Today is an interesting day indeed. The media’s most recent two attempts at manipulating conservative opinion have blown up in their faces in a BIG way. Simultaneously, and by no means unrelated to their manipulations, support for Mitt Romney is “collapsing” according to Gallup.  So, consequently we see “the Republican Establishment” in full defensive mode.    First let’s look at the media attempt(s):

ABC News chose to seek out a story from the ex-wife of Newt Gingrich. Important Notation: They approached her, she did not approach them. So the question becomes why?

From Professor Jacobson –  Last night ABC News aired the much ballyhooed interview with Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s ex-wife.

The ballyhoo was not warranted.  The “interview” was not so much an interview as an 8-minute ABC News attempt to portray Newt in an unfavorable light interspersed with very short clips of Marianne.

A prime example was Brian Ross asserting that Newt divorced his first wife while she was “being treated for cancer.”  That account has been disputed, but no note of the dispute was made by Ross.

There were only two sensational aspects of Marianne’s statement, neither of which ABC News tried to put in context or challenge.

First, Marianne stated that Newt wanted an “open marriage.”  Ross never attempted to clarify whether Newt used that term or whether that was Marianne’s interpretation.   While Ross noted Newt’s denial at the debate, he made no mention of the context which would have raised questions as to Marianne’s story.

Robert Costa of National Review reported yesterday a news story from 1999 that Marianne was the one who broke the relationship years before the divorce by cleaning out the house of all furniture while Newt was away, and that they were separated for six years before briefly reconciling:

Documents related to the divorce filed Friday in Cobb County Superior Court include a separation agreement signed by the couple and notarized in December 1987. There is no indication it was ever filed.

Gingrich’s divorce attorney, Thomas Browning, said Marianne Gingrich called her husband on his birthday in June 1987 to tell him she was leaving him. Gingrich, he said, came back to Georgia to find his home emptied out.

Browning said the pair maintained separate residences for six years before reconciling in late 1993 or early 1994.

Instead, ABC News presented Marianne as a victim without even challenging her on the history of the relationship which may have given viewers reason to doubt her version of the “open marriage” allegation.

Second, Marianne stated that Newt asked for a divorce after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.  Again, Ross did nothing to challenge the statement even though James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal reported earlier in the day that Marianne’s account was not consistent with an account she gave to the Associated Press in July 2000:

We would like to raise a note of caution about Marianne Gingrich’s credibility. According to both Esquire in 2010 and ABC in 2012, she, like Mrs. Romney, was diagnosed with MS in 1998. But according to a July 2000 Associated Press dispatch, she had not yet received the diagnosis even then.

On the two key inflammatory statements made against Newt, ABC News presented the statements without challenging his accuser based on readily available public information casting doubt on her version of events.

We can debate the propriety of running an interview with a bitter ex-spouse at a critical juncture in a campaign.  What is not open to debate is that ABC News used Marianne Gingrich for its own purpose of trying to damage one of the top contenders for the Republican nomination.   (via LegalInsurrection)

But the leftist propaganda media did not stop there.   Indeed, in what will arguably be called the most significant media expose’ in modern political history CNN debate moderator John King choose to pick up the attack ball from ABC and run with it.   What occurred next will get logged in the annuals of debate history.

But then something quite stunning happened.  John King was so pre-programmed and holding such a pre-arranged predisposition to attack Gingrich that he kept going.   He just couldn’t stop.   We witnessed the preprogrammed liberal roadmap which had to be followed at all costs regardless of what dead ends were met along the way.    King follows his script with the follow-up question to the other candidates AGAIN about Newt’s ex-wife to garner their opinion.

MR. KING: All right. As I noted — as I noted at the beginning, we have four podiums on this stage tonight, not five.

And when he exited the race this morning, Governor Perry quickly and forcefully endorsed Speaker Gingrich. And in that remark, he said that, no, Mr. Gingrich is not a perfect man. Senator Santorum, he said none of us are. And he said he believes in his Christian faith that guides him to the value of redemption. Speaker Gingrich doesn’t believe this is an issue; Governor Perry says this is not an issue. I just want to start with you, sir, and go down. Do you believe it is?

RICK SANTORUM: I’ve answered this question repeatedly throughout the course of this campaign. I am a Christian, too, and I thank God for forgiveness. But, you know, these — these are issues of our lives, and what we did in our lives are issues of character for people to consider. But the bottom line is, those are — those are things for everyone in this audience to look at, and they’re to look at me, look at what I’ve done in my private life and personal life, unfortunately.

And what I say is that this country is a very forgiving country. This — this country understands that we are all fallen. And I’m very hopeful that we will be judged by that standard and not by — by a higher one on the ultimate day. (Applause.)

MR. KING: Governor Romney?

MITT ROMNEY: John, let’s get on to the real issues, is all I’ve got to say. (Cheers, applause.)

Ron Paul went on to give an answer similar to Santorum, but since I’ve never seriously considered Paul, his answer is irrelevant to me.

Notice the difference in responses between Romney and Santorum.   It was us (Republicans)  versus them (the mainstream media), and even though the “us” was Newt, Romney chose us.

Santorum, by contrast, tried to take advantage of the situation by chosing himself over us.  I will never forget that moment, and the weakness shown by Santorum.

And in this moment a comment from Sharon jumps rightly to mind:

……..their target in this crap-process is not Newt–it’s US…the conservative, American voters….getting to our thoughts, changing our minds.  Newt is just the current delivery system (like Herman Cain was)….whoever is currently representing conservative thought with some degree of communication skill is the bullseye–but WE are the target.  They MUST stop the votes of conservatives.  They MUST stop the thoughts of Americans who want the nation to live.

WE are the target….and at the moment, WE are encouraged by Newt.  So, in order to take us out, they have to take him out.  Last month it was Cain.  if Newt falls, next month it will be someone else.  But in all cases, it is WE who are being targeted for destruction.

…is it possible that they have (a) gotten themselves locked in a “duty” to protect the left/dems and now as the thing is blowing up on them, (b) they know the jig is up, they are frantically signally the left/dems “the jig is up, guys! We got nothing.” and their handlers won’t give them permission to stand down….so they are left to go out under the bright lights and make damfools of themselves, knowing that is exactly what is going to happen????  Is it that bad?  Are the liars melting????  The fool press secretary always looks to me like a little boy on the verge of wetting his pants, knowing he’s getting caught in lies again….and they keep on.  But at the some point, the light melts them down.  Is this a preview or the beginning of that?  Like you said, SD, it’s quite weird that they would go with something that was SO “nothing” and even in their lying hearts, they had to know it was nothing.  But they weren’t able to NOT DO IT.  Why?  Who are they afraid of?  Back to the earlier question: are the liars beginning to melt?

Seriously.  When the liars start turning on one another (behind closed doors); when the liars with more power won’t let the liars with less power bail (even though the liars with less power see that the jig is up)… how does that play out?  Up until some recent episodes, I have smelled that they still maintained their plausible deniability (the lying left and their hostages)…but not now. Something’s afoot.  And it’s kind of nice that it happened on the day that The Goofy One was photographed a zillion times at Fantasy Land.  It all fits.  But while they are (as GFC points out) plain evil, are we going to see a manifestation where the details of evil–losing–are apparent?  That doesn’t always happens as we desire it would.  But sometimes it does happen.  They are dancing faster and faster.  The All-American Newts are confronting them publicly and strongly.  The audiences are shouting them down.  They are being laughed at openly.

That doesn’t mean they are less dangerous. But perhaps…. perhaps it’s the beginning of the end of something.   Perhaps.

  I agree….. I agree