Correcting the Record on Newt

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Dec 5, 2011.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,945
    Likes Received:
    296
    Correcting The Record: Newt Gingrich Didn’t Divorce His First Wife While She Had Cancer

    Doug Mataconis · Friday, May 13, 2011


    It’s become both the butt of jokes and the reason for criticism that Newt Gingrich informed his first wife that he wanted a divorce while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. Now, we have a first hand account from one of Gingrich’s daughters that this is untrue:

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/co...-divorce-his-first-wife-while-she-had-cancer/
     
  2. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,658
    Likes Received:
    158
    Divorce is the least of Newt's shortcomings when it comes his moral and ethical background.
     
  3. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree! He was the first person I eliminated from contention when considering a president. His moral standing, in my opinion, makes Clinton look like a choir boy.
     
  4. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    It only took her 31 years to set the record straight. Also, seems like Newt's ex-wife would be the one talking. After all this girl was only 13 years old at the time.

    This is obviously setting the ground work so someone who claims to be conservative and have Christian morals can justify voting for someone like Gringrich without seeming to discard his family values.

    Understand, Gringich may well be the most qualified republican in the race, and I can understand someone voting for him. But, to do so honestly will require admitting Newt's moral failings in the past.
     
    #4 Robert Snow, Dec 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2011
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,945
    Likes Received:
    296
    If Gingrich is the nominee, I'll vote for him against Obama.

    No question.
     
  6. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    If he and Obama were the nominees, we would get the President we deserve. That saddens me.
     
  7. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,567
    Likes Received:
    276
    Really; we've done this to ourselves. It is sad.
     
  8. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    If Newt wins the Rep's nod, Obama won't have a thing to worry about.....
     
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,945
    Likes Received:
    296
    Funny. I don't recall voting for Obama. He has turned out exactly as I believed he would.
     
  10. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,567
    Likes Received:
    276
    Meant Americans have done it to themselves. They wanted change.

    I never voted for him either, and there's been no surprises here with me also, except that I do find myself generally in agreement with his foreign policy.

    2008 I voted for Paul in the primary, McCain in the general election. I don't know if I could/would do the same with Gingrich in the 2012 election.

    And it's an odd thing, I was a huge fan of him (and Limbaugh) back in the early 90's. A lot of things have come to light since then.
     
  11. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    The debate would be really fun to watch. (Because I don't think President Obama would give Gingrich two shots.)

    I wouldn't too worried about all this talk since Romney will be the nominee.

    Which means the President should be anticipating 4 more years at this point.
     
  12. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,567
    Likes Received:
    276
    If he had to govern along with a Republican house and senate, it might not be such a bad thing. It may be the best we can hope for.
     
  13. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Which is probably what will happen.

    For the record, I'm all for government gridlock. The job of Congress is not to show up and figure out how to spend more money. It is a far better system if they all just show up and sit at their desks all day long twiddling their thumbs.
     
  14. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,567
    Likes Received:
    276
    LOL, you're speaking my mind, I've said it a hundred times, "GRIDLOCK IS A GOOD THING!"
     
  15. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    Its Possible that 2012 would bring us a "R" House and Senate with a second term for the "O", but in 2014 I'm sure he would get at least one if not both back
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,945
    Likes Received:
    296
    Gingrich would slaughter Obama in a debate. Liberals know it and are scared stiff of the possibility so they are perpetrating the fiction that a Gingrich nomination makes Obama a sure second termer. Shows how frightened they are.

     
  17. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is ridiculous. Newt's character will be his downfall. As soon as he is nominated, a bunch of social conservatives like myself are going to jump ship and vote third party. I and many that I know, simply will not vote for Newt.
     
  18. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,687
    Likes Received:
    242
    Yeah, that's smart. Genius, really. Jump the ship being steered to restore your liberties to ensure the victory of the one at war with them.

    I stand amazed in the presence of your staggering intellect.
     
  19. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not going to pick an evil man, who is just a little bit less evil than the other, for expediencies sake. Saying, "Well, we have to vote for Legion, cause Satan would be way worse!" is an exercise in idiocy.

    Newt has supported abortion, has cheated on the first two of his three wives, has continually shown a lack of character and a willingness to sell out, has shown that he is completely willing to lie about what he believes to get elected (and then subsequently do what he wants, anyway...)...

    Gingrich is on the same team as Obama. He is just wearing a much better disguise. I am not going to vote for someone who will continue to destroy our country, just because he puts on a Ronald Reagan mask. It is telling to me, that many of the Republicans in the House and Senate who knew him best, are some of the ones who are opposing him the hardest.
     
  20. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    No party automatically "gets" my vote based on fear mongering and "lesser of two evils" talk. That isn't the American system.

    I vote based on the candidate that best represents my values and beliefs. If that candidate is in a third party so be it. If it is in one of the two major parties, so be it.

    Anyone suggesting that to vote "third party" is to vote against one party and for the other doesn't a) understand electoral politics and b) is perpetrating a lie against the constitutional republican form of government we use in the USA.

    A third party vote is just as legitimate and honest as one for the two major parties. No party "gets" my vote and my vote, if I do vote third party, isn't a loss for a party but a win for our form of government.
     

Share This Page

Loading...