Details of Marianne Gingrich Interview

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

The details aren't pretty. While Gingrich was clamoring for Bill Clinton's ouster due to Monica Lewinsky, here's what his ex-wife Marianne says he was doing: Asking for her permission to continue his 6 year affair with his present wife Calista. [More...]

Marianne, who was married to the lawmaker from 1981 to 2000, unloaded to ABC News, telling the network that when the former House Speaker admitted to having a 6-year affair with his current wife, Callista, he asked if she would be okay with the arrangement. "And I just stared at him and he said, 'Callista doesn't care what I do,'" Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. "He wanted an open marriage and I refused."

Marianne says Newt "carried on the affair" with Calista in Marianne and Newt's bedroom.

Gingrich thinks his daughters will save him. He's referring all questions to them. Why? They are his daughters with Wife #1, how would they know what happened? They don't. According to Newt's website, one is an expert in "brand optimization, credentialing, and marketing" and the other is "Known for her ability to synthesize major news events and ordinary life happenings into a unique perspective that rings with authenticity."

What part are America's Republicans least likely to accept? They may think the open marriage bit is manufactured sour grapes, but Newt himself may have already confirmed it. According to this sourced article and Esquire:

During the divorce proceedings, Congressman Gingrich refused to participate in the discovery process and finally claimed that he and Marianne had an "understanding" about his affairs. Marianne denied this claim, and in a subsequent interview stated that she could end Newt's political career in a single interview.

And what about the duplicity involved in carrying on a six year affair while married and at the same time campaigning on family values? Or ridiculing others in Congress caught having affairs while he was doing the same thing?

From The Washington Post: Settled . . .But Not Over; The Gingrich Divorce and Its Repercussions on the Right,December 18, 1999:

For six years, Gingrich, 56, two-timed his wife with a blonded-up, French-horn-playing Agriculture Committee staffer. His thing with Callista Bisek, now 33, was going strong through the Gingrich Revolution of 1994 that turned the Congress over to Republican majorities. It kept up through the Republicans' "Contract With America," Gingrich's 10-point plan to turn America to the right values. It steamed along during his ascendancy to speaker, when he gestured toward his proud wife in the balcony and called her his "best friend and closest adviser," adding, "If I listened to her 20 percent more, I'd get in a lot less trouble."

On it played through 1996, when Marianne campaigned vigorously for her husband, beamed from his side and shook countless hands. It stood strong while Marianne underwent the trauma and disappointment of unsuccessful in-vitro fertilization. While Gingrich lambasted the president at every opportunity for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, while he successfully orchestrated the first presidential impeachment in a century, he was committing adultery himself.

Other good reads: This 1995 Vanity Fair interview with Newt and various members of his family and of course the Esquire article.

It's always dangerous when a public official thinks the rules apply to everyone but him, and that's exactly what Gingrich has done throughout his political career.

Newt Gingrich has as much chance of becoming President of the United States as the man in the moon.

< Perry Out: Stop Mitt Movement Coalescing? | Anonymous Takes Down Dept.of Justice Website >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Nobody deals like J when it needs to be dealt :) (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    Where's the bitter?  She's just sad, and who wouldn't be?  What a screwing over!

    MT, are you Newt's daughter? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:26:39 PM EST
    "Known for her ability to synthesize major news events and ordinary life happenings into a unique perspective that rings with authenticity."

    He's got the loyalty bull by the horns there :) (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:50:51 PM EST
    Oh yeah and (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    My dad is a little thinner.

    About rules that don't apply (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:09:19 PM EST
    to Newt, in The Roolz According to Newt, I just read today a hilarious piece about his career in academe:  

    One year after his hiring as a lowly assistant professor, he applied for the presidency of his campus.

    He must have been the butt of many jokes there for many years, until he finally was turned down for tenure and had to turn to politics -- where he continues to show us that he has learned nothing.  

    He really does think that the rules don't apply to him.  He is about to be the butt of many jokes again.  

    You can't say it's all wrong to be (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:14:47 PM EST
    "a blonded-up, French-horn-playing Agriculture Committee staffer"?  French horns are beautiful.

    French (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    horn playing? Ew, that puts some bad thoughts into my mind that I didn't need. LOL.

    How thoughtful of him! (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:15:47 PM EST
    To ask for Marianne's permission.

    What a guy!

    Bwahaha! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Zorba on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:19:47 PM EST
    Pardon me while I throw up.   ;-)

    The thing (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:18:53 PM EST
    that I'm waiting to see from all this is whether the people in SC are crazy enough to vote for this lunatic and the evangelical infighting that's going to happen. Pass the popcorn~!

    James Dobson (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:31:56 PM EST
    Endorsed Santorum.  And with his Iowa "win", I predict thevrvangelical vote will be split.

    I know (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:43:37 PM EST
    but then there was accusations of ballot stuffing in the meeting in Texas and there were plenty that weren't too happy with Santorum, I'm assuming, because he's Catholic.

    If it was split enough, Romney would be walking away with SC.


    I thought I read that Newt and (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:39:25 PM EST
    Callista had rededicated themselves to the Catholic faith - and I don't recall an outpouring of evangelical affection for Catholicism, so how's that going to factor in to the equation, and support for Newt?

    Newt (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    was a Baptist at one time and so I think that they don't hold it against him because I think they believe that he just did it because his wife wanted him to. I mean do you really think that Newt's a devout catholic?

    And Santorum is an Opus Dei Catholic.

    But like I said, evangelicals have been exposed as a bunch of charlatans.


    I seem to recall reading that Newt (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:57:10 PM EST
    had his marriage to Marianne annulled, which must mean he was married in the Catholic Church, right?  I mean, the Church wouldn't have required an annulment, would it, unless he and Marianne had been married in the Catholic Church?

    Not Catholic myself, so maybe someone who is better-versed can enlighten me.


    I did (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:02:18 PM EST
    read the same thing I thought but maybe the Catholic church has you get all your marriages annulled? He would have had to get his first one annulled too. This to me just shows the craziness of all this annulment stuff. One of my really good friends left the Catholic church over it. They told her that she was going to have to drive 30 miles away for all these classes. She did get married in the Catholic church the first time but the second time she got married in the Lutheran church and they didn't seem to have a problem with recognizing the Lutheran marriage.

    But like you I'm not all that versed in this kind of stuff either.


    Here's a basic primer (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:31:05 PM EST

    #3 may answer your question:

    In simplest terms, if a Catholic wishes to marry in the Church when there has been a previous marriage, then either one of the partners in the earlier union must have died or the Church must have issued a declaration of nullity, an annulment of that previous marriage. Why is this so?

    The Catholic Church views all marriages with respect. It presumes that they are true or valid. Thus, it considers the marriages, for example, of two Protestant, Jewish or even nonbelieving persons to be binding in the eyes of God, unions covered by the words of Christ about divorce. Consequently, it requires a Church annulment process to establish that an essential ingredient in the relationship was missing from the start of the previous marriage.

    And as for the legitimacy of children (since it's been mentioned before):

    5 Does an annulment make the children illegitimate?

    No. The parents, now divorced, presumably once obtained a civil license and entered upon a legal marriage. Children from that union are, therefore, their legitimate offspring. Legitimate means legal. The civil divorce and the Church annulment do not alter this situation. Nor do they change the parents� responsibility toward the children. In fact, during annulment procedures the Church reminds petitioners of their moral obligation to provide for the proper upbringing of their children.

    Were they married in a religious ceremony (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:54:30 PM EST
    Newt & Marianne, that is?  I'm being a bit lazy without turning to my Catechism & other documents, but the issue is whether they had been married initially "in the eyes of God?". (While I've not had reason to keep up with adjustments in the area of annulment, there is a related situation when my husband & I first married...we eloped; and, then married by a priest in order for the marriage to be recognized in the eyes of the Church. )

    It could also have been (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 06:32:42 PM EST
    That he and the first Mrs. G were married in a religious ceremony.

    Ah, yes! (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 06:46:50 PM EST
    About that commitment to the children (none / 0) (#69)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:11:33 PM EST
    let's see if Wife No. 2 gets into Newt's behavior in terms of child support, per the links above.

    That makes me even more angry about Mr. Family Values than does his messing around on his wife.  

    Newt was a deadbeat dad.  

    If he is not out of this race soon, I want that on bumper stickers across this land.  And the links indicate other ways in which he used his children abominably.  No wonder the daughters are doing what they're doing now; it's typical of children who have been used as weapons at a young age.


    Well (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:43:39 PM EST
    of course they're not illegitimate in the eyes of the law but I was thinking that they would not be "legitimate" children in the eyes of the church or something to that effect.

    Nope (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 06:34:09 PM EST
    And even if kids are born out of wedlock, the Church does not "punish" them.

    If neither Newt nor Marianne were (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:28:42 PM EST
    Married as Catholics, there would be no recognized marriage to annul or dissolve.

    Not true (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    See above.

    Wasn't Marianne the "other woman" (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:25:24 PM EST
    when Newt was still married to Wife #1?  

    [See, this is what I don't understand about women who marry men who were married when their affairs started: if he cheated on his wife to be with you, he will cheat on you to be with someone else.  And then, in Newt's case, that makes him think he is such a hot commodity that he openly tries to have the marriage and the affair.  Ugh.  On so many levels.]

    But this isn't really about Marianne; it's about a man who is a serial adulterer who still thinks he deserves a prominent place on the high moral ground from which he can stand in judgment of other people's morals.

    The man just makes my skin crawl.

    Oh, yes. I just followed a few (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:33:53 PM EST
    of Jeralyn's links to refresh my memory.

    Good reading there.  But cover your keyboard first, or get ready to mop it up after the guffaws.

    (I particularly enjoyed some comments from the divorce lawyers, who thought that they had seen it all . . . and then they had to deal with Newt.)


    Yes yes yes Anne! (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    Cheaters get off on cheating, cheaters get off on cheating, and when the relationship gets a little boring...they uh...they need to get off again :)

    I never understood this about some women either.  I remember once an acquaintance wanted me to date this guy and I said that I just couldn't, it didn't matter how cute and how many toys he had.  I said I couldn't date him because he was such a slut and usually changed out girlfriends by being caught cheating.  That led to a long disagreement about whether or not guys can be sluts :)


    once is understandable (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:12:31 PM EST
    to leave two wives for another woman and deceive them is "a knack" or tendency we don't need in the President of the United States.

    Um, because -- as Wife No. 2 (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:04:21 PM EST
    has said, consistently, that she did not know of the affair for six years, until Newt asked for an "open marriage," ending that marriage.  

    (See: links above.)

    This is in answer to your statement that No. 2 stayed with the bum despite knowing that he was carrying on with No. 3, that this indicates No. 2's lack of self-esteem, etc., etc.

    She did lack common sense, of course, as do all women who mess around with men who are messing around but then think that the same men will not mess around.


    Power of denial (none / 0) (#82)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 07:10:07 PM EST
    One never knows what one desperately does not want to know...until there is no way left to continue denying.

    Yes, and you can see why (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:28:16 PM EST
    he is having his daughters from his first marraige refute her. Probably not a lot of love lost there.

    makes perfect sense to me (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:34:22 PM EST
    it's the "but I'm special" mentality.

    This is why (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:32:44 PM EST
    The Gingrich Marriages Mess v the Romney CaymansCash Mess might be a wash. in the matter of the former, there doesn't appear to be any likable actors.

    My brother, who also plays the French horn, (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:46:54 PM EST
    says, I knew there was something wrong with her.

    Check out Wife No.. 3 a dozen years ago (none / 0) (#16)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:50:27 PM EST
    at this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/callista-gingrich-beauty-evolution_n_1161421.html#s561765&a mp;title=November_2000  

    (Sorry, linkies not working again on TL today, so check it fast, before this is deleted.)

    Yikes, the marvels of modern makeup.


    Oh, yes (none / 0) (#61)
    by Zorba on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:33:49 PM EST
    She got blonder and more plastic-looking as the years went by.  I continue to be amazed at women who undergo plastic surgery, only to wind up looking like startled, frightened deer with no human expression in their faces.  Do some men really find this attractive?  Since I'm a woman, I can't answer for men, but they look totally artificial to me.  (And, by the way, ladies, you're not fooling anyone about your age.  You look fake and more than a bit desperate.  Maybe your husbands think it looks great, but most women I know, and men with maturity and intelligence, are not fooled.)  

    Definitely presidential material here (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    I say pre-emptive impeachment is the best way to go....

    I find it funny... (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    that Newt thinks Bain-Capitalism doesn't serve us well and that he doesn't believe in marriage...we have more in common than I ever imagined!

    But silly Newt, when you don't believe in marriage...umm...you're not supposed to get married!  Not cool to lead a lady on and deceive dude;)

    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:10:52 PM EST
    Gingrich was clamoring for Bill Clinton's ouster due to Monica Lewinsky

    meanwhile he was an adulterer himself

    a question arose a couple of days ago, in another thread, about why, or even whether, the GOP was on the hunt for Bill Clinton in the 1990s

    yes, they were

    & this core dump from Marianne Gingrich confirms that it was not about Teh Sex In Teh Oval Office OMG

    Wasn't just Gingrich dallying with women (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:31:37 PM EST
    who were not his wife. Remember Robert Livingston (R-LA), the guy who was initially chosen to replace Newt as Speaker after the Callista story broke in the middle of the Lewinsky stuff?

    Livingston resigned from Congress shortly after Newt, and before taking over as Speaker. Why, you ask? Because he, too, was an adulterer, something we learned thanks to Larry Flynt's campaign to expose hypocritical cheaters in Congress.

    So, just to review, Gingrich out because of adultery; Livingston out because of adultery; impeachment proceeds because hypocrisy reigns.


    i do remember all of that (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:58:15 PM EST
    the tearful Robert Livingston resignation was a moment of high farce that was particularly sublime

    & the "impeachment managers" proceeded with the impeachment because hypocrisy reigned but also, & mostly, because it has been a feature, not a bug, of GOP politics since 1992 to delegitimize &, if possible, unseat any democratically elected Democratic president

    Bill Clinton impeached

    Al Gore prevented from assuming the office to which he had been elected

    Obama's very citizenship impugned

    an unbroken string of attempted right-wing coups -- failed, successful, & in rolling progress, respectively -- for the last 20 years


    Oh, oh...what about the "youthful" (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 06:37:29 PM EST
    indiscretions of the Repub leader Henry Hyde? As he said, he was only 41 (mmm) when he strayed from his wife. That was revealed during the impeachment process against the Democratic President Clinton.

    My favorite D.C. sex scandal remains Wilbur (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 06:54:16 PM EST
    Mills and Fanne Fox and the Tidal Basin back in  1974.

    When a scandal involves someone known as "The Argentine Firecracker", well, that sets a very high bar as far as sex scandals go.

    Newt, well, Newt's just another run-of-the-mill serial adulterer, suffering from delusions of grandeur.

    And I just have to say, power really must be an aphrodisiac because there is nothing sexually appealing about Newt. Okay, as a lesbian I may not be up on all the things straight women find sexy, but, still, Newt? Really? C'mon, ladies, really?


    I do believe (none / 0) (#85)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 07:35:15 PM EST
    Governor Sanford partook in some Argentine fireworks too.

    Wilbur wasn't all that appealing either (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 07:38:49 PM EST
    I know. WTF? (none / 0) (#92)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:17:51 PM EST
    Mills was an old drunken coot. Still, a stripper in the Tidal Basin tops a staffer in a limo any day.

    Especially if there is photographic (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:23:33 AM EST
    evidence. See also Gary Hart and John Edwards.

    IOKIYAR. Rinse and repeat. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    Oh, and "power of redemption," blah, blah.

    Bob & Carol & Newt & Alice (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    Oh the horrah!

    6 years (none / 0) (#13)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:35:52 PM EST
    sure is a long time to be overwhelmed.

    He must have missed the warnings (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:08:48 PM EST
    to call his physician, if it continues for more than four hours.

    Comment of the day (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:20:30 PM EST
    Too good! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by star on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    Nothing like a good laugh in the middle of the day :)

    HA! (none / 0) (#104)
    by lilburro on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 02:40:56 PM EST
    What is new here? (none / 0) (#21)
    by star on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:04:31 PM EST
    It is already news that Newt is a serial adulterer and a hypocrite for kicking up storm about Clinton, while he was carrying on his $hit on the side. What is the purpose of wife #2 doing this interview now? why the smugness on the interviewers face?

    Anyone who has decided to vote for Newt already know all this(Thankfully there arent be too many). I really do not think this is a big deal. I choose to ignore the whole thing, and have many other REAL issues to dislike Newt other than his personal failings..
    I admire Bill Clinton, still does, knowing full well his personal failings and mistakes. He was a heck of a president and that is all that matters to the country. A persons personal laundry need not be gleefully aired publicly and picked apart . I hated it when Republicans did it to Clinton and I definitely have no interest to read, hear or watch this interview.It should be irrelevant. His policy positions on the other hand should be picked apart one premise at a time and laid bare to public to see how cringe worthy they are by themselves.  

    think of it as (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    a refresher course.

    This will be new to some Newt fans (none / 0) (#24)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:10:58 PM EST
    who don't do the research, so it needs to be repeated.

    Parallel example:  The Sandusky scandal at Penn State of late, although all had been reported in a local newspaper expose many months before.  But it had not gotten widespread notice then, so it still was news to many of us elsewhere in the nation.


    And if and when media get around (none / 0) (#29)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:20:24 PM EST
    to Wife No. 3 (meaning when Newt's opponents deem it time to leak their oppo research), it could be news.  I've done a quick bit of online research into Callista's clan, back in the land from which she comes, where they cling to their guns and religion and knitting.  And other things. . . .

    Speaking for (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:01:43 PM EST
    myself I find it interesting how the evangelicals have been serial moralizers against the behavior that Newt has exhibited and now some are embracing. It exposes them for a bunch of people who really are soulless.

    Forget it, Jake -- it's South Carolina... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Addison on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:13:57 PM EST
    People already know about the affair and Gingrich has a surprisingly strong "redemption" based narrative to mitigate the problem.

    For whatever reason the "open marriage" thing softens and confuses the storyline for me. Hey, at least Newt tried!

    I don't know how SC will take it. I think it'll blunt Newt's momentum and cost him 5-6 points and the win (Romney by 2-3). But who knows. SC has been weird so far.

    what makes you sure... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Lil on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    he has no chance to become president? I have little confidence in the voters these days. That's what worries me, one of these narcissistic clowns could actually become President. The field is pathetic but scary to think one of them might pull it off.

    Wow, She Confimed What Everyone Knew (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    Newt is a scumbag, not exactly a revelation.

    Speaking of Hypocrisy.
    If only Newt had been perjured himself, then the innuendos, assumptions, ancient accusations form a jilted ex, and all the other garbage in the post would be prohibited throughout this thread.

    But since it's someone the author dislikes, and he's not actually accused of breaking a law, those same standards do not apply.

    Apparently innocent until proven guilt is some abstract idea only afforded to people accused in a court of law.  In public opinion, a bitter ex-wife with an axe to grind might as well be a smoking gun.

    Which is fine, it's your website, but to me at least, principles are aren't something we use when it suites our needs, either you think people should be afforded the benefit of doubt or you don't, the accusation is irrelevant to the principle IMO.

    And for the record, I don't care about piling on Newt, he's scummy from head to toe and had earned pretty much every comment posted.  But it has always bothered me how this principle, that is so important violating it is outlawed here.  Yet it simply doesn't apply to others accused of bad, but not illegal, deeds.  

    Which to me is similar to having an affair while going after someone for having an affair, but validating the hypocrisy/distinction using some abstract legal principle.  Because Newt didn't think those principles applied outside the courtroom/Congress.

    Of course the intention and the damage is about as different as you get.  I am certainly not in any way comparing the author to the Newt.  I really like the author and the site.

    Just using the example to illustrate why this varying application of important principles doesn't sit right with me.  You are above this tabloid non-sense IMO.

    See Jeralyn's comment, #25 (n/t) (none / 0) (#67)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:07:15 PM EST
    Actually, ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:26:33 PM EST
    Apparently innocent until proven guilt is some abstract idea only afforded to people accused in a court of law.

    ... yeah - that's pretty much correct.

    As a general rule, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" (aka presumption of innocence) is a legal instrument that helps balance the power in a criminal trial.  In a non-trial setting where the accused is not facing loss of freedom and the power of the state is not being used against him/her, the principle doesn't exist.  It sounds like you think it should, but when two people present conflicting stories (as in Gingrich's case), others weigh their credibility along with any other "evidence" and make judgments about which one is more credible.

    Happens every day.


    this has nothing to do with courts or crime (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:42:14 AM EST
    I've linked to his statements, there's nothing in dispute except whether he asked her for an open marriage. There are news reports saying he has said in the past she knew about the affair and they had "an agreement of sorts."

    There is very little he hasn't admitted. The issue is one of hypocrisy, sliminess, and lack of character. I don't think courts address that but voters do.


    I wonder if we will not see (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:52:05 PM EST
    a Calista or perhaps joint high profile interview not unlike the one the Clintons did during the primary firestorm.

    Probably (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:54:14 PM EST
    and it would be rich because they went on and on about that interview.

    Hey, whatever happened to their refrain if his wife can't trust him how can you?


    me also (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:28:47 PM EST
    I don't (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:32:05 PM EST
    want to hear anything about Newt and Calista "boinking".

    My eyes! My eyes! (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:42:31 PM EST
    The burning!

    Well, it seems just fine from the perspective of (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 06:42:53 PM EST
    Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of D.C., who personally baptized Gingrich in 2009 and has given his backing to Newt by noting that the Catholic Church is a Church of Forgiveness.

    And, Newt being the great historian (at least AIG thinks so), he can invoke that, particularly European practice of prominent Catholics (there being no divorce) of having a mistress.  For example, Madame de Pompadour (the namesake of Reagan's hair style) was the chief mistress of Louis XV, and in more modern times, Anne Pingeot, mistress of Francois Mitterand.

    Indeed, when French President Mitterand died both his wife, Madame Danielle Mitterand and Madame Pingeot mourned in  widow weeds, side-by-side, at the Notre Dame funeral mass.  Perhaps, Newt could use this history in his defense in South Carolina--that should close the deal for him.


    Ah, (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 06:30:56 PM EST
    If only my great aunts (the nuns) were alive!

    he didn't convert to (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:02:55 AM EST
    Catholicism  until 2009. He filed for divorce in 1998 and married Calista in 2000. She is Catholic. He was Southern Baptist.

    He filed for an annulment of his marriage to Marianne in 2002- alleging she was previously married.


    Well (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:49:15 PM EST
    this was breathlessly played up here on the local news and they were yammering about this interview being "The October Surprise". They lead with the open marriage stuff.

    John King does Newt a huge favor (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 07:17:46 PM EST
    by opening with the Mary Ann question.  IMO - from a republican point of view - Newt knocked it right out of the park and not only neutered any possible similar attack from anyone on the stage but put them in the position of having to defend him or look like a fool.

    now waiting for the Romney off shore money question.

    I would say (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 07:51:52 PM EST
    based on the audience reaction to that question and Newts response to it I may have to agree with Palin (wow) that this whole thing may backfire and at the very least not hurt him at all and possibly actually help him.

    if there is anything the republican base hates as much as democrats its the liberal media.  and that is exactly where Newt put it in responding.  and the audience ate it up.


    re taxes (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:00:52 PM EST
    Newts go on line while the debate is happening and the second question from the audience is about tax returns.

    Mitt Romney wasns't assessed (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:20:23 AM EST
    $300,000 by the House Ethics Committee following an ethics probe while holding public office. Here's what Newt said at the time about how he and Marianne would pay the assessment:

    I don't know of any husband or wife in the country that would voluntarily, you know, want to say, Oh, please, let me write out a check,' unless it was for the narrowest of political purposes. Maybe if you're a multimillionaire. You know, maybe if you're Teddy Kennedy or Jay Rockefeller, you say, Well, I'll do something flamboyant,' or--you know. But I think the quest--the test I have to meet is what's the right thing to do? What's the right way to do it? What sets the right precedent? And that's what we're looking at. All I can assure people is that the reimbursement, which I agreed to--which I think is a good precedent--will be paid in full and the taxpayers will receive all the money agreed to under the reimbursement and are at no risk, that we will take care of it.

    Source: House Speaker Newt Gingrich Talks about His Comeback as Speaker; His Ethics Fine; Republican Party; Janet Reno; Flat Tax; Fund-raising Scandal Fox News Sunday April 13, 1997.


    Yes, and Gingrich was offered a (none / 0) (#102)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:58:27 AM EST
    loan by Bob Dole (newly enriched by his Viagra commercials starting in late 1998) to pay his $300,000 fine.  Gingrich was going to accept the loan, at least for $150,000, but the ethics committee balked, wanting interest from Gingrich and expressed conflict of interest concerns for Dole's role in his new law firm.  Gingrich's GOP colleagues also insisted that he pay the fine himself, and Gingrich finally did, in three equal payments, jettisoning his earlier attempts at forming a "defense committee" or using campaign funds.

    For someone who "wanted no part" ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:47:45 PM EST
    ... of the impeachment of Clinton, Gingrich wasn't exactly a bystander.

    Even so, Gingrich was hardly a bystander to the process. "[T]here is no denying that Gingrich is keeping an extraordinarily tight reign" on the House's proceedings, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in April 1998. Gingrich often negotiated directly with top White House aides, and it was Gingrich who personally rejected a September 1998 offer for Clinton to make a plea-bargain deal that would head off the spectacle of public impeachment proceedings.

    Indeed, at times Newt seemed to be enjoying Clinton's scandal thoroughly. "I will never again, as long as I am Speaker, make a speech without commenting on this topic," he proclaimed that April. He didn't wind up making good on that promise, mostly avoiding the public bluster of fervent Clinton-haters like DeLay. But Gingrich did press impeachment as a political issue at a critical--and in hindsight disastrous--moment. On the eve of the 1998 midterm elections, Gingrich ordered a round of harsh television ads on the scandal, in which distressed suburban moms asked one another, "What did you tell your kids?"

    Loveed's comment (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:06:55 AM EST
    deleted for an unsubstantiated allegation of infidelity with wife #3. Please stick to facts or supply credible links. I think the event Loveed was referring to occurred during tenure of wife #1, and was widely publicized.

    Nonsense. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 10:48:40 PM EST
    Newt enjoyed it.  I remember.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 01:10:53 AM EST
    CNBC News transcript November 23, 1999:

    Mr. NEWT GINGRICH (Former Speaker of the House): (From April 27, 1998) My sister-in-law who's an elementary school teacher and my brother drove down with their two children, Kevin and Lauren, to my daughter's wedding in January right after the scandal broke with Monica Lewinsky. And my sister-in-law said to me that she was ashamed of the radio news because she didn't know how to explain to her two children exactly what it was talking about. And I will never again, as long as I am speaker, make a speech without commenting on this topic.