One of the most difficult problems faced by Newt Gingrich in appealing to religious voters is his record of adultery and three marriages. His campaign insists that it was his first wife, Jackie, not Gingrich, who wanted the first divorce. However, recently released papers contradict that claim and indicate it was Newt Gingrich who wanted the divorce.
The campaign previously insisted that “it was (Jackie Gingrich) that requested the divorce, not Newt.”
That first divorce was particularly because Jackie was reportedly dying of cancer and rumors suggested that Newt actually served the divorce papers the day after her cancer surgery — Gingrich denies the claims as does their daughter.
CNN was told the divorce papers were sealed but it later found the documents.
Friends of both Gingrich and his first wife contradicted Gingrich’s claims about who wanted the divorce.
The papers show that Newt Gingrich filed a divorce complaint on July 14, 1980, in Carroll County, saying that “the marriage of the parties is irretrievably (sic) broken.” Even more interesting is that Jackie filed opposing the filing — a curious response if she wanted the divorce or, as the campaign claimed today, she asked him to file the papers. She added that “[a]lthough defendant does not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken, defendant has been hopeful that an arrangement for temporary support of defendant and the two minor daughters of the parties could be mutually agreed upon without the intervention of this court . . . All efforts to date have been unsuccessful.”
Jackie Gingrich has never spoken to the media on the allegations. However, in 1985, she stated”He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise.”
The bigger concern for evangelical voters is that Gingrich was already in a relationship with a 28-year-old congressional aide at the time. He later married the aide, Marianne Ginther Gingrich, and then divorced her 19 years later for another, and younger, congressional aide whom he married soon after his divorce. The third wife, Callista Bisek Gingrich, is now campaigning for him.
I have previously written how candidates like Gingrich who are running on faith should not complain when asked about their own commitment to faith. In this case, Gingrich clearly violated (repeatedly) an oath to God in a different ceremony. With the declining separation of church and state, such questions are likely to increase.
How relevant should that be to voters? Would it be equally relevant if he was not campaigning for religious voters?
Source: CNN
FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 30, 2011.
candidate.
Tony C, Paul will only be a factor if he chooses to run as a third party.
“Under Obama, an emerging global apparatus for drone killing”
By Greg Miller, Published: December 27
“The Obama administration’s counterterrorism accomplishments are most apparent in what it has been able to dismantle, including CIA prisons and entire tiers of al-Qaeda’s leadership. But what the administration has assembled, hidden from public view, may be equally consequential.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/under-obama-an-emerging-global-apparatus-for-drone-killing/2011/12/13/gIQANPdILP_story.html?hpid=z3
It’s what’s “hidden” that will ultimately be our undoing… and, in the end, it’s those we leave behind who will suffer the consequences of our actions (or inaction…)…
@Elaine: It doesn’t absolve him, but I would rather vote for a man that lied about a newsletter than vote for the man that has claimed (and exercised) the right to unilaterally assassinate American citizens without charges, trial, or even judicial review. Not to mention Obama lied about the Patriot Act, closing Guantanamo, his claim that “I will not sign a bill without a public option,” the “complete transparency” of his White House meetings, his rejection of Executive Orders, and his promise to not hire any lobbyists for his staff. Not to mention his embracing of the horrific punishment of leaks, his claim of a presidential right to imprison US citizens indefinitely without charges, trial, or representation, his claim of the right to record and search at will ALL of our emails, postings, and phone calls.
On the one hand I have Ron Paul, who lied about an embarrassing newsletter. On the other hand I have Obama, who has lied endlessly to get elected about important national policy and is responsible for thousands of deaths and the destruction of our Constitutional rights, to the point that the Constitution is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Hm.
Sanctimonious Crappola. Yeah right, a choice between a bigot living in loony land and the Guy who had to clean up the mess left by the last group of loonys from the Republican Party, and you pick the bigot from loony land…
http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/ron_paul_signed_pledge.jpg
@rafflaw: he President has the ability to veto legislation from Congress to abolish or emasculate Social Security and/or Medicare
If we have to worry about Congress doing that, we have to worry about Congress overriding the veto. If the citizens of this country are too lazy to prevent their Congressmen from eviscerating SS/MC then it will be eviscerated, that is how we run the country. If we cannot count on our own Democrat Senators to pull out every stop, filibuster, hold and Senate rule to prevent such a bill from getting to the President’s desk, we might as well admit defeat now, because that would mean the corporations are bound and determined to get it passed and Obama has proven himself to be just another corporate pawn that does what he is told, he is not a principled man in the least measure.
I will not contribute to McCaskill … she’ll have to win without me.
Tony,
Most Americans aren’t running for president. One would hope that a candidate for the presidency of the USA would be more enlightened than the anti-science folks among us.
Does Ron Paul believe a woman has a right to choose? Yes or no?
*****
You wrote:
“Anybody that thinks the President has the power to unilaterally abolish the most popular government programs in American history is delusional.”
Did I say the president has the right to unilaterally abolish government programs when I said that I disagreed with his position on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
P.S. I’m not delusional.
*****
You wrote:
“Paul voted twice, in both key decisions where he had a vote, to repeal DADT and allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and it isn’t like Ron Paul is a stranger to voting his mind all alone. That seems like evidence he didn’t really believe what was written in those newsletters.”
You think that makes it okay and absolves him from any responsibility for the newsletters and what was written in them? It doesn’t matter to me whether he wrote those newsletters or not. They were published under his name–that lent his imprimatur to what was written in those publications.
No easy answers… We’ll have to see where we are when the elections roll around. There’s still a lot of time…
@rafflaw: Personally I think he tried to find ways to defend them because at the time he was afraid admitting he carelessly sold his name and signature for money, or knowingly use race baiting and exploitation of conspiracy theorists to sell newsletters he didn’t believe in himself, would ruin any chances he had for election or campaign funding at the time.
I am not arguing Ron Paul was truthful about the letters; he either lied defending them, or he lied when he repudiated them!
I believe he lied defending them, because actions speak louder than words in my book: he voted to repeal DADT when he did not have to do so and 175 other House members were voting against it, almost all of them Republicans. Paul had plenty of cover and company, and he voted against his party line anyway. Even if he is homophobic, apparently his libertarianism is stronger than his homophobia.
Mitt Romney Takes Iowa Lead In New CNN Poll
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/mitt-romney-iowa-poll_n_1173251.html
Romney will probably be the winner, but the Iowa caucus system is chaotic… We’ll see.
Blouise, We need more like Brown and Warren…
I am not offended at all, Blouise, but i am still not certain that an anti-Romney won’t be chosen.
SwM,
I can say “told you so” and you won’t be offended?
Romney will lose but the turnout for Obama will be greatly reduced from 2008. The really interesting races will be for the Senate and the House so find a few candidates you support outside your state … like Brown in Ohio and Warren in Massachusetts and contribute money ’cause they’re going to need every cent in fighting off the Koch/Rove machines.
I will vote for Obama because of the courts. Romney will constantly be trying to court the right wing of the republican party in my opinion.
SM: you are so absolutely 100% correct. If for no other reason (and there are lots of really great reasons to vote for Obama) vote for him (and Democratic Senators) because of the Supreme Court. To paraphrase: “Its the Supreme Court, stupid!”
For those who need a reminder why: Bush v. Gore, and Citizens United.
Blouise, Your state is one of the swing states. Mine goes republican no matter what. Looks like Romney will prevail at this point and further entrench the top 1 percent.
Ron Paul is simply not an alternative I can go with … I’ve tried to talk myself into it but there’s just too much I’d have to ignore … but then, I’ve got the same problem with Obama.
This is going to be a very difficult decision come November no matter who the Republicans choose.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/136327348.html Paul fails to chase white supremists out of his campaign.
That was nattering, not battering, but they both fit.
“Do you think the same proportion of women that cheat are doing it for conquest and egotistical reasons?” (Tony C … I think, but maybe Elaine … I’m playing catch up)
I don’t know about the proportion part but “conquest and egotistical reasons” play a huge role in female cheating on spouses or significant others. Alpha females will go to war with each other over a new male at the drop of a hat. It has little to do with the male, himself, as alpha females are able to pick from a large male pool and can dismiss loyalty to the significant other with ease … it has everything to do with ego and conquest. I have found that this is a common, female, behavior most males prefer to ignore … even deny.
Tony C.
The President has the ability to veto legislation from Congress to abolish or emasculate Social Security and/or Medicare so it is important what Ron Paul says about those two issue. If Ron Paul didn’t believe in those newsletters, why did he defend them in the 90’s?