Ugh. What a mess.
The ethics miscreants:
Marianne Gingrich: Seething with hate for Newt, she decided to try to metaphorically stick a shiv in his back by airing dirty laundry from their marriage right before the South Carolina primary, a do-or-die for him. Her interview with ABC was unfair and an act of pure revenge. You couldn’t call it whistle-blowing, since anyone who doesn’t already know what a likely sociopath Gingrich is has been watching too many re-runs of “NCIS.” Gingrich’s character, or lack of it, was established and in the books by 1998. Marianne should have not had to say a word, but everything she did say, she had said before, in an interview in 2010 in Esquire.
Matt Drudge: As he did with the Monica Lewinsky story, he sniffed out the ABC interview and suggested on his Drudge Report that the network was planning on holding the story until after the primary vote. That would have been unethical, if the second Mrs. Gingrich’s interview had any news value whatsoever. As it turned out, it didn’t. It was old news. So Drudge ramped up the importance of what at best was a “Where Are They Now and Are They Still Pissed?” feature by suggesting that the interview was “explosive.” Drudge is like a gremlin in the engine of truth.
ABC: Craven and irresponsible. Knowing that the interview was leftovers, it should have ignored all the criticism over the possibility of a post-primary broadcast and held the story until next week. That would have been responsible. Since the arguments, like mine, that it should run the interview before the primary assumed that Marianne’s revelations would be new and damaging when they weren’t either, showing the interview before the primary had the effect of manipulating the vote by what it didn’t show. Instead of proving Gingrich to be even worse than we thought, it just showed that he was as rotten as we already know he is. Meanwhile, whoever leaked the teaser that Newt asked Marianne for an open marriage should be put in the stocks. Marianne may sincerely think that’s what her errant husband wanted, but her own account fell short of demonstrating it. Gingrich asked for a divorce, and when his wife said she didn’t want one, he said that he was going to keep up his relationship with his mistress, and asked whether she still want to married under those circumstances. That’s not suggesting an open marriage. That’s called a fait accompli.
Rush Limbaugh: In one of his most fevered rants ever, Rush claimed that Drudge had cleverly foiled the mainstream media’s grand conspiracy, which was to hold the Marianne interview until after Newt won the South Carolina primary, then torpedo him with the “explosive” revelations, thus “knocking him off” and throwing the GOP nomination process into a tizzy. He also used the “open marriage” story to take a shot at Bill Clinton, saying that unlike Bill,at least Gingrich “had the politeness to ask permission for it.” This, of course, is Limbaugh using the same “everybody does it” and “others have done worse” rationalizations that Democrats used to defend Clinton during the dark Lewinsky days…as Limbaugh attacked them for their “Clinton enabling.” Newt enabling, however, is apparently OK.
John King: The CNN moderator of the final South Carolina debate based his opening question—to Newt, naturally— on what was at the time pure rumor, and turned out not to be true. What kind of journalistic practice is that? An unethical one.
Newt Gingrich: Newt’s high dudgeon at King’s question played well, but it was the height of hypocrisy. This is the man who led the charge claiming that Bill Clinton’s infidelities with an employee rendered him unfit for the presidency while he was concurrently cheating on his own wife with one of his own staffers. He is the last man on earth who has a right to argue that character-related questions aren’t relevant to his qualifications to be President. And in Newt’s case, character is especially relevant, since he has none.
South Carolina Republicans: The supposedly conservative, “family values,” evangelical electorate then went out and voted for Newt in the primary, apparently because he tongue-lashes the media well. Stay classy, Republicans.
Ethics Alarms 
Please tell me that fête accompli was an intentional French-language pun and not a slip of the keyboard.
I’d love to accommodate, but my notorious and well documented lack of comprehension of any foreign tongue is too well known (Peter was in my Latin class) to get away with it.
I took the liberty of sharing this post on Facebook, with an introductory comment of “Well spoken, Jack!” I echo that sentiment here.
I too share many of Jack’s posts on Facebook and on my own blog. Always entertaining, if, at times, strongly biased.
Now, I have no idea at all to what posts loyal Ethics Alarms’ loyal and indefatigable OWS defender is referring to, but if by any chance it is my recent criticism of “Occupy the Courts,” I hardly think is is fair to call understanding of the legislative and judicial systems and the meaning of the Constitution “bias.”
Maybe, just maybe, the legislative and judicial systems have been corrupted, by, dare I say it, corporations? Ahhh, there we go, Jack… in one sentence I’ve brought to light two of the three major problems besetting our country – corporations and their undue influence on government. Bluntly put, our government is bought and paid for by the major corporate players.
Regardless of your head-in-the-sand posture on those two, I congratulate you for having embraced the third major target of the Occupy movement, the undeniable tenet that the major banking institutions are crooked as hell. https://ethicsalarms.com/2012/01/20/dear-banks-this-is-why-nobody-trusts-you/
You ARE making progress, Jack, and for that I am grateful. One out of three ain’t bad.
No, he led the charge that Clinton’s perjury rendered him unfit for the presidency. Big difference.
In an earlier post , you mentioned that
The DUI arrest was old news- it was brought up in Bush’s first campaign for governor of Texas back in 1994.
1) I’m well aware of the difference, but the public wasn’t, the Democratic defense throughout was that it was “just about sex” and Gingrich knew it. And his rhetoric hit both notes—the disgrace to the office by irresponsible conduct and the perjury. Nor was it just the perjury, but the cover-up and lack of integrity for the occupant of the highest office in the land. In short, that’s no excuse for Newt’s hypocrisy—and it was hypocrisy.
2) It was not old news to the general electorate, whether or not had come out before. You’re using the Ron Paul racist newsletters dodge.
Would that mean that Marianne Gingrich’s revelation is not old news on the basis that, though it came out before, the general electorate was not aware of it?
Yes…if in fact she had any news. The open marriage request would have been news. It didn’t happen.