can it be if you know about his Cayman account? Its NOT illegal to have them. Ron Paul and Santorum both have said this. Many people choose to move their assets to the Caymans when the American Banks were forced to make mortgage loans to people who could not afford them. If you have your money in a bank you think may collapse due to stupid loans how prepared to be President are you if YOU DO NOT MOVE YOUR OWN MONEY TO A SOUNDER BANK????
I HATE seeing the class envy rhetoric seep into the Republican Party. Its Mitt's money he can do with it as he pleases.ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS !!! BTW: Your "impression" of Mitt being the chosen candidate does not seem to hold anymore water than your opinion on investments. Neither is based on fact.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree. Judge a candidate based on their merits. If you vote for or against somebody just because they are an "establishment" candidate then you are letting somebody else make the decision for you (conforming or rebelling). It is a completely reactionary position and not a proactive one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGive me a break! I am a Conservative woman and I certainly don't make political decisions based on which spouse I like best. I am voting for Newt, not his wife.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is one conservative woman that will still vote for Newt! The lying media does not influence me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseComments like this really make you wonder if the founders were on to something when they only allowed men to vote. The country is massively in debt, we have a socialist in the White House and women are worried about how smarmy the potential first lady is, how cute and hip presidential candidates are and whether or not they'll have the right to kill their unborn children. Good grief!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously? Hiding the truth before an important primary? I thought Perry said we needed to vett the candidates before we find out something horrible they've done when it's too late.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wondered where Marianne had got to. You can't read the Esquire interview and conclude that she is ever going to sit still and allow Callista wear those Tiffany jewels to any inaugural ball.
"he regrets any pain he may have caused," say his daughters.
"May have caused."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse