Wrap your mind around his wallet. That’s what they do.
If you ever touched Newts cock, you’d change genders too.
Why is it even important that he literally went to her and asked for an open marriage when it’s obvious that it’s what he wanted? How can he even deny that’s what he was trying to do? Not only was it what he wanted it’s what he went ahead and did anyway.
“Did I cheat on my wife?”… “Yea, sure. Next question.”
“Did I ask my wife for a divorce?”…“Pfft,no. Next question”
“Did I ask my wife for an open marriage?”… “Why, that’s preposterous! How could you ask such a question? Did the liberal media put you up to this? She’s a liar! I never asked such a thing!”
Wag your dog much?
I think this is spot-on. She was editorializing history for the cameras. This doesn’t make him any less of a scumbag, but it does give him plausible deniability. It’s his own personal “Depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
I wish I’d been a Congresscritter on the committee Clinton said that to. I would’ve stood right up and said, :mad: "Mr. President! Will you please make it clear once and for all to this Committee and to the American people! Is you is, or is you ain’t, my baby?
“The way you actin’ lately makes me doubt.” 
I would argue that saying, in effect, “I’m going to keep fucking other women, and you ought to get used to it” is an unconventional way to suggest an open marriage. I did get the impression that if she accepted, they could have stayed married.
“How dare you ask that question! I have never cheated on my wife! I have never asked my wife for a divorce! I have never asked my wife for an open marriage!”
“And these denials include all three of your wives?”
“Oh…well in that case, no comment.”
Besides why should we believe Marianne Ginther? That tramp had an affair with a married man.
A married man who’s wife had cancer.
I think this might serve as a lesson to anyone male or female who breaks up a marriage and then marries the person who left the marriage.
Someone who’s cheated once, when given the opportunity will do so again and no matter who you are there’s always someone out there younger and better-looking than you.
Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.
Considering that Newt asked wife #2 for permission after he had already been banging eventual wife #3 for 6 years, I vote for none-of-the-above.
Ann Landers, is that you? 
I have to have a point now? AWWW, MA-A-A-A-N!
Certainly not. But it does make me start wishing I could have been a fly on the wall at THAT cocktail party:
*“Say, Newton! How they hangin’?”
“Little bit over to the right, Irving, how else? Hahahaha!”
"Hahahahaha! How about to the FAR Right! Hahahahahaha!
“Hahahahaha! I told Marianne about Callista today…”
“Whoa. How’d she take it?”
“Coulda been better.”
“Did you tell her that you only did it because you love this country so much?”
“SIGH Yeah.”
“And that didn’t WORK?”
“Yeah. Go figure.”
“Well, you already know Callista is on board with that one. Have you thought about asking Marianne to let you have one of those , what do you call 'em, “open marriages,” so’s you could stay married and keep seeing Callista on the side?”
“No, I think she’d probably take that the wrong way. I don’t think I will.”
“Well, how about if you divorce Marianne, have an open marriage with Callista, and keep bangin’ Marianne on the side?”
“Now there’s an idea; she certainly can’t object to me proposing to have an open marriage with Callista. Plus, I’d still be able to get a little sumpn’ - sumpn’ from her now and then.”*
Well, in the absence of Newt’s written request, I guess I’m bringing what I asserted I was bringing in Post #19.
I did bring my $7.95 annual membership fee that lets me post to threads without getting ads…
That story SO needs to be posted in the “workplace griping” thread in the Pit…
Let’s not be too tough on the Newtster. He’s just following the long-established propensity of Republicans - they talk a great game about how the free-market and personal responsibility are self-correcting guides to a perfect tomorrow; then disprove that theory entirely with their actions.
It does make him a scuzz as a person, but all things considered, this kind of salaciousness doesn’t have much to do with the issues. Gingrich was always going to face scrutiny over his marital and extramarital history, but I’m not sure about ABC’s decision to air an interview with wife #2 right before this primary and giving Gingrich a freebie debate question doesn’t fix things. However it should be noted that earlier in the campaign he was lying about his first divorce: he said his first wife initiated the proceedings, and documents showed that wasn’t true.
It makes no difference – if Gingrich gets the nomination and gets trounced in the general election, they will immediately conclude they could have won if they’d only had a “real” conservative candidate.
Or someone who wasn’t a “Washington insider”. There wil always be an excuse.
They could try blaming Diebold. That might actually generate some sympathy around here!
So Gingrich should not be President because he cheated on his wife and lied about it?
But if he were already President this would be a witch-hunt because his private life shouldn’t matter, right?
Oh fuck me, not this fucking horseshit again. This has been addressed already several times in this thread. Bill Clinton didn’t make his career building himself up as a paragon of virtue or railing against immortality or cozying up to the family values crowd and religious right.
Living in glass houses and all that.