In some ways, Newt Gingrich is having one of the best days of his campaign: He’s surging in South Carolina, Rick Santorum’s Iowa win is proving almost meaningless, Romney is stumbling, and Rick Perry is endorsing him.
And then there’s this from ABC News: “Marianne Gingrich told ABC News, ‘He wanted an open marriage and I refused.’”
Should this be a big deal? Last night, when Drudge first broke that ABC had interviews Gingrich’s ex-wife, with no details on her comments, I tweeted, “SHOCK BREAKING EARTH-SHATTERING GAME CHANGER: MAN’S EX-WIFE DOES NOT THINK WELL OF HIM . . . DEVELOPING HARD . . .”
I thought, before seeing these new details, that Gingrich’s marital woes were largely “priced in” to his standing as a candidate in the GOP field; nobody seems to be voting for Gingrich because they thought he was such a swell husband. A desire for an open marriage, however, may seem a bridge too far to some Republican primary voters. We will know soon.
Earlier this year, Dennis Prager ran two columns on NRO offering very detailed and contemplative thoughts on what a candidate’s marital difficulties reveals to voters. He began:
But there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed first: What does adultery tell us about a person?
For many Americans, the answer is, “Pretty much all we need to know.” This certainly seems to be the case with regard to presidential candidates. The view is expressed this way: “If he can’t keep his vows to his wife, how can we trust him to keep his vows to his country?”
I am a religious conservative, but I know this statement has no basis in fact. It sounds persuasive, but it is a non-sequitur. We have no reason to believe that men who have committed adultery are less likely to be great leaders, or that men who have always been faithful are more likely to be great leaders.
Chances are, at some point, you have admired, or at least applauded the work of, a political figure who has strayed from his marital vows. For Republicans, the list includes Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Livingston, Mark Sanford, John McCain. If you’re on the other side, Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner. Outside the realm of politics, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Jude Law, David Letterman, David Beckham.
The variety of prominent men who have strayed doesn’t make their acts any less wrong or hurtful. But just as every person is a combination of good impulses and bad impulses, their lives are a series of good decisions and bad decisions. While we outside the marriage have every right to express disapproval and anger over dishonesty, callousness towards one’s spouse, and recklessness, it doesn’t necessarily mean that every other decision they’ve made was wrong. Mark Sanford’s awful judgment on his trip to Argentina doesn’t negate the validity of his vision of limited government.
Prager noted that Oskar Schindler was a married man with a mistress; his interest in someone outside his wife hardly tells us everything we need to know about his character, judgment, courage, trustworthiness, etc.
Should Newt’s past marital discord suggest he’s unfit to be president? Well, compared to what? How many conservatives would prefer a liberal president who is faithful to his wife over a conservative president with a mistress? (The life of an elected official, particularly a job as consuming as the presidency, seems like a formula for marital trouble.)
Having said that, the Clinton presidency would appear to be Exhibit A of how a president’s philandering can cause problems for himself, his family, his administration, his party, and the country. Republican voters who want to cut Gingrich some slack and believe that he’s a changed man and a better husband now, the memory of Clinton’s troubles may be a nagging doubt in the days and weeks ahead . . .
All of the men you listed who had problems with keeping their marriage vows also had great problems keeping their word in other areas. Arguably, their failures in areas besides marriage outweigh any good they did. I think your list illustrates fidelity in marriage DOES reflect fidelity in other areas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim, You've marshalled an impressive list of adulters that have achieved some level of "greatness".
I'll just note that inspite of these adulterers achieving greatness, and inspite of the fact that these adulterers you listed were actually in prominent leadership positions, and inspite of the fact that these adulterers actually had a large impact on our nation, our nation is going down the moral tubes and we are in a cultural, national quagmire.
You might say, it's just a correlation. I suggest to you, that the moral caliber of our leaders is a reflection of what we value in an individual, and the only way to change what we culturally value is to put different leaders up on the pedestal. Culture takes time to change, ours is broken. Pointing to adulterers, who have every reason to be forgiven, but pointing to them and excusing their inquity and saying our nation still needs men of that "caliber" I would suggest to you is the reason why we are tolerating a moral and spiritual decline.
I'm not saying we need to be pharasies and start stoning people, but there was a time when a person humiliated themselves in such a terrible way that they rightly disappeared from the public eye. Now they plot their come backs and expect our willingness to forgive (as it should be) on their path back into the public graces (as it should not be).
I'm only all to happy to forgive him, and tell him that I wish him the best. Just don't ask to be in leadership positions. Thanks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not just this... for me it's this foreboding sense that there's always another shoe waiting to drop with Newt, whether it's some moral transgression from his past or a comment that completely undermines the basic foundations of conservatism.
Newt is without a doubt the smartest and most gifted politician in the group, but there just seems to be an awfully high probability that he's going to implode one way or another and end up badly embarrassing the party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Newt is without a doubt the smartest and most gifted politician in the group, but there just seems to be an awfully high probability that he's going to implode one way or another and end up badly embarrassing the party."
Because in 20 years in American politics as an elected official, Newt's imploded and badly embarassed the Republican Party how many times?
Your train of thought lacks a coal car.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter Bill, Hillary and Monica this should be a complete non-story.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNonsensical thinking.
So the party that raised such a fuss about family values shrugs off those same values when it is one of their own in the crosshairs? Don't you think that makes them, um, hypocrites? That's how it looks to the vast middle america who actually vote for the eventual president.
Saying "yeah, but your side did it too!", won't work.
No way to spin this as anything other than opportunistic hypocrisy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"So the party that raised such a fuss about family values..."
...obviously should excoriate Newt Gingrich for having messy divorces?
For not aborting his kids?
What?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not a big fan of Newt (love him in debates, kinda meh the rest of the time), but the fact that she says he wanted an open marriage means nothing to me. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But I find it hard to believe that anyone who would otherwise support him, would say...OK, that's too much. As they say on the interwebs...pics or it didn't happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeople who have been convinced that Newt is our conservative Savior will be willing to overlook his past infidelities. My contention is that Newt is NOT the conservative Savior, and we don't have to choose a guy with moral baggage to get a conservative candidate. Although Romney has been portrayed by the conservative media as a moderate Republican, he is no less conservative than Newt and has much less baggage. If you analyze his endorsements and who is voting for him in these primaries, you will find he IS being supported by a majority of those who classify themselves as "very conservative" and those who have been active in the tea party movement, not just the moderates. Newt's strategy is to paint himself as the only "true conservative" but this is a marketing strategy, not a fact.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a gay man who is also a member of the Republican party. I have been with my partner for over a decade and have always been faithful. I haven't cheated. I haven't strayed. Despite Republican (for the most part) oppostion to gay marraige, I stay in the party because I agree with the party stance on most other issues. However, the fact that social conservatives would support a man whose first lady was his mistress and lead to his second divorce is beyond comprehension to me. You cite other politicians. Sanford was forced to resign. McCain had his affairs before becoming a politician. Rudy lost all credibilit and his children when he left Donna Hanover for his now wife. Bob Livingston resigned. The Republican party used to hold out for the candidate best exemplified its ideals. A selection of Newt Gingrich would tarnish that forever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt goes beyond cheating on his wife. The story if you were to believe his former wife is creepy at an almost John Edwards level of creepiness. How americans will warm up to Calista the home wrecker Gingrich in interviews in morning America? Gingrich is likeable enough only with conservatives, he doesn't stand a chance running for president in a general election.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTells us that we should nominate older Presidents. At 69 when entering office, Newt's philanderings won't be a big problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnless Marianne Gingrich makes a better appearance than I think she will, people will think Newt a saint for staying around as long as he did. Someone pointed out last night that she is the one who committed adultry with Newt while he was still married to his first wife and that his kids, of course, will not defend her.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat said, my take is that the same manic streak that made Newt an adulterer would make him dangerous in the president's office. Guys, we can't have this guy as president.
Unless Marianne was married to someone at the time of her affair with Newt, He committed adultery, not she.
But I agree with your sentiment on having Newt in the White House. He would be horrible, without a doubt patently and fundamentally horrible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting conclusion, particularly considering that most democrats today, as then, view Pres. Clinton as vastly preferable to POTUS Obama. If Bill could have transferred to Hilary even 1% of his "charm", there would not be a POTUS Obama.
Is it irony, or definitional, that democrats and republicans hold such contradictory views?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf my choice in November is between re-electing President Obama or electing Newt Gingrich, I will vote for Newt because he is more conservative that President Obama, will appoint more conservative judges, will have a more conservative cabinet and will pursue more conservative policies, both at home and abroad. But, some people would not vote for Newt because (1) he has clearly been a hypocrite and (2) he treated two former wives extremely poorly. I don’t know how many, but this election is important enough that I don’t want to take the chance that we will lose because some people decide they can’t vote for a man who has done these things.
I don’t think that the comparison with Bill Clinton helps Newt either. Bill Clinton ran around on Hillary, probably a lot of the time, but they managed to stay married, probably because the level of actual betrayal was much less even if it was a lot more frequent. Plus, Bill Clinton wasn’t running on a family values platform. Newt, in part, is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem is that almost all of those names you mentioned, their baggage was still in the closet, or the baggage didn't even exist, at the time they won their election.
It doesn't matter what you think personally, there are enough people who don't vote for a presidential nominee with that much baggage.
"But, but, Reagan was divorced too"
Reagan's divorce was kept pretty clean, it was about as clean as divorce could ever be, his wife said that the reason was dispute over his Screen Actors Guild president career or something like that. He had been married for almost 30 years to his second wife at the time of the presidential election, the press apparently pretty much ignored his divorce.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWas FDR the first president who had an open marriage?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe open marriage accusation is going to doom Newt. An infidelity charge from long ago is survivable, especially since he married the other woman, but this is going to strike a LOT of people as just far too icky. And it doesn't matter if it's true or not.
Which is the main reason I doubt it's true. It's far too perfectly calculated. It allows old news to get dredged up again; it allows for lots of cheap shots about conservatives and marriage; it is unfalsifiable; and it makes Newt look like a very creepy man while he already had a strong creepiness vibe in the first place.
Bring on Mr. Inevitable already.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLOL Good point. He IS creepy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse