Supposedly Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s second wife, has said that she could give an interview that could end his political career. When interviewed by Esquire in 2010, this did not happen. Is Marianne blowing smoke or what?
Tonight ABC is supposed to air parts of a 2 hour interview with Marianne Gingrich. Details are sketchy at best. It seems unlikely that there will be anything all that revealing. Both of his daughters have issued a statement:
To: ABC News Leadership
From: Kathy Lubbers, Jackie Cushman
Date: January 18, 2012The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for 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. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.
ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future — about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having.
Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren — so they can inherit the America he loves. To do that, President Obama must be defeated. And as the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who has actually helped balance the national budget, create jobs, reform welfare, and cut taxes and spending, Newt felt compelled to run — to serve his country and safeguard his grandchildren’s future.
That is a pretty powerful letter. Gingrich was involved in a relationship with his present third wife while still married to Marianne. He apparently doesn’t always say the smartest thing when it comes to women, according the Huffington Post:
According to an extensive profile in Esquire, he told Marianne Gingrich that she was a “Jaguar” and that “all I want is a Chevrolet.” That brought him to his third marriage to Callista Gingrich, who was a House staffer when she began an affair with her eventual husband.
DUH! I wonder how Callista likes being compared to a Chevrolet?
Word on the street it that the interview will be a segment on Nightline tonight. Obviously the interview is meant to deal a blow to the Newt Gingrich campaign. Is it possible to do him harm? Could this be the end of the line for the Gingrich-ster? My guess is that Newt has at least 9 lives and whatever Marianne has to say will be unlikely to have much influence of potential primary voters.
I saw the Drudge siren on this and was tickled pink. 🙂
Reminds me of something Chris Rock said: Don’t piss off your woman (en) !
marin, if you find out exactly when it is, let us all know. I had a hard time finding out specifics.
Do you think she will drop s bomb of sorts?
From what I heard from Brian Ross this morning, on WMAL, nothing really new is going to come out of this, beyond the fact that Newt asked her if she’d consider staying married, while tolerating his affair. She declined. Also, according to Ross, she goes to great lengths to defend his professional conduct as Speaker, saying he always acted ethically.
@Steve, how unsporting of her! hrumpfffft
I heard on TV that she said he wanted to be ‘accepted into the country club’ and would pretty much do what it took to be able to join. Now does that remark have to do with eithics? I don’t know. I guess we will find out. I do hope someone will post the time. It seems fairly absurd to put something with prime time appeal on after 11:30, doesnt it?
@Steve Thomas
Now I’m disappointed. I wanted to get some full on red meat drama out of the lamestreet biased liberal media.
Here’s hoping she says something about him cross dressing or the like..
Do you think being a cross dresser would ruin his political career? @ marin
“Can it end his political career”
Let’s hope so. We’ve already seen what happens when you elect someone with narcissistic personality disorder. Thanks but no thanks.
Okay, lemme get this straight: Newt slept with and later married his Highschool Math Teacher. At some point during his marriage, he bagan having an affair with his future second wife. He divorces wife #1, and marries his mistress. At some point during this marriage, he begins an affair with the future wife #3. I got this.
What I can’t get straight is how the first homewrecker feels she has the moral highground, and needs to inform the voters of Newt’s character flaws. We know he has character flaws. We know he’s ruined previous marriages with adultery. We know that some politicians think they can do things like this ‘just because I could”. None of this is news.
@Moon-howler
That’s a question for the electorate but I just don’t see that happening. The idea that he asked for an open marriage with his wife to have a mistress.. I think will cost him a lot of votes. I just don’t see that grabbing any social conservative votes but I may be wrong.
He’s done. His campaign simply serves as a jihad against Romney in some odd hope to suicide bomb it.
I don’t think anyone cares who supports him. Obviously he has a zipper problem. It’s like asking me if I care about Bill clinton’s zipper problem. The answer is no. You either have decided you like him as a leader and his moral behavior is of little or no importance or he is out of the running in the first place.
His disregard for wives isn’t why I would not vote for him. On the other hand, Saint Clinton hung around and didn’t abandon his wife.
Well, this certainly explains a lot:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html
“On the other hand, Saint Clinton hung around and didn’t abandon his wife.”
I thought Hillary was the one being considered for sainthood? Dang, my sources have been so off lately….
I would say neither are saints. I was just being sarcastic.
Actually, as long as people aren’t being judgemental of others, it probably wouldn’t be a deciding factor for me. In Newt’s case, he was Mr. Morals. Then I would care.
The bottom line is, it is usually the Repubs who get into the values in politics. Democrats don’t usually. Therefore, I generally bump off Repubs as being hypocrits.
She says he asked her for a divorce 3 months after she was diagnosed with MS. After hearing the doctor tell them noth that she shouldn’t be subjected to stress. Of course, this echoes divorcing his first wife while she had cancer.
It’s also interesting that she says he told her he wanted an open marriage, where he could cheat. Makes it hard for him to take up the (inane) “Defense of Marriage” cause.
We could sniff this stuff out, more or less, but I think her definitively telling us that he wasn’t into monogamy, and is rat-like enough to keep bailing on wives when they get sick, puts the death knoll to him ever being taken seriously again as a Presidential candidate. Most people don’t want to vote for an outright worm.
Rick, I am going to defend your position.
People, Rick said ‘outright worm.’ That is different than ‘worm.’ John Edwards is an outright worm. Newt is an outright worm. They both fit in a class of their own.
They are several cuts below regular old generic worms like some other people we have mentioned.
So…Newt’s 2nd wife is spilling her guts, saying that Newt doesn’t have the morals to be President…because he wanted to sleep with other women……
2nd wife. The homewrecker. The former mistress.
“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
@Cargo, we aren’t sure what wife 2 Marianne is going to say. You are assuming she will say that. I doubt if she will.
@marin
Don’t forget all the presidents who have had affairs or lusted after someone else’s wife. George Washington, TJ, FDR, Jackson, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and others….
“Most people don’t want to vote for an outright worm.”
You never know. Maybe people are OK with old school Republicans like Newt……………….
The electorate has thrown me for a loop before.
“Most people don’t want to vote for an outright worm.”
I beg to differ. The public enthusiastically voted for an outright worm, not once, but twice: 1992, and again in 1996. There was ample proof that this candidate had fidelity issues, and when he ran for reelection, the issues had escalated to allegations of sexual assault. Perhaps you might want to ammend your statement to be “Most people don’t want to vote for an outright worm, if he’s a member of the GOP”.
Steve – Clinton was an adulterer – and at that, he seemed to have his own legitimate Biblical justification for what he did. (That he wasn’t breaking God’s law if he avoided vaginal intercourse).
(The scariest part of the 1998 scandal to me was reflecting that a man in Clinton’s position ACTUALLY BELIEVED in the Biblical “God”).
Something like half of men stray. But much less than half of men would divorce their wives during a period of serious illness. That’s what I call REALLY breaking your vows. TWICE.
When it came out that John Edwards was quite the worm he is, his career as a Democrat was over. I don’t think that Democrats would want a man like Gingrich leading their party, either.
To get a real anaology Clinton would have had to leave Hillary after she was diagnosed with something terrible, then done it again to the next wife, WHILE politically profiteering off another man’s adultery while carrying on his own affair. Clinton’s sins are much less spectacular than that. I think his perjury was disgraceful, even worm-like, but Newt is obviously on a playing field of his own.
And PS, allegations of sexual assault do not make someone a “worm”.
cargo, surely Calista is looking over her shoulder … when she turns 30 Newt may get rid of her as quickly as they did in “Logan’s Run”.
Also, Steve, there were no particularly credible allegations of marital infidelity by Clinton on record when people like me voted for him in 1992, and 1996. Only a book by Gennifer Flowers (which in retrospect, was probably absolutely true). (And the most interesting tidbit in the book that people don’t remember is him telling her that Hillary is bisexual).
He would not have been nominated after splattering on the dress and then lying about it to everyone in the world for about 8 months.
Clinton wasn’t the prissy scold who preached family values to the populace at large. Republicans should be embarrassed to even mention his philandering as “oh so horrible” when several of the Republicans voting to impeach him were guilty of the same indiscretion – some of them to this day have been able to avoid being exposed.
It takes a certain type of gutless man to bail on a sick wife, much less two sick wives.
I doubt that there’s much that Marrianne Gingrich could say that would come as a surprise. Newt’s always seemed to be a weasel, an egotist, and manic. The country could do better than having him as Prez or even the Republican nominee. I believe Newt’s political career is already over and has been for a long time.
Well, folks, Perry endorsed Gingrich.
@Rick Bentley
How many people tell the truth about adultry? Almost no one I know has./would/did/has done. That’s just one of those things that is on auto-lie.
I never understood why everyone was so upset that Clinton wasn’t forthcoming.
I don’t defend Clinton. Some things are pretty indefensible. However, that is one huge band of worms out there, especially in politics. The ones I think are total worms are the Edwards and the Gingrichs. What’s his name ….drawing a blank…Chandra Levy…’boy’ friend is pretty much a rat bastard worm because he wouldn’t come clean when she was obviously missing and still he tried to protect and cover his pretty boy ass.
The other worms are just worms. Shrug. Mundane, ordinary dollar a dozen worms. Nothing new here.
Now, what I don’t get is, why people…oh let’s just call it…men, spend millions of dollars to get elected and then risk it all on a girlfriend. It makes no sense. Someone ALWAYS finds out. Now if you are someone who no one wants a big piece of moral pie out of, perhaps it isn’t as risky. It always seems to be someone who has gotten on their high horse about other folks’ moral behavior. Insign, Vettor, Sanford, bathroom toe tapper, etc.
Weiner…not so much. With that name….why even freaking bother.
@Rick Bentley
When she turns 30?????????? How old is she now????? I would have guessed a not very well preserved 50. that would be five -oh.
@Rick Bentley
Would you have cared had you known about his adultery? I probably would not have, mainly because it is probably the norm on Capital Hill.
John Edwards though….now that was nasty. I think the crowning blow is that he buttered up Bunny Mellon into donating the money. What scum bucket goes to an 99 year old woman to get money to pay off his mistress who he has fathered a child by?
Poor Elizabeth (another MWC girl) stayed on the campaign trail with Rat Bastard even though she was ill, had previously had 2 children by him at an incredibly old age and was totally adored by almost everyone who ever met her.
Then he dragged his adult daughter out while denying the existence of the infant one.
He doesn’t ride the moral high horse but he is contemptible. I even turn my head when I see him on TV.
Gingrich says bringing up his infidelity is dredging up the past and unfair. Then shouldn’t he stop bringing up Reagan? If his relationship with the Gipper in the 80’s is something he cites as a strength then he has to take the decade later when he was out whoring around too.
@Moe
Agreed. I don’t think Newt is entitled to selective dredging.
Well, CNN raised Newt’s ratings in the polls tonight.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/cnn-debate-newt-goes-off-on-cnn-anchor/
I have to say…..that was a beautiful thing to watch. Now, if we could get the rest of the freaking politicians to stand up for themselves…..
Why do you think it was a beautiful thing to watch? I was embarrassed for him. He was a pig and his pig-hood is following him around. The arrogance of thinking he can do a hail Mary and have it dissipate is simply unacceptable.
Maybe when Clinton’s misbehavior is no longer an issue (which will be never) Newt can get cut a break. Until then, he needs to suck it up and hope he has a forgiving base.
Let me ask you a question, do you ever see Dick Morris that you don’t think, Shut up you turn-coating little whore monger? It will just follow him.
It was a nice family values touch using the adult daughters from his first wife to stand up against allegations by his second wife who is pissed he cheated with the woman who became his third wife. You get personal questions like that in a security clearance background investigation to assess your judgment and character. Perhaps those traits are relevant for a President, too. It would be interesting having a president who doesn’t have suitable character for clearance into some national security programs.
Morris…
We’ve had THAT for years……in Congress and the Presidency.
@Morris Davis
Silly Moe. Background investigations are for the little people.
I would not have voted for Clinton again after he committed perjury in a civil trial, then lied to his advisors for 8 months about it vociferously, and then (worst of all I think) looked America in the face and lied for 8 months. I was on the fence about whether impeachment was legitimate, on the grounds of lying in a civil trial. Of course the GOP intentionally didn’t forward that article of impeachment to the Senate, and tried only to impeach him on three other trumped-up charges, because they didn’t really want to impeach him.
I also did not at all care for the way he was willing to smear (no pun intended) a young woman as being a stalker/psycho. When he’s the guy calling her for phone sex on unsecured lines. He arguably should have lost his security clearance. No, I definitely couldn’t have voted for him again.
“You get personal questions like that in a security clearance background investigation to assess your judgment and character.”
You also get questions about admitted cocain use, and cavorting with unrepentent members of the Weather Underground, one would assume.
Those questions are designed as well to find out if one could be subjected to blackmail by not admitting to the truth. My father did some of those types of background checks a couple decades ago. Two checks involved gay men. One readily admitted to his sexual orientation, said a check with his neighbors and friends would confirm it, and was hired. The other made a fumbling excuse about why he was caught in a bathroom stall with another man and was not hired.
That must have been after J. Edgar was dead, wasn’t it, Censored?
@Moon-howler
Yes. And he wasn’t working for the FBI at that point.
Weather Underground? I can relate. I was hanging out with a hippy type in San Francisco in the 80’s. I crashed at his place when I visited San Francisco from Mountain View.
I was in intel at the time. Then he told me that he had been a member of the Weather Underground in the 60’s, an anarchist. He left the group when the communists and terrorists started taking over. I told him….see ya. It’s been good hanging out…buuuuuutttt…….
He completely understood.
@Cargo
I don’t think the weathermen are a particular threat nowadays, do you??
It sounds like you were pretty young then. I wouldn’t worry at all about hanging out with someone like that in the job I did.