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.
@Mike: Here is the We The People Act.
As I have noted before, Paul tries to get his agenda passed by law, not by fiat or executive order. This bill attempts a reasonably coherent Constitutional argument for returning abortion law to the states, not for eliminating abortion at all.
And further, in the data provided by Congress, it does not have a single co-sponsor, it was immediately (with a few weeks) relegated to sub-Committee nine months ago where it has died. And predictably so, because if it passed it would sap power from the national Congress and power is their bread and butter; I do not believe the We The People Act has any chance whatsoever of passing the House and Senate and landing on any President’s desk.
As is said in debate, Ron Paul’s argument in this bill “proves too much:” If it were passed, it causes two problems (off the top of my head): First, it creates an intractable issue in which an end-run is made around the Supreme Court and their self-determination of what decisions are within their jurisdiction over Constitutional questions; and second, it becomes a blueprint for devolving the majority of legislative power back to the states. I do not think, even among Republicans, there is sufficient support for taking an action (short of a Constitutional Amendment) that would essentially overturn any Supreme Court decision.
For abortion in particular, Gallup says only 22% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in ALL circumstances, and 49% identify as pro-choice vs. 42% as pro-life.
Siding with Paul is not a winning strategy for most of Congress.
Also, as Republicans clamor about “states rights,” that is the LAST thing national-stage politicians want; their ability to pass or repeal legislation on the national level is the bread and butter of their campaign contributions and those cushy responsibility-free retirement jobs in lobbying or industry. Hardly any politician is going to vote themselves into irrelevancy, and certainly not enough to pass a bill.
I do not believe Paul can change the jurisdiction of Federal courts by Executive Order, it is explictly a right of Congress, as he says so himself in his bill.
My analysis of this campaign promise is that he cannot make it happen, and it simply won’t happen.
“what precisely would Paul actually be able to accomplish that would make him any “loonier” than any other candidate?”
Tony,
I don’t need much detail to answer that. If he’s elected, the probability of a fully Republican Congress and/or many Democrats afraid for their political positions will be disastrous. There will be privatization of Social Security ad Medicare, destruction of our already frayed “safety net”, further deregulation of corporations and the further impoverishment of the 99%.
This isn’t speculation, it is the very things he and his cohorts desire. As for civil liberties they too will erode as corporations with no oversight will arrogate to themselves the power to control people’s lives for profit.
I want to echo Mike S.’s comment from last night. Obama is damaged goods, but without a Dem in the White House and in control of Congress the middle class is doomed.
@1zb1: And don’t miss the part about his statement of faith.
Ha! Have you missed the part about Obama’s statements of faith? Or any other candidate at virtually any level I can think of; what percentage of elected politicians are openly atheist (like me)? I would guess less than 1%, which is effectively zero.
As for his religiously inspired pro-life stance, I have explicitly rejected his logic. I have also explicitly rejected Obama’s “logic” for violating his oath of office and violating our civil rights. There are negatives in both columns, but Ron Paul supports the Constitution, and Obama dismisses it as irrelevant.
You are just a liar, is it impossible for you to make a point without lying? Tell me, what precisely would Paul actually be able to accomplish that would make him any “loonier” than any other candidate? Get into some detail and logic, and do it without lying, or you are just parroting something told to you by somebody with a vested interested in marginalizing Paul, like the media or Obama.
@1zb1: FYI, I am a far left liberal, and I am not the only person on the Internet that has chosen to post under the penname “Tony C.” I do not think Ron Paul is a “good man,” and I make my choices analytically, not by judging my emotional comfort level or the emotions of people I cannot possibly know, like this goofball claiming Ron Paul “loves this Country.”
I also speak in complete sentences, I do not capitalize “Country,” I do capitalize “Biden,” and I strive to complete my punctuation.
My personal belief is that the corporate tax rate should be about double or triple what it is now, the corporations should be required to pay precisely the average rate of Americans for government services; which is currently about 45% of income for the median wage earner.
Is this how you run your personal life, too? Just start lying and hope somebody buys it?
Tony, you will have to wait for me to get back to you after I stop rolling on the floor with laughter over the notion you are a “far left liberal” or anything I have read of yours is remotely analytical. To paraphrase Dirty Harry, “You are an analytical far left liberal in your own delusion.”
But I do admit I mad a mistake about something. I should encourage you with your silliness pushing RP. The only problem is why don’t you go to Iowa and do it or spend time on websites populated by the Rightwing/Republican/Tparty. That way if you were honest in your beliefs you could help promote RP where it counts to win the nomination instead of hear. I suggest Foxless News might be a good place. You would fit in perfectly.
And really, best of luck to you in succeeding to get RP the Republican/Tparty nomination. I mean it.
Mr. Turley, I need to inform you that there is some form of mental disease that is propagated by any form of participation on your website. It typically manifests itself by lack of facts, or use of half truths, an insistence on being correct while all others are in some way stupid or ignorant, and a delusional grandiosity of ones self such as the claim, “Both of us [MS and TC] are analytically gifted”.
My recommendation is after all you analytically gifted types finish with your time machine you go back and cast your vote for John McCain instead of for Obama since reality is such a disappointment to you..
Mr. Turley, maybe its time you administer a qualifying test to people before they can comment on your website. On the other hand that would probably mean there would be no one here making comments.
In the meantime, this just in frommmmm CNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN about TC’s favorite RP:
(Note, for the record – not that anyone cares – I am done with RP. TC is doing a good enought job all on his own to make him RP look like the fool he is – as much as I would like RP to be the Republican/Tparty Candidate, or better yet a 3rd party candidate. In the future I will focus on the Republican/Tparty in general and Romney in particular. Its fair to say that the real threat to the nation is more from them taking control then RP)
:In one section of the book, Paul criticized people suffering from AIDS or other contagious diseases for demanding health insurance coverage.
“The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim – frequently a victim of his own lifestyle – but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care,” Paul wrote.
In another chapter on the rights of individuals outside of government – the central theme of Paul’s libertarian philosophy – he sharply criticized the “absurdity” of politicians who try to bestow differing rights on various social and ethnic groups.
It’s dangerous to craft a separate set of rights for groups like Hispanics, African-Americans, children, employees and the homeless, Paul wrote.
“Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an individual has rights the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found,” Paul explained.
“Every year new groups organize to demand their ‘rights,'” he continued. “White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.”
Paul also defended the rights of an individual to “control property and run his or her business as he or she chooses,” without interference from “the social do-gooder.”
In a passage first flagged by the Houston Chronicle in 2007, Paul then claimed that sexual harassment should not be a violation of one’s employment rights.
“Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity,” Paul wrote. “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.”
Paul’s campaign manager Jesse Benton defended the book and said the candidate “has been speaking out for decades that rights do not come from belonging to a group.”
“Rights come because we are all individuals, endowed by our creator, and Americans must look beyond race or creed and recognize that we all deserving of the same Liberty,” Benton told CNN in an email. “This truth is a tenant of natural law and the only way we will achieve a color blind and truly free society.”
@Mike: His purported civil liberties cachet is belied by his position on abortion.
No it isn’t. Civil liberties does not mean carte blanche to do whatever you want, even to Ron Paul. Civil libertarians are just as opposed to murder as you and I. Although I am a pro-choice atheist and I personally do not think abortion is murder (except in the case of very late abortion of a normally developing fetus), I can at least understand the religious (like Paul) that think a life is a life, period. Civil libertarianism and a pro-life position are not in any kind of conflict whatsoever.
@Mike: His lack of ethical compass is illustrated by his lucrative newsletter,
I will agree with that, and note that Obama’s lack of ethical compass is illustrated by many other far worse acts while in office, including two significant lies on tape: He promised to filibuster the Patriot Act and then voted Yea without a twinge, and as a candidate he promised to veto any health reform that did not include a public option, and then (we now know) Obama met secretly with the industry leaders of health insurance and pharmaceuticals and promised them it would not happen, and dispatched Rahm Emanuel to recruit Liebermann and others to run point against it, and that was when the public option was polling at over 70% approval. The entire “debate” and pretense of support for the public option by Obama was a lying charade, he never intended to provide it and never intended to sign it. It was a lie, and the beneficiary was the murdering, fraudulent corporations he was supposed to control.
Whose lies have been more harmful? Which is more harmful: Ron Paul openly advocating deregulation but greater power for citizens to sue corporations, or Obama colluding with them behind our backs and pretending to regulate while actually helping them to gouge us?
@Mike: That you trust him Tony to do the right thing on civil liberties, is a badly placed trust.
Not as badly placed as trusting Obama to do the right thing on civil liberties, when he has already done the wrong thing time and again. Look at Bradley Manning, the brutalization of other leakers he once praised, the open protection of top brass involved in torture and illegality. His demand for the right to assassinate citizens on his word alone, or his right to infinitely detain citizens without charges, representation, or proof of any kind, his demand to be able to record and listen to all of your communications without a warrant, his de facto demand to search you in an airport without warrant or cause.
I think your priorities are mis-placed, or at least they seem alien to me. Obama just appointed two candidates to the Supreme Court, Sotomayor and Kagan. The Supreme Court justices know the game, in order to be replaced by somebody that agrees with their philosophy, they need to resign under the correct President. Any of them thinking of resigning in the near future would do so while there is time for Obama to nominate a replacement. Any Justices that choose to resign under Ron Paul will be sympathetic to Paul’s views, and replaced by somebody sympathetic to Paul’s views.
My priority is turning back the Imperial Presidency and restoring the Bill of Rights and civil liberties and ending the police state we have become. I thought Obama was the man to do that, but I am not so enamored by his rhetoric that I am blind to the complete disconnect, even reversal, between his campaign rhetoric and his subsequent actions, and I am not ashamed to admit I was fooled. I think I am left with a deeply flawed choice that offers some chance of pushing back against the military-industrial-corporate hegemony, or no choice at all.
I admit I am new here. So why didn’t anyone warn me Tony C. is a shill for Ron P.?
In the Interest of full disclosure, I voted for Clinton in the Primaries; Voted for Obama in the Election; and will gladly vote for him in the next election without reservation.
I am one of those people that knows our government sucks; all political parties are corrupted by money; but some political parties and ideas suck more then others as in the Republican/Tparty/Paulites really suck compared to most everyone else. And the reality of getting anything done in a country of 300 million in the real world is just a little bit more complicated then say giving a nonsensical rant.
The notion that anyone would vote for any Republican/Tparty candidate including Ron [off his rocker] Paul demonstrates a complete disconnect from reality and the the history of civilization, America, and the 20th century up to and including the present.
Oh, and in the interest of fairness I’ll even put RP’s website here:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com
You might find a few things like this interesting:
“Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.””
In other words 2 cells in a womb have more rights to health then 30 million living people have a right to healthcare. Or the right of a woman to make choices about what happens to her own body, life and health is less important then those 2 cells.
Oh, of course, more tax cuts to the wealthy, and a tax elimination on Corporate profits from overseas. And don’t miss the part about his statement of faith. I guess he missed the part in the constitution where it says “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
I could go on but why bother….. did i mention his policies are pretty much the same as what got us into the great depresssion.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080831061836AAVu93j
by tony c Member since:
September 14, 2006
Total points:
2,947 (Level 4)
Add Contact
Ron Paul is a good man loves this Country and will do the right thing, If he had a gun to his head he wouldnt vote for Obama& biden he knows they are far left Liberals
3 years ago Report Abuse
“Civil libertarianism and a pro-life position are not in any kind of conflict whatsoever.”
Tony,
I couldn’t disagree with you more than in this statement. To say that the State has the right to make a woman carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is the essence of disrespect for civil liberties and at base is a religion driven attitude towards pregnancy and birth. See below:
“And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.””
That is the full quote from the Ron Paul Website that 1zb1 provided. Defining life as beginning at conception Tony? That one phrase alone shows that Paul’s beliefs are highly inconsistent with civil liberties for women and totally extreme. This is not an argument about the aborting of a viable fetus, it is about punishing women for having sex.
“”@Mike: That you trust him Tony to do the right thing on civil liberties, is a badly placed trust.”
Not as badly placed as trusting Obama to do the right thing on civil liberties, when he has already done the wrong thing time and again.”
Tony you know from past comments that I respect you and your logical abilities. This, however, is not a logical refutation. The discussion is on Paul’s deficits, which are a fertile ground. You make light of them, without refuting them, by saying in effect “Nyanhh, Nyanhh, Nyanhh Obama is worse”. For someone with a logical mind that I respect this is not a good exhibit of that intellectual prowess I know you have. What you are doing is failing to answer the point I made in my 8:27 pm post, which is that Obama’s policies are no worse than those in effect since the “Cold War” first began and using that failure to set up a false equivalency.
“Obama just appointed two candidates to the Supreme Court, Sotomayor and Kagan.”
I think you’re mixing me up with someone else. While I would be afraid of Paul’s potential SCOTUS appointments, his other faults have me disqualifying him before that possibility arises.
“My priority is turning back the Imperial Presidency and restoring the Bill of Rights and civil liberties and ending the police state we have become.”
Tony, that is also a priority of mine and has been for almost my entire long life. However, I believe that we already are in effect a police state and that this has been a fact since the foistering of the “Cold War” on the American people. What is different now is that there are a lot more outlets where this truth can come out. It is a battle that must be fought. However, given that the fight for civil liberties is a battle of long duration, one must also look at the battle against making the 99% into the serfs of the 1%. I would submit to you that the quickest way to bring this about is too elect any one of the Republican candidates, particularly Ron Paul.
1zb1,
While you and I share the same priorities, you are new to this site and as such are unaware of the totality of Tony C.s views. Your attacks on his personal political beliefs are way off the mark. Tony has been a great progressive voice on this blog for awhile. He is in my opinion completely wrong in his defense of Ron Paul, but that is because in many respects Barack Obama’s Presidency has been disappointing. While you and I agree that we should vote for Obama and that he is a clear choice over any other prospective candidate, reasonable men can differ given the performance.
If we want to stave off the threat of corporate feudalism that this election poses we must build allies, not alienate people with attacks against them, rather than their political positions. The stakes are far too high this time around to alienate potential alliances, with people who don’t completely agree with us. Knowing the perspicacity of those who read this blog let me qualify my statement regarding these alliances. I won’t ally myself with anti-abortionists, religious fanatics and pseudo libertarians. I don’t love all of the Obama supporters and have written many times about my disagreements with their policies, but none of them represent the virulent strain of bigotry and religious fanaticism exhibited by some supporters of Paul and the rest of these right wing clowns.
Speaking of Paul’s lack of ethical compass, in this clip he is asked to explain why he assisted with childbirth for an interracial couple at a Texas hospital:
I’m well aware Of Obama’s dismal record on civil liberties and I’ve criticized it many times. It is, however little expansion from the Bush debacle. In truth even Bush’s policies were old hat stuff fromthe earliest of the cold war. Mosadegh in Iran, Lumumba in the Congo, Diem in Viet Nam and so on were ordered killed by US Presidents. It is wrong, evil and. counter productive,but remained fairly open policy, with no one arrested. The Church Committee in the latter 70’s detailed it to no avail. Those who see Obama as any worse are kidding themselves. I hate the methods and decry them. We should never stop fighting against them. However, while not losing our sense of outrage, we can’t pretend innocence and proclaim our being “shocked” that this has been normal American policy among the national security establishment.
That being the case the greatest argument to elect Obama and a Democratic Congress is that if we don’t we will lose our modest social safety net, our religious freedom and our current limited ability for free speech. People will die from lack of health care, starvation and economic despair. All Republicans have promised this in their beliefs and statements. Ron Paul, especially so. His purported civil liberties cachet is belied by his position on abortion. That you trust him Tony to do the right thing on civil liberties, is a badly placed trust. His lack of ethical compass is illustrated by his lucrative newsletter, because whether he agreed with its bigotry, or not, he used it as a cash cow. He is the worst kind of phoney : A fanatic who can rationalize his dichotomies through denial.
AY,
Smiling….
BTW, Did you see the Romney Christmas card? (Maybe I saw the link on this site…) There’s something… well… a tiny bit … I don’t know… fill in the blank: ….something a tiny bit ________ about it… (Or maybe it’s just me…)
http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2011/12/romney-christmas-card-you-tell-me/
AN,
Very succinct and precipitate…
SM,
Gay marriage opponents airing new ads against Ron Paul:
A case in point:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/trending/2011/12/28/cheetah_the_tarzan_chimp_dead_at_80_from_kidney_failure.html (OT)
@1zb1: You do not know what you are talking about. Talk about lying, you attribute beliefs to me I have never expressed, and I’ve been commenting on this blog for years. Literally. I am a progressive liberal that voted for Obama, twice. I won’t do it again.
So rant and lie, dumbshit, I am not reading it, and you do not know your Constitutional rights, and like all of your tribalist kind of either party, you blindly accept whatever you are told by your sociopathic leaders.
Tony: “A progressive liberal” and you are voting for Ron Paul…. what drugs are you doing in Chicago?
(do I detect a bit of anger? having trouble forming intelligable thoughts?)
anon nurse, Sometimes the URL’S say it all -Swarthmore mom
Swarthmore mom,
They do, they do…
AN,
Never once in my life have I ever been sarcastic….. I DO appreciate that you take the time and post. Cutting and pasting…. Can be time consuming too… Especially if in footnotes….you are always appreciated…
anon nurse, Sometimes the URL’S say it all………….
AY, Now I do believe that I’m sensin’ a little sarcasm… Are you sayin’ that I’m the “cut and paste princess” of NY, perhaps? Of course you must know that I care… haven’t I shown it over and over and over again on the Turley blog…??? 😉
Anon Nurse,
Thanks for taking the time to write a snippet in the articles you post. I know you must be busy…. But you take the time to show you care…:)
http://news.yahoo.com/5-occupy-protesters-arrested-paul-campaign-hq-172039174.html