Golden Oldies: Newt and the “cancer bed divorce” myth

posted at 9:30 am on November 19, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

With Newt Gingrich continuing to surge in the polls, plenty of stories are bubbling to the surface, including things from the distant past. And let’s face it… Newt has been knocking around US politics for an awfully long time, with tales of many of his exploits being told and retold until they pass into legend. Of course, you know what they say about legends.

[countable] an old story about famous people and events in the past. Legends are not usually true

One of the more nasty ones is the persistent tale of how Newt went to see his wife as she lay dying of cancer in her hospital bed and presented her with divorce papers. Ouch. That’s a pretty unpleasant story to float about anyone, and apparently it’s so temptingly salacious that it keeps getting hinted at in the media and I’ve seen it cropping up again on Twitter as recently as last night. Unfortunately for the gossip minded, nearly every aspect of the story is false and has been roundly debunked by what should be considered a pretty reliable source – his own daughter who was in the hospital room at the time. (Hat tip to OTB.)

So, to correct the record, here is what happened: My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family. I am lucky to have such a “Miracle Mom,” as I titled her in a column this week.

As for my parents’ divorce, I can remember when they told me.

It was the spring of 1980.

I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.

Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:

My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.

Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.

She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.

The tumor was benign.

As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.

Yes, Newt is on his third marriage and some conservatives will raise questions about his marital track record, as they are entitled to do. But repeating this old chestnut is hurtful and slanderous. (For the record, I actually believed this story myself for quite a while and I know I made reference to it, so I’d like to apologize once again as well.)

There will be more than enough real material for critics to debate coming from Gingrich’s decades of public (and private) life, but we should focus on what is accurate and verifiable. So if you see anyone repeating this myth, do everyone a favor and point them to his daughter’s account of the story.

UPDATE: From the Credit Where Credit Is Due department. The Washington Post also douses the myth with cold water.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

No Newt is good Newt.

Snake307 on November 19, 2011 at 1:29 PM

All aboard the “Only Speaker of the House to have been disciplined for ethics violations” bandwagon!

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 1:31 PM

I think Newt should be president because he got 1.5 million from Freddie Mac. It shows ingenuity. I’m sure as hell not going to get anything back from those corrupt bastards. It’s the kind of initiative I want to see in my leaders.

trigon on November 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wright

Cindy Munford on November 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM

All aboard the “Only Speaker of the House to have been disciplined for ethics violations” bandwagon!

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Except for the fact that he really didn’t have any ethics violations.

see here

JannyMae on November 19, 2011 at 1:44 PM

All aboard the “Only Speaker of the House to have been disciplined for ethics violations” bandwagon!

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 1:31 PM

F-

Upon taking the reins of the Democratic-controlled House, incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) famously stated that she would preside over the “most ethical” Congress in the history of the United States. On Tuesday, four years after her infamous statement, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) was formally convicted on 11 of the 13 ethics charges against him. The Ethics Committee did so in absentia, as Rangel left the proceedings as a form of protest. It appears Speaker Pelosi’s “most ethical Congress in history” has far from lived up to its hype.

-snip-

As one House ethics scandal winds down for the outgoing Democratic Congress, another is being ushered into the forefront. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has been accused of using her committee influence to help direct $12 million of the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to One United Bank, an institution to which her husband had significant financial ties. Waters denies any wrongdoing.

-snip-

What is particularly unsettling about the recent examples of congressional malfeasance is the manner in which Speaker Pelosi had previously declared such actions unacceptable. In touting her oversight of Congress as representative of a new way, one in which the ethical transgressions of the past would no longer be tolerated, Pelosi laid the foundation for high expectations.

“The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history,” Pelosi declared in late 2006.

Speaker Pelosi failed to live up to her rhetoric. House ethics violations continued, members of Congress remained defiant, and when asked earlier in the year to respond to the charges against Rangel, Pelosi stated, “It was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not a — something that jeopardized our country in any way.”

In qualifying her rebuke of Rangel’s actions, Speaker Pelosi sent the message that certain ethics violations are more acceptable than others. Far from establishing an unparalleled level of integrity in Congress, Pelosi’s equivocation, and leadership, maintained the status quo.

Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM

I see she doesn’t say anything about the 3 babies Newt ate while at the hospital? And the old woman in the wheelchair he pushed down the stairs?

Nethicus on November 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM

I’ll tell you what… you ethically-challenged serial adulterer’s apologists rival palin fans for pure entertainment value.

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Want to know something funnier? Some of us are both.

Cindy Munford on November 19, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Yeah benny like we believe that you have any ethics also. Get a grip.

jistincase on November 19, 2011 at 2:36 PM

After taking into account everything his daughter said in his defense, he’s still slime.

There are people still in the race who aren’t serial cheats.

For that matter, in the general Newt would also face an opponent who, however lamentable as a politician, has thus far been his superior as a family man.

David Blue on November 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM

All aboard the “Only Speaker of the House to have been disciplined for ethics violations” bandwagon!

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Nice job, Benny. Wanna tell me who the only elected president to go through an impeachment proceeding before being disbarred in his homestate was?

HINT: It wasn’t a Republican.

gryphon202 on November 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM

I’ll tell you what… you ethically-challenged serial adulterer’s apologists rival palin fans for pure entertainment value.

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Does the name Juanita Broaddrick mean anything to you, douchebag?

gryphon202 on November 19, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Way to keep your eye on the ball, gryphy et al.

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Way to keep your eye on the ball, gryphy et al.

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 4:03 PM

You’re barking up the wrong tree with me, pal. I’m not a Newt supporter. And unless the field changes, he’s not getting my primary vote. That doesn’t change the fact that the man you think of as “the most ethically challenged speaker of the house” doesn’t have anything on the crimes committed by Bill Clinton. And don’t even get me STARTED on the current congressional leadership.

gryphon202 on November 19, 2011 at 4:13 PM

My question is this. After we trash every Republican candidate except Romney (note that the other side is carefully refraining from all but the mildest of criticism of Mitt) are we going to let the legacy media and the Establishment GOP choose our candidate for us again? Think how well that worked out last time.

You know very well that the Establishment GOP is famous for picking a candidate because it is his “turn”, not for his electability, and that Obama is planning to run against Romney. If we pick him because he is the default candidate, after we allow the media et al to destroy the others, the long knives will then come out, and Romney may very well lose. Voila! We get another four years of Socialism, Black Liberation Theology and destruction of our country.

Think long and hard about that before you throw away every man or woman except Mitt in the candidate roster because each has personal flaws. Despite rumors to the contrary, Mitt has them, too.

We aren’t trying to elect a saint. We’re trying to elect a leader, and leaders are human. Every one of them has human flaws. The question is, are those flaws that you can live with, or are they flaws that really matter?

Just a thought.

hachiban on November 19, 2011 at 4:20 PM

A guy at work (who I had already advised that it is a bad idea to talk politics at work btw)… tried to start a conversation with me about the death bed thing… He’s been listening to his leftist talking points I guess…
-
My first response was to remind of my advice… and then I short and sweet informed him that she had lived, his daughter refuted the story in full, that he should look it up for himself… and that he needs to get a better, “more honest” news source.
-
His one sentence reply was… “She lived?”…
-
Nice enough guy otherwise. I hope he gets it.
-

RalphyBoy on November 19, 2011 at 4:39 PM

hachiban on November 19, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Well said.

Kataklysmic on November 19, 2011 at 4:46 PM

I’ll tell you what… you ethically-challenged serial adulterer’s apologists rival palin fans for pure entertainment value.

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Unlike Newt, your serial adulterer lied under oath before a Federal Grand Jury. And was found to be in Contempt of Court by a Federal Judge who was a former law student of his to boot.

Axlerod’s not paying you nearly enough, Kid.

F-

Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Way to keep your eye on the ball, gryphy et al.

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Translated: “I better take my Toys and go Home.”

Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Since none of the potential GOP nominees are perfect and they all have baggage – we might as well stay home and let Obama get another 4 years. What a pity the GOP doesn’t spend as much effort trying to destroy Obama for his personal baggage as we do our own candidates.

katiejane on November 19, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Since none of the potential GOP nominees are perfect and they all have baggage – we might as well stay home and let Obama get another 4 years. What a pity the GOP doesn’t spend as much effort trying to destroy Obama for his personal baggage as we do our own candidates.

katiejane on November 19, 2011 at 5:26 PM

I understand where you’re coming from, but with all due respect, the time to talk about negatives of each of the candidates is now. There is a difference between pointing out negatives and “destroying.” The way we decide on which candidate is the best is to weigh all their positives and negatives.

When we get into being dishonest and presenting false information as negatives is where the line needs to be drawn. People just did that with Cain when they glommed onto the “sexual harassment” smear, and now they’re doing it with Newt when it comes to this FALSE story about him divorcing his wife on her death bed.

There is also a difference between US and “the GOP.” The GOP, as a whole, is certainly not doing enough in going after Obama. On that we agree!

JannyMae on November 19, 2011 at 5:53 PM

What a pity the GOP doesn’t spend as much effort trying to destroy Obama for his personal baggage as we do our own candidates.

katiejane on November 19, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Each and every day I’m more convinced that the GOP lost their collective nerves in DC almost 20 years ago, when 900+ FBI files illegally ended up in the hands of the Democrats.

I’m sure many of the Republicans whose names are in those files still work in D.C., either in or out of Government, and are still afraid.

Had Bush had his “henchman” do the same thing right after he became President, he would have been impeached before 9/11.

Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2011 at 5:53 PM

This is a sensitive personal matter and I never commented on such discussion. But obviously the daughter wrote the article in defense of his father, a politician running for President. So the daughter opened the discussion on public. Then, it’s only fair for citizens to to talk about it.

The article actually accuses “some Americans” that they were either propagating or listening to false rumors. So, reactions should be expected. Here’s mine.

What was the “untruth” then? The discussion of divorce while at death bed? The process of divorce takes weeks, months or years to complete. The article admitted that the process of divorce happened when her mother was already suffering cancer. Whether her mother requested for it or not is deemed irrelevant. Women at a very weak condition like that could be so selfless and so caring even to their erring husband.

His father did not discuss divorce while at that hospital? Okey, fine. But the discussion of divorce still lingered unless it’s already fully granted by a court. That means that her mother had to suffer the pains and hardship of the divorce process while enduring the pains of her health conditions.

The honorable thing to do for a husband was to drop the process of divorce especially when he knows that her wife has a serious health problem such as cancer. In fact, cancer patients often have problems of emotional and mental imbalance due to the realization of their conditions and partly due to the drugs that they take in. A virtuous man would not subject his wife to further suffering like that. And if he still cared (regardless whether he still loves her or not), he would insist to his wife not proceed with the divorce even if that’s one of her wishes.

Fact is, Gingrich married his second wife only 6 months after the death of his first wife. Thus, Gingrich and his family cannot fault those people who might be thinking of bad things against him. Some people might even think that Mr. Gingrich was already banging his second wife while his first wife was still alive.

In conclusion, it would be wise if Gingrich and his family just ignore the issue and go on. There’s nothing that they can do about it anymore. There’s nothing to explain in the first place. It already happened that way.

One thing for sure, Gingrich cannot match the public image of Obowma and Romney as honest husband. [I said image since I don't have any idea of the personal life of the other two guys.] And that’s a very good material for campaigning against Gingrich, whether we like it or not.

TheAlamos on November 19, 2011 at 5:58 PM

The honorable thing to do for a husband was to drop the process of divorce especially when he knows that her wife has a serious health problem such as cancer. In fact, cancer patients often have problems of emotional and mental imbalance due to the realization of their conditions and partly due to the drugs that they take in. A virtuous man would not subject his wife to further suffering like that. And if he still cared (regardless whether he still loves her or not), he would insist to his wife not proceed with the divorce even if that’s one of her wishes.

Really? What you are suggesting is an unreasonable expectation of him and seems rather degrading to her. Rather like “boo hoo – poor delicate woman needs/wants pity from a man who she apparently didin’t want to be married to any more either. Should he have waited to see if she dropped dead a la Elizabeth Edwards? At what point could they stop living a lie pretending to be happily married?

katiejane on November 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM

katiejane on November 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Not to mention the fact that she initiated the divorce. Men have no power in divorces, none at all.

astonerii on November 19, 2011 at 6:13 PM

The honorable thing to do for a husband was to drop the process of divorce especially when he knows that her wife has a serious health problem such as cancer.

TheAlamos on November 19, 2011 at 5:58 PM

I know it’s painful to confront your preconceived notions, but if you’d bother to read Gingrich’s daughters’s account, the divorce was at the request of *her mother*.

For all you know, Gingrich didn’t want to get divorced, and doing “the honorable thing” as you put wasn’t his choice to make.

So…

Midas on November 19, 2011 at 6:26 PM

TheAlamos on November 19, 2011 at 5:58 PM

I am so confused, who married his second wife six months after the death of the first?

Cindy Munford on November 19, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Midas on November 19, 2011 at 6:26 PM

She’s also still alive and never had cancer.

Cindy Munford on November 19, 2011 at 6:37 PM

nearly every aspect of the story is false and has been roundly debunked by what should be considered a pretty reliable source – his own daughter who was in the hospital room at the time.

As I said earlier today, the aspect of that story that is not true is that she didn’t die. The cancer tumor was real, and as most know, tumors are biopsied with they are removed. Her tumor was benign.

The daughter was 13 y/o and I’m sure she has a valid memory of how it all came about. However, the other woman at the time, wife #2, also has gone on record which is included in a rather long interview in Esquire Magazine last year. It’s a very complete profile of that period of time and includes how she discovered the girl friend who became wife #3. Frankly, I’m kind of surprised that one of the talking heads or pundits haven’t referred to this article, but otoh, I can understand why they might want to keep in the dark.

However, the left and the DNC won’t.

http://www.esquire.com/features/newt-gingrich-0910

So let the vetting begin .. or continue. However, what was done to Cain was unsubstantiated and slanderous to take him down, and they appear to have succeeded to a certain extent. Charges about Newt’s sexual adventures are not unsubstantiated.

Along with the publics reaction to false charges against Cain and the long list of Republicans who have had to resign their elected positions for even the most minor .. shirtless photo on FB to the most serious Governor on a secret tryst to South America with a mistress… I fear that Newt won’t be able to convince a majority of voters that since God forgives him, they should too.

Texas Gal on November 19, 2011 at 6:44 PM

For that matter, in the general Newt would also face an opponent who, however lamentable as a politician, has thus far been his superior as a family man.

David Blue on November 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Ever hear of Larry Sinclair?

Kevin71 on November 19, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Yes, Newt is on his third marriage and some conservatives will raise questions about his marital track record, as they are entitled to do

Why are they entitled? None of their freaking business.

Obama has been married for 20 years to 1 woman. Romney has been married for 40 years to one woman. How’s all that working out for the “OH MY GOD NEWT HAS HAD 3 WIVES, I CAN’T POSSIBLY SUPPORT HIM!!!!” conservatives?

angryed on November 19, 2011 at 7:13 PM

angryed on November 19, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Did you listen to the debate stream? Newt was very very good.

Cindy Munford on November 19, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Did you listen to the debate stream? Newt was very very good.

Cindy Munford on November 19, 2011 at 7:28 PM

I did not. But Newt is always good. He’s the smartest of the bunch and knows his stuff in his sleep. I can’t ever imagine him having a Perry moment or ever doing Obama uhh uhh ahhh uhhh.

But whether or not he’s a good debater or a good nominee, his marriages are irrelevant. Anyone who decides on a candidate based on that deserves an Obama win.

angryed on November 19, 2011 at 7:41 PM

angryed on November 19, 2011 at 7:41 PM

I can’t get too worked up about his marriages either.

Cindy Munford on November 19, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Really? What you are suggesting is an unreasonable expectation of him and seems rather degrading to her. Rather like “boo hoo – poor delicate woman needs/wants pity from a man who she apparently didin’t want to be married to any more either. Should he have waited to see if she dropped dead a la Elizabeth Edwards? At what point could they stop living a lie pretending to be happily married?

katiejane on November 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Of course. I never expected anything from any man, especially from Newt. And that’s the point of it all.

The other side of the fence will use that as major tool to separate Newt from voting bloc called “women” during the general election, if he becomes a Nominee.

TheAlamos on November 19, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Yes, Newt is on his third marriage and some conservatives will raise questions about his marital track record, as they are entitled to do

Why are they entitled? None of their freaking business.

Obama has been married for 20 years to 1 woman. Romney has been married for 40 years to one woman. How’s all that working out for the “OH MY GOD NEWT HAS HAD 3 WIVES, I CAN’T POSSIBLY SUPPORT HIM!!!!” conservatives?

angryed on November 19, 2011 at 7:13 PM

You think? Like Newt can say to a national TV that he’s campaigning for President and his marital problems are none of the voters’ freaking business.

Good luck to that.

TheAlamos on November 19, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Thanks for this relevant information, Jazz.

I’m not at all impressed with those willing to jump on the JournOlist bandwagon in attacking ANY Conservative candidate. Weak kneed children cost us a chance to have another fantastic candidate [Palin] via their wishing for a squeaky clean candidate which the LIEberal media didn’t tarnish. IMHO, they actually want a second term for 0bama.

With appx. HALF of ALL marriages resulting in divorce I don’t see Newt’s past marriage failures as being relevant. Indeed, he has more in common with the average American than do most of our politicians.

Which politician won the fight to get America a balanced budget?
Which politician will listen to the American people and work to balance the budget again?
Which politician will easily hand the socialists their collective hats while slapping around the LIEberal media?

Nope! I’m not thinking 0bamaScare Romney will do any of the above. ;o)

DannoJyd on November 19, 2011 at 8:09 PM

katiejane on November 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Not to mention the fact that she initiated the divorce. Men have no power in divorces, none at all.

astonerii on November 19, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Oh, I’m sorry, your logic is truly convincing to an average, decent woman! Nope …. Women, especially the purist woman conservatives, would think that Newt was so eager to accept the offer, because six months after the death of his first wife, he remarried again.

Talking about single issue? Add that to Newt’s involvement to Freddie Mac (financial crisis due to housing market) and Medicare (trillions of budget deficit) and … Newt will be a toast, no matter how good in debate he is!

Compare that to the public image of Obama as a happy husband of MichelleO. Good luck again in the General Election if Newt becomes the Nominee!

TheAlamos on November 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Compare that to the public image of Obama as a happy husband of MichelleO.
TheAlamos on November 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM

I’m LMAO because that post was SO stupid funny:

Michelle Obama takes separate government jet to get a few hours of extra vacation time ….

Michelle’s Separate Travel Costs Taxpayers Thousands

Happy couple? I doubt it. ;o)

DannoJyd on November 19, 2011 at 8:31 PM

TheAlamos on November 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM

None of his wives are dead, you putz!

rmel80 on November 19, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Why can’t see that this is clearly a major character flaw of the man named Newt Gingrich you present him in the general election as the Nominee? Not the gossip, not the three marriages … but the fact that Newt is a habitual liar. Lamestream Media can easily dig up Newt’s past interviews showing how he made up stories to clean his “name” or get rid of the above accusation. Relate that to the many “conflicting” and inconsistent testimonies made by Newt during the house committee hearings against her 80+ ethics violation charges in the late 90s.

Newt’s white lies and blatantly true lies will definitely compete with Obama’s own lies.

Admit it!

I don’t care about Newt or anything about his personal life. But think twice in getting Newt to the Republican Party as the best man to replace Obama.

In fact, many conservatives will further despise the Party if it introduces Newt as a Conservative candidate.

TheAlamos on November 19, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Why are they entitled? None of their freaking business.

Obama has been married for 20 years to 1 woman. Romney has been married for 40 years to one woman. How’s all that working out for the “OH MY GOD NEWT HAS HAD 3 WIVES, I CAN’T POSSIBLY SUPPORT HIM!!!!” conservatives?

angryed on November 19, 2011 at 7:13 PM

First of all, marriage is not a private institution, but a public one. To be a conservative is to believe that about marriage. Second, by running for public office, this man is, in effect, calling upon us to judge him, not only for his positions and his record, but for his character as well. In other words, he has made it our freaking business.

A man can say he’ll do anything. Show me what he has done, and I will show you what he will do, whether as President, or as County Dog Catcher. And if he is indeed a changed man with his conversion to Catholicism, has there been any PUBLIC consequences for this man in PUBLIC life?

Nah, didn’t think so.

manwithblackhat on November 19, 2011 at 8:43 PM

But so long as the bar for getting a divorce is any reason whatsoever, and women are given a chance to get paid for doing so, I find it hard to automatically blame the man. He may have done nothing wrong and still have been powerless to prevent the divorce.

astonerii

So says the guy who said Herman Cain was guilty even if his accusers are lying. Pffft.

For each item you checked off, please offer proof of your statement, why it disqualifies him for the office of President and why your guy is better in each instance.

Vince

It’s doesn’t disqualify him. In fact, it makes him look like an ideal presidential candidate for the democrat party. ;)

And for the record, I’m not supporting any guy or gal at this point. Frankly, they all suck. It’s a joke this is the best we can come up with.

If he won’t release the documents have enough respect for yourself to draw the appropriate inference.

Basilsbest

So, he should release documents that you yourself admit he is legally bound from releasing? *Facepalm*

But whether or not he’s a good debater or a good nominee, his marriages are irrelevant. Anyone who decides on a candidate based on that deserves an Obama win.

angryed

So, you don’t think honesty and integrity matter in a president? Here’s a little clue for you….if a guy/gal has no problem behaving irresponsibly, immorally and unethically towards those most important to them, do you think they will hesitate one second to do the same to you?

It’s not about him being married three times that’s the issue, it’s how he got there. Bottom line, lying and cheating absolutely does matter, and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.

Fact is, Gingrich married his second wife only 6 months after the death of his first wife.

TheAlamos

The fact is, it’s pretty obvious you have no interest in the facts.

xblade on November 19, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Projection, pure and simple. Libtards would not hesitate to consider themselves first (does the name John Edwards ring a bell?) so of course, Rs are guilty of every rotten thing they’ve ever thought of doing.

FalseProfit on November 19, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Translated: “I better take my Toys and go Home.”
Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2011 at 5:12 PM

No Del, the translation is: “It’s adorable how you people think your ethically-challenged lobbyist serial adulterer is running against a man who has not held public office for more than a decade.” :)

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 9:45 PM

No Del, the translation is: “It’s adorable how you people think your ethically-challenged lobbyist serial adulterer is running against a man who has not held public office for more than a decade.” :)

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Yeah because I know douchebags like you were at the forefront of the criticism leveled at Bill Clinton when he was credibly accused of rape, impeached, and disbarred./ Just STFU and GTFO, Benny. You’re the last guy around here that should be saying jack-shit about “ethics.”

gryphon202 on November 19, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Obama has been married for 20 years to 1 woman. Romney has been married for 40 years to one woman. How’s all that working out for the “OH MY GOD NEWT HAS HAD 3 WIVES, I CAN’T POSSIBLY SUPPORT HIM!!!!” conservatives?

angryed on November 19, 2011 at 7:13 PM

It is a matter of character. If Newt would cheat on his wife, then why would he play fair with us? It’s not a non-issue, for most people, even if you insist it is. I was disgusted with Clinton’s behavior, and I would have been disgusted at any president who behaved that way.

JannyMae on November 19, 2011 at 10:48 PM

My gosh gryphy, such language! It’s almost as if you’re overcompensating for some personal shortcoming. :D

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 11:41 PM

angryed on November 19, 2011 at 7:41 PM

I will not vote for a serial adulterer like Gingrich.

The last thing we need is another Bill Clinton in office.

scotash on November 19, 2011 at 11:53 PM

If his multiple marriages are a deal breaker for you, that’s fine but I find it a bit creepy that wife number one was his high school geometry teacher, seven years his senior. I can certainly understand reports that his family where none to happy.

Cindy Munford on November 20, 2011 at 12:34 AM

My gosh gryphy, such language! It’s almost as if you’re overcompensating for some personal shortcoming. :D

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 11:41 PM

My gosh, Benny! Such snark! It’s almost as if you’re compensating for a complete absence of intellectual heft! *GASP*

gryphon202 on November 20, 2011 at 12:42 AM

JannyMae on November 19, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Thank you Janny for making my earlier point for me.

Due to 0bama and Romney’s past record on marriage you trust both of them more than Newt, the last man to give America a balanced budget. BTW, how did that ‘Stimulus’ work out for ya? /s

DannoJyd on November 20, 2011 at 1:11 AM

I can certainly understand reports that his family where were none to happy.

Cindy Munford on November 20, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Cindy Munford on November 20, 2011 at 2:11 AM

The basis of this article by Jazz Shaw was to present the facts regarding one of the myths still repeated about Newt Gingrich. As presented by Jazz, here are the facts:

Gingrich’s first wife did not have cancer.

Gingrich’s first wife did not die.

Gingrich’s first wife is still alive.

Gingrich’s first wife ask for the divorce before she went into the hospital.

Here are some facts about some of the posters in this thread:

They did not read the article by Jazz before commenting.

or

They have a reading comprehension problem.

or

The facts really do not matter to them.

or

They cannot handle the truth.

or

It is in their own self interest that they continue to perpetuate a myth.

Yoop on November 20, 2011 at 2:12 AM

. Whether her mother requested for it or not is deemed irrelevant. Women at a very weak condition like that could be so selfless and so caring even to their erring husband.

There seems to be this misconception that the former Mrs. Gingrich had cancer. She did not. It was a benign tumor.

And she asked him for a divorce quite some time before she went into the hospital for the test.

hachiban on November 20, 2011 at 2:18 AM

If you review the particulars of Gingrich’s dealings with the nonprofit and how he routed the royalties and still believe he is some innocent victim, come see me.

Better still, read the lead investigator James Cole’s statement before the Ethics Committee protesting the slap on the wrist.

Even the $300,000 was negotiated as a “reimbursement” – does an innocent victim have to reimburse the costs of his prosecution? – instead of a fine to save face. The House Ethics Committee is not known for justice, people. It’s there to cover asses.

And it was not Democrats or the Ethics Committee which drove Newt from the House. It was his own Republican caucus, tired of being tainted by their association with him.

How quick they forget.

Forgotten what he said about conservatives supporting Hoffman in NY-23 already, too? Or about Ryan’s plan?

If you dimwits nominate this jackass, you will get what you deserve. Unfortunately, you’ll be screwing America too, as Obama probably beats him badly.

Adjoran on November 20, 2011 at 2:32 AM

Oh, and the “cancer bed myth,” as you call it, originated with his ex-wife.

Adjoran on November 20, 2011 at 2:33 AM

Thanks for the link to the Esquire article, Texas Gal. It’s very enlightening, and everyone should read it. If Gingrich is the nominee, the MSM will have a field day with such revelations…like his fellow Republicans joking, “yes he’s a sociopath, but he’s our sociopath.”

The takeaway? This is not a man of character. At one point his second wife pretty much says he has no core values.

Isn’t that the charge that is repeatedly levelled at Romney?

Meredith on November 20, 2011 at 2:45 AM

Wasn’t Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign started in a known domestic terrorists home in Chicago? Newt also attended a racist, anti-semitic pastors church for over 20 years. Newt’s wife claimed she was finally proud to be an American just 3 years ago. Didn’t Newt write 2 autobiographies and yet never actually held a job and admit to using cocaine and other drugs? Didn’t Newt run the Harvard Law Review while never writing anything of substance? Wasn’t Newt a community organizer with close ties to Acorn, who has been known for voter fraud, helping people break homeloan laws and assist in underage prostitution scams on camera and lost federal funding? didn’t Newt spend 5 trillion dollars the past 3 years increasing Americas spending to 101% of GDP?

Hmmm, questions that should have been asked 4 years ago?

dthorny on November 20, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Who cares if the media made the whole thing worse than it was? That is what they do. Is this really news to anyone?

Newt Gingrich is still a womanizing hypocrite. He is still the guy who had to resign in disgrace…He is the guy is more than a little vague about where all that damn money came from.

It is interesting to watch some of these anybody but Romney people parade this line of clowns, has beens and crooks out there for us while they try to convince us that they are the true conservatives..and as such are above all that..why, they don’t have to live by the same rules as mere mortal candidates…oh noooo, they are special. They can flip flop…support mandates…not know what the hell they are talking about..all sorts of stuff that the big bad Romney can’t do.

Ridiculous.

Terrye on November 20, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Romney supports are so cute.

Cindy Munford on November 20, 2011 at 9:13 AM

IMO once we start thinking that Newt’s marriages are somehow our business it opens the door to every other aspect of a candidate’s personal life – including religion. Do the Romney supporters really want Romney’s LDS beliefs & customs considered fair game and/or grounds for disqualification?

katiejane on November 20, 2011 at 9:38 AM

katiejane on November 20, 2011 at 9:38 AM

I’m pretty sure they will tell you that’s different. Until the press does it and then the screaming will begin.

Cindy Munford on November 20, 2011 at 9:47 AM

But so long as the bar for getting a divorce is any reason whatsoever, and women are given a chance to get paid for doing so, I find it hard to automatically blame the man. He may have done nothing wrong and still have been powerless to prevent the divorce.

astonerii

So says the guy who said Herman Cain was guilty even if his accusers are lying. Pffft.

xblade on November 19, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Go find the post, quote the entire post, where I said Cain was guilty of what he was accused of. Otherwise, you are a sick twisted pathetic excuse of a human being that prefers to use arguments that are false and twisted. Go ahead, find that full in context quote where I said Cain is guilty of what he is accused of.

astonerii on November 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Go find the post, quote the entire post, where I said Cain was guilty of what he was accused of. Otherwise, you are a sick twisted pathetic excuse of a human being that prefers to use arguments that are false and twisted. Go ahead, find that full in context quote where I said Cain is guilty of what he is accused of.

astonerii on November 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Yes, it’s true that you were very careful not to say that Cain was not guilty of anything other than “being alone with attractive women.” You concluded that his character is wanting because he did not

avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Except for the fact that you never established that he was ever “alone” with any of the women, you might have an infinitesimal point. Cain is still “guilty” in your eyes, whether or not he is innocent of what he was accused of. That is the bottom line with you, and it’s complete BS.

JannyMae on November 20, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Sorry there’s one too many “nots” in that first sentence. PIMF!

JannyMae on November 20, 2011 at 2:19 PM

This is a strawman. No one claims that Newt LITERALLY handed her divorce papers while she was in the hospital. What is true is that he was having an affair and divorced her while she was battling cancer. The idea that “she requested it” tries to sugar coat the fact that he likes to sleep around while married.

He’s also an idiot, of course.

Rainsford on November 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM

I also thought this was true. But it actually could be technically true but have been presented in a grossly misleading way. If they were in the process of getting a divorce she wanted, and there was some paper-work, then it’s not out of the question that he might have brought her some forms at her request. It wouldn’t surprise me if that was what happened – that way whoever reported the story could avoid libel accusations.
I think I read this in Time or Newsweek, many years ago, before I knew anything about politics or media bias. I keep thinking they can’t sink any further, but they find ever-more creative ways to prove me wrong every time.

RINO in Name Only on November 20, 2011 at 2:40 PM

RINO in Name Only on November 20, 2011 at 2:40 PM

UPDATE: From the Credit Where Credit Is Due department. The Washington Post also douses the myth with cold water.

Oops, I need to read before I post.

RINO in Name Only on November 20, 2011 at 2:44 PM

He still accepted $1,500,000 in “consulting” fees from the corruptocrats at Freddie Mac, which probably were actually lobbying fees, which is probably illegal.

itsnotaboutme on November 19, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Not to split hairs, but a lobbyist has to actually lobby congress for the client.

Payola? Now we’re talkin . . .

BigAlSouth on November 20, 2011 at 2:48 PM

What is true is that he was having an affair and divorced her while she was battling cancer. The idea that “she requested it” tries to sugar coat the fact that he likes to sleep around while married.

He’s also an idiot, of course.

Rainsford on November 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM

She didn’t have cancer. If you would have read the article you would have known she didn’t have cancer; that the divorce was already underway; and that the tumor they removed was benign. Sadly, you now look like an uneducated and shameless little liar spreading smears to help the sinking Mitt Romney stay somewhat relevant.

Mitt Romney will not become the next President of the United States.

Punchenko on November 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM

JannyMae on November 20, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Your right. I was very careful. I was meticulous. I took the time to ensure what I wrote was what I intended.

Cain too was very careful. Cain too was very meticulous. Cain took the time to make sure what he used as a defense was exactly what he intended.

Someone on another thread said that Cain used the words I was looking for to give him full exoneration. I asked for a link to the quote. I never got that link. I do not think Cain has exonerated himself fully from the taint of the charges, even if the most damning aspects of the charges are false. Now, if you know where that quote is, where he says he did not spend time with women alone, I am perfectly happy to reevaluate my conclusions. I am not looking for an all or nothing statement on this, just the baseline argument where Cain himself states, I worked to the best of my ability to avoid spending time alone with women. I would be more inclined to believe it if he added in some scripture that he knows that explains why married men and men of the cloth are supposed to keep to a higher standard of appearance.

This is not a high bar for men to be held to. Of course, it is not the bar that will determine if I support someone. That bar is, will turn the nation around, not just slow it down, and will not do additional damage to the (R) conservative branding.

astonerii on November 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM

For that matter, in the general Newt would also face an opponent who, however lamentable as a politician, has thus far been his superior as a family man.

David Blue on November 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Really? “Superior family man” – just like members of the Mafia were always superior family men?

You apparently are a superior family man if you are raising children in a family where:
- you attend church exposing your children to the anti-American, anti-white rants of a “minister” who is teaching the difference between right and wrong using bigotry and hatred as the foundation?
- you buy your house in a sweetheart deal from a crook
- the children’s mother gets a 300% raise to work for a hospital that takes federal money (and wants even more) then churns out a new hospital intake policy that turns away the poor and re-directs them to inferior neighborhood clinics
- dear old Mom can’t find anything admirable about America – except once – when her husband gets elected President
- your political career is built on the politics of personal destruction of your opponents, and big honking lies
- you refuse to admit to the truth about your personal background and spend millions of dollars hiding it
- you disparage white police officers as racists before you know the facts at hand, simply because the “victim” is a black man
- you teach that America is the source of evil in the world and needs to apologize repeatedly to the world for its sins
- you teach that the fruits of people’s labor is to be taken by force to give to others who support you
- oh, we could go on for hours in this vein…but why bother – in your mind Obama should be sainted because he and the missuses are together in their active disdain for the country and freedom.

Personally, I would gladly take a Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich as a President of the United States over a Barack Obama anytime.

in_awe on November 20, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Rainsford on November 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM

As per my prior post (Yoop on November 20, 2011 at 2:12 AM) another poster who won’t or can’t show the author the respect of at least reading his article before commenting in error.

Yoop on November 20, 2011 at 6:29 PM

I guess I am the only one who’s a bit creeped out that he married his high school geometry teacher when he was 19 and that she is 7 years his senior.

Cindy Munford on November 20, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Three wives? He realy does make bad decisions! Nuf said!

livermush on November 20, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Three wives? He realy does make bad decisions! Nuf said!

livermush on November 20, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Three wives don’t make me doubt his conservative cred as much as “right-wing engineering” and sitting on the couch with San Fran Nan do. The guy’s done far more to blemish the conservative movement than get married and divorced a couple of times.

gryphon202 on November 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM

I guess I am the only one who’s a bit creeped out that he married his high school geometry teacher when he was 19 and that she is 7 years his senior.

Cindy Munford on November 20, 2011 at 7:35 PM

You are not alone Cindy. This tidbit of info has bothered me since I read the Esquire article, when it was first published, too.

wren on November 20, 2011 at 9:20 PM

wren on November 20, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Thank you, I’m glad.

Cindy Munford on November 20, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Whether her mother requested for it or not is deemed irrelevant.

The honorable thing to do for a husband was to drop the process of divorce

TheAlamos on November 19, 2011 at 5:58 PM

If Mrs. Gingrich filed for divorce, then she is the only one that can drop the divorce suit. A divorce is a lawsuit, and only the party that is suing can drop the suit.

txsurveyor on November 21, 2011 at 9:42 AM

All aboard the “Only Speaker of the House to have been disciplined for ethics violations” bandwagon!

benny shakar on November 19, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Is that the latest slime attack?

Democrats were incensed that Gingrich had successfully had Speaker Jim Wright (D, Tx) removed from the House for genuine ethics violations (he sold cases of his book to friends as a means of laundering large campaign contributions.) So, Rep. John Conyers (D, Mi) launched 76 spurious ethics charges against Gingrich. Seventy five were dismissed as being without merit. The 76th turns out, after a 3-year IRS investigation, to have been spurious as well, as anybody who knows the details of the accusation understands; he was accused of reporting a campaign contribution as teaching income. He really was teaching a class, though — he’s a history professor by trade — and the IRS acknowledged it.

So some vicious Democrat used the ethics machinery of the House as a means to attack an honest man. And because he “settled out of court,” so to speak, we’re supposed to take that as a reason not to nominate him.

Anybody who says this has earned a reputation as “slime ball.” Gingrich should wear that accusation as a badge of honor. It’s the proof that dishonest politicians can’t stand him.

philwynk on November 21, 2011 at 10:45 AM

He still is the only Speaker of the House ever to have been disciplined for an ethics violation.

itsnotaboutme on November 19, 2011 at 9:42 AM

What was that “violation”?
People always accuse him of that, but leave out the facts…the story the whole story…

right2bright on November 22, 2011 at 8:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2