Newt’s problem isn’t his baffling troubles the week of his announcement that he’s running for president. His problem is his run should have happened in 2000 or not at all.
I say more about that in my latest for WNYC.
Posted by Karol at
Newt is running? Now? I like the “not at all” comment.
You have got to be kidding me. The party that’s supposed to be opposed to social debauchery and crap weasel behavior has allowed a man who served his ex-wife divorce papers in the hospital and who has a former mistress as his current wife to even enter the party? Maybe he’ll make Rudy Giulani his running mate and we can start a running pool on how long until one of them has a zipper malfunction. I mean, after all, Rudy was shagging his mis-wife in the mayoral residence and Newt’s reason for stepping out as House Speaker was the stress and intense love of country (the so-called “horny patriot” defense). What could POSSIBLY go wrong putting the former in Washington and the latter in a job that is so stressful it ages men in dog years?
“served his ex-wife divorce papers in the hospital”
This is a false story. I’m not a Newt fan but it always rang false to me and recently was disproved by their daughter.
Hmm. Interesting, as I’ve seen that story in multiple news places (to include, I believe, Ann Coulter having just said it in the last couple of weeks). Sorry, but Newt’s daughter can say it’s false all she wants–until either Newt’s ex says it’s not true or he sues someone for libel/slander, that remains in the “not disproven” category.
But fine, even if we say “not in the hospital,” did the woman have cancer and was undergoing treatment? Well, to coin an analogy, that’s like saying, “No, actually she was my _second_ cousin…”, i.e. it’s still so wrong it immediately disqualifies you from any position of importance in my book. If you keep can always justify not keeping vows to your spouse, why should I (and most voters) believe you can keep your oath of office?
James, a person is innocent until he’s proven guilty. Not the other way around, not “if it’s not true, he has to sue for libel – and only then I will believe him”.
By your logic, anyone can invent any false accusation against a person and you will count him guilty if he doesnt’ immediately hire a lawyer to fight it in court.
Are you a lawyer, by any chance?
Karol, I haven’t talked to you in a long time. (I would see you at those gatherings in Manhattan. Congratulations on your wedding and new child.)
A couple of more points:
1) Wouldn’t a hacker, someone who wanted to embarrass Weiner, send such a lewd image to everyone on his contact list rather than one person?
2) And wouldn’t a hacker send something more explicit such as porn (even with Weiner’s face photoshopped on it), or racist material?
Weiner is just a punchline now.
Innocent until proven guilty is a function regarding _the state_. In the court of public opinion folks may (and do) crucify a public figure with little or no provocation. So, nice attempt to quote some mumbo jumbo to silence me, but I think my point is pretty clear. Someone who understands how the game works and realizes what a career-killer this is should have immediately and vehemently crushed the naughty bits of the first publication that attempted to put this in print. By its nature, libel involves a _printed_ item in a publication with the courts opinions on circulation, degree of accuracy, etc., etc. necessary for damages varying depending on the offense.
So, no, it’s not just someone starts a rumor = a person has to sue for me to believe them. However, if Fox News, the NYT, or even the National Enquirer publishes something like “Newt Gingrich involved in wild threesome with Ann Coulter and Nancy Pelosi” then I would like to think that Mr. Gingrich would bring immediate and violent legal firepower to bear. Similarly, given that this story first started in Salon (
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/28news.html) and has maintained legs, I think if it was false then I think one or more of Mr. Gingrich’s lawyers would have take someone’s fiscal head off by now.
To me it’s pretty simple–either the story is true or Newt doesn’t have the cojones to vaporize the news outlet that first brought it out. If the man can’t even wall to wall counsel a media source that propagated a vicious lie about him, why would I believe he could go toe to toe with a desperate incumbent who is going to pull out _every stop_ in 2012? Put another way, Newt couldn’t even bring an open and shut case of impeachment against Clinton up to the Senate…so why in the hell should anyone trust him to be the standard bearer against the current administration?