Newt's Third Law

Isaac Newton's Third Law is familiar to most of us. Simply put: " To every action there is an  equal and opposite reaction."

This week Newt Gingrich showed that the laws of motion are equally applicable to media manipulation to favor Obama or any other Democrat candidate for office. Push him and he'll push right back.

The hint that public sentiment was shifting away from reliance on big government (and those that promoted it) came earlier in the week  when Gallup produced a poll showing that American's "satisfaction with the size and power of the federal government is at a record low 29%.

Gallup indicated that this made big government  a "highly susceptible " target for politicians this year.  How does this fit into the Third Law of Motion? Simple. The dip in public faith in government I think began when the Democrats instituted the (now risible) charge that Bush's administration was a "culture of corruption."   When it became clear to all but the most blinkered that  this Administration  working with the Pelosi and Reid's Congress  was far more corrupt and remains so even with the loss of the House, public confidence in all government plummeted even further .

Obama's thrust is Big Government and making it even bigger than it already is.  His allies in this have been the legacy media, which has for decades supported those  Democrats who believe that central, powerful government, like that in the foundering Euro states, is the way to steer this ship of state.

To that end the media has distorted the public's view in every way possible.  My first experience of this was the treatment afforded Adlai Stevenson and  Dwight Eisenhower, If you are old enough to remember -- or well read enough to have learned -- the American press pictured Adlai Stevenson as a brilliant man and Dwight Eisenhower, the head of the European Theater of Command, an historic and monumental achievement, as a bumbling idiot.  It was only well after the election that we learned that Stevenson had flunked out of his first year at Harvard Law School and the school's Dean had locked those records of that fact away.  This  press generated dichotomy -- of Democrats smart, Republicans stupid -- continues to this day.   Obama, who demonstrates lack of the most basic knowledge or executive skills, is touted as an intellectual while Mitt Romney's considerable academic achievements are underplayed, for example.

But it is not only in the "intelligence" competition that the press parks its fat thumb on the scales and blinds us to the true weight of the candidates: Sexual misbehavior -- real or imagined -- and financial  standing  have until  now been part of the press legerdemain for some time.

Recall, during the last election how even "respectable" media ran with poorly vetted and unverifiable , indeed, certainly untrue-claims that Nikki Haley engaged in affairs  and that  John McCain was involved in one -- at the very same time they covered up John Edwards ongoing and real affair and a resulting child.  With the exception of Mickey Kaus, they finally reported it about six months after the National Enquirer ran credible reports of the Reille Hunter-John Edwards dalliance.

This time ABC, CNN and the Washington Post, no doubt feeling justified in continuing this winning tradition, tried to destroy Newt Gingrich by running on the eve of the South Carolina primary (or perhaps the day after had Drudge not blown the whistle)  a one sided , scandalous charge by Newt Gingrich's second wife.  She was openly motivated by animus against her former husband.  Her account was not questioned by those who covered the story, even though it conflicted with earlier accounts by her respecting the end of their marriage; the reporters involved refused to consider the testimony of contrary witnesses provided to ABC by Newt; and  Newt flat out denied the report. Professor Jacobson:

On the two key inflammatory statements made against Newt, ABC News presented the statements without challenging his accuser based on readily available public information casting doubt on her version of events. We can debate the propriety of running an interview with a bitter ex-spouse at a critical juncture in a campaign. What is not open to debate is that ABC News used Marianne Gingrich for its own purpose of trying to damage one of the top contenders for the Republican nomination."

Nevertheless the opening question by John King at the CNN sponsored Republican debate was an attempted "gotcha" on this interview.

This time, Newt fired back to repeated standing ovations by the audience and the admiration of those of us who have grown  both tired and infuriated by the obvious media bias.

The smack back by Newt was too marvelous to condense. You must take a few minutes to watch this to get the flavor of the response, King's shock at being called on the carpet, and the audience's enthusiasm for a Republican  who for once was willing to fight back.

Whatever you think about Gingrich as a candidate you simply must admire his oratorical skills and willingness to call the media out on its efforts to manipulate the election results.

Isaac Newton's Third Law is familiar to most of us. Simply put: " To every action there is an  equal and opposite reaction."

This week Newt Gingrich showed that the laws of motion are equally applicable to media manipulation to favor Obama or any other Democrat candidate for office. Push him and he'll push right back.

The hint that public sentiment was shifting away from reliance on big government (and those that promoted it) came earlier in the week  when Gallup produced a poll showing that American's "satisfaction with the size and power of the federal government is at a record low 29%.

Gallup indicated that this made big government  a "highly susceptible " target for politicians this year.  How does this fit into the Third Law of Motion? Simple. The dip in public faith in government I think began when the Democrats instituted the (now risible) charge that Bush's administration was a "culture of corruption."   When it became clear to all but the most blinkered that  this Administration  working with the Pelosi and Reid's Congress  was far more corrupt and remains so even with the loss of the House, public confidence in all government plummeted even further .

Obama's thrust is Big Government and making it even bigger than it already is.  His allies in this have been the legacy media, which has for decades supported those  Democrats who believe that central, powerful government, like that in the foundering Euro states, is the way to steer this ship of state.

To that end the media has distorted the public's view in every way possible.  My first experience of this was the treatment afforded Adlai Stevenson and  Dwight Eisenhower, If you are old enough to remember -- or well read enough to have learned -- the American press pictured Adlai Stevenson as a brilliant man and Dwight Eisenhower, the head of the European Theater of Command, an historic and monumental achievement, as a bumbling idiot.  It was only well after the election that we learned that Stevenson had flunked out of his first year at Harvard Law School and the school's Dean had locked those records of that fact away.  This  press generated dichotomy -- of Democrats smart, Republicans stupid -- continues to this day.   Obama, who demonstrates lack of the most basic knowledge or executive skills, is touted as an intellectual while Mitt Romney's considerable academic achievements are underplayed, for example.

But it is not only in the "intelligence" competition that the press parks its fat thumb on the scales and blinds us to the true weight of the candidates: Sexual misbehavior -- real or imagined -- and financial  standing  have until  now been part of the press legerdemain for some time.

Recall, during the last election how even "respectable" media ran with poorly vetted and unverifiable , indeed, certainly untrue-claims that Nikki Haley engaged in affairs  and that  John McCain was involved in one -- at the very same time they covered up John Edwards ongoing and real affair and a resulting child.  With the exception of Mickey Kaus, they finally reported it about six months after the National Enquirer ran credible reports of the Reille Hunter-John Edwards dalliance.

This time ABC, CNN and the Washington Post, no doubt feeling justified in continuing this winning tradition, tried to destroy Newt Gingrich by running on the eve of the South Carolina primary (or perhaps the day after had Drudge not blown the whistle)  a one sided , scandalous charge by Newt Gingrich's second wife.  She was openly motivated by animus against her former husband.  Her account was not questioned by those who covered the story, even though it conflicted with earlier accounts by her respecting the end of their marriage; the reporters involved refused to consider the testimony of contrary witnesses provided to ABC by Newt; and  Newt flat out denied the report. Professor Jacobson:

On the two key inflammatory statements made against Newt, ABC News presented the statements without challenging his accuser based on readily available public information casting doubt on her version of events. We can debate the propriety of running an interview with a bitter ex-spouse at a critical juncture in a campaign. What is not open to debate is that ABC News used Marianne Gingrich for its own purpose of trying to damage one of the top contenders for the Republican nomination."

Nevertheless the opening question by John King at the CNN sponsored Republican debate was an attempted "gotcha" on this interview.

This time, Newt fired back to repeated standing ovations by the audience and the admiration of those of us who have grown  both tired and infuriated by the obvious media bias.

The smack back by Newt was too marvelous to condense. You must take a few minutes to watch this to get the flavor of the response, King's shock at being called on the carpet, and the audience's enthusiasm for a Republican  who for once was willing to fight back.

Whatever you think about Gingrich as a candidate you simply must admire his oratorical skills and willingness to call the media out on its efforts to manipulate the election results.