Top Menu

Why Is ABC News Waiting?

Why Is ABC News Waiting?

Something’s going on and I’m not quite sure what it is. When have you in your life known ABC News or any of the news outlets for that matter to have ethics? When have you known ABC News or any other news outlet to care about a conservative candidate? When have you known them to be considerate in any way, shape, or form, pursuant to conservatives? If you can point to a single instance, stop reading here and let me know – if as you cannot, continue on.

The Drudge Report has released an exclusive report that “Marianne Gingrich, the ex-wife of Newt Gingrich, spoke with ABC News reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.” The former Mrs. Gingrich says she can end Newt’s career with a single interview, so the question I have is obvious: why is ABC News having a “civil war” pursuant to when to air her interview? The “civil war” is between those who say the interview should be aired before the South Carolina primary and those who say it should be aired after the primary. At this point, tentative plans are to air it next Monday, after all of the primary votes are counted. But, why are they waiting if they can take Gingrich out now?

ABC News Democrat marionette, George Stephanopoulos, boasted that his interview with the parasite liar Ginger White, would destroy Herman Cain. ABC News was delighted to destroy Herman Cain with the unsubstantiated and scurrilous accusations of a woman with a past that was as sordid as any heretofore known. So, why is ABC now conflicted over when to destroy Gingrich? What can the ex-Mrs. Gingrich now truthfully add that is not already known about their tempestuous marriage?

I’m reserving my first thoughts pursuant to why they are quarreling over when exactly to deliver what is believed to be the death blow to Gingrich’s political career. But in the meantime you are free to share your thoughts. I know what I will think until I find out otherwise.

[ Tried Network Marketing before and failed? It’s not your fault. Let this “unknown” marketer show you how he embarrassed the “gurus” by placing making over $17,022.85 in a month – click here for FREE Video ]

, , , , , ,

111 Responses to Why Is ABC News Waiting?

  1. Mychal
    Mychal January 19, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    deb: they’ve decided to run it this evening after the debate…

  2. Retta January 19, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    And I forgot to tell you, I love your vocabulary. I occasionally have to pull out my dictionary, but that’s not a bad thing.

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

      retta: thk you much…even I reach for dictionary sometimes when I’m reading or researching…I enjoy having my understanding expanded…

  3. Retta January 19, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    I think if ABC or any news organization is deliberately holding back pertinent, accurate information on any presidential candidate that they are effectively admitting that their primary intent is to sensationalize rather than to deliver facts. Few here will be surprised.

    Innuendo is a powerful weapon, used effectively it can destroy individuals and families, reputations and even lives.

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

      retta: they didn’t argue about when to spring losers on Herman Cain…

      • Retta January 19, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

        No, they did not. They rallied swiftly to discredit him with unproven allegations from what could generously be considered dubious sources. I haven’t yet figured out their motives for delaying their attempt to torpedo Newt’s campaign. If Ms Gingrich is honest and credible and her information is truly “news worthy,” the delay is even more questionable.

    • brassia January 19, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

      And that is precisely we always have to chose the lesser of 2 evils during election time instead of having an intelligent experienced person worthy of the highest job in the land.

  4. Shark_daddy January 19, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    Very good Mychal, as always. I am more than a little frustrated with our public. They still look at the main stream media as a credible news source. If America were of sounder mind and principles and could view things objectively, these organizations would have gone out of business long ago. How is it that a Democrat presidental candidate can cheat on his wife, while she is battling for her life fighting cancer, have a mistress, birth a love child, and try to cover it up illegally with campaign cash…and the story went untold during his run? Yet if there is a conservative, with any kind of rumor assoicated with him or her, it is enough to unleash the dogs. Even today, John Edwards basks in the sun in a vacation spot, on medical leave from his campaign imbezzlement trial…and the media says nothing. Oh wait…I did hear it was a LIFE and DEATH situation, AKA the insertion of a stent. I’snt that outpatient surgery today? But a scorned woman speaking of her ex-husband…that’s somehow news? Boycott ABC, CBS and NBC.

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

      shark_daddy: excellent points…we must still ask why they are not doing interviews about the questions in obama’s background…

      • brassia January 19, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

        How about asking Obama about his drug contacts and his male lovers…what is good for the goose…..

        • Sunny January 20, 2012 at 3:55 am #

          I find this interesting also. Offering to take a lie detector test and had photos of the event, this was never brought out.

          • Sunny January 20, 2012 at 3:58 am #

            Perhaps I should also state, I would like to know if indeed this was true, or just another smear against someone who ran for office and won.

  5. Retta January 19, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    Thank you Mychal for another excellent rant. You always hit the mark and provide keen insight into our political news as it is happening. I only found you relatively recently and I’m so glad I did! Are you sure you don’t have any political aspirations? Surely you agree that a godly man in high office would benifit our great nation. In any case keep up the great work!

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

      retta: thank you for support and participation…I enjoy your comments…and no I have no interest whatsoever in elected office…

      • Retta January 19, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

        I’m sorry to hear that…

      • brassia January 19, 2012 at 10:27 pm #

        hey, Mychal…you may be entertained by all the tales they will tell about your past….wish dems would be as creative in getting our country back on track…..

  6. Marilyn January 19, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    Looks like a lot more going on than ABC press wants to air to the public right now. Jack Abramoff’s lobbying was kid stuff compared to the Criminal acts that were going on in 1990’s. And, it appears that Ms. M. Gingrich will be putting herself in ‘harms’ way’ by incriminating herslef along with Newt. She must have spent some of that big money. How many Obama “friends” were involved would be interesting.

    • brassia January 19, 2012 at 2:44 pm #

      Hmmm, wonder how much this despicable woman was paid by Obama lackeys to come out. Only a woman that has no pride would subject herself to this self humiliating act of revenge…..
      If I had any sympathy for her BEFORE the interview I am now convinced that Newt did the right thing by terminating any relationship with this spiteful unattractive woman.

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

      marilyn: I don’t think it took much to encourage her to come forward…

  7. dan bubalo January 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    News was once considered to be the dissemination of information and developments and to bring awareness to pertinent facts that support various discoveries.

    Now, “news” is an agenda-driven, biased, marketing-oriented, politically motivated tool that is used like a tire iron to whack people upside of their heads for the express purpose of shocking the listener/viewer/reader and swaying opinions.

    This bastardized approach satisfies the short attention spans of the lagging generations and arms them with sound bites, but little in the way of improving their depth of understanding or bringing to bear any element of integrity.

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

      dan bubalo: they’re not there to deliver news…they’re there to give their spin opinion…

  8. dmacleo January 19, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    because there is no story.
    hint there is a story, hurt newt, no repercussions.
    show the story and people will see its the same stuff she has always said. no damage to newt.

    • fullcirclethinker January 19, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

      Exactly! Them putting this out there in this manner is the story! I believe they are presenting it this way because they believe it is the best way to sway the primary. Otherwise, as you have pointed out, it will be nothing but old news spouted by an angry, bitter woman.

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

        fullcirclethinker: good point…

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

      dmacleo: well it’s certainly nothing we haven’t heard before…

  9. Arizonaguy January 19, 2012 at 10:54 am #

    I think ABC is torn because this could backfire big time. She could easily come off as a bitter woman from a long time ago and create a sympathy vote for Newt. Nearly 50% of the population is divorced and aware of x’s wanting revenge. If it were a true block buster interview they would just run it.

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

      arizonaguy: it now appears abc has decided to air the interview this evening…after debate…

  10. RVD January 19, 2012 at 10:48 am #

    An article posted on another forum I participate in said it has to do with a secret arms deal in the late 90’s that Gingrich, his wife, Marianne and a man named Soghanalian (an Arms dealer and FBI informant) were at the center of a U.S. Justice Department criminal investigation for a scheme to shake down the arms dealer for a $10 million bribe in exchange for Gingrich using his influence as Speaker to get the Iraq arms embargo lifted so Soghanalian could collect $54 million from Saddam Hussein’s regime for weapons he had delivered during the Iran-Iraq War.

    Soghanalian was an FBI informant and was responsible for launching one of the most sensitive and secret investigations in FBI history involving the former Speaker and his second wife.

    The poster did provide a legitimate link from which she obtained the story…..

    • brassia January 19, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

      This is just speculations and innuendo!!!
      After the investigation Newt was acquitted of any wrong doing after all….
      Do you think for a moment that if that inflammatory information was correct the Dems would hesitate to use it ???? Guess you underestimate the hatred by the democrooks towards conservatives.
      On the other hand as a speaker of the House during Clinton presidency and scandals he sure knows where the bodies are buried… that is why ABC may proceed with great caution….

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

        brassia: that’s a good guess…but I don’t think that’s the reason…

        • brassia January 19, 2012 at 10:35 pm #

          Do you think they are holding on to it to have as October surprise? Since any sensational allegations may evaporate by then and in October so close to the election it would have a greater impact….provided Newt will be a nominee…..which is unlikely since the establishment has their candidate already…

    • brassia January 19, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

      Besides …How convenient to throw an accusation since Soghanalian can’t testify and Marianne wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to fabricate anything to get her revenge…what a sorry, discarded old broad…(living with her might have been hell!!) she may as well be a democrat on a mission for all we know….

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

        brassia: she doesn’t make a good impression…

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 7:43 pm #

      rvd: I don’t think it has anything to do w/ that…

  11. Ted January 19, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Please look up these two words: sorted and sordid.

    If you are going to flaunt your vocabulary, make sure there’s a dictionary right next to your thesaurus.

    • Lotow January 19, 2012 at 11:38 am #

      Hey Ted, you must be new to our forum. Welcome, we are glad you are here but, we do not stand on whether words are spelled correctly, if grammar is always accurate, etc. Rather, we are interested in content of message(s). So please, either get on board with intelligent and intellectual feedback or, go check on what the Kardashians are up to!

      • Retta January 19, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

        Ted is not talking about misspellings and grammatical errors, he is talking about a similar sounding word (with an altogether different meaning) being used, thereby changing or confusing the meaning. Most folks would realize immediately what the writer intended in this instance, but sometimes it is not so easy.

        I (and perhaps Ted may too) belong to the group that all errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, word usage, or whatever just jump out at us. Sometimes the error actually changes the meaning, but using context clues often (but not always) reveals the writer’s intent. It is just an annoyance we “nit-pickers” endure when reading newspapers, signs, billboards, web sites, etc.

        Sometimes I have difficulty figuring out some of the comments posted by other readers, but familiarity with many of Mychal’s opinions make it easier to know his intended meaning.

        • Mychal
          Mychal January 19, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

          retta: there are misspells etc even in the most meticulously proofed pieces…specific to same I do not have my daily rants proofs…only my syndicated and other published work…

          • Retta January 20, 2012 at 1:12 am #

            You are correct, mistakes of various kinds are everywhere. By virtue of this column’s name (Daily Rant), it should be understood that it is a quick shot at the subject covered that day. It is not a piece that is edited many times prior to publication. While Ted’s post was tactless, the reply given to it was abrasive. My personal feeling is that neither is necessary.

    • dmacleo January 19, 2012 at 12:01 pm #

      and a typo like that would not have been flagged by spell checker either.

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

        dmacleo: good point…

    • sumitch January 19, 2012 at 12:17 pm #

      If’n talkin gud was graded in here, I’da bin tired and feathered and rode out of town weeks ago.

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

        sumitch: lol…didn’t you mean “RID outta town” weeks ago…hahaha…

    • Jake January 19, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

      Absolutely, and I will bet that Roman Senators were correcting spelling errors while Rome burned

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

        jake: hahaha….

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

      ted: I’m not surprised the words “sorted and sordid” are viewed as flaunting one’s vocabulary to you…

      • Lotow January 21, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

        Mychal, Dmacleo and Jake – Sorry guys, I didn’t mean to stir the pot over the “Sordid vs. Sorted” saga. Your replies were entertaining and made me laugh!! My original intent was to simply defend Mychal’s post – I mean, we all realized it was the wrong word but, hasn’t that happened to each of us? We got what he meant. I think we are all aware that Mychal knows the difference between the two words and it just seemed trite to have one full grown man point it out to another full grown man. Sort of like someone saying Rome is burning and someone else correcting it with, “Well acutally Biffy, it’s on fire” – who cares. I read Mychal for content – not to “nit-pick”!! Thanks again for the laugh guys!!!

  12. Seafarer Chief January 19, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    Those who are behind the scenes are the controlling ones.
    Big Brother and Big Sister control what you see and hear.

    • anna zachariah January 19, 2012 at 11:28 am #

      I happen to believe this no matter what party is in the WHouse or in control of Congress. Trust not any government! It has been years since we, the people, have been in charge.

      • sumitch January 19, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

        Some important pundit, I forget who, said the other night that the United States only has one party with two different wings that counts,

        • Mychal
          Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

          sumitch: I would agree w/ that…

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

        anna zachariah: we the people have abdicated our constitutional involvement…

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

      seafarer chief: I agree w/ that…that’s why sites like mine are necessary…

  13. doublesmith January 19, 2012 at 9:48 am #

    Ben Franklin warned that the Constitution and what it stood for would only work until a society was corrupted. When that happened, tyranny would once again rear its ugly head. It’s obvious that our press, our media has been corrupted and, unfortunately, too many people still put their trust in these useful idiots. Where are the skeletons in Obama’s closet? Would they report any scandal or failings on his part? The answer is obvious. They would not. Read Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom and ask yourself is that’s where we’re headed.

    • anna zachariah January 19, 2012 at 11:38 am #

      John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” As Ben Franklin said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, the have more need of masters.” William Penn “If man is not governed by God, he will be ruled by tyrants.” – Appropriate messages or warnings for these days.

      • six string fury January 19, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

        How true….and in its own way, prophetic.

        • Mychal
          Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

          six string fury…thk you…

      • Kelso January 19, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

        anna: awesome post

      • brassia January 19, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

        And that is precisely why they are trying to destroy the integrity of marriage, indoctrinate children, force the sex “education” in elementary school (actually now they want to do it in kindergarten)so the future generation has no morals , no convictions and frankly no serious education…..easily manipulated and controlled…..

        • Mychal
          Mychal January 19, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

          brassia: you are spot on…well said…

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

        anna zachariah: excellent reminders…

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

      doublesmith: the question isn’t would they but rather why haven’t they…

  14. Richard January 19, 2012 at 9:46 am #

    First I’ve heard. I am a member of the Gallup poll panel. Whether or not you agree with the Gallup poll, is irrelevant to me. However, I thought I would post an interesting email I received just yesterday. If true, then it presents an interesting scenario that should give every true conservative in this nation a ray of hope. That being said, it is all the more reason to work harder, spread the word, and get more and more conservatives to ‘come forth’ and be a part of the Washington insider takedown.

    The email follows:

    A recent Gallup Panel survey asked panelists whether each of three different political officeholders should be re-elected. In each instance, panelists are most likely to call for new blood in the respective office.

    It begins in the executive branch. Panelists are slightly more likely to say President Barack Obama does not deserve to be re-elected (49%) than they are to say he deserves another term as commander in chief (44%). Seven percent of Panel members don’t know if Obama deserves re-election or not.

    The gap widens when considering the legislative branch. Seventy-five percent of Panel members say that most members of Congress do not deserve to be re-elected, while 10% say they do and 15% don’t know. Closer to home, 50% of panelists say the U.S. representative in their congressional district does not deserve re-election, while 33% say he or she does and 17% don’t know.

    Political affiliation plays a role in panelists’ opinions about whether Obama deserves re-election. Eighty percent of Democrats say he should be re-elected, compared with 5% of Republicans. Conversely, 93% of Republicans say Obama doesn’t deserve re-election, compared with 13% of Democrats who say the same. Those who list their political affiliation as “other” are more likely to say Obama doesn’t deserve re-election (50%) than they are to say he does (41%).

    Regardless of party preference, panelists are more likely to say that the U.S. representative in their congressional district doesn’t deserve re-election than they are to say these representatives warrant a return to office. Slightly less than one-half of Republicans (45%) and Democrats (48%) say these representatives don’t deserve re-election, while 57% of those listing “other” as their political affiliation say these representatives don’t deserve a return to their office.

    More generally, at least 0% of Panel members say most members of Congress don’t deserve re-election, regardless of respondents’ political affiliation.

    • Kelso January 19, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

      I hate nation-wide polls regarding Congress. Every one of these polls agree by a wide margin Congressmen need to be replaced. But what is missing is the extra phrase–except for *my* Congressman. This explains why incumbents keep getting reelected.

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

        kelso: you nailed it…long have I argued that very point…

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

      richard: thks for sharing…

    • Sunny January 20, 2012 at 4:21 am #

      Perhaps we are becoming more informed about the powers of congress, and their lack of using them for the good of Americans, while abusing those powers to enrich themselves with power and money. Just recently I learned that congress has the power to tell the Supreme Court what they can not rule on. Issues that they decide to protect the minority on, leaves the majority without representation. They do not use this power to protect us the majority. Since they, the congress hold the power to quit shaking the piggy bank, and can cut of any funding. Has anyone seen them use this power? They only use their power to increase debt. I believe they have the power to cut funding to all agencies yet they won’t even put them on a diet.

      • Sunny January 20, 2012 at 4:24 am #

        spelling an oversight, wish I could say I did it on purpose!!!

  15. Fishfam January 19, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    Lou Smith- your are right on..

  16. Theresa January 19, 2012 at 9:08 am #

    At least his 2 daughters are gonna be on the air defending him!

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

      theresa: one would think they know what family life was like then and appears to continue to be even today…

  17. dlegalsec January 19, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    A woman can be president today. This and Herman Cain’s situation just shows you that the average American voter doesn’t research anything on their own. They want someone to tell them who the best is. The trouble is — who is the someone telling them. I make up my own mind and I don’t care what someone who was allegedly “wronged” 20 years ago has to say now. Should have come out then or keep your mouth shut. As for Newt — it takes two to make a marriage. I have never seen a marriage break up because of only one of the participants. Newt is the one who can not only beat Obama but make America stronger.

    • sumitch January 19, 2012 at 10:57 am #

      You’re right dlegalsec; it does take two to make a divorce. I speak with some authority on the subject as I’m a two time loser myself (one 18 months and one 40 years. And no, just in case anyone gives a flip, I don’t have a trophy wife). An interesting question (at least to me) popped into my head while reading about Newt’s troubles with at least one of his ex wifes. He has gone through three divorces and that looks like the common denominator is Newt. So there must be something wrong with him, right? At least that’s the way I read this line of “reporting”. But I wonder; what’s the tally for each of his exes? If we learned that they each had two or three (or more) divorces, would that change the tone of the story? I think so. I don’t know and don’t know how to find out, but it might be valuable information for Newt to use in combating the inference. Just being nosey.

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

        sumitch: I’m divorced and I do have someone who definitely knows she is my trophy and is only to happy to let everyone know it…her name is Siameesha…Meesha for short and she is the most beautiful Snow Shoe Siamese you will ever see…she is the perfect for me…lol…

        • brassia January 19, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

          didn’t know you are a cat lover….lol

    • Bill Sr. January 19, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

      I’d love to agree that a woman can be president of our country.
      However, they have made it to number 2 on the ticket, once with each party, and the ticket lost both times.
      Unfortunately, there are far too many women voters who won’t vote for a woman not to mention the egotistical men by the millions. And speaking of egotistical men, do you remember during the Clinton years how there were women (liberal democrats) lining up in defense of his escapades with Monica and saying openly they would take her place under the desk simply because he would never take away their rights for legal abortions. This is the depths of how sick the thinking of many in our society has become today.
      Personally I’d vote for a Margret Thacher in a minute.

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

        bill sr: I think the reason the women lost was because of the men they were teamed w/…

      • brassia January 19, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

        The reason many women wouldn’t vote for a woman is because of that element of jealousy ever present among women as well as many are well aware how spiteful, moody and evil some women can be….
        Hillary Clinton is a prrrrfect example….lol
        Margaret Thatcher is one classy lady who doesn’t come around too often…and still Hollywood tried to discredit her in a new movie ….

    • brassia January 19, 2012 at 3:23 pm #

      Precisely- marriage is two way street…I always said- there were 3 truth- his , hers and the real truth….his X may have had more favorable impression until she opened her mouth….

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

        brassia: and maybe took a little time to make herself look less life a hateful spiteful hag…even she did blow the image when she opened her mouth…

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

      dlegalsic: I agree w/ you per Herman Cain and the attacks now being launched against newt and santorum…and I agree that in most instances it takes two to wreck a marriage…but I am aware of some men who have in one instance never grown up and figured out that marriage meant being w/ the woman you are married to…and I am aware of marriages where the one of the spouses were physically abusive that contributed to the break up…

  18. Lou Smith January 19, 2012 at 8:52 am #

    Lurking in the shadows in order to achieve maximum damage most certainly is the motive for timing but whose motive?

    Gingrich is the only one left now who might possibly prevail against Obama and, since republican party leaders want Romney, they might well have orchestrated this next assination.

    That wouldn’t be possible Mychal if, as you said in an earlier post, so many voters didn’t have a “…room-temperature IQ.”

    • sumitch January 19, 2012 at 11:52 am #

      I was typing back and forth with a buddy the other day discussing how certain relatives of ours, usually of at least average intelligence, could possibly be supporters of Barry O. His opinion is that they listen to what he says and don’t look at what he does. I tend to agree. Remember how the media just swooned at his use of the spoken word? In other words, I’ll vote for him because he talks pretty. And I don’t want to hear any negatives about him because that’s “fear mongering”. Can you legally disown a relative that’s an idiot?

      • brassia January 19, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

        Well, I can relate to the situation of “swooing” as my own son -very well educated and quite obviously indoctrinated in all those liberal schools still a strong supporter of Obama…he called ALL republican candidates Idiots, to which I replied that New will wipe the floor with the current idiot-in the WH…

        • Mychal
          Mychal January 19, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

          brassia: parents of american children pay a lot of money to have them brainwashed…

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

        sumitch: you bring tears to my from laughing talking about your relatives being empty soup cans…lol…love the sardonic humor…

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

      lou smith: actually I think it was Dan Bubalo who made that comment…but notwithstanding I agree people are far to passive…also…what exactly has romney won thus far…the answer is nothing…we are being told at every turn he is the one who can win and being manipulated to believe he is the only one capable of beating obama…I happen to believe that both Santorum and newt have much better chances of dethroning obama even though Santorum is my first choice now that Herman is out…

      • brassia January 19, 2012 at 11:00 pm #

        There is a reason conservatives do not like Romney- he is a dead fish, no fire…plastic face….
        We all have a GUT feeling and mine says he isn’t any different from McCain…with republican Establishment it is WHOs turn is now, complete disregard to our country’s future and conservative principles…
        Their stupidity is absolutely amazing-dems had been using the same tricks on them over and over and over, however they make same mistakes every election!

      • Sunny January 20, 2012 at 4:35 am #

        Amen. Rick is my first choice yet I believe Newt would do. Do you know how the Rommney money was made? Was Mitts father a self made man, or did politics make him rich? I keep hearing Mitts father was born in Mexico, was/is he a natural born citizen? Please someone help me out here.

  19. wishladya January 19, 2012 at 8:47 am #

    I agree they’re trying to figure out when it would cause the most damage. I think they’d rather save it and use it against him in the general election if he wins the primary. However, the whole idea, to me, comes off as being incredibly juvenile & if one were to have felt sorry for Marianne at any time this action is nothing more than sour grapes from her because she wanted to be First Lady. It’s not about Newt, it’s about her not being able to be First Lady. Newt said about her “she’s a Jaguar, I just wanted a Chevy.” In other words she looked good but she just sat in the garage & couldn’t do anything.

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

      wishladya: she comes across as being bitter and angry…looking to exact a toll for her being divorced…

  20. Josie January 19, 2012 at 8:47 am #



    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

      josie: can’t argue w/ your analysis…

  21. Swamprat January 19, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    Please check your spelling – – – should this be: A woman with a past that was as SORDID as any heretofore?

    “a woman with a past that was as sorted as any heretofore”

    Sorry Mychal, I don’t like being a nitpicker; however, a man with your good reputation needs to be a bit more careful.

    • Ken January 19, 2012 at 9:15 am #

      A man with his reputation should be excoriated over something simple either, especially in public.

      • dmacleo January 19, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

        he he I think you forgot the word not there :)

    • Fishfam January 19, 2012 at 9:28 am #

      swamprat.. REALLY? Is that all you have to say.. You need something to do. good grief!

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

      swamprat: you’re not being a nitpicker…I don’t have my daily rants proofed…but even in my proofed syndicated pieces errors slip through me, my proofer and editors…at least unlike in printed manuscripts we can correct same when they are brought to our attention…

  22. Bill Sr. January 19, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    The destruction of Herman Cain told us something about politics in America.
    How you voted, who your backers are, what your philosophy of government is, how much money you earned or cheated people out of, where or even if you go to church, your military record or years of public service, and finally now (thank God) no matter the color of your skin is not a problem, you can be a legitimate candidate and remain in contention.
    But you can be totally eliminated by a single deranged individual posing as a woman scorned or mistreated. Women can’t be president yet but they can pick the candidates. Is this crazy or what?

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

      bill sr: I agree w/ your comments but I do believe the right woman can win the presidency…that said the woman that could have been president by now may well have been aborted…

      • brassia January 19, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

        I once had an argument with die hard liberal -big proponebt of abortions who said it is too many peoole on the planet as it is…
        To which I replied -well, then lets’ just kill half of them…
        I bit my tongue as I was about to say-lets start with your children and grandchildren…..

  23. Ellene January 19, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    I’m surprised they don’t help him get the nomination and pull this out as the October surprise.

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

      ellene: who knows…these things don’t go away…that said I am convinced obama wants romney to get nomination…because he is a walk in the park to beat…

      • brassia January 19, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

        Romney may wet his pants before he gets courage to attack Obama face to face…..

  24. NevadaSteve January 19, 2012 at 8:31 am #

    It’s clear the hesitation is merely because there is a disagreement over when airing the interview would cause the most damage. ABC wants to be sure that whatever happens is as hurtful as it could be, they don’t want to waste a chance to do as much damage as possible.

    • Dennis McCutcheon January 19, 2012 at 8:53 am #

      Agree with Nevada. Also they WANT Romney in case the Repubs do defeat Obama. Then they will have the most maliable, spineless president of the candidates the Republicans are offering. America you are being manipulated to put it as cleanly as I can.

      • sumitch January 19, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

        And there would be two arguing over whatever that agree on socialized medicine.

      • Mychal
        Mychal January 19, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

        dennis mccutcheon: you are spot on…

    • Mychal
      Mychal January 19, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

      nevadasteve: agreed…


  1. Why Is ABC News Waiting? | The Daily Rant: Black Conservative Mychal Massie’s Hard Hitting Commentary on Race, Obama and Politics | The New Jersey Patriot - January 19, 2012

    […] Why Is ABC News Waiting? | The Daily Rant: Black Conservative Mychal Massie’s Hard Hitting Com…. Share this:EmailPrintFacebookDiggRedditStumbleUpon Share this No Comments – Leave a […]

  2. top marianne gingrich headlines | Chantler 411 - January 19, 2012

    […] Why Is ABC News Waiting? | The Daily Rant: Black Conservative … The Drudge Report has released an exclusive report that “Marianne Gingrich, the ex-wife of Newt Gingrich, spoke with ABC News reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.” The former Mrs. … — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:11:50 -0800 […]

Leave a Reply

COMMENTS POLICY: Please note some comments may be held for manual approval before appearing on this website. PERMISSIONS: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in its entirety or in unaltered excerpts, as long as you do not charge a fee. Does NOT APPLY to E-Books. For Internet posting, please use only unaltered excerpts (or the content in its entirety) and you must provide a hyperlink to this page. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by The Daily Rant. Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©2015 The Daily Rant. Website: