January 20, 2012, - 2:05 pm

The Sanford Exes & Newt Gingrich’s Cheating – Remember the Deleted “Faithful” Wedding Vow

By Debbie Schlussel

I couldn’t care less what Jenny Sanford or anyone else thinks of Newt Gingrich and the nothing interview, last night, of Marianne Gingrich on ABC News “Nightline,” etc.  But it’s all over the news.  Why?  We all know Newt cheated.  It’s old news.  And I didn’t see anything new on the ABC interview last night, other than discovering that Marianne Gingrich is not good at fake-laughing.  If you didn’t like Newt for the three-wife thing a year ago, you probably don’t like him now.  If you liked him, despite that, last night’s interview shouldn’t have made a difference.  Nor should the ex-wife of an ex-governor’s opinion.  My problems with Gingrich (and Romney) are related to other issues I’ve detailed ad nauseam on this site.  But the former Mrs. Sanford isn’t exactly somebody who should be talking about cheating and whether or not it should affect the vote.  Remember, this woman admitted that she agreed to marry  Mark Sanford despite the fact that he demanded removing the agreement to remain “faithful” from the wedding vows (to which she acquiesced).

If you marry someone after that, you’ve given them license to cheat and you know that’s gonna happen.  Only a moron agrees to that, then is shocked–shocked!–that hubby cheated. With Marianne Gingrich, she kinda knew this would happen, as Gingrich cheated with her on wife #1.


But, what I’m waiting for, is the FOX News Mark Sanford interview on this topic.  As  you’ll recall, I wrote about how ridiculous it was that FOX News recently hired Sanford–a failed, disgraced politician–to be a commentator on the 2012 Presidential race.  But the one thing I’d be interested in seeing FOX News ask Sanford about hasn’t aired:  an interview with him about his failed Presidential hopes because of cheating versus Gingrich’s soaring prospects despite similar cheating.  So, Roger Ailes, where is that interview?  It’s the one thing Sanford might be useful to comment about. And I don’t really care what he thinks, either.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , ,

14 Responses

Deb,

A lot of married couples have threesomes. Him, her, and the remote control for the tv.

I want to know what the candidates will do to bring capitalism back to the United States, and to shrink government and the debt. What are their policies on oil drilling? Who will they appoint to the courts?

Jonathan E. Grant on January 20, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    A lot of married couples have threesomes. Him, her, and the remote control for the tv.

    Funniest thing I’ve seen in a comment section in a while. LOL!!! :D

    Pat in Michigan on January 22, 2012 at 9:36 am

Agreed! I was not shocked when I heard that Gingrich had cheated on his wife #2 years ago and I did not even care since he cheated on wife #1 with HER. I don’t like relationship poachers and I enjoy when they lose ‘em how they got ‘em.

I have never liked Newt. I don’t like his personality and the ONLY thing I like about him is how he debates and in retrospect, his policies and ideas (since when I first hated him (following the leader-style) I was Liberal) that are rock-ribbed Conservative. I’ve already judged him on his lack of character. Plus, I do not think Miss Calista has it easy with her husband. She got what she wanted. I’d have NEVER wanted it.

I love when DS takes it to Sanford, and quite rightly. he makes my skin crawl. I noticed he hasn’t married the Argentinian lass yet. He’s a boring piece of crap.

Skunky on January 20, 2012 at 5:16 pm

It is amazing that the media kicks up such a fuss over this when they essentially gave Bill Clinton a pass in the 90’s over his serial infidelity and abusive conduct towards women. If Bill Clinton’s conduct was a yawn worthy for our media back then, why is Newt Gingrich’s marital infidelity of critical importance to them now? Bill Clinton innoculated most politicians, with the curious exception of Herman Cain, from the more mundane infidelity we have seen. Mark Sanford got nailed because his Latin American tryst actually did interfere since he skipped town without informing anyone of his actual whereabouts.

Worry01 on January 20, 2012 at 8:55 pm

I agree w/ Worry01 – after the pass the media gave BJ Clinton, marital fidelity of any candidate should be the last thing on their coverage. Except in cases where the candidates in question are stupid enough to discuss family values a la Sarah Palin, in which case they get what they deserve.

Honestly, I want to know a candidates positions on the following topics, in decreasing order:

1. Combatting Islam – both home & abroad
2. Energy policy (I want Thorium based nuclear to be a central focus of new policies, backed up by solar and coal, as well as major research into petroleum alternatives that dry up the cash flow of Islamic Oil)
3. Taxes & the economy
4. Reduction of government intrusiveness & regulation

#2 is closely tied to both #1 & #3. Any candidate who is good on the first 3 automatically has my support, even if s/he happens to be in an open marriage and has harems in 22 cities around the world. (Only that s/he cannot be Muslim – that’s an instant disqualifier). Yeah, I’d prefer someone who’s true to his marriage, but if that someone is someone like Obama, give me the open spouse who’s good on the issues anyday.

Infidel on January 21, 2012 at 2:17 am

    I don’t think the media gave Clinton a pass. If so, why was it in the news 24/7? Why didn’t the media do its job and talk about the hypocrisy of Gingrich, (and others of the time), leading the charge against him, while his infidelities continued and were real relationships, not quickie BJ’s in a small office? While I believe any type of infidelity is wrong, we all know it goes on in everyday life all the time, and it resonates through our politicians all the time. To me, what true infidelity is, is when you share your hopes and dreams and aspirations and deepest feelings with someone, while pretending to your legal spouse that you are “faithful” to that spouse. If you can fool one person on such a small scale, imagine how you can fool millions? Additionally, as to Infidel’s point #4 above, how about that government intrusiveness? Let’s keep the government out of our bedrooms and places of assignation. If you believe the government belongs there, a la Ken Starr (yes, I understand about the whole lying thing, but what man wouldn’t under the circumstances, particularly Newt if put in that position?) then Newt should be railed against. If you are against it, then you owe Clinton an apology for what you put his family through. If you are for it, you should label Callista a scarlet woman and Newt a scoundrel of the first order. Would you believe, however, that I think Newt is brilliant? It’s just that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Jackie53 on January 21, 2012 at 11:30 am

      Jackie, what are you talking about? Clinton was taken to task because he was in office and the women were coming out of the woodwork. His horrible wife even denied charges on ALL scandals and said there was a “vast right wing conspiracy”. YEAH RIGHT.

      Sorry, the right wing is NOT like the Left. The Left are street fighters. The Right are trebling cowards!

      Some people on here don’t care but most of us DO. I voted for that moron Clinton the first time. I WAS a feminist when his womanizing scandals came out. UNLIKE N.O.W. I decided NOT to be a hypocrite and call him on it. Next election I voted for PEROT (but if I were politically savvy at the time, I would have voted for NEITHER). I dislike Newt because of his character issues and I disliked him at the time he was in power (but really didn’t know why POLITICALLY) and when I found out he was actually cheating too, I thought it was disgusting.

      So put me in the column that DOES try to stay consistent. Character, values and morals MATTER. Unfortunately, at this time we are at a dangerous tipping point and it’s time for some uber-strategic and critical thinking.

      And Clinton is still tom-catting around and you never hear press on that. Don’t even get me started on the cover up of the Edwards affair. I literally waited DAILY for the dam to break on that one and it never did until way AFTER the election.

      You’re on the WRONG track if you cannot see the double-standard. WAY off track. Especially if you think what happened to Clinton was terrible. I thought Ken Starr (at the time) was doing his JOB. I never disliked Ken Starr at the time because I knew the real pig was Clinton.

      Skunky on January 21, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    Here’s what Newt had to say about Islam:
    Ban Sharia
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMvQ95ftvYI

    No Ground Zero Mosque
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmtk30-sTaY

    ari-free on January 22, 2012 at 1:54 pm

Great idea–vetting the “journalists” & commentators by closely examining THEIR sexual morality, political connections, and economic activities.

Makes sense.

Are they objective enough or in a position to comment/examine/judge others? Turn the table on them.

Then maybe they’ll stick to the REAL issues affecting us all–the ones we really care about discussing. They’ll turn somersaults if it means keeping the spotlight off obama’s dismal record and what he’s doing to destroy our country.

Aurora on January 21, 2012 at 9:30 am

We all know that the MSM is hypocritical and is biased. Why didn’t we hear Hillary Clinton asked the question, when was the first time you knew your husband cheated on you? I remember when she accused the “vast right-wing conspiracy” of causing the Monica Lewinsky imbroglio. Why wasn’t she asked, well why are you surprised about Ms. Lewinsky when you heard the Gennifer Flowers tape in 1992? I don’t like Gingrich and don’t trust him but I am glad that he gave it back to King in the recent debate.

Concerned Citizen on January 21, 2012 at 11:35 am

I too enjoy Newt’s rhetorical skills but, his past character issues are blocking any credible positions he may profess to have. He’s also been Jekyll-Hyde on ‘progressive’ policies & that again goes to character. I like Santorum, Romney, much less so. Political pragmatism has tarnished most of these guys.

Including the long-shot, somewhat whacked Ron Paul, any would still be better than Obama.

P. Aaron on January 21, 2012 at 7:00 pm

I am incredibly disappointed in Newt Gingrich and here is why:

When I was young (I was just out of college) and still believed in the Republican Party, my Dad & I were very active in the local Republican Party. I happened to live in Newt’s district and worked very hard in 2 elections to get him elected. I have shaken the man’s hand, looked him in the eye, and had multiple conversations with him (this was 20+ years ago). One of the Pros for Newt is that the man is brilliant–that is totally evident. The second thing is that he totally got “it” and knew why the American people were upset and discussed (with historical parallels) what would happen if things didn’t change (this was early 90s when we spoke).

He then came out with the “Contract for America” and I truly believe that if they could have delivered on that, this country would be a much better place today.

BUT…….Newt failed us and himself. He could have gone down as one of the greatest leaders ever (and he idolizes Churchill) and eventually gotten to be President, but Washington changed and ruined him. He went from being a brilliant college professor who got “it” to a Washington insider who loved the power, intrigue, money, and yes women that just LOVE powerful men.

jimmyPx on January 22, 2012 at 8:52 am

My mother taught me long ago that the only good thing about dating a married man is that you know from the start that he is a liar and a cheat and you won’t be surprised when you find out later how much he lied to and cheated on you. Of course, I believe that if a man cannot be honest and true in what should be his most intimate relationship with one person, what could POSSIBLY make you think he would be honest and true in a relationship with the entire country? I guess we can make the argument that Newt (and Clinton and Ted Kennedy, et al) is a politician, which makes him suspect from the start and likely a PROFESSIONAL liar, but then I look at a guy like Paul Ryan, who seems to be honest, reasonable, smart and a happily married man and am sad that he is the exception to the politician rule. Oh how I wish he was running for President! I am very sad that another election cycle will come and go with me having to hold my nose to vote for the Republican just so we can evict another horrible Democrat.

DG in GA on January 22, 2012 at 10:19 am

Yes, I would love to vote for someone who has it all – morals, integrity, honesty, a great intellect, a great marriage, etc. But, the world is not perfect. Does not mean we should all stop trying. But, for now, please, let’s get the republican elected. (Remember, BO is married, but only G-d knows what really goes on there.)

me

me on January 22, 2012 at 9:48 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field