Click the Stick
Oh my goodness!
We need more new monthly donors!!!
Become a monthly donor
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/19/2012 7:51:31 AM PST by maggief
EXCERPT
Paraphrasing Marianne Gingrich’s account, Mr. Ross said, “He came to her and said I want to stay married to you and still have an affair with Callista.” Marianne said Mr. Gingrich asked her “share” him, Mr. Ross said. That was unacceptable to her and the marriage ended.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I live in Virginia, my vote was pretty much a done deal...Paul in primary/whoever in election.
If we don’t get behind whoever the nominee is, I don’t think that’s the smart thing to do. I’ll just wait and see what Jim says.
What exactly would this rebellion entail?
“OK, but it seems that it could be the first time freepers don’t get to talk about the election in any kind of positive terms. That’s sad.”
Let me help guide you...
I hope it’s not that same old Mitt again! [please post with appropriate picture again].
Hope is always positive. And I’m positive I won’t be supporting him...
ok
No need to. I know that Santorum, although 100% pro-life, is not an authentic and consistent conservative. The only man that fit that bill dropped out of the race this morning. Santorum is merely the best of a bad lot. A very bad lot.
1. Clinton could only get a 10 year assault weapons ban passed, ROMNEY SIGNED A PERMANENT BAN IN 2004 !
2. Clinton could barely get "Don't ask don't tell" instituted, ROMNEY WAS GOVERNOR OF THE FIRST STATE TO LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE !
3. Hillary's health care summit failed. ROMNEY CHAMPIONED COMMIE ROMNEYCARE AS GOVERNOR !
4. Both Clinton and Romney dodged the Vietnam draft to spend time in Europe.
The list goes on and on.
Just look what that cult has done to you people. It's a damn shame.
I won't vote for Romney for the same reasons I didn't vote for Clinton....EVEN MORE SO, COME WHAT MAY !!
Doesn’t have anything to do with what I said, but ok.
They just played a clip from the interview on the radio. Marianne said, "He said, 'You want me all to yourself; Calista doesn't care what I do.'" The interviewer asked, "And what do you think he meant?" Marianne: "He wanted an open marriage."
If the quote from Newt is accurate, it sounds more to me like Marianne -- who, according to Rush today, didn't like the public aspects of Newt's life (though she seems to have got over an aversion to publicity!) -- wanted to run every minute of his day (she called him 10 times a day???) and be central over his career. Seems likely that her demands were a constant and perhaps growing source of stress in the marriage before he ever met Calista.
The "open marriage" bit seems to be her own interpretation rather than a quote.
I heard that too many times from Democrats about Clinton.
44 posted on Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:12:41 AM by TShaunK: “Right. So what? Not ideal but what guy wouldn’t want that arrangment?At least he has the balls and honesty to ask her. Can’t make the sale if you don’t ask for the order.”
I can't believe I'm seeing this on a conservative pro-family website. Do you really think threesomes and open marriages are every man's fantasy? Maybe they are for some people, but if we can't trust a man to remain faithful to his wife, can be trust him to run our country?
50 posted on Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:16:25 AM by Boardwalk: “Don’t mormons have multiple wives?”
Not today. Mormons long ago had a “revelation” ditching that doctrine allowing polygamy. I have no use for Romney politically because of his past advocacy for baby-killing, and religiously speaking, I believe Mormons are a cult, but I can appreciate Romney's repeatedly stated position that he finds the idea of being sexually involved with multiple women to be disgusting.
84 posted on Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:40:13 AM by LibsRJerks: “Well, it’s all scummy and sleazy, and I don’t agree with what he did. However, it was a long time ago and he has since claimed that’s he’s confessed his wrongs and now appears to be in a stable marriage. That’s all I can really fall back on in any of this. We’ve all done horrible scummy sleazy things and we’ve all sought forgiviness for it. I am not exempt in this matter, so therefore, I still don’t believe I can really judge Newt for any of it. It’s truly between Newt and his God (which I believe is the same as mine).”
Yours is one of the few posts defending Newt Gingrich that I can respect.
The issue is that repentance, to be genuine, needs to follow the model of David and Bathsheba ... very public, and with sackcloth and ashes, and with a clear understanding that because repentance can be faked, it will always be suspected of insincerity.
I'd be a lot more inclined to believe Newt Gingrich's repentance if years ago he had gone public with this sort of stuff. I am inclined now both to disbelieve his sincerity and question his political judgment. He certainly knew or should have known that this would blow up in his face if he ever became a credible candidate for president.
But then again, he's the one who couldn't get his people to submit enough signatures to get on the ballot in Virginia. There is a pattern of dropped balls with Gingrich, and a lack of national organization one would not expect for someone in his position. (And yes, I'm well aware that Santorum and Perry had the same problem. I have the same concerns about both that they're “not ready for prime time.”)
110 posted on Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:57:53 AM by Hilda: “Marriage is between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, and I don’t think a REAL conservative can compromise on that!”
Amen, Hilda, and I'm really unhappy to see that isn't something we all can agree on.
173 posted on Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:33:41 AM by Strategerist: “Newt has two options (and I mean this afternoon, and no later). 1) Drop out and endorse Santorum. 2) Give a tearful public apology to Marianne. The second option has maybe a 5% chance of working.”
I'm afraid I agree, with a qualification.
The tearful apology to Marianne Gingrich needed to be made years ago. And if it had been made years ago, this probably would not be coming up now because either 1) the ex-Mrs. Gingrich accepted the apology as sincere, or 2) Newt Gingrich knew from years back that she was a ticking time bomb ready to go off that would keep him from re-entering public life.
Well you are clearly accepting the ex-wifes’ story at face value. The question is, are you doing that for political reasons?
I will research your posting history and find out.
Are you assuming what she is saying is true?
Bitter ex wife, bitter divorce = suspect accusations.
Yep.
wiki:
On March 29, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider ruled that several of the Ryans’ divorce records should be opened to the public, ...
Ok then.....having looked through some of your recent posting I don’t think that you are taking the ex-wifes’ word due to political reasons so I will just ask you; Why do you just assume that she is telling the truth?
Before you ask, I can tell you that I assume that the ex-wife COULD BE lying because I HAVE an ex-wife.
Call me when we are voting for a Pope. At least, unlike Clinton, Newts screwing wasnt screwing the legal system and public. Considering the country is getting screwed, might as well get someone who has first hand experience in that.
Why do you automatically assume that the ex-wife is telling the truth?
you betcha
My 2 cents is this....if Rick S had not bashed Gov Palin after she stepped down as Gov, and if he had not belittled her on another occasion, Rick S might be in a better place today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.