According to the ex-wife, she only came out with it because his campaign, in an attempt to marginalize the issue, was starting to make her look bad. I believe that she has a right to be heard.
But they DIDN'T get both sides of the story. Epic, man, I think we are arguing over each other here. Max and I are not defending Newt, we are going after the media. Now according to Newt, he offered a defense to the media as well as other people to testify, that this never happened. He said the media ignored him and didn't show any interest in his side of the story. Is he right? I don't know. That's the whole point. The media showed one side, the scorned ex-wife.
But they are not verifying facts! And do you even know what super pacs are? They are running them around the clock 24/7 and they are very very personal. Anyone who comes up to and says they don't know what Newt's baggage is must not be watching TV or listening to the radio because it's being played on every commercial on every station. LOL. Come on man. Enough already. Super pacs have no limits. They are going after Romney's Mormonism, Ron Paul's racist newsletters and Herman Cain's sexual advances on women. The voter is getting bombarded with this stuff. It's the media's job to discern fact from fiction! Not to engage in tabloid journalism.
Because i was curious, and i wanted to prove that this is front page national enquirer type shit, i typed "Front page national enquirer" into a google search and here is one of the first pictures that came up. So would it be appropriate for a moderator in a democratic debate to ask John Edwards whether or not he beat his wife?
I think "Maggot" sums up Newt's view on the subject quite well. <iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SjRnHx4dQlc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> And his opinion of the media is summed up in a 10 second clip <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Tl3nfzU4irE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>