In tonight’s debate, Gingrich went on a tirade against CNN for asking him about his second wife’s “open marriage” allegations, and said that the networks were clearly anti-Republican because they had not accepted his offers of proof that the story was false. According to him, this proof would have consisted of denials from his daughters and his friends.
Can any adult take this seriously? Does he expect anyone to believe that he would have consulted his daughters and his friends before asking his wife for an open marriage?
What a slimy scumbag Gingrich is. This is how he justified his extramarital affairs:
Holy shit, what an unbelievably pompous statement. I wish he’d just own up to what he did. And I wish more politicians genuinely were in open marriages, because politics and monogamy don’t seem to mix. Political power is a strong aphrodesiac and the temptations of women are legion. It’d be nice, for once, to have a politician who lived openly either as a swinging bachelor or a swinging husband.
But I think we’ll have a gay, Muslim, Green Party president before we’ll have a president known to be in an open marriage.
I think someone told him he could win if he impressed “swing voters” and he misunderstood.
But more seriously, I thought he played off the question pretty well. Republican voters love a round of “blame the media”, and the question was kind of an eye-rolling one to start the debate off with, so his complaint wasn’t totally without merit, either.
Granted the irony of Newt playing all indignant at trolling peoples personal lives was still pretty eye-rolling.
I don’t think there was any better strategy for him to use anyways, assuming traveling back in time and not cheating on his ex-wife is off the table.
He doesn’t need to convince everyone that he’s right. He just needs to convince 51% of the voters to pick him.
So he can work on various angles. Convince some people that his enemies are spreading lies about him. Convince some people that even if he’s a scumbag the other guy is worse. Convince some people that it doesn’t matter what you think of him personally as long as you agree with his political ideas. Convince some people that what might appear to be character flaws are actually the signs of a strong leader. Convince some people that they should back him because he’ll play ball with them when he gets elected. Convince some people that the situation’s really confusing and nobody knows who to believe.
He’ll also need to convince people he isn’t a flip-flopper: cheated on his first 2 wives, married his (younger) mistress shortly after the divorces were each finalized.
Changed religion at least 3 times.
Resigned not only his position as Speaker but also his House seat.
He once wrote that he wanted to be a “definer of civilization” and “teacher of the rules of civilization”. It’s not hard to show that his version of civilization would include jackassery, reneging on promises, failing to uphold social contracts, etc.
This doesn’t surprise me at all; what I find disgusting are the Gingrich supporters interviewed about his infidelity, and they are totally in the tank for him. Oh, no big deal, he repented, it’s his personal life after all, blah, blah, blah. If this had been a Democrat, it would be shouted from the rooftops as a sign of depravity of liberals and how they are morally unfit for the presidency. Idiots.
His multiple adulterous affairs should be enough to deny him the GOP nomination.
That was stated by most pundits early on in his campaign.
The fact that he has stayed in this, this long says more about his ego than his electability.
Seriously, y’all, it is going to be Romney vs Obama.
And Mr Obama will win.
So we get a center-right POTUS, a GOP senate and a crippled House.
For four years.
This wasn’t quite the change I expected, but we aren’t in a nuclear exchange with anyone, nobody has invaded us, women are still allowed to decide if they want to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy, our civil rights haven’t been breached by any NEW law.
I’ll give Gingrinch credit for his response. He knew he was going to get hit with a “If your wife were raped and murdered, would you favor the death penalty?” type question.
A good deal of Republican primary voters do believe that there is a liberal media elite and if it isn’t on Fox news, it is a smear campaign. Gingrinch had nothing to gain and everything to lose by actually answering the question. So, he plays the liberal media card and he seemed to do it pretty well.
Not having watched the debate, I’ll accept that he played the liberal media card pretty well. Is it the belief of his supporters that his adulterous affair with his second wife broke up his marriage with his first wife, or was it the liberal media? Is it the belief of his supporters that his aldulterous affair with his third wife broke up his marriage with his second wife, or was it the liberal media?
I can’t wait until the Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul sideshows are over. The Republican nominee is Romney. It’s been Romney for, like, a frigging year now. The desperate graspings of “anybody but Romney” have distracted the GOP from dealing with Romney’s very real failings - if they’d accepted reality earlier and started dealing with the reality, they might have actually been able to establish a strong starting point.
Instead, they’ve been spilling their spunk on various “not-Romneys” for so long that there are some real Romney weaknesses that haven’t been addressed. Not that I think that Obama’s a shoe-in - but the year of “here’s yet another batshit crazy candidate that’s not a Mormon. Yes? No? Crap. How about this one? Yes? No? Damn.” has really weakened them.
The OP assumes that an ex-wife would have no reason to try and undermine Gingrich-- that her version is correct. But the fact is, we have two people giving conflicting narratives. Gingrich offers up people who are close to him and know what he’s like to validate his narrative.
Can anyone not realize that many, many Americans will sympathize with a person dealing with the vindictiveness of an ex-spouse?
There are other people who have confirmed many of the allegations of Gingrich’s infidelities. When Gingrich denies it, he look as plausible as Bill Clinton did when he argued the meaning of “is”.
And the Republicans might want to consider how many Americans have ex-husbands.
Excellent point, John Mace. Ladies, let this be a lesson to you: If your husband/fiance asks you for an open marriage, get him to put the request in writing. For that matter, put your demand for a written request in writing, have it notarized, and obtain a proof of delivery.
ETA: Can anyone not realize that most of your likely GOP primary voters are going to be (or at least profess to be) uncomfortable with someone HAVING an ex-spouse?
