Here We Go Again: Ex-Staffer Comes Forward Saying She Had Sex With Newt Gingrich

[Cecilie1200]

Not really. He didn't bring a yellow legal pad, but he did go and talk to her about a divorce. She had earlier had cancer, and was in the hospital for the removal of a benign growth.

He also left his second wife after she got MS.

You try again.

So basically, it happened . . . except that it didn't happen.

Got it.

Basically, there are some details in the cartoon that are wrong. But Newt's wife did have cancer, and being a rational person, I understand that after cancer, removal of a growth is a major health scare, but in spite of that, Newt talked to his wife while she was in the hospital about a divorce. Then he left another wife who was sick. And now, in his 60s, he's decided he can "settle down".

Basically, you want to excoriate Democrats for an alleged lack of morality, but defend Newt's incredibly self-centered behavior.

Basically, you're trying to play both sides of the issue, and getting caught.

"Newt divorced a woman who at one point in her life had cancer" is an entirely different thing from "Newt divorced his wife while she had cancer". Likewise, "Newt talked to his wife while she was in the hospital for a biopsy" is an entirely different thing from "Newt served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital for a biopsy". Next, "divorced a woman who was sick" is a different thing from "divorced her because she was sick". At what point did one become morally obligated to remain married to someone one doesn't like simply because that person has an illness?

And finally, I have NEVER "excoriated Democrats for a lack of morality", at least not on the subject of their marriages. I may not particularly respect someone who cheats on a spouse - and I don't particulary respect Newt in that regard, either - but I don't consider it any of my business no matter who the person is, because I'M NOT THEIR SPOUSE. Feel free to prove that I've EVER said, "I can't vote for So-and-So because he cheated on his wife." I dare you.

I didn't vote for Clinton because I thought he would be a shitty President. I always assumed that his wife - who cannot possibly have not known he was an uncontrolled horndog - had made some sort of accommodation with his exctramarital activities, and that was their business. Until he broke the law, I was utterly disinterested in his wandering dick and a lot more focused on his lousy policy proposals.

 

[SAT2]

"Newt divorced a woman who at one point in her life had cancer" is an entirely different thing from "Newt divorced his wife while she had cancer". Likewise, "Newt talked to his wife while she was in the hospital for a biopsy" is an entirely different thing from "Newt served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital for a biopsy". Next, "divorced a woman who was sick" is a different thing from "divorced her because she was sick". At what point did one become morally obligated to remain married to someone one doesn't like simply because that person has an illness?

Not "at one point in her life". At a recent point in her life. Then she went in to have a growth removed, which turned out to be benign. No one has attacked Newt for talking to his wife while she was in the hospital. Newt has twice left sick women. You don't have to care, but you can't pretend it didn't happen. Newt is going to come up short when he's compared to Obama, or Romney, or Perry, or Bachmann, or Santorum, or Paul, on this issue. STBY.

At no point are you obligated to remain married to anyone. But we can observe what we see, can't we?

And finally, I have NEVER "excoriated Democrats for a lack of morality", at least not on the subject of their marriages. I may not particularly respect someone who cheats on a spouse - and I don't particulary respect Newt in that regard, either - but I don't consider it any of my business no matter who the person is, because I'M NOT THEIR SPOUSE. Feel free to prove that I've EVER said, "I can't vote for So-and-So because he cheated on his wife." I dare you.

That's a bit different from what I'm pointing out about you, please don't alter my claim. You didn't say you wouldn't vote for a cheater, you just said that Democrats/liberals/leftists have no morals. These posts are attacks:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/194711-ows-echoes-the-french-revolution-14.html#post4456578

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/190919-re-evaluating-newt-73.html#post4485706

 

[rdean]

Yes and now Michelle Obama is cheating on her husband. What's going on in this White House? First Larry Sinclair,now Michelle cheating on him?

What are you talking about?

 

[paperview]

Not "at one point in her life". At a recent point in her life. Then she went in to have a growth removed, which turned out to be benign.
...

I might remind the readers, she actually still had cancer, but it was in remission. The cancer returned in 2005, according to her daughter. She fought it with more rounds of radiation and cancer treatments. She's still alive and fightin'. The woman is a trooper.

Just a little nit.

 

[rdean]

And at least Gingrich didn't murder anyone like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton did. Mary Jo Kopechne & Vince Foster. Anyone remember them? They were real people who did exist. Until they were killed anyway.

Bill Clinton murdered someone.

You have a diseased mind.

 

[paperview]

"paulitician" has proved himself to be nothing but an inbred troll.

Ignore him.

 

[Politician]

And at least Gingrich didn't murder anyone like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton did. Mary Jo Kopechne & Vince Foster. Anyone remember them? They were real people who did exist. Until they were killed anyway.

Bill Clinton murdered someone.

You have a diseased mind.

Do you support the assassination of American citizens by the U.S. government?

 

[whitehall]

A woman claimed to have been raped by Bill Clinton. Any democrat who defended the pervert-in-chief at that time should have the sense to keep his mouth shut about a 30 year old case of simple adultery or admit to clinical hypocrisy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Newt divorced a woman who at one point in her life had cancer" is an entirely different thing from "Newt divorced his wife while she had cancer". Likewise, "Newt talked to his wife while she was in the hospital for a biopsy" is an entirely different thing from "Newt served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital for a biopsy". Next, "divorced a woman who was sick" is a different thing from "divorced her because she was sick". At what point did one become morally obligated to remain married to someone one doesn't like simply because that person has an illness?

Not "at one point in her life". At a recent point in her life. Then she went in to have a growth removed, which turned out to be benign. No one has attacked Newt for talking to his wife while she was in the hospital. Newt has twice left sick women. You don't have to care, but you can't pretend it didn't happen. Newt is going to come up short when he's compared to Obama, or Romney, or Perry, or Bachmann, or Santorum, or Paul, on this issue. STBY.

At no point are you obligated to remain married to anyone. But we can observe what we see, can't we?

And finally, I have NEVER "excoriated Democrats for a lack of morality", at least not on the subject of their marriages. I may not particularly respect someone who cheats on a spouse - and I don't particulary respect Newt in that regard, either - but I don't consider it any of my business no matter who the person is, because I'M NOT THEIR SPOUSE. Feel free to prove that I've EVER said, "I can't vote for So-and-So because he cheated on his wife." I dare you.

That's a bit different from what I'm pointing out about you, please don't alter my claim. You didn't say you wouldn't vote for a cheater, you just said that Democrats/liberals/leftists have no morals. These posts are attacks:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/194711-ows-echoes-the-french-revolution-14.html#post4456578

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/190919-re-evaluating-newt-73.html#post4485706

You didn't say a damned thing that in any way altered or even affected anything I said. Congratulations.

Leftists DON'T have any morals. They don't even aspire to have a moral standard. They're quite proud of themselves for "not being hypocrites" because they simply champion dissolute behavior while wallowing in it, rather than attempting to rise above it.

And let's look at the posts you chose to screech about. The first involves situational morality, in which something is considered right or wrong based not on any objective standard, but on whether or not it benefits the person. Has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me criticizing someone for marital infidelity, and certainly doesn't prove that I get upset about Democrat cheating while ignoring Republican cheating.

The second isn't even talking about morality. It's talking about character, but either way, pointing out that I don't need people who don't even bother to espouse any sort of higher order to their behavior to tell ME how to define and practice mine also does not constitute me criticizing Democrats while giving Republicans a pass.

My moral standard goes thus: 1) I don't cheat on my husband (by OUR definition of "cheating", not yours, thanks), and 2) I don't barge into other people's marriages and start making pronouncements about how they are and how they should be. I have applied this standard evenly, and you are invited to prove me wrong if you can.

 

[rdean]

And at least Gingrich didn't murder anyone like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton did. Mary Jo Kopechne & Vince Foster. Anyone remember them? They were real people who did exist. Until they were killed anyway.

Bill Clinton murdered someone.

You have a diseased mind.

Do you support the assassination of American citizens by the U.S. government?

What does that have to do with Bill Clinton?

Let me point out, Timothy McVeigh was a self proclaimed "enemy combatant who declared war on the United States". Are you defending him as your "hero"? I'm sick reading your comment. When someone declares war on this country and commits terrorists acts, they are no longer "American Citizens". They have no rights. They have destroyed those rights. Look at the consequences before you make such statements again. Shame on you. If that right winger had been assassinated, all those children and another hundred people would be alive today.

 

[Politician]

Bill Clinton murdered someone.

You have a diseased mind.

Do you support the assassination of American citizens by the U.S. government?

What does that have to do with Bill Clinton?

Let me point out, Timothy McVeigh was a self proclaimed "enemy combatant who declared war on the United States". Are you defending him as your "hero"?

I haven't mentioned Timothy McVeigh. Where do you get I am defending him when I haven't even mentioned him?

 

[JakeStarkey]

CeCelie1200 simply messes up GOP chances for success. Folks reading her nonsense will automatically think the Dems have to be the better choice.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

O'shit.

Wouldn't suprise me if it was Mitt Romney doing this.

Mitt Romney isn't stupid enough to think this is going to make any difference.

Show of hands, everyone who was voting for Newt Gingrich because they thought he was so cuddly and likable and a faithful husband? Anyone? Bueller?

If you want to drop Newt's numbers, you gotta tell us something new and shocking about him. This isn't either.

How about the fact that ever since McCain got landslided by Obama, you wingnuts have been telling us that in 2012 you were going to nominate a true conservative to "take our country back" and all that other bullshit?

Newt is no conservative. He is no Tea Partier. He supported TARP. He supports all sorts of big spending projects.

If teabaggers nominate Newt it will only be because you want to see him try to embarrass Obama in a debate - Newt won't win the election.

So, will teabaggers go against all their promises, all their principles, all their values, just to get a woody over Obama being embarrassed?

I think they will, because I think they have no values and principles, and all that talk was just a bunch of crap.

Newt won't win against Obama. And he may have more trouble in the South (except Georgia) than Romney. Southern Baptists won't vote for a Mormon, but I imagine they will have even more trouble voting for a guy who ditched their religion in favor of Catholicism!

Telling that no one has responded to this.

 

[SAT2]

You didn't say a damned thing that in any way altered or even affected anything I said. Congratulations.

Leftists DON'T have any morals. They don't even aspire to have a moral standard. They're quite proud of themselves for "not being hypocrites" because they simply champion dissolute behavior while wallowing in it, rather than attempting to rise above it.

You're doing it again. You aren't saying that liberals/leftists/Democrats have no morals, but hey, they have no morals.

And let's look at the posts you chose to screech about. The first involves situational morality, in which something is considered right or wrong based not on any objective standard, but on whether or not it benefits the person. Has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me criticizing someone for marital infidelity, and certainly doesn't prove that I get upset about Democrat cheating while ignoring Republican cheating.

Screeching about? Project much?

You attack others for immorality, while excusing Newt's lack of morality. Pick a lane and stay in it.

The second isn't even talking about morality. It's talking about character, but either way, pointing out that I don't need people who don't even bother to espouse any sort of higher order to their behavior to tell ME how to define and practice mine also does not constitute me criticizing Democrats while giving Republicans a pass.

The second is about you, once again, setting up a straw man and knocking it down.

My moral standard goes thus: 1) I don't cheat on my husband (by OUR definition of "cheating", not yours, thanks), and 2) I don't barge into other people's marriages and start making pronouncements about how they are and how they should be. I have applied this standard evenly, and you are invited to prove me wrong if you can.

The "Clinton broke the law" line is a fig leaf. Sorry to not buy what you're peddling.

 

[Dot Com]

The Deflection Force, practiced by the libertarian(s) & cons in this thread is STRONG!!!

 

[paulitician]

Larry Sinclair.

 

[SAT2]

Is a joke.

 

[paulitician]

And now we're hearing about Michelle Obama having an affair too. What the hell is wrong with these people? And what a gruesome foursome...Barack,Larry Sinclair,Michelle,and ??... Yikes!

 

[paperview]

Mitt Romney isn't stupid enough to think this is going to make any difference.

Show of hands, everyone who was voting for Newt Gingrich because they thought he was so cuddly and likable and a faithful husband? Anyone? Bueller?

If you want to drop Newt's numbers, you gotta tell us something new and shocking about him. This isn't either.

How about the fact that ever since McCain got landslided by Obama, you wingnuts have been telling us that in 2012 you were going to nominate a true conservative to "take our country back" and all that other bullshit?

Newt is no conservative. He is no Tea Partier. He supported TARP. He supports all sorts of big spending projects.

If teabaggers nominate Newt it will only be because you want to see him try to embarrass Obama in a debate - Newt won't win the election.

So, will teabaggers go against all their promises, all their principles, all their values, just to get a woody over Obama being embarrassed?

I think they will, because I think they have no values and principles, and all that talk was just a bunch of crap.

Newt won't win against Obama. And he may have more trouble in the South (except Georgia) than Romney. Southern Baptists won't vote for a Mormon, but I imagine they will have even more trouble voting for a guy who ditched their religion in favor of Catholicism!

Telling that no one has responded to this.

I've noticed no one has. Telling.