Profess maybe, but of the last five GOP Prez nominees, three had ex-wives. So they’re apparently its not that big a deal.
I said nothing of the kind, and you have no idea what I know about ex-wives. I’m just saying that only an idiot would produce character witnesses who would say he’s lying, and only an idiot would consider their testimony as proof that he isn’t lying.
It wouldn’t be proof even if this were about some business dispute. But when it’s about his sexual relations with his wife, it’s not even evidence. It’s not even hearsay evidence. It’s sheer speculation — unless, of course, they were involved in the open marriage.
Repentance would require that he reconcile with the woman he cheated on. At least, if you start with a Christian notion of repentance, not a Religion of Republicanism notion.
Did y’all hear what Gingrich, the history professor, said at tonight’s debate?
[
ETA: Let me repeat myself: Zero chance.
There is a first person account from a campaign manager of Newt where the manager is walking Newt’s two young daughters toward a car he sees Newt in. He gets close enough to see Newt is receiving a blowjob from a staffer in the front seat. Newt sees them approaching and gives his manager a thumbs up sign and smiles without trying to stop for the girls (who were presumably too short to see the action).
His infidelities are not in dispute. He admits to them. What is in dispute, per the OP, is his request to his former wife for an open marriage. I have no idea whether he asked for this or not. As far as the evidence produced in this thread goes, it’s he said she said.
The OP has provided nothing other than his own post to back up his claims, thinly disguised as a question.
I don’t understand your point. Is it your contention that an ex-wife is always to believed over an ex-husband? If not, then what do you bring to this thread as evidence that either spouse is telling the truth?
That’s putting it mildly. He’s a sanctimonious prick who proves just how little it takes to reel in the Freeper crowd for his next book/TV show/insert-moneymaking-scam-here. He could tattoo 666 on his forehead and still win their undying love so long as he keeps “stickin’ it to them libruls”.
Still, I still wish he had a real chance to be the GOP nominee; he so perfectly reflects the irrational desires of the modern conservative base that his thorough and utter beating in the general would serve as a stern rebuke to the self-described “patriots” of the Tea Party. Instead, when Romney loses in November, these same tools will conclude they could have won if they’d only had a “real” conservative in the race, and double down for the next run. You think Newt’s dog-whistle racism is bad? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet…
I think anyone is to be believed over Newt Gingrich, so in this case yes, I believe his ex-wife, the one he cheated on, the one who he cheated with on his first wife.
I had a boss, who was cheating on his wife. The cheating was well known by many of us in the office, as the “other woman” worked for one of our major vendors. Then he got divorced and married the other woman. But he was cheating on her even before they got married with a third woman in the office. The second wife found out after a year or so. She angrily demanded to know why none of us who knew about the second round of cheating didn’t tell her, and let her be humiliated. I was the only one who said what I am sure everyone was thinking. Hey lady, we didn’t tell his first wife about you either. You knew that. Why would you expect us to tell you about the next one.
So yeah, I don’t think the second wife has any more credibility than Newt. He is a liar and a cheat, but so is she.
Gingrich has never denied the allegations of infidelity either to his first or his second wife.
What he is denying is that he went to his second wife and asked her for an open marriage.
Now, I’ll be honest and say I find Newt Gingrich to be a disgusting pig for a number of reasons, but I honestly don’t think that the interview will hurt him. The story of him asking for “an open marriage” has been around for a while and to a huge number of people, the timing of the interview just makes the second wife look really vindictive.
You’ll notice that Andrew Sullivan, who hates Newt, has said he lost a lot of sympathy for her based on her timing.
Also, for myself, while I do have a certain amount of sympathy for her being cheated on by her husband of nearly twenty years with a vastly younger woman, she had no problems fucking him while he was married to a woman stricken with cancer so I think she learned the hard way that karma is a bitch.
I think Gingrich is a scumbag and a hypocrite but his point was quite valid: do his past martial problems really merit the opening question in a presidential debate? More importantly for him, it was an absolutely brilliant piece of counter-punching and I think he actually managed to turn his ex-wife’s interview to his advantage. Just watch the crowd go crazy, it is as brilliant a piece of political theater as you will see this year. Newt is a buffoon but he can rile up the GOP base like nobody else which is why I think this primary is far from over.
I don’t think HE would have consulted, but I would guess that if his ex-wife was so appalled by the idea of an open marriage, when discussing the break up with mutual friends, she would have told someone, “That disgusting pig actually told me that he wants an open marriage so he can keep fucking his young girlfriend, blah, blah, blah.”
So, yeah, I think that their mutual friends would be in a position to confirm or deny things that happened contemporaneously with the split.
Yeah, but this is happening on Religion of Republicanism turf, so their notion of repentance is applicable, and adherence to it suffices here.
Like facts actually matter in a GOP primary.
No, his point as I see it is, the ex-wife is always to be believed over Newt Gingrich. All else being equal, who has publicly demonstrated disdain for the truth; Newt or his ex-wife? It is Newt’s credibility that is the determining factor, and Newt has decades of lies that would suggest he is can never be trusted when self-interest in on the line. Gingrich is a serial liar.
You know, way back when, Gingrich was a firebrand that almost quite literally threw bombs into the ‘liberal’ Democrats. I kind of admired that chutzpah because, well I liked conflict back then. When he led the 1994 rebellion and defined the manifesto known as the “Contract with America” (also known as the “Contract ON America”), I was initially impressed.
That is, until I watched while civil liberties were tramped upon and opposition was deliberately smeared in a way I didn’t expect. Even Nixon wasn’t that heinous… and that is saying something.
This is why we have something like the PATRIOT ACT, and why we spent a trillion dollars in Iraq for no obvious reasons. The moneyed interests have always held sway in USA politics. It is just now that there is little opposition to such power-mongering from more moderate elements in the populace.
About a decade or so ago DC Comics had a running story line where Lex Luthor ran for, and won, the Presidency of the United States, and fans thought that it was a stupid plot line because the general public knew that he as a bad guy. A couple years back Marvel Comics had a long-running story line where Norman Osborn was put in charge of the nation’s security, and fandom was up in arms because everyone that supported the decision in that story knew that he was the Green Goblin.
I look at the presidential campaign we are currently in the middle of, and one question comes to mind: Who the hell is writing this comic book?
I liked how the other candidates responded.
Other Candidate: Let’s move on to real issues that Americans care about. This is not a relevant topic. Now, on a completely unrelated note, I would like to thank my born again Christian wife of 103 years for being here and supporting me throughout the campaign. Were it not for my stable and non-adulterous family, I wouldn’t be where I am today. Unlike some other people. *winks. Tilts head towards Gingrich.
That’s a paraphrase, but it was obvious. 
See, but that’s where your Republicans stomp your Democrats right into the ground. Any politician, when faced with an adultery scandal, can go into “deny, deny, deny” or try to make the news look the other way.
It takes a special kind of man to take the opportunity of an adultery scandal to wrap himself in the flag and sound a fanfare. He just loves America and your freedoms so damn much, he just had to stick his dick in 'em. That’s his story, and he’s sticking to it.
Chutzpah, thy name is Republican Party.
And the answer is, we are.
Right now.
If we don’t get a better editor, we are in for a long ride down a very steep slope.
I agree with all you say except the buffoon part. Newt if a frikken genius at political theater. He knew this question was coming at some point and he was prepared to turn it into a “liberal media bashing the poor ol’ God fearing conservative” moment. Genius. The fact that it was a ham-fisted question served him all the better.
Newt has managed to cast himself as a family values candidate even though everybody knews full well he has zero family values. I think there is a certain segment of the population that sees that kind of in-your-face brass as Presidental. They believe that a great man has great appetites and doesn’t need to follow the same path a the common man. Imagine how he would handle the commies,… errr I mean the Taliban, if they tried anything with him.
But really, Newt dragged his steaming cesspool of a life in front of the camera, into a Presidential campaign, by his own choice. We will still hear him crying about the mean old liberal media long after his campaign is over, just like I heard from Herman Cain doing this morning, sucking at the teat of CNN.