No matter what the daughter is trying to say way after the fact in terms of damage control is pretty much irrelevant when there are interviews with Jackie and family friends (who were adults at the time) to dispute it. Not only are there court rulings to show Newt refused to pay child support, but in the same court documents, Jackie says she does NOT want her marriage to end and doesn't believe their differences are too big to repair. She does not say he served her divorce papers at the hospital, so the daughter is correct in that. Newt came to the hospital with a yellow legal pad to negociate the terms of the divorce, she wasn't asked to sign papers that day. Jackie's own words in court documents and other sources, prove her daughter is not recalling events accurately. And she is accusing her mother of lying about having cancer? It ashame what divorce can do to families but she was 13 at the time, so I will cut her some slack. I know my mom tried her best to sheild us from her struggles as a single mom, perhaps Jackie did the same for her daughter.
I hesitate to even post the link to the court documents because you will turn it into the media attacking him! Sadly, it was talked about the day after Christmas and not many people paid attention.
By the way, your letter there is from Newt's campaign site, a page titled "answering the attacks." It's damage control.
Newt's comments were brought up in the debate and he defended them. It was brought up on this board also. If you want sources, use google, I'm sure there is video of it. Jon Stewart made a skit out of it....but of course you see nothing wrong with making poor children mop floors simply because they are poor. From someone who was poor, I'm quite glad Newt didn't make me scrub floors for my lunch. There's a teacher here that made news because she is so low paid, she qualified for medicaid for her 2 children. The more they cut our pay, the more janitors Newt will have!
Quote:
It's only because his name is Newt was my way of saying that some Democrats are afraid that he will beat Obama if he becomes the nominee, so his sins are presented as much worse than those of others.
Truth be told, republicans are more afraid Newt will get the nomination than Obama is! A long while ago, the Obama campaign (who are democrats) picked Romney, Pewlenty, and Huntsman as the top three Republican picks and Huntsman scared them the most. Pewlenty made the list before Newt! He wasn't anywhere near the radar as far as people the democrats feared.
If the republicans want to elect a man they have already thrown out of government, so be it! The democrats will be thrilled to be running against a lobbyist (or a man who represents the 1%) in this economic climate. The reality of it is, whether the nominee is Mitt or Newt, there is a large portion of the Republican party that will not turn out for that pick. Some will vote for any republican, but there is the "anybody but Mitt" crowd and the "anybody but Newt" crowd that would rather stay home then see that person by President. It's really the same way a lot of Republicans felt about McCain and voter turnout was down for republicans. Each candidate has problems getting votes from within their own party, let alone independents.
GivinItTho't
01-24-2012 05:33 PM
These are some of the comments from Jackie Gingrich Cushman, one of Newt's daughters:
Quote:
In addition, for the four people involved, it was one of a million interactions and was not considered a defining event by any of us.
My mother and I have both recently run into quite a few people who hold an inaccurate understanding of this hospital visit. Many think my mother is dead.
It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won't repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths.
My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.
But one of them seems to have taken on a life of its own, and simple corrections have not sufficed to set the record straight. Why does this happen? I can't be sure, but I suspect that the narrative created by these untruths proves to be so much more compelling and more dramatic than what actually happened that it proves irresistible.
We will not answer additional questions or make additional comments regarding this meaningless incident, which occurred more than three decades ago.
The tumor was benign.
I think you accidentally stumbled upon some of the dramatic untruths to which his daughter was referring.
Since she's part of the Gingrich family, I consider her to be a good source.
Quote:
As I said, he wants poor children to clean floors. He said he wanted to speak to NAACP about "why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps" and he followed up his "clean the floors" comment with this clarification: "Some people who suggest that the working poor by definition know how to work, which is true, that's why they're called the working poor. I was talking about the people who come out of areas of neighborhoods where they may not have that experience." Basically, he's talking about inner city kids and we all know which color skin most of those children have.
Yes, many inner city kids are black. What's wrong with that? Do you have a link to these comments? So far, I don't see anything wrong with what he said, but I would like to see them in context.
Also, can you tell me where you found those court documents? I would like to read more about it.
Newt told the Occupiers to take a bath? Aren't their camps known for being pretty dirty?
Quote:
You can disagree all you want, but nobody, including you, has any proof that Obama has ever lied or cheated on his taxes or had an affair.
This does not mean that he is a man of character. All I have to do is look at his presidency to see the lack of character.
I should have elaborated. It's only because his name is Newt was my way of saying that some Democrats are afraid that he will beat Obama if he becomes the nominee, so his sins are presented as much worse than those of others.
PAJess888
01-24-2012 03:43 PM
Quote:
You interpreted his reply completely differently than I did. I typed some of his comments below which don't line up with your summary.
There's not much to misinterupt when you look at his words pertaining to what I was speaking of in my response.
Quote:
It would be great if inner city schools and poor neighborhood schools actually hired the children to do things. ... What if they cleaned out the bathrooms, and what if they mopped the floors?
As I said, he wants poor children to clean floors. He said he wanted to speak to NAACP about "why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps" and he followed up his "clean the floors" comment with this clarification: "Some people who suggest that the working poor by definition know how to work, which is true, that's why they're called the working poor. I was talking about the people who come out of areas of neighborhoods where they may not have that experience." Basically, he's talking about inner city kids and we all know which color skin most of those children have.
Speaking of Occupy and the hundreds of thousands of young people protesting, he said:
[QUOTE]That is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country, and why you need to reassert something by saying to them, 'Go get a job right after you take a bath."
Sorry, I said that he wanted them to take a shower and he actually said bath, but again, not much to interupt there.
Quote:
Judging by the people you listed, it looks like people are able to look past affairs, like you said, as long as the guilty person is not named Newt Gingrich.
Or John Edwards or Rudy Guiliani, Eliot Spitzer, Brad Pitt, Judd Law, Tiger Woods, Jesse James, etc. David Letterman is another that still has his popularity but many do not. Many believe Thomas Jefferson had an affair and fathered a child with his slave.....he's still a pretty popular guy. Why? He, like JFK, made great contributions to the country or world, as did Bill Clinton and Princess Di. This idea of "it's only because his name is Newt" is ridiculous. It's because he condemed Clinton for doing it at the same time he was doing it himself!
Quote:
Maybe he's changed like he's said he has. Can you judge his heart? I've read about what happened with Newt and his first wife. It was not as you say. He wasn't simply "leaving his wife with cancer." Please, anyone who is reading this, get the facts for yourselves.
Not only did he do this once, he did it twice. Isn't the expression "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." So yes, I can judge his character by his repeated actions. As a role model and the leader of my country, I believe character is important for a President to have.
For anyone reading this, I'll get you started on those facts because not only did he leave Jackie which she was recovering from cancer surgery, he refused to care for his children to the point that the church had to step in with donations. He's a real gem.
Quote:
Ariel Levy: "Before the campaign, Jacqueline had been treated for uterine cancer. 'He walked out in the spring of 1980,' she told the Washington Post. That September, she was taken to the hospital to have a tumor removed. 'I went into the hospital for my third surgery,' she said. 'The two girls came to see me, and said, Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery.' (The tumor turned out to be benign.) 'To say I gave up a lot for the marriage is the understatement of the year.'”
Source: Ariel Levy. "The Good Wife." NewYorker.com. 1/23/2012.
"The most notorious incident in Gingrich's marriage ... was when he cornered Jackie in her hospital room where she was recovering from uterine cancer surgery and insisted on discussing the terms of the divorce he was seeking. Shortly after that infamous encounter, Gingrich refused to pay his alimony and child-support payments. The First Baptist Church in his hometown had to take up a collection to support the family Gingrich had deserted. Six months after divorcing Jackie, Gingrich married a younger woman, Marianne, with whom he had been having an affair."
Source: Stephen Talbot. "Newt's Glass House." Salon.com. 8/28/1998.
Newt on why he wanted a divorce from Jackie: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer."
Source: Katharine Q. Seelye. "Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals." NYTimes.com 11/24/1994. This quote was reported by his advisor.
Jackie: "He can say that we had been talking about it [divorce] for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise."
Source: Gail Sheehy. "The Inner Quest of Newt Gingrich."Vanity Fair. 9/1995. Pbs.org.
Katharine Seelye: "Jackie Gingrich filed court papers saying he had not provided reasonable support for her living expenses and that some of her accounts were "two or three months past due." Some of her friends took up an informal collection on her behalf."
Source: Katharine Q. Seelye. "Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals." NYTimes.com 11/24/1994.
From court documents:
Quote:
The same court filing in which Jackie Gingrich told the judge she did not want the divorce also accused Gingrich of failing to provide enough money for her and her two then-teenaged daughters to live on during their separation. Kathy was 17 at the time.
"Despite repeated notice to plaintiff and requests by defendant, plaintiff has failed and refused to voluntarily provide reasonable support sufficient to include payment of usual and normal living expenses, including drugs, water, sewage, garbage, gas, electric and telephone service for defendant and the minor children," she said in court documents. "As a result, many of such accounts are two or three months past due with notices of intent to cut off service and gas and electricity."
When Jackie Gingrich and her daughters moved from their other home in Fairfax, Virginia, back to their house in Carrollton, Georgia, there were "no lights, no heat, no water, no food in the home," former Gingrich friend and academic colleague Carter said.
Carter, who helped collect donations for the family, said Gingrich "wouldn't give them a dime" in the first months of the separation.
The judge had to order him to pay the bills and feed his children after the church provided food for them. He was working and making a very generous salary, (while Jackie was fighting cancer) so in my perspective, he was a dead beat dad.
You speak of double standards, can you even begin to imagine the outrage if the name on those court documents was Michelle Obama instead of Jackie Gingrich? Fox would explode!
You can disagree all you want, but nobody, including you, has any proof that Obama has ever lied or cheated on his taxes or had an affair. There is proof that he has never had to pay back the state or been charged with ethics violations. What was that Newt? Oh Yeah! "I know among the politically correct, you're not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable." Oh how I wish more republicans would use facts!
Mr Sensai
01-24-2012 03:00 AM
Quote:
Notice in tonight's debate, Newt acted much more Presidential and did not lose his cool when Romney repeatedly went after him
Yet you could see the rage swelling up in him at times.
Quote:
People are able to look past affairs? Judging by the people you listed, it looks like people are able to look past affairs, like you said, as long as the guilty person is not named Newt Gingrich. Princess Di--it's ok. Clinton--it's ok. We still love you. Newt--you are a horrible person. This is an example of a double standard.
If Newt had not gone after Clinton when he was having issues I am sure the masses would feel differently.
Quote:
I will watch the video, but I was having trouble getting it to work. Regardless of that, Ann Coulter is a Romney supporter. I, obviously, am not.
Who is a Newt supporter? Not Ann, Not Rush, Not Christie. Ok Perry is but other than that what big name GOP star is backing Newt?
Quote:
People would have other opportunities to hear his rebuttal.
But would they seek out those opportunities?
Quote:
You interpreted his reply completely differently than I did. I typed some of his comments below which don't line up with your summary
I interpret them the same as PAJess. Also I am fairly sure others are too. Not a good way to get votes IMO.
Quote:
I stand by everything I said. I think it makes a lot of sense.
Ok let's make it interesting then IF Newt beats Obama I will donate $100 USD to ANY charity of your choice. If Obama beats Newt you donate $100 USD to any charity of my choice.
GivinItTho't
01-23-2012 11:29 PM
"I said Mitt has trouble connecting with people." Yes, I misread that.
"Aside from that, he (Newt) talks about making poor kids clean the floors at school (as if they don't have enough on their plates), tells black people he's going to teach them work ethic, and hundreds of thousands of young people exercising their voice to 'take a shower.' "
You interpreted his reply completely differently than I did. I typed some of his comments below which don't line up with your summary.
"They'd be getting money which is a good thing if you're poor. Only the elites despise earning money."
"I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job."
"I know among the politically correct, you're not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable." I love this comment!
"People are able to look past affairs, depending on the circumstances. "
People are able to look past affairs? Judging by the people you listed, it looks like people are able to look past affairs, like you said, as long as the guilty person is not named Newt Gingrich. Princess Di--it's ok. Clinton--it's ok. We still love you. Newt--you are a horrible person. This is an example of a double standard.
"Here, both wives say it was unexpected, therefore the sympathy goes with the wife."
How does the sympathy go with the wife? If Newt's second wife hadn't broken up his first marriage, she wouldn't have been in this situation in the first place. If she would have had a little more integrity, she could have saved herself some pain. I guess she got to experience what she caused his first wife to experience. His second wife had been "the other woman" at one time. She has a lot of nerve to try to gain sympathy.
"I don't even think the 'open marriage' stuff is as bad as him leaving his first wife with cancer, but people hear this stuff and judge from their own perspective."
Maybe he's changed like he's said he has. Can you judge his heart? I've read about what happened with Newt and his first wife. It was not as you say. He wasn't simply "leaving his wife with cancer." Please, anyone who is reading this, get the facts for yourselves.
"Obama has been vetted for about 5-6 years now. How else would I know what his pastor said and who he served on a comittee with 20 years ago? Many in the media have doctured photos trying to come up with things, they've misquoted his book, etc. They can't find anything substaintial on HIM, so they try to make it up. At some point, you just have to admit that he's a pretty ethical guy. He has a stable marriage and family, pays his taxes, doesn't have ethics violations, he's never had to pay back the state he served (like Santorum and Palin), etc. His record is clean on these issues in contrast to most other politicians. If you think the republicans, especially those in the House right now, aren't still looking, you'd be mistaken. Not just republicans, Hillary and John Edwards had teams looking for stuff too. If there was dirt on this guy, Gloria Allred would have a new client."
Where do I even begin? To put it mildly, I disagree.
PAJess888
01-23-2012 09:03 PM
Quote:
I think that no matter what Newt does, his adversaries will always find something to criticize.
Oh come on, his own party kicked him out. They criticize him! Chris Christi was fast to point out all his issues this week on last week's Meet the Press. Many republicans are lobbying against him. Are his own party members his adversaries?
Quote:
Another poster mentioned "attacking the media (a right-wing favorite)" like it's a bad thing. If the media is having trouble reporting things accurately and truthfully then the "right-wing" is correct in attacking the media. I find it refreshing that Newt doesn't let the media back him into a corner.
Newt doesn't back the media into a corner? Have you watched the last debates? He got a surge in SC because he about ripped the moderator's head off for asking a question about what was being reported in the media. The moderator was referencing the interview ACCURATELY. He just needed to deflect attention away from his actions.
Quote:
I wonder, did Clinton ever admit he was wrong? I know he gets paid the big bucks as a speaker now. His unfaithfulness to his wife seems to have been rewarded, but I really don't remember if he ever admitted he was wrong to have done that.
Not only did Clinton say it was wrong, there are others who have had affairs but maintained their popularity for other reasons. Princess Di comes to mind. Even though she was just as guilty, people only talk about Charles's affair. Nowadays, talking about other people's relationships is a billion dollar business, it's everywhere on the net, magazines, tv, etc. People are able to look past affairs, depending on the circumstances. Here, both wives say it was unexpected, therefore the sympathy goes with the wife. I don't even think the "open marriage" stuff is as bad as him leaving his first wife with cancer, but people hear this stuff and judge from their own perspective.
Quote:
I'm tired of the media trying to make decisions for the public. And when is the media going to scrutinize Obama's past? They've had several years to do it, but they still haven't. Why are they only interested in tearing down one side but not the other?
Obama has been vetted for about 5-6 years now. How else would I know what his pastor said and who he served on a comittee with 20 years ago? Many in the media have doctured photos trying to come up with things, they've misquoted his book, etc. They can't find anything substaintial on HIM, so they try to make it up. At some point, you just have to admit that he's a pretty ethical guy. He has a stable marriage and family, pays his taxes, doesn't have ethics violations, he's never had to pay back the state he served (like Santorum and Palin), etc. His record is clean on these issues in contrast to most other politicians. If you think the republicans, especially those in the House right now, aren't still looking, you'd be mistaken. Not just republicans, Hillary and John Edwards had teams looking for stuff too. If there was dirt on this guy, Gloria Allred would have a new client.
Quote:
It was also mentioned that Newt has trouble connecting with people.
I said Mitt has trouble connecting with people. He told people that income disaprity should be talked about behind closed doors and called corporations people, like you're going to have dinner with your buddy Microsoft. He said he didn't make much in speaking fees and there's an ad showing each fee much more than my salary for a total of over $300,000. That's "not much" to him. He has money in the Caymen Islands....the list of disconnections between Romney and the general public is a mile long.
As far as Newt connecting with people, he knows how to stir up the base. The question is how does that play off in main stream America? The reality is a lot of people looked at his last attack on the moderator as just being a big bully. I myself heard people at work say that he seemed angry. Notice in tonight's debate, Newt acted much more Presidential and did not lose his cool when Romney repeatedly went after him. Aside from that, he talks about making poor kids clean the floors at school (as if they don't have enough on their plates), tells black people he's going to teach them work ethic, and hundreds of thousands of young people exercising their voice to "take a shower." He wants to go to another war and that's the last thing people in my generation and younger, those that barely remember a time without war, want to hear. In the big picture, he has a long way to go to get the women, youth, and minority vote. Newt is a good debator, but I will always question how anyone who has lived in Washington for decades truly connects to the people.
GivinItTho't
01-23-2012 03:59 PM
I will watch the video, but I was having trouble getting it to work. Regardless of that, Ann Coulter is a Romney supporter. I, obviously, am not.
I think people would definitely watch if for nothing other than entertainment. Also, the State of the Union address is just one example. People would have other opportunities to hear his rebuttal.
I stand by everything I said. I think it makes a lot of sense.
Mr Sensai
01-23-2012 02:55 PM
Quote:
Mr. Sensai, I read the link you posted, but I didn't notice Ann Coulter saying anywhere in that article that she thinks Gingrich doesn't connect with people. Maybe I missed it.
Watch the video.
Quote:
No, I don't think Obama would agree to more than one debate because he knows he won't do well. Newt has said (I don't know if he meant this or not, but I hope so) that if Obama won't debate him, he will give a rebuttal to every speech that Obama makes 4 hours after Obama speaks, every time. This is similar to what Lincoln did, although it took Lincoln a few days instead of a few hours. I would like to see this happen.
But will anyone watch his rebuttal? Many people turn of the TV after the State of the Union and never listen to the other parties rebuttal.
Quote:
Haven't both of these things recently been done? It sure hasn't had much of an effect.
Can't compare the base with the independents and non primary voters.
Quote:
I haven't noticed that. But I would like to know why Republicans are responsible for trying to please the "middle of the road Americans". Shouldn't the Democrats be trying to earn the independents' votes as well? It's like there's an assumption that independents will vote Democratic if Republicans don't work hard enough to impress them. I think that goes both ways. The Democrats shouldn't assume they have the independents' support.
Lesser of two evils. Sad but that is how the USA system works. Democrats don't have to work to get the independent vote just be slightly better than the GOP.
Quote:
This was my point. Of course Newt has a chance of winning. So like you said, of course some are worried. I was just surprised to see another poster say the opposite which was that a lot of people feel that he is not strong enough to beat Obama. I don't think a lot of people actually feel that way. If they did, they wouldn't spend so much time talking about him and trying to drag him down.
Disagree. As you can't overlook or take for granted anyone. I think Newt has no chance to beat Obama but why give him an opening?
To use a sports analogy (again) you don't let a team hang around and you run up the score and try to end the game ASAP.
GivinItTho't
01-23-2012 10:57 AM
Quote:
"Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible."
I'm glad he admitted that he was guilty. It seems like that response of his was acceptable to the media, and he's gone on to reach success (however he defines it), so I guess that's how Newt should be treated also. It's good to know people forgave him (Clinton).
Mr. Sensai, I read the link you posted, but I didn't notice Ann Coulter saying anywhere in that article that she thinks Gingrich doesn't connect with people. Maybe I missed it.
"1.) You truly think Obama will agree to more than one debate if Newt gets the nomination?"
No, I don't think Obama would agree to more than one debate because he knows he won't do well. Newt has said (I don't know if he meant this or not, but I hope so) that if Obama won't debate him, he will give a rebuttal to every speech that Obama makes 4 hours after Obama speaks, every time. This is similar to what Lincoln did, although it took Lincoln a few days instead of a few hours. I would like to see this happen.
"2.) All Obama has to do is run the global warming ad with Pelosi and point to Newts failed marriages."
Haven't both of these things recently been done? It sure hasn't had much of an effect.
"3.) Newt comes across as too angry for most middle of the road Americans I think and his unfavorable rating is very high."
I haven't noticed that. But I would like to know why Republicans are responsible for trying to please the "middle of the road Americans". Shouldn't the Democrats be trying to earn the independents' votes as well? It's like there's an assumption that independents will vote Democratic if Republicans don't work hard enough to impress them. I think that goes both ways. The Democrats shouldn't assume they have the independents' support.
"4.) Yea there is a slim chance Newt could win somehow so of course some are worried. It's like when Tyson lost to Buster Douglas or Japan beating the USA in the Womens World Cup."
This was my point. Of course Newt has a chance of winning. So like you said, of course some are worried. I was just surprised to see another poster say the opposite which was that a lot of people feel that he is not strong enough to beat Obama. I don't think a lot of people actually feel that way. If they did, they wouldn't spend so much time talking about him and trying to drag him down.
Mr Sensai
01-23-2012 12:35 AM
Quote:
The criticism isn't just that Newt is a bad husband, it's also that Newt was hypocritical by making Clinton's marriage an issue.
*nods head in approval*
Quote:
I wonder, did Clinton ever admit he was wrong?
Yes he did
"Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible."
Quote:
It was also mentioned that Newt has trouble connecting with people. I think his victory in South Carolina and the standing ovations he's received show otherwise.
Satan I mean Ann Coulter seems to think otherwise.
Yes HELL has frozen over as I tend to agree with her about Newt.
Quote:
I have to disagree that the election would be a cakewalk for Obama if Newt is the nominee. I think Obama would have a really hard time doing well in any debate against Newt. If anyone thinks that Newt is not strong enough to beat Obama, then why worry?
Care to make a wager on that? ;)
1.) You truly think Obama will agree to more than one debate if Newt gets the nomination?
2.) All Obama has to do is run the global warming ad with Pelosi and point to Newts failed marriages.
3.) Newt comes across as too angry for most middle of the road Americans I think and his unfavorable rating is very high.
4.) Yea there is a slim chance Newt could win somehow so of course some are worried. It's like when Tyson lost to Buster Douglas or Japan beating the USA in the Womens World Cup.
teach2read10
01-22-2012 07:16 PM
Mitt is in a difficult situation. If he's the nominee, the dems, who adore JFK and FDR, are going to convince a large number of people that Mitt is flawed because his father was wealthy. BTW, I was surprised and saddend that Mitt bothered to keep his speaking fees last year because that amount of money doesn't change his life one iota. I wish he had donated those fees to charity which would have been good for his image.
PrivateEyes
01-22-2012 05:51 PM
Quote:
Mitt did announce that he will realease his returns from last year and his anticipated returns for this year. As his father said, one year (or two in this case) can be a fluke because Romney knew he was running for President, so using his own father's advice, we have to discount them.
Hasn't Romney been essentially running since 2006? He was a major player in the 2008 elections, after all. According to this logic, he can be anticipated to have done something to his tax returns to make them "flukes" for the past six years. Can six years of tax returns be considered "flukes?"
If he doesn't release his returns,he's accused of hiding something. If he does release his returns, those who are most partisan accuse him of manipulating his returns. What a "no win" situation!
GivinItTho't
01-22-2012 03:46 PM
I think that no matter what Newt does, his adversaries will always find something to criticize. If he had never been unfaithful to his wife, someone would find something else to criticize. I know Rick Perry may not be a popular name with some people on this board, but he made a point regarding Newt which I think is really relevant.
Rick Perry: "And Newt is not perfect, but who among us is? The fact is, there is forgiveness for those who seek God, and I believe in the power of redemption for it is a central tenet of my Christian faith..." I think the way Newt handled his marriages is terrible. He's said that he's repented, and I hope he has. I can't prove if he has or hasn't, but I wouldn't want to judge what's in his heart.
I wonder, did Clinton ever admit he was wrong? I know he gets paid the big bucks as a speaker now. His unfaithfulness to his wife seems to have been rewarded, but I really don't remember if he ever admitted he was wrong to have done that. All of that happened when I was in 5th or 6th grade, so I really don't remember.
Another poster mentioned "attacking the media (a right-wing favorite)" like it's a bad thing. If the media is having trouble reporting things accurately and truthfully then the "right-wing" is correct in attacking the media. I find it refreshing that Newt doesn't let the media back him into a corner. I'm tired of the media trying to make decisions for the public. And when is the media going to scrutinize Obama's past? They've had several years to do it, but they still haven't. Why are they only interested in tearing down one side but not the other?
It was also mentioned that Newt has trouble connecting with people. I think his victory in South Carolina and the standing ovations he's received show otherwise.
I have to disagree that the election would be a cakewalk for Obama if Newt is the nominee. I think Obama would have a really hard time doing well in any debate against Newt. If anyone thinks that Newt is not strong enough to beat Obama, then why worry?
I think when the American people reflect upon what Obama has done to us, the failings of Gingrich and Romney will pale in comparison.
We've already kissed so much good-bye during Obama's presidency that we can't afford another 4 years with him.
peggy27
01-22-2012 11:13 AM
I think his marriages are an issue. It goes to trust and committment and keeping promises. The moral character of a person.
He cheated on both of the first wives and they left them in times of need. Don't see how women in SC voted for him.
I think Romney is a snake in the grass for his business dealings.
new1stteacher
01-22-2012 10:54 AM
Yes, I agree very hypocritical. Like i said not a fan. I wish they would ALL leave marriage and sex out of it. Focus on the real issues.
PAJess888
01-22-2012 10:27 AM
Quote:
Why are people so hung up on what people do or don't do regarding sex?
Newt was the leader of the House who went after Clinton for the Monica situation. He was having an affair on his second wife at the same time. The criticism isn't just that Newt is a bad husband, it's also that Newt was hypocritical by making Clinton's marriage an issue.
Clarity, there's a lot we can kiss good-bye if the Republicans get in!
Clarity
01-22-2012 10:04 AM
He says that if the Republicans get in, we can kiss research funding goodbye.
I will be (reluctantly) voting for the lesser of two evils, i.e., Obama.
PAJess888
01-22-2012 09:34 AM
Both the frontrunners have too many problems to name at this point.
Newt's super pacs have really gone after Romney. There has always been some that have hated Romney. He deosnt' really connect with the people well and a lot feel he is not strong enough to beat Obama. That and attacking the media (a right wing favorite) have made Newt the last best option for the "anybody but Romney" crowd.
I had to laugh when Mitt said he would release his tax returns if Newt released his ethics reports. Reminded me of two kids on the playground saying I'll show you mine if you show me yours!! Mitt did announce that he will realease his returns from last year and his anticipated returns for this year. As his father said, one year (or two in this case) can be a fluke because Romney knew he was running for President, so using his own father's advice, we have to discount them.
I think between the ethics violations of Newt and Romney's money in the Caymen Islands, niether candidate can relate to mainstream America enough to win against family man Obama.
new1stteacher
01-22-2012 09:23 AM
I am not a fan, but I wish marriage, sexual issues, religion, would not even be a factor in a campaign. Those are the little things that people make into hot topics that take away from the important issues, mainly the state of our economy. Why are people so hung up on what people do or don't do regarding sex?
Clarity
01-22-2012 09:20 AM
Newt is way too NEWTY to ever run this country. I think this definition fits, particularly the Latin:
Quote:
newt (njuːt) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n
1. any of various small semiaquatic urodele amphibians, such as Triturus vulgaris ( common newt ) of Europe, having a long slender body and tail and short feeble legs
2. chiefly ( Brit ) any other urodele amphibian, including the salamanders
[C15: from a newt, a mistaken division of an ewt; ewt, from Old English eveta eft 1 ]
Mr Sensai
01-22-2012 09:10 AM
How the hell is Newt getting votes? I guess attacking the media for his open marriage issues gets him sympathy?
peggy27
01-22-2012 08:36 AM
hypocritical and an adulterer comes to mind first!!!!
teach2read10
01-22-2012 07:38 AM
Newt is way too _________ to ever run this country, as far as I'm concerned. There are so many options to fill in that blank that I can't choose the best one. If he is the republican nominee, the election is going to be a cakewalk for Obama.
