Newt, Newt the marriage brute…
It’s no secret to anyone who has paid even passing attention to the 2012 Republican presidential race that Newt Gingrich has been married three times.
But, revelations today from his second wife, Marianne, that Gingrich wanted an “open marriage” have the potential to pick the scab off of the former House Speaker’s personal life less than 48 hours before the South Carolina presidential primary.
“I think it opens up the portal more widely on the whole character issue,” said one senior Republican strategist granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If this were one incident of domestic strife it would one thing but this demonstrates a pattern so I think it could be really bad.”
Throughout the race, Gingrich has been open about his personal foibles, which include an extramarital affair with his current wife, Callista, while still married to Marianne.
Asked today about the allegations made by his second wife, Gingrich called them “tawdry and inappropriate”. And, in a statement released by the campaign, Gingrich’s two daughters from his first marriage said: “The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events. …We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.”
Polling done last month suggested that most voters didn’t care much about Gingrich’s personal life. Almost three-quarters (72 percent) in a December Washington Post-ABC News poll said Gingrich’s “marital history” made no difference in their vote; four percent said it made them more likely to vote for him, 19 percent said it made them less willing to cast a ballot for the former House Speaker.
At issue is whether voters will regard Marianne Gingrich’s comments as largely old news delivered by someone with whom the former Speaker has no relationship or whether her allegations will lead to a re-examination of his personal life.
The former analysis could actually help Gingrich, turning him into something of a sympathetic figure. We saw that sort of scenario play out in South Carolina in 2010 when gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley was hit by allegations of an extramarital affair . She fought back aggressively and instead of it hurting her campaign, it strengthened it.
“I have come to the conclusion that this is no viable path forward for me in this 2012 campaign,” said Rick Perry. “Therefore I am suspending my campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich for president of the United States.”
In the end we learned that early comparisons between Perry and Bush were not out of line. If anything, George W. Bush might be a notch or two up on Perry on the intellect scale.
So while Perry might be gone, his wisdom lives on.
“It’s a theory that’s out there. It’s got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both Creationism and evolution.”
“I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution.”
BP oil spill…God’s fault.
“From time to time there are going to be things that occur that are acts of God that cannot be prevented.”
“There’s a lot of different scenarios. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”
Proving that even bigots and liars can aspire to great things.
“But you don‘t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military, but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas and pray in school.”
Birds of a feather…
“George W. Bush did a incredible job in the presidency, defending us from freedom.”
“I will tell you: It’s three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone: Commerce, Education and the — what’s the third one there? Let’s see. … OK. So Commerce, Education and the — … The third agency of government I would — I would do away with the Education, the … Commerce and — let’s see — I can’t. The third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops.”
The saddest part of Perry’s failed presidential run? We’ll never get to see this…
Thanks Rick. It was a blast.
Well, apparently in an attempt to get rid of Newt Gingrich and propel Rick Santorum into the “non-Romney” candidate spot, the right-wing Christian organizations have begun to focus on Callista Gingrich.
Whatever happened to forgiveness and repentance in the Christian Doctrine? Not that I’m in favor of Newt, but Christian organizations are attacking Callista in an effort to push Newt out of the way. Sounds rather shady and ungodly to me…
With just days to go before South Carolina’s First In South Republican primary, the war over who should be the not-Mitt Romney candidate has gone completely nuclear.
Desperate to settle on one conservative alternative, Religious Right leaders backing Rick Santorum and those backing Newt Gingrich are now resorting to vicious attacks against what have long been seen as off-limits targets in presidential campaigns — the candidates’ wives.
Influential evangelical leader James Dobson set off the fireworks at this weekend’s Christian Right summit, giving a speech that lavished praise on Karen Santorum and asked whether Americans really wanted Callista Gingrich — “a woman who was a man’s mistress for eight years” — as their First Lady, according to sources who attended the meeting.
Sources told Business Insider that Dobson’s speech was a “startling moment” that left many in the audience — particularly those who support Gingrich — floored. One source described Dobson’s tone as “angry,” and said it seemed like Dobson was blaming Callista Gingrich for the couples’ affair, which began while the former House Speaker was still married to his second wife (this is Callista Gingrich’s first marriage).
“It was clear that, to him, the villian in this story is Callista Gingrich,” the source said. “And he was announcing it to 170 ministers with huge mailing lists and television ministries.”
Needless to say, the Texas summit did little to unite the Christian Right. On Sunday, the day following the conference, reports began circulating about Karen Santorum’s six-year love affair with a Pittsburgh obsetrician and abortion provider 40 years her senior. (The Santorum campaign has yet to comment on the story.)
The vitiriol of these attacks indicates that the schism in the Religious Right is only getting worse as the 2012 race drags on. Sources who attended this weekend’s summit — which was ostensibly held to unite religious conservatives behind one candidate — said that the conference was largely a charade, with the outcome predetermined in favor of Santorum.
In the wake of the conference, Christian Right leaders have publicly split into two camps — a bad sign for a coalition whose strength has always come from its solidarity. In one camp, powerful evangelical scions like Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Family Research Council President Tony Perkins; and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, have thrown their support behind Santorum. On the other hand, influential California megachurch pastor Jim Garlow, evangelical activist David Lane, and Christian marketing guru George Barna have teamed up to support Gingrich.
Ultimately, the beneficiary of all this evangelical infighting is Romney, who has already been helped by the divided social conservative vote. But it is unclear if the former Massachusetts Governor — a Mormon with a history of flip-flopping on social issues — has what it takes to patch the Religious Right back together and convince them to go to bat for him as the Republican nominee. If he can’t reunite this powerful coalition, his path to the White House could be very difficult.
Who wants a 1700 mile environmental nightmare running from Canada all the way down to Texas refineries just to appease Big Oil manufacturers?
Don’t answer that, it was a rhetorical question.
In a politically explosive decision, President Barack Obama on Wednesday rejected plans for a massive oil pipeline through the heart of the United States, ruling there was not enough time for a fair review before a looming deadline forced on him by Republicans. His move did not kill the project but could again delay a tough choice for him until after the November elections.
Right away, the implications rippled across the political spectrum, stirred up the presidential campaign and even hardened feelings with Canada, a trusted U.S. ally and neighbor. For a U.S. electorate eager for work, the pipeline has become the very symbol of job creation for Republicans, but Obama says the environment and public safety must still be weighed too.
The plan by Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. would carry tar sands oil from western Canada across a 1,700-mile pipeline across six U.S. states to Texas refineries.
Obama was already on record as saying no, for now, until his government could review an alternative route that avoided environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska – a route that still has not been proposed, as the White House emphasizes. But Obama had to take a stand again by Feb. 21 at the latest as part of an unrelated tax deal he cut with Republicans.
This time, the project would go forward unless Obama himself declared it was not in the national interest. The president did just that, reviving intense reaction.
“This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people,” Obama said in a written statement. “I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision.”
Republicans responded unsparingly.
Now it’s been confirmed, Newt Gingrich is a dumb, ignorant racist and a lap-dog for other ignorant people who are more powerful than him…
During an appearance Wednesday on CNN, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested he would ask former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be member of his Cabinet if he was elected President of the United States.
“I don’t want to suggest anything,” he said. “We haven’t talked about anything at all. Gov. Palin is somebody who I think was a very good reform governor, she was extraordinarily effective negotiating with big oil, she did a good job in the state of Alaska, I think she is a very articulate leader of the tea party conservative movement.”
“Certainly, she is one of the people I would call on for advice,” Gingrich continued. “I would ask her to consider taking a major role in the next administration if I am president, but nothing has been discussed of any kind and it wouldn’t be appropriate to discuss it at this time. I’m just delighted that she and Todd have both been so supportive of my candidacy.”
During a tele-town hall in December, Gingrich said he would consider picking Palin as his vice president. Republican presidential nominee John McCain lost in 2008 after selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Gingrich also previously said he would ask former Bush administration U.N. ambassador John Bolton to be U.S. Secretary of State if he were elected. USA Today and other news outlets said the comment were illegal under U.S. law, which prohibits candidates from “directly or indirectly” promising or pledging the appointment of any person “for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy.”
But Talking Points Memo reported that Gingrich had in fact not broken the law because he had not made the remark for the purpose of getting Bolton’s endorsement in return.
Watch video, clipped by Talking Points Memo, below:
Today was a big day all round, as we saw cable news obsess over the return of Sarah Palin and a non-semi-endorsement of a GOP candidate.
Before anyone could get their heads round that, sparks were flying on both sides as the White House announced they are not going ahead with a decision on the proposed Keystone pipeline.
And, to wrap things off, Marky Mark told us how he would have stopped 9/11 from happening.
I didn’t know Jerry Springer was still around…
Appearing on the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends on Wednesday, former Cincinnati Mayor Jerry Springer, notorious for his low-brow talk show, criticized host Gretchen Carlson for pretending to be fair when it comes to matters of presidential politics.
Speaking about the recent Newsweek cover story by blogger Andrew Sullivan, Springer complemented the author and agreed with its overall message. “He’s saying that the critics are dumb — obviously that’s a headline to grab your attention — but it’s not really that the people are dumb, it’s that they’re missing a point of how he’s been successful in a very difficult time.”
“He saved our financial system when it was just about to go under, people had lost almost half of their life savings in pension funds and things like that, so clearly that. He saved the auto industry. He got Osama bin Laden. The economy is now growing, we’ve added in the private sector 2.6 million jobs in the last two years. I mean, the fact of the matter is, he’s doing very well, and it is a little disingenuous — here we are at Fox, complaining that, gee, Newsweek may be a little partisan.”