Mt. Pleasant, S.C. – It was a setting as American as apple pie: Newt Gingrich spoke abroad the World War II aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Yorktown, with a gigantic flag and a row of Boy Scouts behind him.
But when Gingrich was just a few minutes into his primary eve remarks, he was interrupted by a heckler shouting, asking Gingrich to release his ethic investigation reporter.
Gingrich calmly responded, saying that if the man had researched, “instead of shouting lies,” he would have discovered that the full report was online. “When you get done reading it, let me know if you have any other questions,” Gingrich said.
“And I assume you’re for the candidate who’s afraid to release his income tax,” he added.
The man then started shouting more insults at Gingrich, including “he cheats on his wife,” earning him a loud chorus of boos from the crowd. Gingrich shrugged the incident off, saying, “Look, some people just aren’t happy.”
The heckler, later spotted in the parking lot, denied to passer-bys that he supported Mitt Romney specifically, saying he supported any of the not-Gingrich candidates, including Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.
Meanwhile, despite the well-publicized Marianne Gingrich interview, plenty of women attended both the rally tonight and one held earlier this afternoon. Sandra Perry, from Orangeburg, S.C. said that the fact that Gingrich had been “straightforward” about his past failings made “a huge difference.”
“If he tried to hide it or cover it, I would feel badly,” Perry said. “It’s history. It’s not a good thing, but it’s in the past.”
Elise Isenberg, also from Orangeburg, was not sure if she would vote for Gingrich or Santorum tomorrow. “Well, I’m a conservative. And I like Rick Santorum’s marriage. He’s only been married once. Mr. Gingrich’s been married three times,” Isenberg said. But despite her reservations about Gingrich’s marital history, Isenberg was no fan of the Marianne Gingrich interview. “I think somebody probably paid her big money to get on TV to say that,” she said.
There’s little sign that the interview stalled Gingrich’s momentum. South Carolina house speaker Bobby Harell, who was originally backing Rick Perry but endorsed Gingrich yesterday, predicted a Gingrich primary win tomorrow.
“The feel campaigning, the energy in the crowds, people coming up and are telling him they’ve just decided in the last few days that he’s the guy they’re going to vote for tomorrow,” said Harell, who had campaigned with Gingrich today. “So much of that’s occurred today, and I think there’s a general ground swell.”
I wish Newt had behaved more honorably in his marriage. If that was the sole thing I was looking for in a candidate I certainly wouldn't consider him. I don't feel that I have the luxury of making that the issue this election. I am more concerned about electing someone who has the experience, the expertise, and the political savvy to bring about change in Washington, D.C. I like Newt's boldness. I don't fear that he will bow to a foreign leader. I don't fear that he will apologize for America when we have nothing to apologize for. I feel the most apt criticism of him is that he is grandiose. I can't think of many politicians who aren't. I'd like to see him reign it in a little, but that isn't a fatal flaw to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe USS Yorktown which fought in WWII was sunk in June 1942 in the Battle of Midway. She was the only American carrier discovered by the Japanese and was hit by bombs. The crew performed miraculous damage control and within hours she was at an even keel, making good speed and operating aircraft again. Hours later, a second wave of Japanese aircraft found what they thought was a second US carrier (because Yorktown was no longer burning) and hit Yorktown with several torpedos. This time she had to be abandoned and she later sank.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't support Newt because, enjoyable as it is to watch him pushing back at the MSM (and to imagine him debating BHO), he does not have the temperament to be president.
The ex-wife brouhaha seems to be energizing those who have been hoping for a lion, not a lamb, to run against the incumbent. We had a gentleman as our candidate last time around, and look what came of that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is stunning to see, fellow Conservatives toss away their credibility over Newt Gingrich.
They are joining him on a couch with Nancy Pelosi. It is embarrassing. The fashion reveals it is utterly acceptable to the con game.
Newt was just running on the left side with Obama attacking Private Enterprise, but now he is again a champion for Conservatism? Please.
The embarrassments are growing for all, even with NR. FOX News is becoming a joke.
Mr. Hinderaker says it well:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Barack Obama is a terrible president and an unpopular one. He is ripe for defeat in November, but not by Newt Gingrich. It is painful to contemplate the extent of the GOP wipeout that would follow a Gingrich nomination. Would Newt carry a state? Wyoming, maybe? South Carolina? The Republican Party could kiss its hopes of retaking the Senate goodbye, and likely would lose control over the House, giving Obama carte blanche to devastate the country for another four years. The Newt mania is driven by his high-temperature stage persona and the ongoing “anyone but Romney” sentiment among some conservatives. I find the latter perspective mystifying. It would make much more sense to say “anyone but Gingrich,” or “anyone but Santorum,” or “anyone but Paul.” Out of this group, if there is anyone who ought to be broadly acceptable to conservatives, it is Romney. Certainly not Gingrich, with his earmarks, his disfavor with the conservatives he led in the House in the 1990s, his career as a lobbyist, his support for Medicare Part D, his embrace of global warming dogma, and his attacks on private equity and even free enterprise itself. Republicans have flirted with a number of potentially bad choices this election season, but voting for Gingrich would be the worst of them."
Gingirch (oily, volatile, bullying, arrogant pseudo intellectual in love with the sound of his own voice who lacks reductive powers and gets lost in vast fields of dumb and useless but sparkly ideas, a wacky futurist with a tin ear for what the public wants, unreliable, icky, pissy, impetuous, coldly opportunistic, self obsessed, of poor character sue to lack of empathy and impulse control, a cad, cannot win support of women or minorities, deemed irrational by press when he comes in from the left even if he gains support from it, ),
Santorum (dull, weak on opposing expansion of government, pure so-con, barely a fiscal con, too religious, embarrassing to smart trendy libertarian wing of the GOP and the sophisticated blue-blooded northeastern centrist Rockefeller wing, seems rather pissy in debates when he shows up at all),
Paul (timid but definitely present consipracy odor, obnoxious sometimes thuggish followers, stupid and vague paleo-leftist policy ideas delivered in goofy one sided populist coating, never taken very seriously by the rest of the party, has a truly sucky grasp of history virtually indistinguishable from Code Pink's or Louis Farrakhan's narrative, wants overnight hard money, sold one of those creepy $99 a year-scare you to death about international socialists pushing secret world government globalism-fake money-drugs in the water-fake wars to keep public confused-bogey-man du-jour survivalist news letters that always seem to flirt with a 'bankerish' brand of anti-semitism, endorsed by Alex Jones )
Romney (served as a liberal republican governor of an ultra-liberal big spending state, lost many elections before being elected governor, on both sides of a lot of issues, stutters when mad, tends to nervously laugh off most problems with his past record while defending it and having surrogates throw the more vile stuff for him, prototyped Obamacare and has not repudiated that coming up with reasons why it's not what it looks like instead that sound like empty technicalities, used plenty of morally questionable cheap shots against Perry often, seems sympathetic to left and cold to tea party anger, talks about reform in very vague happy terms that suggest he views reform as a dangerous direction. seems to have a rough 30% ceiling of support granting him plurality but little more, perceived as a disloyal non-ideological weather vane, who claims to be a sane rational outsider, who'll say anything for votes and when elected do anything to disarm pressure from the public or interest groups. )
Seems like we have dishonor and credibility loss galore ahead to me. But then how can ANYONE be credible for a bi-modal self divided party each half of which is eager to discredit, discard, or silence the other in their bid for dominance ? If we count the tea party, the so-cons, the layman fis-cons, the blue bloods, the sad two-party trapped libertarians, the somewhat discredited neos, the highly discredited paleos, the rinos who want the party to be Democrat lite so it can be saved, the Glen Beck crowd who seem to be reluctantly standing with in the tent for the moment, the mysterious chameleons who have no idea what they really are and change their votes due to intuition or some ineffable algorithm beyond human comprehension, the sullen Obama exodites who regret their past vote, the "I'm annoying my local union leader dad" youth pseudo-republicans, the Ron Paul libertarians, and the 'don't cares' who used to vote republican and might do it again in 2012, then we might even have more than two modes all pretending to be one alliance of interests.
A big tent seems to be full mostly of noise, bad smells, discomfort, and prat falls. It's hard to say if it stands for anything or not.
If we can't even convincingly unite around the concept of Not-Obama then what the hell CAN we hope to ever unite around?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow did Gingrich manage to speak abroad the WWII carrier?
Will he ever release that poor ethics investigation reporter?
passer-bys?
The feel campaigning? That phrase is impenetrable.
Katrina, I don't like making a reply like this my first one, but I have to ask that you please do a better job proofreading. These are simply too many within one article.
"C-"
Stan
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse