Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, January 19, 2012

Ex-wife says Gingrich wanted ‘open marriage’

January 19, 2012

Advertisement

— Dredging up a past that Newt Gingrich has worked hard to bury, the GOP presidential candidate's second ex-wife says Gingrich asked for an "open marriage" in which he could have both a wife and a mistress.

In an interview with ABC News' "Nightline" scheduled to air Thursday night, Marianne Gingrich said she refused to go along with the idea that she share her husband with Callista Bisek, who would later become his third wife.

The explosive interview was airing just two days before the presidential primary in South Carolina, a state with a strong Christian conservative bent, and as Gingrich tries to present himself as the strongest alternative to GOP front-runner Mitt Romney.

In excerpts of the interview released ahead the ABC broadcast, Marianne Gingrich said Gingrich conducted his affair with Callista "in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington."

"He always called me at night and always ended with 'I love you,'" she said. "Well, she was listening."

Marianne Gingrich, who was Gingrich's second wife, said Gingrich told her "Callista doesn't care what I do."

"He was asking to have an open marriage and I refused," she said. "That is not a marriage."

She also said Gingrich moved to divorce her just months after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

"He also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress," she said. "He knew."

Gingrich, interviewed Thursday on NBC's "Today" show, was asked about his ex-wife's interview and declined to speculate on how it would affect his campaign.

He said he wouldn't "say anything bad" about his ex-wife and that he preferred not to address his personal life in detailed fashion. He added that members of his family had written ABC to protest the airing of the interview, saying they complained about the network "intruding into family things that are more than a decade old."

Marianne Gingrich has said that Gingrich proposed to her before the divorce from his first wife was final in 1981; they were married six months later. Her marriage to Gingrich ended in divorce in 2000, and Gingrich has acknowledged he'd already taken up with Bisek, a former congressional aide.

The House speaker who pilloried President Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky was himself having an affair at the time.

As plans to air the interview were disclosed, Gingrich's campaign released a statement from his two daughters from his first marriage, Kathy Lubbers and Jackie Cushman, suggesting that Marianne Gingrich's comments may be suspect given the emotional toll that divorce takes on everyone involved.

"Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events. We will not say anything negative about our father's ex-wife," they said. "He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves."

Gingrich has worked in recent years to present himself as changed man, offering himself in this campaign as a 68-year-old grandfather who has settled down with wife No. 3 and embraced God through Catholicism.

Last year, he said it would be up to voters to decide whether to hold his past against him.

"I think people have to look at me, ask tough questions, then render judgment," he said then.

But he may not have been banking on his ex-wife, who has been silent so far in the 2012 campaign, to re-start that conversation.

In the NBC appearance, Gingrich said he planned to discuss "real stories," and said he'd have to leave questions about his character up to voters. He called his daughters "credible" character witnesses.

A message seeking comment from Marianne Gingrich was not immediately returned.

Comments

Beth Ennis 2 years, 7 months ago

and I would say that his daughters comments might be "suspect" given that it is their father who is running for President of the United States. Hmmm.......

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

Funny. By obtaining an annulment of his first two marriages in order to marry Callista, Newt rendered his two daughters bastards according to its archaic definition.

0

KansasPerson 2 years, 7 months ago

A Church annulment or a legal one? A Church annulment has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the marriage and therefore has absolutely no bearing on the "legitimacy" of the children.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

You're absolutely right. Newt is the real bastard here.

0

verity 2 years, 7 months ago

The Catholic Church has stopped bastardizing children born to an annulled marriage. A few things have changed since Henry VIII.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

"The House speaker who pilloried President Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky was himself having an affair at the time."

Yes we can!

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 7 months ago

No, it was that he didn't have an "R" after his name that got everyone's goat.

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 7 months ago

Don't confuse facts with opinion.

/your head just exploded, didn't it?

0

Smarmy_Schoolmarm 2 years, 7 months ago

Commander IN Chief. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. If you can't bother to understand the wording of the phrase how can you possibly know what it means?

0

verity 2 years, 7 months ago

"Marianne Gingrich, who was Gingrich's second wife, said Gingrich told her 'Callista doesn't care what I do.'"

Yeah, that's what they always say. You can take it to the bank that Newt was telling Callista, "Marianne knows about you and she doesn't care. I haven't had sex with Marianne since 1985." And Callista is going to be surprised when she finds out that Newt is still getting it on the side. "I thought I was special and our relationship was different. He told me he never really loved either of his first two wives."

Though actually that look on Callista's face could be saying, "I'm being blackmailed. Get me out of here."

What kind of odds would you give me?

0

verity 2 years, 7 months ago

I predict that there is at least one more divorce and marriage in Newt's future.

"I'll give you an A in history if you . . ."

Shudder!!

0

Katara 2 years, 7 months ago

I hope Callista doesn't get sick...

0

verity 2 years, 7 months ago

I could say she already looks like death warmed over, but that would just be mean.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

I have to say, first time I saw Callista Gingrich I thought, why is Newt hanging out with Cindy McCain?

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

You're right, they do look a little alike. Probably because they are both Stepford wives. That would be my guess.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

We heterosexuals have screwed up the institution of marriage enough. Time to give gay folks a chance and see if they can do any better.

0

mjc2891 2 years, 7 months ago

sure, gays can live with the love of their life without approval from anyone else, but not being legally allowed to marry keeps them from receiving the same benefits and privileges straight people get through marriage

0

appleaday 2 years, 7 months ago

And I'm still trying to figure out Newt's claim that all of this is because of how deeply he loves America.

0

deec 2 years, 7 months ago

He loves it so much he intends to marry it, one woman at a time.

0

verity 2 years, 7 months ago

One does have to wonder about the $500,000 to one million dollar bill the Gingerichs ran up at Tiffany's. I can't say this from experience, but I've heard it told that expensive jewelry is the way men pay for their transgressions.

"Callista Gingrich was spotted browsing in a Tiffany store in Leesburg Pike, Va., over the weekend [of October 25, 2011] while her husband, Newt, ordered sparkling wine at a restaurant next door, the Washington Post reports." (from the ABC News website)

0

verity 2 years, 7 months ago

I'm just flat out tired of the Republican candidates---but I must admit they are entertaining in a morbid sort of way.

0

voevoda 2 years, 7 months ago

BornAgainAmerican, It is blasphemous for you to use the sacred title of Jesus Christ, "The Anointed One," as a term of political abuse. It is offensive to Christians to use such language, and quite shocking from someone who calls himself "Born Again." The next time you use it, I will ask the moderator to remove your posting.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

But you have admitted to being a Christian in the past, have you not? If you are a Christian of any sort, veo has a point.

Also, he was elected, not anointed. Why do you hate the American way?

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

Well, as I see it, he either asked his wife for permission to have extra-marital sex, or he didn't bother to ask and just did it anyway. Why is that better?

0

pace 2 years, 7 months ago

I don't care about Newt's sex life or romances or personal relationships. I don't care about Clintons, or almost anyones. I can see why some people care and that is their choice or view point. I don't. I am sick of all the sex life on the ballot. It isn't like they are being elected to be porn king. If everybody's job performance was based on rather they were a faithful husband or wife then we would see a lot worse unemployment . . I do care about economy jobs, foreclosures, national security, and fair law and taxes. If someone can do their job, does it honestly and well, don't ask me to stand between him or her and their partners and discuss their relationships and sexual issues. Enough.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

So you don't care about Newt's hypocrisy He's made a career out of touting family and Christian values, yet left two wives for younger woman, and has a reputation as a serial adulterer. I generally agree with you. A politicians private family life should be off limits. But when he makes a career and runs for office touting family values, he opens the door and his actions within his own family are fair game.

0

pace 2 years, 7 months ago

If someone is choosing to support Newt because they agree with his projection of family values, they have the right of it, to be disappointed. I don't support Newt nor most who promote themselves as righteous. I prefer to look at their economic plans and legal actions, that is what I see as the important part of the job they are trying for.
Jobs, economy, fair law, fair tax, national security, are the issues I am concerned with when electing a congress person, senator or president. I am not going to deny a person who will (in my opinion) would and could do the job because of his/her sex life. So no, I don't find hypocrisy more important than ability to achieve an effective governance. I side with Lincoln, give me a Grant if he can do the job that needs doing. Now, you trolls, don't extrapolate my non interest in marriage histories or sexual escapades as condoning illegal acts such as pedophilia, rape,etc.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 7 months ago

Actually pace's reasoning is quite sound. We're electing a president, not a pope. And the criteria each of us use should be unique and thoughtful and reflective of what we feel is important in a leader.

"Being a cheater in a relationship also means that you have no regard for those that you are supposed to care about the most. How is this a good thing in a public official?"

Major in non sequiturs? One's private, the other public.

And that's sweet you "don't care for dishonesty in our public officials." Like there are people out there that do.

0

pace 2 years, 7 months ago

good luck in finding the perfect guy or gal for you. I don't believe in perfection. Of course you decided what I meant was "you don't care about hypocrisy" That is a lie, I never said that, you just tried to make it out that I said that. Boo hoo. It just wasn't the most important issue for me. You consider someone's sex life is more important than his fiscal policy or politics, That is your right.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 7 months ago

Oh please. His reasoning is perfectly sound, as is mine. You just disagree with that reasoning. Doesn't make it unsound. Can you discern the difference? And I never said such things shouldn't be taken into consideration, but they shouldn't be the only consideration. At any rate, your vitriol would carry more weight if you were predisposed to casting your vote with an open mind. But going by your postings, I'm bettin' you vote the party line and wouldn't consider voting for a Republican anyway. So this is all just some more of your typical pointless bluster.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 7 months ago

Yeah, human history ain't all beer and skittles, that's for sure. Perhaps we need a Tibetan monk to run?

0

pace 2 years, 7 months ago

Being faithful in a relationship doesn't mean you aren't a crook and an abuser. I don't stand between a couple and tell them how to live. I don't think it is my business.I know some pious guys who I wouldn't let in my door. If someone wants a different relationship than I think they should have, not my business. My spouse is my business. I would not hire an accountant based on his/her sex life, does his numbers add up? You think a person's sex life determines his worth or character in all other aspects. You have that right. I don't see it that way.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 7 months ago

"You can be insulting as much as you like, it just shows your maturity."

That's rich coming from you.

0

Chris Golledge 2 years, 7 months ago

I thought Republicans were generally against "redefining" marriage.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

CNN’s John King is an absolute idiot. At the moment Matt Drudge leaked news of Newt’s alleged open marriage request, it was no longer a bombshell. Like any experienced, savvy politician, Newt was prepared, and, in fact, loaded for bear. Instead of deferring to Mitt or Rick, who had both the perceived moral authority and the motivation to call Newt to task over his unmitigated hypocrisy on issues of family values, King thought he, rather than the nominees, was the story, and fancied himself smart enough to take Newt on mano-a-mano. The result: an epic face plant for John King.

Once Newt’s sanctimonious, theatrical, and well-rehearsed response precipitated thunderous applause from the audience, Newt’s opponents were smart (or cowardly) enough to 86 their planned attacks on Newt’s duplicitous and well-known reputation as a serial adulterer. The issue never came up again.

Yes, Newt is a clever boy. But he’s not smart. At least, he is not smart enough to control his arrogance. I would characterize him as a dumb person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like. Newt should have stopped at the word despicable. Ending a sound bite with a five dollar word would have been smart. But his arrogance got the best of him. Just like Bill-I did not have sex with THAT woman--Clinton, Newt became so full of himself that he continued in his sanctimony and vehemently denied the allegations and defied the alligator. Brave, and perhaps reckless. But certainly not smart. Most alligators bite back. Lucky for Newt that John King is a dolt.

Were I asking the questions, my follow up would have been. So, Mr. Gingrich, instead of asking your wife for permission to have extra-marital sex, you simply didn’t bother to ask and just did it anyway. Why is that better?

Newt’s bravado might play well in the three-ring circus known as the Republican primary, especially in a backwater state like South Carolina. But I know Barack Obama. I watched his meteoric ascendancy to the highest and most powerful office in the world. I’ve admired his intelligence, his quick wit, and his brilliantly biting tongue. And I’ve got news for you Newt: Mitt and Rick--they’re no Barack Obama.

You try that same type of stunt on Barack if and when you secure the nomination, and he’ll stick it up your behind and break it off, and he’ll do it intelligently, cleverly, and politely--and with a smile.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

You just can't stand seeing a black man in the oval office. especially one that is a lot smarter than you could ever hope to be. Suck it up, and man up. elections have consequences.

0

grammaddy 2 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

I love how the defense of Gingrich is to blame the media and say, "But ... but ... Clinton! But ... but ... Obama!"

The Republicans have fought hard for the social conservative base. Is it anyone else's fault if one of their top members practiced an open marriage, even if his wife didn't want one?

I know, I know -- "But ... but ... the media!"

In an election that Republicans could conceivably win, it is amazing that these are their best candidates.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

In an election that Republicans could conceivably win, it is amazing that these are their best candidates.

You got that right, Bea.

In the words of that one guy, I say, BRING IT ON.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

Okay. That surprised me. I wasn't expecting "But ... but ... a Prius!"

Gingrich has no one but himself to blame for now having to face questions about his past. If Republicans weren't so holier than thou on matters having to do with sex, it wouldn't matter. They are, so it does.

However, it is still up to the Republicans to choose their own. If they choose to ignore Gingrich's cheating ways, then that will be their decision.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

But ... but ... carbon footprints!

If you think cheating on a carbon footprint is the same as cheating on a spouse, you may. Yes, I think it wrong for anyone to have a huge carbon footprint while still preaching environmental issues. However, you may not always see the things people do to offset their carbon footprint.

Now, to the topic at hand, one's sex life shouldn't be relevant. The way conservatives cling to the horrors of Clinton's affair(s), suggests it remains so for them. If there is one place Republicans love to stick their nose into other people's business, it is in their bedrooms. But you don't have to convince me if anything is relevant or not. Remember, right now it is an all Republicans game. It is up to your party to decide if it matters or not. "Libs" don't have a say in the matter until November.

It will be interesting to see if the party of "family values" will pin their hopes on Gingrich.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

Actually, everyone will judge for themselves about whether or not Gingrich's affairs are of importance. The hypocrisy associated with the issue and the Republicans claim of being the party of "family values," however, is not debatable. It is just fact.

If you don't understand cabon offsets, that is on you as well.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

Does it matter when the question was presented?

Gingrich's response was pure political theater, a display of rehearsed indignation aimed at a highly appreciative base. As with your nonstop false accusations of the "liberal media," it was a wonderful example of attacking the messenger rather than taking responsibility for his actions.

Truth is, Gingrich had an open marriage. Problem is, his second wife wasn't okay with that.

If Gingrich wins the nomination, Republicans must forfit their arguments regarding the sanctity of marriage.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

But .. but ... anything other than Gingrich's open marriage!

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

Oh, but I acknowledge that Republicans and Democrats are cut from the same cloth. I tend to vote for Democrats because of social issues more than anything else, but I don't think them better. This is why the whole "family values" thing blows up in Republicans' faces all the time. They act like they are better, then prove themselves time and again not to be. No argument from me on that one.

And Santa is a Democrat, too. If he were a Republican, he would keep all the toys for himself -- and wouldn't even pay the elves minimum wage because he outsources the labor to the North Pole.

Okay, I guess I vote primarily for Democrats for other reasons, too. Now, quit pretending your posts aren't partisan.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 7 months ago

In total agreement with bea and Sych: this is the best they can come up with?

As to Gingrich and this mess: I couldn't care less. I'm just sick and tired of candidacy being predicated on everyone else's projection of what that individuals' morality should or ought to be. Now, there's no doubt Republican's should have abandoned the family values plank loooong ago, if for no other reason than someone with a rational brain copped a clue and realized that men are men, men with power are often corrupt, and that corruption is most often displayed in their morality. So they have no one else to blame for perpetuating that charade.

But the tabloid-ization of these campaigns is ridiculous. And their timing almost always seems suspicious. Yes, I believe morality should be considered for a candidate, it just shouldn't be THE consideration. That being said, I can't see a scenario where I could vote for Gingrich anyway. I appreciate he's the only speaker to balance the budget, but the ethics violations, fines, and relationship with Freddie Mac are too much to overcome for me. I'm more appalled by the wanton hypocrisy he personified by excoriating Clinton than his own affairs themselves.

We need someone who can run this country, economically and diplomatically. What has transpired between them and their wives has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Not that I care what others think, it's still telling that a good portion of the rest of the world regards our wielding of the "Morality Ax" in our political process akin to a backwater reality show. It's just sad that such a crucial election, with ramifications worldwide, has been boiled down to the shallow depth of an American Idol vote: do we like them and do they look and sound good on TV? This will once again be proven true next November when the President is re-elected. I believe if the GOP had someone as likable, attractive, and gifted a speaker as the President, they'd win in a landslide. And that's pathetic.

0

globehead 2 years, 7 months ago

Qpps! So, now it's the speakers who balance the budget? Good deal. That means we won't be blaming Obama for running up the deficit. Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi can share that bag. Good to know. I suppose that means Sam Rayburn won World War II?

I think giving Gingrich credit for that is a bit of a stretch, although I pretty much agree with your take on most of the rest. Yes, the hypocrisy of these folks tends to be very daunting. Moreover, in a country of 1/3 billion folks, we should be able to get BOTH competency AND morality from our candidates and not have to cut them slack in these areas. It's not too much to ask for or demand.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 7 months ago

Sorry 'bout that, I read that over and that's not how I meant it in totality. I meant to credit his role in those years of balance, not that he had done so all by himself. Complete mea culpa.
I do feel his was an important role in achieving that success.

I'm with you on asking for more from our candidates, no doubt. I have no slack to give in the competency department. On the morality side, let's just say it would be nice to have an upstanding, wholly principled person in office every time. I think President Obama is that type of person. But as each day passes and each news cycle washes over me, I'm getting more and more cynical about the overall morality of man, and therefore make some concessions.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

Hell hath no fury like a Republican presidential candidate's second wife scorned.

0

verity 2 years, 7 months ago

Particularly when she was complicit in doing the same thing to the first wife.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

Gingrich on Gingrich:

“I Think I Am A Transformational Figure.” (PBS.org, 12/2/11) “I Am Essentially A Revolutionary.” (Adam Clymer, “House Revolutionary,” The New York Times, 8/23/92) “Philosophically, I Am Very Different From Normal Politicians … We Have Big Ideas.” (Andrew Ferguson, “What Does Newt Gingrich Know?” The New York Times, 6/29/11) “I Have An Enormous Personal Ambition. I Want To Shift The Entire Planet. And I’m Doing It. … I Represent Real Power.” (Lois Romano, “Newt Gingrich, Maverick On The Hill,” The Washington Post, 1/3/85) “I First Talked About [Saving Civilization] In August Of 1958.” (Robert Draper, “He's Baaack!” GQ, 8/05) “Over My Years In Public Life, I Have Become Known As An ‘Ideas Man.’” (Andrew Ferguson, “What Does Newt Gingrich Know?” The New York Times, 6/29/11) “I Am The Longest Serving Teacher In The Senior Military, 23 Years Teaching One And Two-Star Generals And Admirals The Art Of War.” (GOP Presidential Candidates Debate, 12/15/11)

TheSychophant on Gingrich:

Newt is an unmitigated narcissistic megalomaniac. (LJW, 1-20-13)

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

Is this pious, pontificating philanderer someone that the American people really want to lead them through these particularly trying times? For some the answer is apparently yes. Is Callista Gingrich, who served the Speaker's "needs" by acting as his mistress, at the same time he was married and attempting to unseat President Clinton, someone whom the American people want as First Lady; or should we say First Mistress? Again, for some the answer is apparently yes.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

First Mistress?

No. I don't know what number she is, but we know she is not first.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

Falsetto, take my advice just once, please:

Limit your comments to the right wing talking points generated by Faux , Rush and their ilk. By doing so, you will only be perceived as a unimaginative fool. By ad libbing, you reveal yourself as an unimaginative, sexist fool.

Who are you going to put in their place next Black people. Jews. Catholics. Asians.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 7 months ago

I must admit this is where the D's have the R's. Far and away Clinton was the busiest commander in heat to date.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

Neither party has a monopoly on philandering. In fact, I doubt there is any correlation between party affiliation and infidelity. If I had to venture a guess, I would suggest that the correlation to politics is the narcissism and arrogance sometimes found in those--of both parties--who have attained great political power.

Newt will never challenge Bill Clinton for your mythical title of busiest commander in heat. He hasn't a chance in hell of being elected President.

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

Clinton -- President in the last millenium, am I right?

But ... but ... Clinton!

Thanks for staying current.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 7 months ago

Oh you mean like the " it's Bush's fault " Good catch Bea. I trust we won't hear that again rght ? Now your current too

0

beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago

No, not like that at all. What you are doing is like comparing apples and condoms.

No matter how many interns Clinton defiled in the Oval Office and no matter how horrible he was in his relationship with his wife, it has absolutely no connection to the number of women Gingrich newted. In no conceivable fashion can Gingrich blame his affairs on the actions of Clinton, not even if Bill set them up or paid for the first hour at the local hotel. Newt is reponsible for Newt. On the other hand, no matter who had taken over the presidency following Bush, that person would have had to contend with the long lasting ramifications of his administrative policies and would still be dealing with those policies today.

No point in comparing philandering with policies.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

Funny, but didn't Newt tell 2.0 that he was leaving her for 3.0 because she (2.0) was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet.

Thanks for demonstrating what we already know. Newt is an unmitigated, chronic, and pathetic liar.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

I might disagree. I think he probably treats his cars better than his woman. My guess is that he changes the oil, performs regularly scheduled maintenance, is careful to avoid excessive acceleration, speed, and braking, and steers around major potholes. After a few years he probably trades them in on a newer model, and receives maximum trade value.

On the other hand, with his women, he simply goes after maximum use value and throws them away at whim when he fortuitously happens upon what in his mind appears to be a bigger and better deal.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 7 months ago

The sanctity of open marriage!

Marriage is between one man and one woman and one woman.

0

camper 2 years, 7 months ago

Speaking of President Clinton, I seem to remeber that it was Newt Gingrich leading the charge to get him impeached. Of course all the while he had two cars at the time I think (1.0 & 2.0 or maybe it was 2.0 and 3.0...regardless, the point is the same).

Gingrich has shown many times that he can be a liar, dishonest, and a hypocrite. And also throw in that he may be in this only for the money. The longer he hangs on and stays in this race, the more PR he gets for his upcoming Washington DC based company specializing in speaking gigs, books, and lucrative consulting fees like the kind he did for Fannie Mae (he hardly even had to show up for that one).

If your not convinced what type of guy Newt is, here is all you really need to know.

0

riverdrifter 2 years, 7 months ago

"damn bea"

You got thet right. Shoot. Bea rules.

.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 7 months ago

Who among us wants as the First Couple of the United States of America a man whose mistress at the time, and future wife Callista was performing fellatio in a car on him because he wife was sick at home with multiple sclerosis?.

Who among us want s a president who in order to get his wife ill with MS to divorce him and her an offer SHE COULD REFUSE by saying they could stay married if she consented to a threesome with his mistress Callista?

Who among us wants the face of American values a man who presented divorce papers to his first wife suffering from cancer right after she had major surgery?

Who among us wants a president to gin up racial stereotypes by implying that African Americans are lazy and lack the work ethic of white people and would prefer collecting food stamps to working?

Who among us wants a president who implies that it is OK for poor black kids to clean toilets in schools without offering the same prescription for poor white kids?

Who among us would want a president with such massive pathological grandiosity and narcissism that he would actually imply in public that he will assume "The White Man's Burden" and go to the NAACP and teach them how to get black people to want to work"

Who among us wants a president is such a hypocrite as to be appalled by questions of infidelity when he lead the charge against Bill Clinton?

Who among us does not get nauseated by any images of Newt having sex?

0

jafs 2 years, 7 months ago

:-)

Seems like he has a real problem with that "in sickness and health" thing.

I thought conservatives were all about the sanctity of marriage, fidelity, etc.

0

sunny 2 years, 7 months ago

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" haha

Who could blame Newt. That woman is horid!

0

hipgrrrrl 2 years, 7 months ago

There is simply something terribly fundamentally wrong with anyone who wants to be president. That is the problem in a nutshell.

How could wife no. 2 be remotely surprised that he did the same to her as they did to his first wife? Once a cheater...always a smarmy self-absorbed power seeker...or something like that, anyway.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.