Media bloodhounds go after Mitt & Newt, but not Obama

It was all over the news yesterday. You couldn’t turn on the TV or radio without hearing about it, ad nauseum.

Mitt Romney – GASP! — acknowledged that his tax rate is probably about 15% — lower than what most Americans, including even many high-income families, pay!!!!

Moreover – GASP! – Romney has a net worth estimated to be $200-250 million!!!!

The media went apoplectic over the news, never mind the fact that Romney’s 15% tax rate is entirely legal, because most of his income comes from investments instead of a salary.

Funny how in 2004, the media didn’t make any fuss over the fact that Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry and his über-rich wife Teresa Heinz paid an effective federal tax rate of only 13% on their 2003 $5.5 million income. Nor did the media make a fuss over their 2004 net worth of $236-312 million. Nor did anyone in the media ask — as they do about Romney — whether John Kerry’s über wealth made him “out of touch” with ordinary Americans.

That was yesterday.

Today is Newt Gingrich’s turn as the hare in the media fox hunt.

At 11:35 p.m. tonight, ABC Nightline will air an “explosive” interview with Newt’s former second wife, Marianne, who promises what she has to say could end his presidential campaign.

Marianne Gingrich

Newt and Marianne were married from 1981 to 2000, after his divorce from his first wife Jackie. In the last 6 years of his marriage to Marianne, Newt carried on an adulterous affair with legislative aide Callista, who is now his current (3rd) wife.

In the ABC interview, Marianne claims that Newt did not want a divorce but instead proposed an open marriage — an arrangement to which lifelong Catholic Callista did not object, according to Newt. But Marianne refused. Shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Newt moved for a divorce — just as he had divorced his first wife Jackie while she was being treated for cancer.

But don’t feel too sorry for Marianne for, like her successor Callista, Marianne had carried on an adulterous affair with Newt while he was still married to Jackie.

Newt and Callista today. Both say they are now devout Catholics!

Here’s Brian Ross, the ABC reporter who’s doing the story on Marianne, giving a preview about her Nightline interview:

watch?v=cMfrqqUIaVw&feature=player_embedded

No matter how distasteful or painful, I always prefer the truth over lies and deception. Therefore, I have nothing against the media digging up “the dirt” on Mitt, Newt, or any presidential candidate. This is the necessary process called “vetting a candidate.”

My only problem is this:

Why didn’t the media “dig up the dirt” on presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama Jr. in 2008? And why aren’t the media “digging up the dirt” on 2012 presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama Jr.?

To date, these are the Obama records which have not been released:

  • Passport records
  • Kindergarten records
  • Punahou School records
  • Occidental College records
  • Columbia University records and senior thesis
  • Harvard Law School records
  • Harvard Law Review articles, if any.
  • Illinois State Bar Association records
  • Illinois State Senate records/schedules (said to be lost).
  • Medical records
  • Marriage license of Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham
  • Divorce documents of Obama Sr. and Dunham
  • Marriage license of Stanley Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro
  • Adoption records of Barack Obama Jr. by Lolo Soetoro; and of course –
  • Barack Obama Jr.’s original hard-copy long-form Certificate of Live Birth

UPDATE (1.20.2012):

Newt denies his ex Marianne’s allegations, calling them “false.”

~Eowyn

15 responses to “Media bloodhounds go after Mitt & Newt, but not Obama

  1. SRM makes me sick. Obviously carrying the water for Skippy. They are nothing more than our enemy as well.

  2. Of course.

    After all, the Ministry for Statist Misinformation (MSM) must protect the Dear Ruler no matter what.

    -Dave

  3. Well there is a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel, maybe. If you go to OrlyTaitzespire.com? you can read the transcript of her motion to squash Obama’s motion to refuse to produce most of the docs. you mention above in court in New Hampshire I think, which he is due to appear in court there. Her rebuttal is very reasonable and all her reasons to ask for him to produce this stuff is based on the fact that he hasn’t yet gotten his name on the ballot there, and one of the reasons he puts up is that it may be inconvenient because it might set off a chain reaction of other states asking for the same proof she is. One of the points she raised is that how can he prove that his name NOW is actually Barack Hussein Obama. All his name changes and his nationality changes and the social security number he is using etc are all fairly inconclusive even to that question.
    When did he change his name back to Barack Hussein Obama, after he got the name Barry Soebaktoro of somehitng in Indonesia, and was he naturalized when he got back to the US and how was he named when he went to school etc etc. It’s all there and there’s no comment posted today on her site. Her laptop mysteriously disappeared recently and her supporters got her a new one and helped her with all her travel and hotel expenses etc just now, and she was served the motion to dismiss her supoenas at 11pm the night before she was meant to file her rebuttal, which means that she was racing against time to get her papers into court the next morning. What with this and the Eric Holder investigation coming up at the beginning of FEB and the latest Globe headline that the Obama’s are divorcing, along with Johnny Depp and co, his latest appearance at Disney World is strangely incongruous.

  4. Wouldn’t it be nice if Donna Brazile or John King asked Mr. soetero why he lost his law license? Wouldn’t it be nice if Candy Crowley or Bill O’Reilly would ask him about his college records? Wouldn’t it be nice if Rachel Maddow asked him the definition of a natural born citizen? Straight forward journalism and the rights of the press to cover news leaks are defined by who they are exposing.
    Oh well, I can dream, can’t I? It is so important for all of us who have doubts and/or proof to inform and educate. As Newt, Romney and Santorum announced tonight, it is imperative that we remove Mr. Soetero from the White House.
    I would love to have him off even one ballot in one state but …………… I’ve been disappointed in the judicial process so many times. Pray for Orly and pray for Judge Malahi.

  5. What!? Dig up dirt on their beloved POTUS? Knowing that it would be enough to ‘bury’ him legally, and politically?! ;)
    Oh how I long for the day when Skippy’s soiled attire is finally hung up on the line for all to see… sigh…
    Great article Eowyn!

  6. Dennis H. Bennett

    I don’t know about Marianne back in 1981-2000, but in 2012 she doesn’t appear to be a very warm, fuzzy person. She looks angry and unhappy. And this, to me, probably reveals her motive(s) for going “public” (again!).
    I have sinned from the time of my birth. I have even “creatively” excused my disobedience to God, and yet I know in my repentance that He loves me and forgives me ALL my sins “as far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us”. Ps 103:12 I find contentment and happiness in my forgiveness. Apparently Newt is closer to that Good News today, than is Marianne.

    • Good grief, Dennis. You do know that Marianne Gingrich has multiple sclerosis? You do know that shortly after she was diagnosed, Newt filed for divorce and replaced her with a younger prettier woman with whom he had been having an adulterous affair for 6 years? No wonder Marianne “looks angry and unhappy” and not “warm and fuzzy.”

      Newt had also divorced his first wife — his former hi school teacher — while she, Jackie, was being treated for cancer. See any pattern there? But you choose to believe Newt, not Marianne.

      You and other Gingrich fans may support him for his debating skills, but his personal morals will always be a problematic sell.

      • Dennis H. Bennett

        It could be the smile on his face is more my own than his. I know when Lance Armstrong left Sheryl Crow right after she was diagnosed with breast cancer that I immediately lost respect for him. Abandonment in the face of hardship is not my style.
        Like Congressman Rick Scott said on FOX this morning, “I’m not ready to make that choice yet” (endorsement of Romney or Gingrich). I agree it is easy to confuse Gingrich’s facial/speech charisma with a peaceful resolution of his past, and that is a dilemma for me. If he is truly repentant, and has changed, I can’t hold his past against him.
        So many want a GOP candidate that will smack Obama around in a debate and an election. I want a candidate that can win decisively. I’m not very convinced that I have seen any yet. My only observation here is that Gingrich seems to have moved on from his marriage to Marianne, while she is still hurting from it.
        I am very fortunate and honored to be married to a woman who loves me and didn’t leave me when I was diagnosed with cancer in 2004, and knew that I would have to eventually live a life of continual accomodations from a progressive neuropathy, much like MS. If my wife had taken Gingrich’s route, I’d probably be pretty angry about it. I do hope for peace in her soul and a transparent honesty in Newt’s.

      • Dear Terry,

        Read my post. I noted the same about feeling sorry for Marianne — that she herself was “the other woman” in Newt’s 1st marriage.

        As for “holding out for the sinless, stainless….”:

        You are putting words in my mouth, equating my pointing out facts and flaws with “holding out for the sinless, stainless”. Or do you mean that FOTM should simply refrain from any fact-finding about presidential candidates? You do know that whatever FOTM publishes about Newt, the media will do that 10 times more should he become the GOP nominee?

      • Dennis H. Bennett

        You make a good point about Gingrich acknowledging his past. And you’re right on with wanting to see some fresh blood in DC. I don’t ever expect to see a sinless,stainless,100% morally pure candidate-only one who knows forgiveness through genuine repentance,and, I assume, this also means changes in behavior. Gingrich to turn the tide….then a Rubio or West? While Gingrich may never be my first choice, it would be much easier to swallow knowing “O” was out of office with no chance to return (as did Grover Cleveland) to complete the destruction (as did Grover Cleveland) as a “Bourbon Democrat”. I’m not sure about Gingrich keeping his marbles in his bag, as another Clinton-Lewinski fiasco would really sink the conservative movement. (There’s something about power and the scrotum for men!). I’ll need to continue gathering more pieces to this puzzle and count on you, FOTM and others to give their info and feedback as I certainly am undecided at present.

        • Dennis H. Bennett

          I always had a favorite “shooter” when I was YOUNG! Now I can’t find them ….some people even say I’ve lost my marbles :-(

  7. Excellent piece of writing! Indeed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s