CNN’s John King showed that he continues to be a glutton for punishment as he revisited the disastrous exchange (for him) that he had with Newt Gingrich at last week’s GOP debate in South Carolina.

KING: We had a bit of a moment the other night in South Carolina. I asked a question at the beginning of the debate. You took offense. Here’s part of your answer.

(Video Clip from Debate)

GINGRICH: Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren’t interested, because they would like to attack any Republican. They’re attacking the governor; they’re attacking me. I’m sure they’ll probably get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul. I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

(End Clip)

KING: I want to come back to your point there, sir. You were attacking me, and you were calling me part of the elite media. And we can debate whether it was an appropriate question for the beginning of debate. My business is debating that. But I could not have asked you the question if your ex-wife had not come forward. She’s a Republican, sir. She says she supports much of your principles. How was that an example of the elite media trying to protect Barack Obama?

GINGRICH: Well, you have to ask yourself the question. Why would ABC go back many years, why would they dredge up something which had already been reported several years ago? Why would they do it two nights before a primary? Why would they refuse to have other witnesses rebut her?

We offered them a number of people who were there at the time, who said what she was saying just wasn’t true.

Now I would just suggest to you that, when the only person you get is an ex-wife who wants to testify on the air just before a primary with nobody allowed to rebut her, there’s something a little goofy about that design.

And my point to you, John, was simple, and I repeat it. You didn’t have to take the bait. You didn’t have to pick it up. You could have ignored ABC. We could have gone straight to energy policy, the economy, balancing the budget. There were lots of big questions we could have talked about instead of taking the time on something like that.

KING: We did talk about other issues, but a lot of people in the state were talking about that issue that day, as you well know, sir. A lot of people think that exchange worked to your benefit. That’s not for me and my calculation.

But again, have you spoken to your ex-wife at all? Why did she come forward at that time? ABC can speak for itself. It says — I can’t speak for ABC, but it says if you had offered people, it would have interviewed them.

GINGRICH: Oh, that is just plain baloney. I mean, I’ll check with R.C. Hammond in a minute. But if they’re saying that, they’re not being honest, because they said explicitly the opposite. So I will check with R.C., because he was briefing me on this the whole way through. We had several people prepared to be very clear and very aggressive in their dispute about that. And they weren’t interested.

As I wrote last week, King said he knew Gingrich would be prepared to respond to a question on the issue since reports of the interview’s existence had surfaced earlier in the day. He also said that he had been covering politics for 25 years, so Gingrich’s fiery response didn’t bother him.

But if that was the case, why did King choose to revisit the issue? Did he really think Gingrich was going to either change his answer or divulge more information and play King’s game?

While it was a friendly interview, especially when compared to the debate confrontation, King would have been far better off to have just taken the hit to his reputation and move on.

But King’s ego got in the way and set him up for another drubbing by Gingrich.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author

Don Irvine
Don Irvine is Chairman of Accuracy in Media. He is active on Facebook and Twitter. You can follow him @donirvine to read his latest thoughts.

Related Posts

7 Comments for Round Two: Gingrich Spars With John King Again Over “Open Marriage” Question

Sherri

I do feel squimish about Newt’s past. In Malichi 2:16 The Lord said, ” I hate divorce, and I hate the cruel things that men do. So protect your spritual unity. Don’t cheat on your wife.” I suspect that He hates adultery even more than divorce, since Jesus said adultery was the only valid reason for divorce. (Matthew 10: 10,11)
Newt has said that he repented of his sins and asked for forgiveness. I must leave that to God.

To vote for him, I’m trouble about the reported things he supported, like Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, global warming, cap and trade, etc. I feel just as uncomfortable about Romney though. Romney supported so many things in MA that I feel poluted that state’s government and school system that I can not in good conscious vote for him. Santorum, which I really respect but…can he overcome Obama who has poluted the entire country?

Ima

As I’ve said before, john king is human fecal matter that fits right in to the toilet of the old media and ABC.

BARBBF

Newt is a serial adulterer. His wife, knowingly committed adultery with him for 6 years. I do not want him as President..or her as First Lady.

phil

He was having an affair; he was betraying his wife; he was ignoring his marriage vows. Does it really matter very much whether or not he asked her to accept it?

Ted

Gingrich is a cheating, lying, unethical, immoral, low-slider excuse for a real man … who has made a mockery of his so-called “Catholicism” AND the Seventh Commandment. And … if anyone is fool enough to believe in that “redemption” crapola of his … then they would also ahve to believe that every person incarcerated in this country who claimed “redemption” … should be immediately let out of prison.

The fact that ANYONE who values morals and ethical behavior … ESPECIALLY women in this particular case … who would vote for this slimeball is … a freakin’ empty-headed MORON!

Peter Grenader

Don Irvine: John King received another drubbing? Are your hallucinations stemming from being high or hopeful because I see none of that. I don’t think I have to make further comment on the content of Newt’s character or his chances of being elected, the messages that precede mine and is own reputation do a fine job at that. But as an anthem of Newt’s hypocrisy I do want to call attention to is a recent comment he made about Cain’s 13 year affair:

“It is something that Mr. Cain will have to settle with the country and talk to the country about,…t is sad to see that level of pain brought out, but I think he’ll have to deal with it.”

Now Don, I know you do a real good job at adding… let’s call it flavor… to the (cough) news you include in this blog, but you cannot be so blind or so threatened by truth not to see the irony in Newt’s glib remark on Cain’s extra-marital wonderings while refusing to discuss his own.

Frankly, I wish he had a better chance to win his party’s election. Obama would fry him.