Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:23 AM

Rick Perry's decision to drop out and endorse Newt Gingrich will be the first story in the AM news cycle.

Marianne Gingrich's interview with Brian Ross will be the second, and by far the dominant story of the day.  (Early assessment of the interview clips: Devastating.)

The third story will be all-day debate prep and speculation on cable and talk radio on how the first two stories will impact tonight's debate, and whether lingering anger at Newt's attacks on Bain are a real anchor on his campaign, even if the Marianne interview hadn't aired.  (CNN debate moderator John King all but told me yesterday he will have to raise the Marianne Gingrich interview.)

The fourth news cycle of the day will be the debate itself (and its parallel analysis in real-time on Twitter.)

The fifth news cycle will be the post-debate takes.

And tomorrow I expect to see a Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell endorsement of Mitt Romney.  (See his "not yet" interview, also below.)

It is a great day to be in talk radio.

How GOP voters ought really analyze all of this and more is the subject of my column at Townhall.com this morning: "MSM and the 13 State Election."


The column's bottom line: Correct for the lie of the green, and look to the 13 states that will decide the election.

.


 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 7:19 PM

Drudge exposes ABC Not-News as sitting on a story that could impact the South Carolina primary.  The leak of the story of the interview of Marianne Gingrich without details may actually do more damage to Newt than the interview itself, but it is amazing that a network news operation is sitting on a big story three days before an election.

George W. Bush has to be wondering why ABC ran with the drunk driving story when it did (along with the other networks) in 2000.

It is astonishing that journalists sit on stories.  Will anyone at ABC quit over the suppression of the news?  All of the free-speech sites that are dark today...wonder if they will be denouncing ABC's self-censorship tomorrow?
.
UPDATE: Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell weighed in on the ABC Not News self-censorship on today's program, as did CNN's John King, who will be moderating tomorrow night's debate on CNN.  The transcripts of both interviews will be posted here later. 

The King transcript:

HH: Joined now by CNN anchor, John King. John, it’s great to talk to you on a night when big media is big news. ABC News sitting on an interview of Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife. What do you make of the ethics of ABC suppressing the news? 

JK: Hugh, I don’t know anything about it, so I don’t know what she said. I don’t know what they have. I don’t know the circumstances of the interview, so I’m going to probably disappoint you and be very careful in saying I can’t speak for ABC, and so we’ll have to, if they release it, we’ll see what it is. If they don’t, that’s a question for them, not for me.

HH: You haven’t read the Drudge Report yet on this thing?

JK: I’ve looked at some of the speculation about it. Yes, I have. But I’m not in the speculation business.

HH: Okay, second question. Why aren’t you out interviewing Marianne Gingrich? I would think everyone would be looking for Marianne Gingrich tonight.

JK: I’m in South Carolina. We’re talking to Republican voters here, and we’re getting ready for a debate with the five candidates for president tomorrow night.

HH: John, are you going to be asking some of the questions tomorrow night?

JK: I’ll be asking the majority of the questions tomorrow night. We’re going to take some questions from the audience. We’ve got members of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, Hugh. We have the Tea Party Patriots here. They’ll get to ask some of the questions. We’ll also take some questions, of course, as we have in some of the prior debates, from folks who send them in via Twitter, Facebook, CNN.com. But I’m your traffic cop, if you will, Hugh.

HH: All right, three areas. Do you think you will bring up the President’s decision to kill 20,000 plus jobs on the XL pipeline?

JK: I know that jobs will be a major topic. I don’t want to help any of the candidates prepare at the last minute, but big jobs decisions are in the news, and the Keystone pipeline is one of them. It is a very possible topic of debate. How about that?

HH: How about Iran and their threats to the American military, and the threat to close the Straits of Hormuz? I’m trying to influence the influencers, John King, because this, I have been disappointed by…Wolf did a good job at the CNN debate in Constitution Hall. Some of the Fox debates have gotten to the foreign affairs stuff. But generally, these life and death war and peace issues have not gotten much time. Do you think they’ll get time tomorrow night?

JK: Well, they will get some time tomorrow night, and the one you just mentioned just happens to be, in my view, the two greatest long term national security challenges facing the next president, whether he be named Barack Obama, or whether he be one of these Republican candidates. I think if you look globally at the next generational challenge for the next 25 years or so, it’s the China challenge. The most immediate challenge the next president might face is right there in the Persian Gulf with Tehran as the center of attention. And there’s no doubt about it that that controversy at the moment, the saber rattling at the moment, the potential of a military conflict, a potential of a diplomatic standoff, the potential of $5 dollar a gallon or higher oil, it’s a big deal. These guys want to be commander-in-chief, absolutely it’s about to get attention.

HH: So John King, since you’re moderating tomorrow night, if a candidate tries to defer a tough question, like you did about the ABC News interview that hasn’t aired, will you let them off the hook? Or would you, if you were in my shoes, come back and say John, come on, everybody in D.C. knows about this story, what should ABC News do?

JK: I would say to the candidate that didn’t seem to be a very direct answer to me. If they say, if they can make a case to me that I find credible that I don’t have that material, that I don’t know what it is, and it’s not my decision whether or not to release it, I think that would be an acceptable answer.

HH: Are hypotheticals in order?

JK: (laughing) Are hypotheticals in order? You know, it’s a tough one, because when candidates often think hypotheticals, and you know this, because you talk to them on the program. Candidates often think hypotheticals are gotcha questions, or too far fetched. I would put it this way. I think some hypotheticals, unfortunately, aren’t as hypothetical as we once thought. You know, the last presidential cycle, a hypothetical question would be if Iran has a nuclear weapon that is so small it can attach to a small missile, and its missiles now have a longer range, and they could strike not only Israel but, and extend that range out, that used to be a hypothetical question. Is it today?

HH: It’s not, and I hope you ask that.

JK: And will it a year from now? So I think there are some hyptheticals that are fair game, as long as they’re based on reality, and based on what we know what we see just around the corner. A man on the Moon question? That’s…

HH: No, that’s crazy. But the report on Drudge is that the ABC News executives have said the Marianne Gingrich, it would be unethical to run it, it’s too close to the election. A) Is that a good standard if it’s true? And B) where was that standard when the Bush DUI story dropped in 2000?

JK: Without getting into specifics of what they may or may not have, I think that every news organization should have conversations about the timing of things, that that’s important. Your credibility is at stake, how did you get the information, is somebody pushing this information? Is any source giving you information or bringing you information at a certain time to influence an election? I think those are very vital conversations to have. And in the end, then, you make your decision. And the one thing you’re asking me about, and I applaud your persistence, and I completely understand it, I know nothing about it. And one of the things, I’ve been doing this for 26 years. And one of the things I taught myself is if I know nothing about it, then say nothing about it.

HH: 30 seconds, do you think you’ll know something about it my tomorrow night when you’re moderating the debate?

JK: (laughing) I can read the newspapers, and I watch the news. And I consume what’s online. And I think my experience helps me separate rumor from fact. And look, if there’s something out there, again, I’m setting aside the specifics of what you’re asking about, if there is some new piece of information that comes to light, that is relevant about the debate, in the hours before the debate, we will add it to our conversation about what should be in the debate.

HH: Wow. Okay, John King, thanks. Headline tough.

End of interview.




The McDonnell Transcript:

HH: Joined now by Virginia Governor, Bob McDonnell. Governor, it’s great to have you back on, especially on a big news day. 

BM: Hey, Hugh, thank you for having me on tonight. I appreciate it.

HH: Well, I want to cover the Scott Walker campaign. I want to cover the XL pipeline. But I want to start with the news media. A big story on Drudge tonight, and I don’t know what it is, and you don’t know what it is, but the ABC News network is sitting on an interview of Marianne Gingrich. They’re not running it. They’re manipulating the news. What do you think about the news media not running stories, Governor?

BM: (laughing) Well, you know, I think unfortunately, the truth gets to be a casualty, sometimes, in the press. I think their people bring biases into the process, and I think what people want is just give us the facts and let us decide. So I’m not aware of that particular story, but I think the American people are generally smart enough and educated enough that you lay out the facts for them, and they can make intelligent decisions.

 Read More...

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:20 PM

Thanks to The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf for beginning a post today "On Hugh Hewitt's radio program, where news-making interviews are legion, Rick Santorum on Friday related a campaign story in which he was curiously dismissive of a voter he encountered." 

Friedersdorf is one of the young journalists, like The Daily Caller's Jeff Poor and Townhall's Guy Benson, who have figured out there is a lot of news to be found by actually listening to (or reading the transcripts from) conservative talk radio, which daily produces interviews with newsmakers that rival those heard weekly on the Sunday shows.  A three hour talk show fills fifteen segments, and most of us not named Rush devote at least some of our time to interviews with newsmakers, other journalists, authors etc.  (This is another aspect of Rush's uniqueness that most MSMers miss: There isn't anyone else in American media who can sustain a show for three hours, five days a week for twenty years...without guests!)

Radio talk show hosts have the luxury of time which television doesn't have and won't ever get, and this allows for lengthier interviews and far more substantive answers than any Sunday show can allow.  The conservative talk audience is thus much more informed than the average MSM audience, and also better educated and with greater income (which in turn drives smart advertising dollars towards radio.)

On today's show, for example,  David and Nancy French talk about their new eBook on Evangelicals and Mitt Romney, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell will talk presidential politics, Energy and Commerce Subcommittee Chair Ed Whitfield will weigh in on what the House GOP might do next after the president's killing of the pipeline, the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes and CNN's John King will give takes on the South Carolina race, and retired Naval Academy professor and Shakespear scholar David Allen White will set the stage for the new film Coriolanus which opens across the country this month.

Coriolanus Poster

Talk radio is a world that opens politics and public affairs to new voices and views every day, and only the cloistered left refuses to listen.


 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 3:50 PM

President Obama's decision to kill the Keystone Pipeline which would have immediately created 20,000 construction jobs and led to 250,000 permanent jobs in the energy industry is nothing short of astonishing. 

He is sabotaging the recovery of the American economy and crippling energy security at the same time, all because the environmentalist extremists are a key constituency and he never crosses key constituencies.

The disaster that is his presidency grows and grows.  If CNN's moderators have an ounce of objectivity in them, tomorrow night's first hour will center on this decision and the related crisis engulfing the Middle East, not contraception or the voting rights of felons.

.


 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:29 AM


 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:49 AM


Over at RickSantorum.com, Rick is raising money the way the Steelers used to move the football in the Franco Harris years --straight ahead, often for impressive gains, but hardly ever for a loss.


Santorum has been able to scale his campaign as donations have risen, showing some key management skills, but Florida will greatly test the ability to go big.  Santorum is counting on the endorsement of key evangelical leaders in Texas this past week plus a strong finish in South Carolina to allow him to get the money necessary to get on the air in key media markets in Florida.  Talk radio and cable television will do wonders with a second place finish in SC, but he will still need to keep the small donor enthusiasm rising as it has been since Iowa.

Santorum clearly intends to carry the campaign forward after South Carolina while Newt (see the post below) hints at bidding adieu if he doesn't win in the Palmetto State.  Both men's plans have to be a function of having the money to at least compete with staff and transportation resources.  The latest polling doesn't give either candidate much hope in South Carolina and even less in Florida, but if the contributors say "keep going," they can keep going.

Read the small but important piece by the Weekly Standard's Michael Warren on Rick Santorum and the Declaration and the Constitution, and how they are to be read.
  The latter must be informed by the former, which allows Santorum to rightly conclude that "America is a moral enterprise," not some sort of libertarian petri dish.  This is a key argument that the party needs made to the Paul supporters, and thus far only Santorum is willing to make it.  I hope he finds time to do just this on the stage Thursday night.

.


 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:43 AM

This seems to be Newt's argument and why he is allowing a good debate night to dissipate with arguments born from desperation baffles me.

Here's the report from the Huffington Post:

"If I don't win the primary Saturday, we will probably nominate a moderate," the former House speaker said, referring to Mitt Romney. "And the odds are fairly high he will lose to Obama."

Gingrich's frank statement was in contrast to former Sen. Rick Santorum and his supporters, who have insisted that the former Pennsylvania senator can and will keep his candidacy alive even if Romney wins the Palmetto state and goes on to win Florida on Jan. 31.

Trying to brand Romney a "moderate" is a fine campaign tactic that most voters just shrug off as noise, but they do hear the "and the odds are fairly high that he will lose to Obama," which doesn't hurt Romney but Gingrich himself, just as did the attacks on Bain.  Ginrich has risen when he has attacked Obama or the MSM or the sacred cows of media elites.  He falls when he lashes out at his competition or at the prospects of the party in the fall.  

This comment is the sort one makes on reading polls after Tuesday's night's debate and failing to see the sort of movement that can be claimed to be momentum.

.


 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:32 AM

Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney (And Feel Good about It!) 

Here's a new eBook from David and Nancy French, longtime friends of the show, amazing authors and of course patriots.  (David is back lawyering on behalf of religious liberty after his tour in Iraq.)


They are co-founders of EvangelicalsforMitt, and with this past weekend's vote in Texas and appearance on the program of Tony Perkins to endorse Rick Santorum, I will have them on for some equal time today.  In the meantime, I am also going to go download and read their book.

.
 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 12:43 PM

Today's polling data must disquiet everyone not named Romney, including President Obama and the House and senate Democrats.

The country knows. The president is a disaster, in over his head and struggling to read a teleprompter much less govern.  The Chicago gang is panicked at Romney's disciplined march, and even more so now that their long planned attacks on Bain have already been aired and found absurd by voters.

What is worrying is that our enemies know how weak the president is and how likely he is to be replaced and not just by a Republican but by a forceful foreign policy backed by a rebuilding American military.  These are dangerous times, and I hope the presence of General Petraeus at CIA and General Mattis at CentCom at least gives the worst of the lot pause.

My friend Mark Levin joins me on tonight's show to discuss his new book Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America.  The book's central question, after an entertaining and actually profound review of the political theories undergirding both America's rise and its recent troubles, is found on page 246:

The essential question is whether, in America, the people's psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society's institution's so effectively overwhelmed that revival is possible.

We will discuss this and much more.

Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America

.



.




 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:53 AM

The weekly column from Clark Judge:

The GOP Race Turns Upside Down Again
By Clark S. Judge: managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc.; chairman, Pacific Research Institute
 
 
In this up and down year, last night’s South Carolina GOP debate turned the political world upside down again.
 
Going into the debate, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney had every reason to believe that he was within days of locking up the nomination.  He had won (if just barely) the Iowa caucuses and more convincingly the New Hampshire primary.  A win in South Carolina this coming Saturday would help cement his lead in Florida, the next state to vote. Running the early-state table would almost certainly result in a collapse of the other major campaigns.  The game would be over just as it began.









 Read More...