He was found guilty of one and acknowledged his guilt. He paid a $300,000 fine. The Reps controlled Congress. The Ethics committee voted 7-1 to issue a reprimand. That is just a irrefutable fact. There is a 137 page House report detailing what Gingrich was found guilty of.In the final tally, 196 Republicans supported the rebuke of their own speaker, while 198 Democrats backed it. Twenty-six Republicans and two Democrats opposed it.
Exactly, instead of screaming at the top of their lungs about hypocrisy, political witch hunt and "railroading" of their leader, without whom so many 1995 freshmen Congress-critters would not see the inside of Capitol Hill, they preferred quiet existence under Speaker Hastert... What kind of hue and cry do you think would happen if one or two ethics charges were filed against Nancy Pelosi?
I think their vote reflected the inability of Gingrich to get the loyalty and support of House Reps. And he admitted his guilt.
You really think the majority of people care much, beyond a couple of days of laughs, about how many of his marriages failed? Some may even relate and sympathise, but most will care about the message.
Yes, they will care and the Dems will help them to care. Women voters won't like someone who cheated on his first two wives. It speaks to his character and morality. Reps are judged different than Dems.
Nobody cared about failed marriages of Reagan (the only President with more than one marriage), or multiple marriages of Bob Dole, John Kerry or John McCain's... Nor anyone cared or cares about "perfect one woman" marriages by Clinton or Obama, or Romney or Santorum.
As far as I know, Gingrich is the first and only three time married candidate ever to run for President. Three times is not the charm.
No. It has been covered already ad nauseam, but the problem was not with "ethics charge" which he was cleared by the IRS, but a mistake in one filing (inconsistent with two other filings, could easily have been a typo) by a junior lawyer from law firm representing him.
Still, the real fact is that the timid, shy Republicans didn't want to go against media and "rock the boat" about the witch hunt because they were already settled and comfortable in the position of power (which they would not have in the first place, without Gingrich Revolution). They failed to protect their quarterback, leader, when the unprecedented 84(!) bogus charges were filed against him.
He agreed to pay a reimbursement, not a "fine" (he vowed to fight a fine), but finally agreed to "reimburse" the committee for the expenses they incurred in the witch hunt against him! (Ref / background in: "Cain/Gingrich 2012"?)
I think their vote reflected the inability of Gingrich to get the loyalty and support of House Reps.
What it reflected was how cowardly and envious many Republicans in the Congress were of Newt's success, and how many wanted him out because he was competitor on their "way to power" and, instead of vigorously responding to "railroading" they would prefer not to have the "lightning rod" in their midst. He had enough "loyalty and support" to push through most of Contract With America and welfare reform.
I guess he has much in common with Winston Churchill, who was warning about the dangers of Hitler's fascism and Soviet communism, help win the World War, then was promptly discarded once again, for more "bread and circuses."
That entire "railroading" and witch hunt, as well as its resolution was a travesty, but he has already decided to leave Congress, formally finalize the divorce from Marianne (they were legally separated since 1987 and lived separately for years) and get married to Callista Bisek, whom he was dating since 1993, while financially supporting Marianne and having most of their assets (from his books and lectures) and accounts in Marianne's name.
Yes, they will care and the Dems will help them to care.
And while they keep talking about his failed marriages (he already inoculated himself from that line of attack, unlike, for example, Herman Cain) he will be talking about things that people can actually relate to. Besides, as he cleverly reminded Clinton's WH alumni Stephanopolous, he is a happily married grandfather, so it's unlikely that he would be embarrassing us with Clinton's behavior in the White House.
Is there any question that Reagan, Dole or Gingrich, who were married more than once, would be more likely to care about and uphold "family values" in private and in public policy than once-married Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards or Obama?
If some can't let go of this particular "baggage," so be it - you can't please everyone, and other candidates' "baggages" will revolt other groups of constituents. Especially that we know now that much of the "baggage" is not true (like "served divorce papers to wife dying of cancer in the hospital") or that a second wife basically only cared about Newt being her "meal ticket on a gravy train". Not that he should or would talk about it, he's already humbly conceded "mistakes in his life" and moved on to a better and more fulfilling life.
As far as I know, Gingrich is the first and only three time married candidate ever to run for President.
And...? There is first time for everything. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama... As far as precedents go, this one is a mosquito-sized.
Three times is not the charm.
Seems like this has been his most successful marriage. Rush Limbaugh is on his fourth, he made some mistakes in his youth also. Is this really the one and only criterium for some of you?