Posted on 01/19/2012 4:18:32 PM PST by TBBT
Newt Gingrich's two adult daughters said that charges by Gingrich's second wife in an interview with ABC News that the GOP presidential contender asked for an "open marriage" are categorically false.
Kathy Lubbers and Jackie Cushman, Gingrich's daughters by his first wife, told ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross they had spoken with their father about Marianne Gingrich's allegation and that he had assured them he never asked for an open marriage.
"We spoke with him about that, Brian, and he said it's simply not true," said Kathy Lubbers. "The truth is our father and Marianne had a difficult marriage. They had a difficult divorce. ... The American people have moved on. Our father has moved on."
"I think most divorces are very painful, they're never easy," said Jackie Cushman. "Dad tried very hard to make their marriage work, and unfortunately it didn't."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
When a moderator or site owner is alerted, the poster doesn’t have to suggest anything because it’s up the person moderating as to what could happen.
I need you around, so I can educamate you. :)
Most of the president were men of integrity, as far as the presidential office is concerned, but many of their personal lives were interesting to say the least.
It’s why you don’t hear much about their personal lives.
Ahhh. Ok.
Not so sure about that. Newt might be one of the few people who could knock Obama on his ass in a debate, but very few people vote based on debate performance. It doesn't matter much to the average voter. Objective debate performance didn't elect Obama in the first place and it isn't going to elect Newt. It is sad, but the typical voter -- especially younger voter -- in 2008 voted for who they thought was the "cool" candidate -- and that wasn't McCain in 2008 nor will it be Gingrich in 2012. As the one bona fide conservative who is also charismatic (S.P.) isn't running, we are up the creek.
He's also called frivolously quite often.
Someone who runs for authority because someone else is voicing a negative view of adultery by a politician would likely be engaging in a frivolous action.
If you think I’m being touchy, then you’re reading into. What I’m typing that doesn’t exist.
The extent of your "educamation" seems to be an attempt to trash-talking most American Presidents. Sounds like the typical current American school curriculum, which is revisionism not education.
Showing that past presidents were human is not trash-talking or revision. You’re the one who said that Newt was not a suitable presidential candidate.
I only want to show you that he’s as suitable as everybody else who has served as president.
I’m the one who said that he may be flawed, but he values the office of president and wouldn’t do anything in office that would tarnish it, unlike the current one.
Trying to prove that most had the same kind of sordid past as Ginrich is definitely trash-talking.
And you will have to revise history to do it.
wouldn’t do anything in office that would tarnish it,
He already tarnished the Office of Speaker when he had his multi-year affair...at the same time as Clinton.
Being speaker is not being president.
And I wouldn’t create a history that doesn’t exist. If you’re not prepared to look at real lives by real people...
He already tarnished that high office. And he should be rewarded with another?
If you’re not prepared
I am well-prepared, having studied US history. Meanwhile, you still haven't come up with anything to support your assertion.
Like it or not Newt is our only chance. He wasnt my first or second choice either. But as the saying goes...Hell has no fury like a woman scorned. Only Newt and his ex wife know what went on in that marriage. And I prefer to keep it that way. Lets get back to the real issues. Jobs, National Security, the Debt. Need I say more.
I’m at work, on a Blackberry, so at the moment it’s not something I’m in position to do.
Once I’m at home, I can follow through.
Yes not to mention she has told her story twice before and nobody cared either time.
I will give you that, but as I said, there is no viable alternative to Obama getting to serve out a second term. If you’re looking for a halo, you will be getting Obama.
A second, and unaccountable, term.
There will be no stopping him then. You will not have a country, a Constitution, you will likely be living through a civil war and a nuclear-armed Iran, if Obama gets a second term.
I think here would agree that is not an exaggeration.
He and Marianne were separated for 6-8 years - it was during that time he met Calista - yes, he was still ‘married, legally - but they had an agreement they were free to date others - he also kept supporting her during those years.
All that is , however, IRRELEVANT to the fact our country is on the brink of DYING - get it?
To dredge up a bitter ex-wife and rehash stuff she already said years ago is not NEWS. Even O’Reilly attacked Brian Ross on that - said he would never have done the story.
And to release it on the night of the debate. That is about as sleazy as it gets. Sleazy on her part, sleazy on ABC - sleazy on CNN.
And people realize that. That’s why Newt got a standing ovation, much to the consternation of the the sleaze CNN creep. It was the opposite of what they hoped for.
And it was a great example of just why Newt is the one that can wipe the floor with Obama.
Which Newt? The one who endorsed Dede or the one who pleaded from the couch for us to allow big government to fix the nonexistant problem of man made global warming? That is why he will lose. That is why he will have problems with his past, his credibility is lacking.
Odd. Reagan did not come out and endorse a liberal Democrat three years before running. Nor did he appeal to US citizens to allow government to solve a nonexistant problem like man made global warming. Nor did he take over a million from a government slug while doing nothing to oppose that monstrosity. I judge McNewt by his stands while not campaigning, as I have found it best to do for any candidate.
On the contrary, I'm not the one looking for a halo.
Rather, it's the purists among conservatives who wouldn't go for a Daniels, Barbour or (Heaven forbid) a Jeb Bush because they were considered "Rinos".
Now we have Gingrich who the conservatives are going ga-ga over despite his stance on global warming, health mandates, boosting of immigration, tinkering with federal programs and his consideration of the Ryan plan as "social engineering". Not to mention his sordid womanizing which is the topic of this thread...(and BTW to expect a stable marital relationship is not expecting a "halo"...just normal behavior). But the man can SPEAK!/sarc
Quite hypocritical to say the least.
Who is the alternative?
I'm still harboring a wish that a dark horse rises. Even Palin a few weeks back suggested an additional candidate could rise at a later date. I will vote for whoever gets the nod against Obama, but I don't like this current field.
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.