Newt Gingrich brought the audience to its feet with his comeback to CNN’s John King in the last of the South Carolina debates. Francis Beckwith thinks that Gingrich should have said something a bit different:
The Speaker is, of course, correct that “every person in here knows personal pain.” No one doubts that. But, in this case, the personal pain suffered by his ex-wife was inflicted by Gingrich. For this reason, the appropriate response for the Speaker should have been something like this, “Every person in here knows personal pain, just like the pain suffered by my ex-wife. And, I am ashamed to admit that I am the one who caused this pain. So, I don’t at all disparage her for what she has said about me. That’s the man I was: self-absorbed, uncaring, thinking myself as someone above the moral law. My conversion to Catholicism, and the absolution I received for my sins, was the first step on my way to becoming the man I ought to be.”
I would have been impressed by that answer, as opposed to the perhaps scripted indignation the former Speaker expressed. As Beckwith points out, the indignation is mostly about him and his ambition to be President. Thoughtful observers, who don’t just enjoy seeing someone turn the tables on the media (however richly they deserve it), would do well to ponder Beckwith’s post.
January 26th, 2012 | 4:36 pm
Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife then married his mistress. JFK cheated on his wife and didn’t marry any of his (numerous) mistresses. The Sacrament of Baptism does not reliably prevent adultery. (Or bunga bunga, as the case of Silvio Berlusconi demonstrates.)
There are hundreds of reasons I would never vote for Newt Gingrich, but the fact that his wife is a “home-wrecker” is not one of them.
January 26th, 2012 | 5:17 pm
I agree with Francis Beckwith, and furthermore, I think the response Gingrich gave to the question amounted to a lie, or something close to it. Carefully crafted answers to obfuscate, play on emotions, distract attention, and so on, are not the truth. So much of what candidates like this say is transparently false, or calculated to deceive. I never thought I would see conservative Christians (presumably) give a man a standing ovation because he gave a defiant answer to evade a question about asking his second wife if he could have an open marriage to carry on an affair with his mistress.
January 26th, 2012 | 5:37 pm
Many people see that fundamental changes in policy must be made for the sake of the common good. They realize the establishment has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Romney is the establishment candidate. He represents the few who are the beneficiaries of a situation that has become harmful, not beneficial, to the many.
Gingrich or Santorum, many believe, are actually willing to make necessary, fundamental changes for the sake of the common good. Thinking people are prepared to support candidates who are willing to do that, regardless of the shameful way some candidates’ pasts, in terms of the most personal matters, are paraded before the public – and this is done as though there is only one side to the story — that of the establishment. These character assassinations will probably be more harmful to more people than any of the alleged personal sins of non-establishment backed Republican candidates; they end in the preservation of the status quo – as they are fully intended to do.
January 26th, 2012 | 6:17 pm
There are arguments to be made about what Gingrich did in the past and whether those things are relevant to his character today.
IMO it’s more relevant that he apparently lied in that interchange with John King. His campaign did not give ABC a bunch of witnesses to counter the charges of his ex wife.
Google “newt lied to ABC” and you’ll find plenty of stories on it.
January 26th, 2012 | 7:12 pm
Fair point. Another fair point is thoughtful observers are also pondering:
CARLSON: Mr. Romney, what does Nancy Pelosi know if it would be such a bombshell as to why Newt Gingrich couldn’t be president?
ROMNEY: I wish I knew what that was [laughter]. I’d tell people what it is right now.
The most condemning aspect of Romney’s response is his laughter.
January 26th, 2012 | 11:12 pm
Actually Gingrich brought the audience to their feet with lies. He claimed his ex-wife had lied. He claimed he had friends who could prove her story was untrue and the media had no interest in talking to them. Now the campaign has quietly admitted that no such ‘friends’ exist. The wife’s story was supposedly going to be refuted by Gingrich’s daughters….which is pretty disgraceful. Either the man kept his daughter’s deep in the loop about his sex life with his wife, in which case he is a perverted freak. Or the man wanted to pimp his daughters out to the news media to defend his cheating on their mother (or was it stepmother), which is disgraceful.
As to the hypothetical speech he should have made….
That’s the man I was: self-absorbed, uncaring, thinking myself as someone above the moral law.
Naaaa, the man he was was an innocent victim of horrible stress caused by saving the country from Democrats. Clearly not only was the affair perfectly understandable, it was positively saintly. In fact, why not start the cannonization process right now…no need to wait until death in this exceptional case!
The question to ask is not what his speech should have been, but why wasn’t that speech the one he gave? The answer is pretty clear, he is not a man who has changed anything. He does not consider himself bound by any moral law. All of this is just random ‘pain’ that lesser people like his ex-wife suffers for inexplicable reasons whose cause simply cannot be grasped.
My conversion to Catholicism,…
Yea since you mentioned it how exactly does one convert to Catholicism with two previous living wives? Last I checked, I thought the Catholic Church more or less insisted on recognizing even marriages that were not performed in a Catholic Church. How does one pull of such a conversion without being in a state of persistent mortal sin on account of his present marriage?
January 27th, 2012 | 7:11 am
Crowhill
IMO it’s more relevant that he apparently lied in that interchange with John King. His campaign did not give ABC a bunch of witnesses to counter the charges of his ex wife.
Indeed, this IMO is an example of how the media isn’t aggressive enough. How exactly would a witness counter the charge his ex-wife made that he asked her for an open marriage? Did he record every conversation he had with his wife the way Nixon recorded everything that happened in the WH? Did he refuse to be alone with his wife unless he had his lawyer or some other witness present? If not all a ‘witness’ could say is that he didn’t see Gingrich ask his wife for an open marriage while he was around.
a First Lady who was a home wrecker and was once the President’s mistress
Well to be fair, the wife that is now an ex-wife was herself a homewrecker. Recall Newt visited his first wife in the hospital as she was being treated for cancer to announce he had found another woman and was going to leave her. This was that woman so I’m sure before people begin feeling too much sympathy for her they should recall that adage about living by the sword, dying by the sword.
January 27th, 2012 | 12:42 pm
I am a Christian and a conservative. Nevertheless, if Romney is nominated, I will gladly vote for him over President Obama.
I will not vote for Gingrich. Not even to defeat Obama. Period.
January 27th, 2012 | 1:42 pm
“I will not vote for Gingrich. Not even to defeat Obama. Period.”
Well said. I also agree with what Craig Payne says about Mitt Romney, on the assumption that Romney will at least SAY the right things about wealth inequality, and thus later be subject to being pressured on the issue if he want to be reelected.
January 27th, 2012 | 5:17 pm
@Boonton. To the extent anyone is interested, I believe the reason that Newt could convert as a party to a third marriage is that (1) by the time of his marriage to the third wife, the first wife had passed away – meaning that there was no impediment vis a vis a presumptively valid first marriage and (2) since the first wife was still living at the time he married the second wife, that second marriage was never a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church at all. Therefore, at the time of the third marriage, vis a vis the Church, he was a widower who had recently ended a long period of living in sin with a mistress, and therefore eligible to enter into a new vaild marriage (the second one, as far as the Church is concerned). I say this not to defend Newt’s conduct, but to defend the Church against any charge of hypocracy.
And in defense of the second wife, I believe that I have heard that Newt while Newt did take up with her before the divorce from the first wife was final, Newt and the second wife did not meet until after he and the first wife had separated. Therefore, without commenting on any other aspect of her character (on which I have no opinion) I believe she is not technically a “homewrecker”.
January 27th, 2012 | 6:30 pm
The first Mrs. Gingrich (Jackie) is still alive. She never had cancer. She asked Newt for a divorce and left him, not vice-versa.
They were separated when she had a benign tumor removed. He took his children to visit her in the hospital. He did not ask for a divorce while there.
I had heard and believed this story. I do not like Newt Gingrich, but this falsehood is odious.
January 27th, 2012 | 7:04 pm
@Erin Harkiewicz
Mr. Gingrich’s first wife is still alive.
January 28th, 2012 | 11:00 am
The first Mrs. Gingrich (Jackie) is still alive. She never had cancer. She asked Newt for a divorce and left him, not vice-versa.
Not according to court documents:
Carrollton, Georgia (CNN) — Newt Gingrich claims that it was his first wife, not Gingrich himself, who wanted their divorce in 1980, but court documents obtained by CNN appear to show otherwise. . . .
January 28th, 2012 | 4:49 pm
It’s a he-said she-said thing, then, as far as who asked for the divorce first. It ‘s the hospital story that is so repulsive.
However, their daughter says her parents separated well before her mother was hospitalized, that Newt and Jackie sat the kids down at home and told them they were separating. The daughter says despite the court document, her mother asked for the divorce. According to the daughter—who was there, in the hospital room—Gingrich did not discuss divorce with his wife during that hospital visit (on her “death bed”, as it is often described).
She did not have cancer. She is not dead.
I really do not like Gingrich, but this story is obnoxious.
January 28th, 2012 | 9:28 pm
Erin,
Thanks for providing a theoretical way that Gingrich might have managed to pull off a legitimate conversion while having multiple marriages……
Peg
It’s a he-said she-said thing, then, as far as who asked for the divorce first. It ‘s the hospital story that is so repulsive.
Well two things:
1. Men, by natural instinct, lie about sex…esp. when their sexual habits make them look bad in the company of women.
2. I think at this point we can conclude Newt has totally lied about his 2nd wife’s divorce. There was no ‘witness’ when he told his wife about his ongoing affair and he almost certainly did request something like an ‘open marriage’. A divorce and remarriage would have raised quite a few eyebrows for a man pushing to impeach Clinton over the same thing.
Let me also toss in a bonus 3rd thing:
3. The girl was 13 at the time. Even if they didn’t tell her, I would guess her parents would have almost certainly had had discussions about divorce before have ‘the conversation’ with their daughters.
3.1 If the mother asked for the divorce, then why did she petition the court not to grant one but instead to ask for an attempt at reconciliation? Why do friends assert she was against a divorce? (see http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html)
3.11 The hospital story also appeas somewhat true. She claims Gingrich did visit her in the hospital after recovering from surgery and discussed divorce terms with her. Given the fact that she didn’t want a divorce and given the way he shafted her on support after they separated, the intent was almost certainly to ‘blindside’ her when she was recovering. Yes she didn’t have cancer but removing a ‘benign tumor’ is something that’s pretty nerve racking, especially considering that you can’t really be sure that you don’t have cancer until after the tumor is removed and examined!
On a larger note here, I think Gingrich is a sociopath. Does any of this sound familiar?
http://depressiond.org/sociopath-sociopathic-personality-disorder/
IMO the man accuses his wife(s) of lying because in his mind they really are. He lives in a world that is really ordered for his own glorification. What really happened in the hospital room or when he broke the news of his affair to wife #2 is irrelevant. All that should happen is whatever works best for Newt. so he almost certainly did ask his wife for an open marriage and, years later, declare that it was a malicious lie made up by his wife because of ‘pain’. Granted he hasn’t gone go jail yet and as far as we know he has no drug or alcohol problems, but the man is IMO a real sociopath and no not in the way that ‘all politicians’ maybe are, this is the real thing.
January 29th, 2012 | 1:17 pm
And let me just add again I think it’s pretty classless to have your daughters running defense for your sex life. Even though they are adults now it’s not proper for a father to ask them to align in public against their mother or step mother. Even if they are willing and desire to do it, a man should tell them no, he will address the issue himself.
January 30th, 2012 | 8:08 pm
Boonton: per the last comment, EXACTLY. All this stuff about “they’re adults” ignores the issue that only a cad would accept the help of his children in explaining away the betrayal of their mother, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of whether they’re mature enough to decide they want to do it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact