Gingrich blasts ABC for airing interview with ex-wife as ABC starts drip strategy; Update: WaPo gets similar story

posted at 10:45 am on January 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

How pleased was NBC to get this interview with Newt Gingrich today? They got the exclusive first reaction to a big story, plus they get to let him beat up on ABC — and very much deservedly so:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gingrich, who is running in second place in South Carolina ahead of that state’s Saturday primary, said that he would remain “focused on the bigger issues that concern the American people, which are current challenges we have largely because of the failure of the Obama presidency.”

“We have real stories this morning about the failure of the Obama administration,” he said, blasting the “liberal media” for focusing instead on his personal life.

“We have a lot we can talk about today about real problems,” he said.

Meanwhile, ABC offers up the first look at Marianne Gingrich’s interview, and it’s intensely … personal:

In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an “open marriage” arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.

She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.

“And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,’” Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”

Marianne described her “shock” at Gingrich’s behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista “in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington.”

In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an “open marriage” arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.

She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.

“And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,’” Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”

Marianne described her “shock” at Gingrich’s behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista “in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington.”

If these are her “most provocative” comments, well, they’re not exactly a revelation.  The former Mrs. Gingrich has made these allegations before, although not on camera in a network interview.  I imagine that this won’t endear Gingrich to the family-values crowd, but they already know that Gingrich had an ongoing affair with his current wife while married to Marianne.  Unless there are some revelations of political malfeasance, this should be a nothingburger, but it’s hard to know how people will react to this.

It is, however, supremely unfair of Marianne to dump this on the race now — not to Newt, but to voters who sincerely backed Gingrich.  If Newt so lacked the “moral character” for the Presidency, why did it take Marianne eight months to tell us?  Her relative silence in 2011 gave voters the impression that she had nothing to add to the debate over who should represent the GOP in the presidential race.  It’s also unfair to her former stepdaughters who have been working tirelessly for their father for the last several weeks to help broaden Newt’s appeal, and for Newt’s grandchildren who have to hear about this now.  It’s also a large dollop of hypocrisy from the national news media who ignored reports of an ongoing affair involving John Edwards during the 2008 presidential campaign itself, complete with love child, until the National Enquirer ended up scooping everyone else.  Suddenly a 12-year-old affair is prime-time news?  It’s hard to come to any other conclusion that the party affiliation makes a big difference.

Speaking of Newt’s daughters, here’s my interview with Jackie Gingrich Cushman in New Hampshire from nine days ago. Jackie worked hard for her father in the Granite State, but this week she’s probably having to work harder than ever to rebut the story line that the ABC interview will provide in the final hours of this race. It’s a shame; no matter whether one supports Gingrich or not, Jackie very obviously has enthusiastic support for her father, and as I said last night on Twitter, it’s a shame that her time will have to be spent on dealing with family matters in a very public forum.

Video streaming by Ustream

Update: The Washington Post also interviewed Marianne Gingrich, and got essentially the same revelation … kind of:

Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as Marianne was having dinner with her mother, Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”

Shocked, Marianne replied: “Is there anybody else?” she recalled. “He was quiet. Within two seconds, when he didn’t immediately answer, I knew.”

The next day, Gingrich gave a speech titled “The Demise of American Culture” to the Republican Women Leaders Forum in Erie, Pa., extolling the virtues of the founding fathers and criticizing liberal politicians for supporting tax increases, saying that they hurt families and children.

Er, not to be nosy — well, it’s far too late for that now anyway — but did Gingrich ask for a divorce or for an “open marriage”?  If one believes this version of the story, Gingrich asked for the divorce before Marianne knew about the affair.  In the ABC version, Newt asks about an open marriage after Marianne found out about the affair.  It’s possible both versions are accurate, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense if Gingrich wanted a divorce first so that he could pursue a marriage to his now-wife Callista.

In the end, though, I don’t really care much what the answer is.  It’s ancient personal history rehashed by the media for political purposes, which would have been fine had they pursued the John Edwards rumors four years ago with this kind of vigor.


Related Posts:

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 6 7 8

licking at tge Gingrich marital scab

That was “picking at the Gingrich marital scab” before my thumbs got involved in the typing effort.

MTF on January 19, 2012 at 2:36 PM

kingsjester on January 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM

You accused her of lying. Where is your proof?

She was in the relationship with him. Her word carries more weight and Gingrich must explain himself to the American people so we can properly vet him.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:36 PM

And from all accounts, he hasn’t even asked for forgiveness to the person he actually hurt.

haner on January 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM

On Mike Gallagher’s radio show today, he played audio from Newt’s appearnce @ the Luntz Family Forum/debate.
He said he HAS covered all of those bases.
I can’t locate that snippet, myself, simply the ENTIRE forum video.

pambi on January 19, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Shame, Shame on you!

ExpressoBold on January 19, 2012 at 2:25 PM

She doesn’t care about the “victim”, she only cares about promoting Mitt, at any cost.
She has been focused on that for years, it’s an obsession…think, this is a person who said the drivers in Hawaii are all driving illegally if they have a short form BC, that’s her mentality…or that Fred was not worthy because he drove a red truck (forget that Mitt’s kids drove an RV across country promoting his failed bid)…she is an obsessive kook, a Romney cultist who only cares about promoting Mitt.

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM

We don’t know if she is, or isn’t.

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM

So what? Gingrich is the one who needs to be vetted. He has to prove he isn’t a serial adulterer and demanded an open marriage so we can make sure Obama doesn’t drag it out in October of he is the nominee.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Is your family from the Salem, Massachusetts area?

kingsjester on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

She was in the relationship with him. Her word carries more weight and Gingrich must explain himself to the American people so we can properly vet him.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:36 PM

And the daughters are the unbiased victims in this…they don’t have a problem, so why should you. You are not part of the family, they are the important part, and what they say about this should be the final word…it’s a family thing, and you know nothing besides an opportunity to further destroy a family all for the sake of a few votes…despicable you.

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

That’s choice. Let’s assume every accusation is true, and let’s make the accused prove it’s not!!!!

sleepingiantsup on January 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Right. And which person needs to be vetted? Gingrich or Marianne?

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Shucks. Another one that isn’t perfect. Suppose we ought to just sit out the election, maybe we’ll find a perfect one for 2016.

jodetoad on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Nothing to drag out. He’s running, with all the dirty rags right in front of you. He obviously talked to wifey III and went ahead, to try to stop the demise, for his kids/grandkids.

Nothing new in the louts already aired filth. Marianne is just the lint in the middle. Get real.

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Is your family from the Salem, Massachusetts area?

kingsjester on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Take a look at your accusations that she is lying when you have zero proof and then rethink your comment.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Right. And which person needs to be vetted? Gingrich or Marianne?

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

“Vetting” does not require a shifting of the burden. It requires an evaluation of all evidence presented, and a conclusion as to its merit.

sleepingiantsup on January 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Nothing new in the louts’ already aired filth.

csdeven, make sure you see the plural. Sorry I missed the possessive before.

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

You don’t know her. Quit this funny game.

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM

People – come on, this is semantics. Folks are going to believe her. The question is … will they care?

sleepingiantsup on January 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

That’s right, continue to blame the victim of his adultery.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I LOVE the picture of Callistahhhh on Drudge’s front page looking exactly like a S & M Dominatrix. The picture doesn’t show the whip in her hand but I sure it’s there. Drudge’s pictures can be better than the story in some cases. Amused I am.

socalval on January 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Take a look at your accusations that she is lying when you have zero proof and then rethink your comment.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Whoa, obsessor. You have not proven that she is telling the truth. The accuser needs just as much vetting as the candidate.

kingsjester on January 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM

In the Court of Public Opinion, the accusation is everything. The explanation is nothing. Newt’s response over the next few days, and who steps up to support him, will determine his fate. The MsM is doing Death by a Thousand Duck Nibbles. It almost always works. The target has to show that he is a bigger mensch than the accusers. Few are able to do that.

SurferDoc on January 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM

“Vetting” does not require a shifting of the burden. It requires an evaluation of all evidence presented, and a conclusion as to its merit.

sleepingiantsup on January 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM

For the sake of beating Obama we need Gingrich to explain himself. Just like demanding Romney to release his tax records. You know, for the good of the party.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM

And the daughters are the unbiased victims in this…they don’t have a problem, so why should you. You are not part of the family, they are the important part, and what they say about this should be the final word…it’s a family thing, and you know nothing besides an opportunity to further destroy a family all for the sake of a few votes…despicable you.

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

yeah, like you have any idea of the pain they must have been through…just because they chose not to talk about it on TV, doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, or they haven’t suffered through it all…only an insensitive jerk would fail to acknowledge that youngsters or kids get through when their parents divorce…but then again, the so called soc cons are prompt to moralize the left for similar behavior and for ‘hurting’ the family/children, etc,, but give themselves a pass on it and …disgusting…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM

For the sake of beating Obama we need Gingrich to explain himself. Just like demanding Romney to release his tax records. You know, for the good of the party.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM

True. But hasn’t he already admitted to being a horse’s ass in his past marriages? How many more pounds of flesh do we need? (oh boy here come the jokes….)

sleepingiantsup on January 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM

We’ll wait.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM

.
You’ll be waiting for a long time for no apparent purpose. How did you put it?

He must prove that he did not cheat on multiple women and demand an open relationship.

.
When the media, as I explained to you before in my comment, brushes off the Clenis behavior as cosmopolitan and acceptable in polite society and then tries to paint Newt with the red A like Hester Prynn, it’s hypocritical. It’s biased. It’s gotcha journalism. Newt hasn’t lied about his past behavior, he has only said that he sorry for his past behavior and is now redeemed. How can you prove he is not?
.
The media is shaping the political battlefield so that Øbama Lite gets a chance to explain his precursor to Ø-Care and therefor greases the skids for Ø to skate back into the Presidency to do more damage.
.
This “I make the rules” and “The class is waiting” and “Group opinion opposes you” presumption that you have is really, really POMPOUS. You do not speak for the group, as you have been told on more than one occasion.
.
Oh, and you still haven’t adequately answered the interrogatory “How do you know she is telling the truth?” You have just deflected that all-too-obvious answer with a rhetorical trick.
.
Do you feel trapped?

ExpressoBold on January 19, 2012 at 2:49 PM

A golden oldie…..

For the good of the party!

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Also chiming in with the sentiment that Marianne is not running for president asking to my vote to be the head of my party, so no, she doesn’t have to convince me of her character, that she’s a good person that made a mistake, has changed, etc. Newt is asking and campaigning for that role and he is the one that has to answer to this and explain why he is still an acceptable candidate to go up against Obama and lead our country.

And I do believe in forgiveness and if Neat were a family member or friend and he was a changed person, of course I wouldn’t hold pass transgressions against him. That doesn’t make him a good candidate to represent the republican party. You can forgive someone, but they still have to live with the consequences of their mistakes.

I agree with those who have speculated why Marianne mitt be doing this now. She might know is inevitable during the general. This information is out there, the press would be hounding her during the general. Who know what else she’s told to whom along the way that they will be spilling to the press once he’s the nominee. Maybe she did want to avoid it until she saw Newt had an actual chance and it was inevitable. It’s certainly her right and I don’t blame her. For those who feel sorry about the family members it hurts, that is Newts responsibility too for running for president when he know he has a awful lot of baggage in his past.

rose-of-sharon on January 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Newt hasn’t lied about his past behavior, he has only said that he sorry for his past behavior and is now redeemed. How can you prove he is not?
ExpressoBold on January 19, 2012 at 2:49 PM

lol :-) and who decided that he is now ‘redeemed’, you? :-)…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

ExpressoBold on January 19, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Her 18 year relationship with him gives her the credibility. His pattern of infidelity substantiates her accusation.

For the good of the country and defeating Obama, he must answer these accusations so Obama cannot pull an October surprise. Certainly you must understand this considering Romney had to release his tax records for the same reason. The difference is that there wasn’t one shred of evidence that he did anything wrong. No record of tax evasion etc. Gingrich on the other hand has a history of defiling the marriage bed.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Ooops, I forgot to go back and fix all my auto corrects, sorry.

rose-of-sharon on January 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM

This country is going down the drain and we are in real danger of having barbarians in our streets. We have a marxist charlatan in the presidency who has fooled the most stupid voters of this country. Several good men and women have offered themselves up on the altar of the mass media to have their hearts torn out, just like the aztecs, in their bid to be given a chance to solve the problems. So all I see here are the several commenters on this and other threads that sanctimoniously feel justified in herding the nits and trying to destroy all candidates but theirs. You people make me sick! Damn, give it a rest!

Old Country Boy on January 19, 2012 at 2:58 PM

As a reminder, Bob Livingston resigned as Speaker of the House when news of his affair became public. Why? Because he’s a Republican. Comparisons to Bill Clinton are a waste of time. There are different standards for Democrats (partly because they don’t claim to be for ‘conservative family values’ yadda yadda yadda).

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I agree with those who have speculated why Marianne mitt be doing this now. She might know is inevitable during the general.
rose-of-sharon on January 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

a lot of the stuff she said in this interview she said in others too, long time ago…so it’s not necessarily that she is ‘dumping’ on him now…the only ‘novelty’ in her interview really is that he basically asked her to accept the mistress…which takes some nerve to do….and this is a GOP leader and our pres candidate…way to go!

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 3:00 PM

As a reminder, Bob Livingston resigned as Speaker of the House when news of his affair became public. Why? Because he’s a Republican. Comparisons to Bill Clinton are a waste of time. There are different standards for Democrats (partly because they don’t claim to be for ‘conservative family values’ yadda yadda yadda).

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:00 PM

precisely…people keep going on about the media double standards in this, it’s not…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 3:02 PM

lol :-) and who decided that he is now ‘redeemed’, you? :-)…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 2:55 PM

.
He, Newt, decided. Just as John Wesley felt a “strangely warm feeling” at Aldersgate which convinced him of G-d’s forgiveness and redemption, so Newt has that conviction in his life. Get that? CONVICTION.
.
I am only related what Newt has expressed as his salvation.
.
LULZ! Yeah, I can laugh with you, too!

ExpressoBold on January 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Yes, and I don’t accept the argument that because Obama is so awful I need to lower my standards to a ridiculously low level. Of course I’m against Obama, that doesn’t mean I’m for every Tom, Dick, and Harry the republican path can find who is only marginally better.

rose-of-sharon on January 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM

jimver, Caution.

Don’t believe everything you think.

Landon Thompson on January 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Yes, and is she’s to be believed, there’s ‘novelty’ in learning Callista was perfectly willing to be the mistress. So instead of First Lady we could have our first “Mistress of the House” :)

…Although I find that outcome unlikely, as Barack/Michelle will look like a Norman Rockwell painting in comparison, should Newt/Callista be the new face of the GOP.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Three guys named Jesse, Bill and Newt go into a bar…..

Bradky on January 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM

mistress + wife =/= “open marriage”, hon.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM

jimver, Caution.

Don’t believe everything you think.

Landon Thompson on January 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM

??

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 3:20 PM

mistress + wife =/= “open marriage”, hon.
alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Say what?

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Barack/Michelle will look like a Norman Rockwell painting in comparison, should Newt/Callista be the new face of the GOP.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:09 PM

sadly enough…or pathetically so…but then it is also true that they will never make it past the ‘new face of the GOP’, should they ever be that…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 3:23 PM

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM

.
So much flailing! You might want to check the Headlines thread where NRO reveals that Marianne called Newt on his b’day in ’87 to tell him “I’m leaving you!”
.

Certainly you must understand this considering Romney had to release his tax records for the same reason.

Romney has not released his tax records. You are in error.
.
You’re equating tax evasion with serial monogamy or an attempt to organize a ménage à trois? LOL, you are going to be an easy target for liberals! They won’t see the moral equivalence as you do, so good luck with that. I suspect, although I am not speaking for the group, that many here pretty much endorse privacy of personal relationships and understand the Hamiltonian ethics of paying for one’s pleasures. LULZ!
.
You have not gained one inch or converted one political “soul.” You’re just repeating yourself.

ExpressoBold on January 19, 2012 at 3:24 PM

That’s right, continue to blame the victim of his adultery.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM

You are the one and others who want to drag their daughters through this again…and again…and again…it’s a family affair, that has been discussed publicly years ago.
Hey, did you know that Mitt dodged the draft by going to France?
So what is worse, having someone die in your place in war, or what Newt allegedly did?
Hey, Mitt supported paid abortion.
So what is worse, paying to have babies killed, or what Newt allegedly did.
Mitt supported TARP, federal gov. mandates to buy insurance.
So what is worse, taking the peoples money or what Newt allegedly did.
One side is fact, the other is alleged…looks like you have to bail out on Mitt now…as if.

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Say what?

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Open marriage means both partners date, bring other people home, etc. Having a mistress isn’t “dating”.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM

So what is worse, paying to have babies killed, or what Newt allegedly did.
right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 3:24 PM

oh, the morality, or oups, shall I say soc con hypocrisy strikes again…now he cares about unborn ‘babies’, but not so much about the born ones being hurt by their ‘genius’ parents….yeah, what Newt allegedly did is ten times worse, there!

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Man, forgiveness and repentance aren’t too high on the Hot Air commenter’s list, I guess. It was hypocritical of Newt to bash Clinton for his philandering while doing much worse himself. The operative word there is “was”. I did do some stupid things in the past and hurt people I love, but I repented (that is, asked for forgiveness and stopped doing the action causing the pain) and got forgiven. If not for such forgiveness (and genuine repentance) we would all be basket cases. You can’t get past that kind of pain (from the victim’s point of view) without forgiveness. And the perpetrator cannot get past his/her cognitive dissonance and self-loathing without real repentance. Newt says he has repented. I can’t judge him beyond his word unless he starts up with his old ways again. Then I’ll call him a hypocrite.

So maybe we ought to focus on getting Obama out and someone in who can work with a Republican Congress (oh, remember, we need to win the Senate and hold the House too!) and get us back on track. Remember too, the President isn’t a king (though Obama thinks he is) and Congress is important too.

BillyWilly on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Come on people… with all this talk about wives, mistresses, ex-wives, serial divorces, and open marriages, its important to remember the bottom line: “The sacrament of marriage was based on man and woman, has been for 3,000 years, is at the core of our civilization, and is something worth protecting and upholding.”

Oh Lord, he’s a treasure! :)

benny shakar on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

It was hypocritical of Newt to bash Clinton for his philandering while doing much worse himself.

BillyWilly on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

This is true. I’m fine as long as he’s not doing it now.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Of course I’m against Obama, that doesn’t mean I’m for every Tom, Dick, and Harry the republican path can find who is only marginally better..

rose-of-sharon on January 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM

.
Your implied ellipsis of the conjunction “but” between the two words in bold print negates all that came before it. You do realize that “but” is a form of negation of the preceding clause, correct?

ExpressoBold on January 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Mormon’s are exempt from cheating, they just marry another one…
Actually, I feel sorry for the daughters having to go through this again and again, it must be heartbreaking for them to relive and being forced to choose sides…I am sure they just want to be left alone, like most families. It happened years and years ago, but they have to relive it from obsessive people who are more concerned with their candidate than destroying a family…what a pity our society has become.
Imagine, now the grandchildren have to be exposed to this…I guess children and family is fair game now from the cultist who will stoop to do anything to earn a few votes for their “man”.

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Open marriage means both partners date, bring other people home, etc. Having a mistress isn’t “dating”.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I would agree that having a/one mistress does not qualify for ‘open marriage’…this ‘arrangement’ sounds more like poligamy to me, or ‘menage a trois’… ‘open marriage’ has an entirely different meaning, it refers in general to having casual sex with partners outside the marriage, while both partners agree, but it does not mean getting fixed/fixated on one particular ‘mistress’/sex partner…that’s the whole idea, to have the freedom to experience with new/more people, not to ‘replace’ the current partner with a mistress/lover…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM

mistress + wife =/= “open marriage”, hon.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Oh, so her using the wrong word to describe the situation makes the adultery/mistress ok?

Humm, ok.

Gunlock Bill on January 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM

“I don’t care what he does in his personal life, as long as he gets the Job done.”

WTH People? beyond the moral, aspects and family aspects, there’s this:
This was my argument with Clinton. besides being a philandering perjurer which is bad enough, he put himself as the leader of the country in a position to where he could be Blackmailed. Here’s a bit of conjecture that’s entirely plausible.
What if the reason Clinton gave those nuclear secrets to the Chinese, was because an agent for them had the goods on Monica? What if there were no other quid pro quo for those secrets other than their silence about his indiscretions?
Do we really want someone who has serially done things that could put him in the situation where some shadowy party or foreign influence could be controlling the leader of our country through threats of revealing “Private life” secrets???
Is this enough reason for you all to think maybe someone with such obvious, and proven character flaws SHOULDN’T be president?
There is already enough conjecture about our current President receiving his puppet-string-pulls through his blackberry.
Good Gravy… We are doomed!!!

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on January 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM

oh, the morality, or oups, shall I say soc con hypocrisy strikes again…now he cares about unborn ‘babies’, but not so much about the born ones being hurt by their ‘genius’ parents….yeah, what Newt allegedly did is ten times worse, there!

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Of course you wouldn’t understand…it’s a sarcastic analogy to show that we are focusing on the wrong thing…this happened decade or more ago, and has been hashed and rehashed again and again at the expense (not that people like you care) of the daughters and now grandkids.

Pal, we should be looking at what is important…Obama just trashed the Keystone Pipeline, and here we are talking about something that is old, very old, news about a family…good grief.

You and others, are so easily distracted…Newt, the first few debates tried to make that point, but Mitt had to run millions of dollars of hit ads against Newt, and not mention Obama, good grief.
Now this, so easy to manipulate you guys, look at the shiny object…or is it more like you guys are the monkey at the end of the organ grinders chain dancing whenever he grinds his music, dance you little monkeys, Mitt is grinding…

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Good Gravy… We are doomed!!!

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on January 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Clinton was getting his “service” while dignataries were waiting, than he lied about it under oath…totally different.
You would now exclude many of the signers and writers of the Constitution…Franklin would be at the top of your list.

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 3:40 PM

You mIssed my point. Anyone who keeps secrets can be manipulated.

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on January 19, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Gunlock Bill on January 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I never said it was okay. I would pull out my husband’s fingernails if he ever cheated on me. I said it was irrelevant both because it’s in the past and because it has no bearing on his ability to execute the duties of the office he wishes to hold.

Marianne called it “open marriage” because it sounds worse than “keeping a mistress”. “Open Marriage” is a term coined in 1972 for the new attitudes of the sexual revolution. Men have kept mistresses for thousands of years. The idea is that you keep your mistress more-or-less secret from your wife, and do not flaunt it. In an “open marriage” you ask your wife in advance, tell her every detail when you’re done, and keep it casual. I know lots of people who are busily ruining their marriages by making them “open”, and it’s inaccurate to say that’s what Newt did.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:45 PM

This is a trashy dimestore novel full of trashy, rotten people. Why would I vote for them to live in the White House and run the free world.

Philly on January 19, 2012 at 3:47 PM

ExpressoBold on January 19, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Why do you continue to put the victim on trial? She left him for 6 years and then reconciled. In the mid 90′s he started ANOTHER affair.

Romney was pushed into agreeing to release his records for the “good of the party”.

And it’s clear to the group that you still have no rational explanation as to why it is okay to demand Romney’s tax records with no hint of impropriety on his part to prevent an October surprise but it’s somehow out of bounds to demand Gingrich explain his immoral behavior when there is plenty of evidence to support the demand. An October surprise relating to more immoral behavior by Gingrich will certainly be important information to all voters in October.

You need to get out of the Hot Air echo chamber so you can get a more accurate view of the electorate.

Did you decide that you didn’t need to talk about the event that caused you to become unsympathetic to the victims of Gingrich’s despicable behavior? I am sure the group is concerned at the change.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Yep. It was a poll taken in Iowa. You probably wont accept it, but in a conservative state like Iowa, it’s a valid example. Two days ago I heard mention of it on Fox, but I have no data to present.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM

I do appreciate the effort.

Bill C on January 19, 2012 at 3:50 PM

He met her back at her modest hotel room. “We had oral sex,” she says. “He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, “I never slept with her.” Indeed, before Gingrich left that evening, she says, he threatened her: “If you ever tell anybody about this, I’ll say you’re lying.”

PappyD61 on January 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM

This is the guy that’s going to carry the torch of conservatism.

Ruiner on January 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM

And you guys are sure this took place because…??? Can you please tell me how allegations against Cain panned out, TRUTH WISE? Absolutely no proof of any kind save for some bimbette claiming some utter stupidity. Romney seems to be paying well or rather, able to find the right people to buy off.

riddick on January 19, 2012 at 3:53 PM

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 3:24 PM

What does Romney have to do with the required vetting of Gingrich? Unless the two had dealings, the correlation you are making seems to be driven by desperation. Look, it’s like a band-aid….lets just insist Gingrich explain his serial infidelities and demand for an open marriage and get it over with. Then Obama can’t produce an October surprise.

If it was valid enough to demand Romney release his tax records, it certainly is more valid in the case of one who has a despicable pattern of defiling the marriage bed.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 3:54 PM

If there is a Gingrich – Obama debate, expect the MSM to ban cheering and clapping.

TheClearRiver on January 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM

If there is a Gingrich – Obama debate, expect the MSM White House to ban cheering and clapping.

TheClearRiver on January 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM
.
FIFM – more realistic, I expect.

ExpressoBold on January 19, 2012 at 4:04 PM

You probably wont accept it, but in a conservative state like Iowa, it’s a valid example. Two days ago I heard mention of it on Fox, but I have no data to present.

csdeven on January 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM

You’re still clueless. Who did so called “conservative” Iowans vote for in 2008? A COMMUNIST. A RADICAL COMMUNIST at that. Same thing they did yet again this month by voting for Romney (a SOCIALIST masquerading as ______/_________/___________ depending on time of day and moon phase). Only because someone considers themselves “conservative” doesn’t mean they actually are, actions speak louder and all that…

riddick on January 19, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Newt is and always will be a loyal and unwavering friend of our Constitution.

Landon Thompson

You mean the same Newt that supports an unconstitutional national health care mandate? That Newt?

Give me a break….do you really believe a person who can’t even be a loyal and unwavering husband and father will think twice about being disloyal to you if it suits him?

xblade on January 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I had no idea that Gingrich did this to his ex-wife.

So, some of you need to realize – this revelation will KILL HIM. A lot voters (maybe 70 percent..) have no idea about this stuff, while the political junkies think it’s old news.

Women will have a hard time voting for him.

fatlibertarianinokc on January 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Marianne called it “open marriage” because it sounds worse than “keeping a mistress”. “Open Marriage” is a term coined in 1972 for the new attitudes of the sexual revolution. Men have kept mistresses for thousands of years. The idea is that you keep your mistress more-or-less secret from your wife, and do not flaunt it. In an “open marriage” you ask your wife in advance, tell her every detail when you’re done, and keep it casual. I know lots of people who are busily ruining their marriages by making them “open”, and it’s inaccurate to say that’s what Newt did.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:45 PM

huh? open marriage is worse that keeping a mistress??? you got to be kiddng me…first of all it’s a lot more honest, secondly it is consensual, both partners agree on it, and it means they both can do it (although they don’t HAVE to do it), thirdly, the idea is that nobody gets hurt in the process, it’s just experiencing with different sexual partners, while not involving feelings and all (of course there’s no guarantee that this is not going to happen)…it’s done basically to avoid monotony and boredom on certain fronts, and it’s done by people who accept the game and the consequences…the only thing that I agree with you on is that definitely what Gingrich did does not qualify for ‘open marriage’, he presented the wife with the fait accomplit, meaning with the mistress, saying basically ‘take it or leave it’, screw your feelings, or the kids’ etc…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I am only related what Newt has expressed as his salvation.
.
LULZ! Yeah, I can laugh with you, too!

ExpressoBold on January 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

:-) get it, he must indeed be saved then, if he says so :-)…especially if he experienced said salvation as that warm fuzzy feeling that you mentioned :-)…I feel much better now, knowing all tis :-)…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 4:30 PM

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 4:25 PM

If Marianne had cheated, too, the concept of an ‘open marriage’ conversation doesn’t seem totally weird.

pambi on January 19, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Clinton was getting his “service” while dignataries were waiting, than he lied about it under oath…totally different.
You would now exclude many of the signers and writers of the Constitution…Franklin would be at the top of your list.

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 3:40 PM

really, and what guarantee do you have that Gingrich is not going to let the dignitaries in waiting while he received similar services from new WH staff (other than Calista, of course, or else it wouldn’t be fun :-)…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I am sure they just want to be left alone, like most families. It happened years and years ago, but they have to relive it from obsessive people who are more concerned with their candidate than destroying a family…what a pity our society has become.
Imagine, now the grandchildren have to be exposed to this…I guess children and family is fair game now from the cultist who will stoop to do anything to earn a few votes for their “man”.

right2bright on January 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM

yeah, like you give shite about his family….besides, it’s the daughter (one fo them anyways) who chose to campaign for her dad, she knew that this stuff would come out, it’s not like she somehow thought that his dead was a chaste hermite or something…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I got lint in my navel

John Kettlewell on January 19, 2012 at 5:03 PM

It’s a matter of time before his extramarital girlfriends are found and interviewed. Sounds like he had quite a few other than the ones he married.

Philly on January 19, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Ed,
What I cannot get over, is the idea that Gingerich has gone this far without serious pushback on his unfaithful tirates!

The idea that this is unfair to drop this news now is absurd! What on God’s green earth are we coming to in this country that we can have a presidential candidate get away with cheating not once BUT TWICE!

The idea that I could go out and cheat TWICE and still become president conveys the message that values don’t matter!

But then again, I guess some people think that the ultimate game of winning is accomplished when one gets away with as much cheating as possible and STILL BECOME president..!!

Mcguyver on January 19, 2012 at 5:29 PM

No wonder he got rid of her

Wade on January 19, 2012 at 5:54 PM

I guess. It was hypocritical of Newt to bash Clinton for his philandering while doing much worse himself.

BillyWilly on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Did Newt have his BillyWilly out in the White House while President or have his BillyWilly out in his office while Speaker…

Wade on January 19, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Why bring this up now…Ed and so many ask –
Well maybe she never thought he’d get this far (who did??).
But now that he has…

verbaluce on January 19, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Newt calls attacks on others looking for the truth. Attacks on him are too personal though. Guess his conservatism doesn’t extend to his family life. That is pretty progressive seems like. Character counts and Newt is sorely lacking.

jeanie on January 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM

It is, however, supremely unfair of Marianne to dump this on the race now

Ed, I love you and all who write at HA, but in 3+ years, this is the first line I’ve read from you that strikes me as way out of bounds. She’s not in the race, and Newt did the cheating. He bears the consequences, whatever they may be, and this is one of them.

SomeCallMeJohn on January 19, 2012 at 7:17 PM

The same media that said very little about JFK,Bill Clinton,or John Edwards.
But,it’s better this happens now rather than if he wins the nomination.

foggybottom on January 19, 2012 at 8:04 PM

I guess. It was hypocritical of Newt to bash Clinton for his philandering while doing much worse himself.

BillyWilly on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Newt may be a cad on a personal level, but he never raped a woman, let alone sexually harassed a number of women that worked for him.

18-1 on January 19, 2012 at 8:48 PM

It’s unfortunate that so many politicians are adulterers, but what I find particularly repulsive about Newt is his discarding his wives for what he perceives as a better deal. I really don’t have a major problem with Cain, or Clinton, or Jefferson, or FDR,or JFK. They stuck with their wives and continued to support them financially, emotionally and socially. Not wild about the infidelity, but wouldn’t have it overshadow their political policies.

But a person who theoretically picked out a life mate and swore to love, honor and cherish them til death did them part and then discarded them like dirty underwear… That offends me. Is it plausible that such a person would keep any other promise or hold any other position or relationship sacred? If a person would ditch his wife (twice) why wouldn’t he betray his supporters once elected?

Another look at Santorum?

talkingpoints on January 19, 2012 at 9:38 PM

The democrats have already OK’d having a President who scooted 19 yr. old interns around the Oval office on their knees…so this is a problem how?

bluesdoc70 on January 20, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Your implied ellipsis of the conjunction “but” between the two words in bold print negates all that came before it. You do realize that “but” is a form of negation of the preceding clause, correct?
ExpressoBold on January 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM

No it doesn’t. I could go into details of the definition, but a few counter examples is a better illustration. “This type apple is delicious to eat raw, but they make an awful pie.” “I really want to go to the party, but I have too much homework to do.” The use of the conjunction “but” does not negate the validity or truth of the first phrase of a sentence.

rose-of-sharon on January 20, 2012 at 8:25 AM

The ABC and the rest of the media was not being biased against Gingrich. This story was in the news. They were required to ask him about it. They would do the same if it was a democrat primary and one of the major candidates cheated on his wife. I’m sure ABC would have endless stories about him with interviews with “the other woman” and the shunned wife. Can you imagine if the shunned wife was suffering from a deadly decease like cancer or something? Why, the media would press that story until every man women and child knew every detail………. Oh wait!

Dollayo on January 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Hey, one quick question: Why did The Today Show put prison bars behind Newt in this interview??

Dollayo on January 20, 2012 at 1:45 PM

We are supposed to believe Marianne Gingrich is a font of virtue? Do some digging and read about the FBI file on her while she was allegedly trying to get cash from Iraqi arms dealers in exchange for getting Newt to influence sanctions legislation. (The versions I read described Newt as unaware that she was trying to make deals behind his back.)

Colony14 on January 20, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8