Newt Gingrich raised the roof at Thursday night’s presidential debate by blasting CNN’s John King for leading off the night with a question about the interview on Nightline with his second wife, Marianne. Newt said Marianne’s statement that Newt asked for an open marriage is “false.”
While there are many who care not a whit about this sub-plot, what would actually be useful to know for those interested in the character issue is HOW the account is “false,” since that word has taken on a new meaning since the Clinton presidency. It has evolved from a word implying flat out untrue to one that can be used simply to describe the tiniest detail of an account that is not accurate.
“False” could mean he’s claiming the whole thing is a lie (hardly likely, given we know that Newt had taken up with Calista while still married to Marianne), or could mean he didn’t ask for an “open marriage” but actually for the right to have a specific mistress, or could mean something entirely petty like Marianne got the date he said it wrong.
This is, after all, the “depends what the meaning of is…is” era. A good journalist would have asked him what SPECIFICALLY was false in her account.
Meanwhile, using denials by children from his first wife to discredit his second wife and justify his actions with his third wife hardly seems convincing. Were those children actually in the room when their father did, or did not, say what is alleged?
Of course, Newt was able to divert attention from the allegation to its use and timing by the media. And many conservatives inflamed by the media’s insufficient attention to Clinton/Lewinsky are now jumping to Newt’s defense. Double standard?
