A SC Divorce Attorney on Marianne Gingrich

I am a divorce attorney at The LaMantia Law Firm in Charleston, South Carolina.  While I have not been at it for very long, in some capacity or another I have been involved in the practice of family law for about two years now.

When news of the Marianne Gingrich interview currently being sat upon by ABC News broke last night thanks to the Drudge Report, I found myself digging into the history of the divorce between Ms. Gingrich and the former House Speaker.  I was curious about the procedure. I was curious about the terms of their agreement.  I was curious about the circumstances that precipitated filing in the first place.  And, in looking for information on those things, insofar as Marianne Gingrich’s inevitable comments and insight provided in such a timely fashion by ABC are concerned, what struck me most were not so much anything in particular about those terms or circumstances, but rather the way in which Marianne Gingrich has conducted herself and the tenor, tone and nature of everything said in the years since the divorce was made final.

As a divorce attorney, we see a lot of different types of people who come through our door.  Some parties and couples are ready to move on.  Some couples are visibly relieved when the final agreement has been signed, hands have been shaken, and they leave the courtroom with the last page of the previous chapter of their lives having been turned.

Other parties and couples, however, are not so ready.  Some spouses never find themselves capable of moving on.  Perhaps it is the nature of the events that precipitated the divorce.  Perhaps it is the way that one spouse conducts him or herself in light of those events.  Perhaps it is the way that one parent conducts him or herself in the context of visitation and custody matters.  Some people never get over it.  Some people are so vindictive that they continue to wish ill will upon their ex-spouses for decades — even after remarriage, even after building a new family, even after moving on in nearly every other aspect of their lives, and more often than not without rhyme, reason or rationale.

Many bemoan any and all success and happiness enjoyed by their former spouse.  Many feel as though they continue to have an equitable interest in successes enjoyed by their ex-husbands or ex-wives years after their marital relationship came to fruition.  Marianne Gingrich may be no different, and perhaps the reason that ABC News debated whether or not to wait until after this Saturday’s Palmetto State Primary to air the interview is because she comes across as vindictive rather than productive, as a jilted spouse rather than a former wife with substantive, meritworthy contributions to the assessment of the fitness of a presidential candidate.

According to National Review’s Robert Costa, the Gingrich camp insists that the ABC News interview is little more than a “retread” of a piece run in the September 2010 issue of Esquire magazine.  And while the author of that piece, John Richardson, insists on the very first page that Marianne Gingrich “is not bitter,” much of what she has to say shows otherwise.  A few excerpts:

It’s been twelve years since his extraordinary political career — the one in which he went from being a bomb-throwing backbencher in the seemingly permanent Republican minority to overthrowing the established order of both parties — collapsed around him. And yet, stunningly, in all that time Newt Gingrich hasn’t been replaced as the philosopher king of the conservative movement. And as the summer rolled on, a revivified Gingrich sat atop the early polls of Republican presidential contenders, leading the field in California, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas and polling strongly in Illinois and Pennsylvania. This year he has raised as much money as Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee combined. He is in constant motion, traveling all over the country attending rallies and meetings. He writes best sellers, makes movies, appears regularly on Fox News.

And Marianne Gingrich, his closest advisor during his last fit of empire building, sits on the boardwalk chain-smoking her breakfast.

Newt always wanted to be somebody,” she says. “That was his vulnerability, do you understand? Being treated important. Which means he was gonna associate with people who would stroke him, and were important themselves. And in that vulnerability, once you go down that path and it goes unchecked, you add to it. Like, ‘Oh, I’m drinking, who cares?’ Then you start being a little whore, ’cause that comes with drinking. That’s what corruption is — when you’re too exhausted, you’re gonna go with your weakness. So when we see corruption, we shouldn’t say, ‘They’re all corrupt.’ Rather, we should say, ‘At what point did you decide that? And why? Why were you vulnerable?’ “

The wide disparity between Gingrich’s account and his ex-wife’s account of even simple things–Newt says that his childhood was “like a Norman Rockwell painting,” while Marianne scoffs and insists that Newt’s mother was “pretty drugged up” and that his father was “a drinker”–is not uncommon in what we do; I continuously find it amazing that two people can have two fundamentally different accounts of a given event, whether it be an argument, a reconciliation, or anything in between.

Comments by Marianne Gingrich about how, in Richardson’s words, she “began to entertain fears about his fundamental decency,” or in her own words about how Newt “sold out” for an “opulent” lifestyle and became a “whore” in his quest to be treated like someone of import, about how he became a “dead weight” when his political career crumbled around him, or about how his conversion to Catholicism “has no meaning” — these are not the comments of someone interested in moving forward in their life, but rather stand as examples of the sort of vindictive bomb-throwing exhibited by those who simply are unhappy with not only their circumstances but with themselves as well.

“Unfortunately, the saying about a spouse scorned is all too true,” says Anthony LaMantia, Esq., senior partner at The LaMantia Law Firm with more than 15 years of experience as a family law practitioner.  ”I frequently come across parties who believe in their minds that they were empire builders and the success of their spouse can be solely attributed to their ‘work behind the scenes’.”

“I find that it particularly difficult to assist those parties with moving on with their lives in a positive manner for themselves and their children,” LaMantia says. “It can be very sad when their future lives are dictated by the spite and vitriol, consuming their lives and their relationships with their family, friends and children.”

At The LaMantia Law Firm here in Charleston, attorneys like Anthony LaMantia and I strive for stability.  Stability is essential when children are involved, and stability can often act as a placeholder until the parties are capable enough of moving on to the next chapter in their lives that they themselves strive for more stability.  People like Marianne Gingrich, however, feverishly and obsessively shun the very idea of stability.  People like Marianne Gingrich cannot let go, and will do anything in their power to prevent their ex-spouse from doing so.  We see it fairly often.  It’s a kind of self-destructive behavior that is not uncommon in those vindictive ex-spouses who bemoan any success or happiness enjoyed by their former wife or husband.

While she accuses her former husband of attempting to remake and rebrand his own personal history so much that he has lost sight with his former self, Marianne Gingrich herself seems confused and, even in the divorce proceedings, approached matters inconsistently. This is a woman, after all, who seems shattered by how the former House Speaker called her at her mother’s home to inform her that he wanted a divorce, and yet according to the Associated Press, she did the very same thing to him roughly six years before — on his birthday, no less.   This is a woman who, in 1987, moved everything but a television and a guest bed out of the parties’ marital home and yet, during their eventual divorce, moved to obtain an Order of the Court enjoining the former House Speaker from transferring, concealing or otherwise disposing of marital assets.

What I see is a confused, bitter woman.  And she has every right to be, as the dissolution of marriage is an emotional experience.  What is not right however, is that publications such as Esquire and purportedly objective news organizations such as ABC News disseminate Ms. Gingrich’s statements as unequivocal truth, and do so at a time when it best serves the interests of those who oppose Newt Gingrich’s candidacy.

As it stands now, prior to even a hint that Marianne Gingrich had sat down for two hours with ABC News reporter Brian Ross, two different polls here in South Carolina show that the former House Speaker is either gaining significantly on Mitt Romney’s lead, or has eclipsed him already.  A POLITICO poll shows Gingrich at 30 percent to Romney’s 37 percent, while  poll conducted yesterday evening by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research shows Newt resonating with 32 percent of Palmetto State voters to Romney’s 29 percent, a sharp contrast to the 11-point lead the former Massachusetts governor held as recently as Sunday.

Now, with the just-announced exit of Texas governor Rick Perry, all bets are off.  My prediction (here and here)  earlier this week was that the groundswell waiting to happen for Newt here in the Lowcountry was waiting for a trigger, and said trigger could be exit of either Perry or Rick Santorum.  If voters here got the feeling that Newt could win South Carolina, where voters have picked the eventual GOP nominee every year since 1980, Newt’s poll numbers would explode much like Santorum’s popularity exploded in Iowa once voters realized that he was a viable, electable candidate after all.

The question, however, is whether Newt can weather the storm coming from ABC News and his second wife.  For a while now, I have maintained that the measure for success in the general election will not be determined by which candidate has less baggage–as even those candidates without significant baggage, such as Herman Cain, will have baggage imputed to them by the mainstream press–but rather by the ability of a given candidate to deflect personal attacks and go back on the offensive against Barack Obama and the Democrats. If any candidate is capable of that, it is Newt Gingrich — and here are five ways that the former House Speaker can, and should, respond:

“This shows that Barack Obama and the mainstream media fear me most.
Therefore, I am the most electable Republican candidate.”

While advertisements here in the Palmetto State started with a focus on social and economic issues, as the primary has drawn closer that focus has shifted to electability.  Rick Santorum has aired advertisements stating that, as “a broad-spectrum conservative,” he is the most likely candidate to beat Barack Obama.  Mitt Romney has used statements from South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to say the same.  Gingrich has done the same, using as an example his record in Washington with regard to welfare reform, paying down the national debt, and more.

Newt would benefit from using this ABC News interview, as well as the way in which ABC rolled it out, as evidence of how a sycophantic media took down the candidate that was seen as surging, much as was done to former candidate Herman Cain when he reached his peak.  President Barack Obama, after all, is giving a major speech on tourism at Walt Disney World on the very day that the Marianne Gingrich interview is to air, arguably doing a favor for the parent company of the network that may have done him a favor as well.

“I was not a great person then, but I have learned from my mistakes.
Barack Obama, however, all too often doubles down on his.”

Such an approach, preferably taken today before the interview airs, would provide the former House Speaker with an opportunity to put the skunk on the table in such a way that he is in better control of the optics surrounding the interview with his former wife.  When it comes to marital litigation, I always advocate such an approach — each spouse can and will have something bad to say about the other; I’d rather my client introduce his or her shortcomings on our terms rather than on the terms of the other side.

Such an approach also gives Newt the opportunity to turn the dialogue back onto his core arguments against President Obama quickly, effectively and directly.  Whether it be the president’s failure to project strength with regard to foreign policy time and time again, or whether it be the way that the president’s continued belief in the merits of government intervention in the private sector backfires repeatedly, turning the tables in such a way allows Speaker Gingrich to acknowledge his own shortcomings, atone for them, and then shift the focus on the failures of the president.

“Here goes the MSM talking to my ex-wife for two hours,
but they’ve never spent a minute looking into Obama’s college records.”

Without diving down the deep, dark rabbit hole of birtherism, it might be worthwhile highlighting to the American public that we really, truly do not know much about the president of the United States.  Much to the chagrin of John Kerry, college transcripts became a staple of presidential politics in the 2004 election, and it might be worth knowing–or at least planting the seeds of doubt–about how our fearless, brilliant leader performed in school.

Such an approach would also provide the former Speaker with the opportunity to highlight what we do know about President Obama’s philosophies, from his own words in his two autobiographies to the various associations that so many of us tried to talk about in the days, weeks and months leading up to the 2008 election.  The danger here is that we once again rehash old arguments — just as, to a certain extent, Newt Gingrich’s infidelity is built into his poll numbers, Barack Obama’s associations with folks like William Ayers, Tony Rezko and Rashid Khalidi are most certainly built into his.

“Two words: Vera Baker.
Don’t know her? Ask the mainstream media why.”

Consider this the nuclear option.  The Baker story never really gained traction with the mainstream press, and by bringing it up now Gingrich could look petty and vindictive himself.  However, if done skillfully, the very nature of the media response to the Baker story could be characterized as an indictment of media bias.  After all, it did take the mainstream press more than one year to cover the infidelities of former presidential candidate John Edwards after the National Enquirer broke the story prior to the Iowa Caucus in 2008.

“Yes, I wasn’t a good person then, but how is this substantive?
I challenge Barack Obama to a three-hour substantive debate on issues.”

It doesn’t take a genius to acknowledge that Newt Gingrich’s strength has been in the copious amounts of debates seen on the GOP side over the past ten months or so.  I believe that most conservatives and Republicans, regardless of which candidate they believe would make the best president of the United States, firmly believe that Newt Gingrich is best suited to debate Barack Obama.

This approach, like the second approach above, would put the skunk on the table while putting the issue of his infidelity in perspective.  For example, many states across the country–this one included–still are seeing more than ten percent unemployment.  Just yesterday, President Obama killed an oil pipeline project that would have produced tens of thousands of jobs in the short term and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the long term, all while simultaneously decreasing America’s dependence on oil from unstable and unfriendly Middle Eastern nations.

“The amount of new clients we have seen since the Boeing facility opened in North Charleston is incredible,” says Anthony LaMantia.  “And we are just catering to those with problems in their marriage and with their children.  If we have seen such an increase in work, imagine what the restaurants have seen, imagine what the auto dealerships, the hair salons, the supermarkets, the moms and pops of the local economy here have seen.”

“And that’s, what? Four thousand? Five thousand people in just one assembly facility in North Charleston?” LaMantia asks.  “Imagine those 20,000 jobs from the pipeline, spread out across several states.  We should be talking about this, not Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife.”

Yes, we should.  Marianne Gingrich is a woman scorned, a woman who has said on several occasions since 1999 that she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview.  This country has serious problems, problems that need not be colored by one opinion or another in order to be apparent.  There is no dismissing our rising debt as merely a manifestation of a jilted spouse.  There is no ignoring the threat of a nuclear Iran simply because of questions into the credibility of those who bring up the topic.

We are very much in trouble here in the United States of America.  Like many of the clients who walk through our doors, we are in desperate need of stability.  If the man best suited to help is imperfect, so be it.

Share

Comments

  1. nanas3 says:

    Jeff,
    I hardly think that Marianne Gingrich had any illusions about Newt’s moral character when she married him since they were having an affair when he was still married to his first wife, Jackie, who had cancer. (correct me if I am wrong about that). According to Marianne, Newt wanted an open marriage and she objected. Along comes Callista and they have an affair, even engaging in their meetings in the apartment he owned with Marianne. Supposedly, Newt told Marianne that Callista was going to help him become President. This is not a pretty story and to me it overshadows Newt’s so-called brilliant mind regarding politics and our heritage. I’ll take a Romney-Santorum ticket and hope that they have learned from some of their political mistakes and can bring a sense of decency to our highest office.

  2. Westie says:

    Very interesting analysis Jeff. I imagine a lot of ex-husbands and wives will understand the hatred that you describe from Newt’s ex.

  3. Dee says:

    I have come to the conclusion that none of the candidates fit my bill for the “perfect candidate”. However, all I have to ask myself is do I want, Romney or Gingrich or Paul or Santorum or do I want Obama? For me it’s an easy pick. I knew that Newt’s past would be an issue but will he work to turn the country around? Just because Mitt is a Morman will that stand in his way to work to better our country? He’s rich. So what? Isn’t that what everyone wants to attain? Does that make him a bad man? How many “poor” politicians are in DC? Ron Paul does not have a foreign policy that I agree with but if elected, hopefully his cabinet would be able to have some influence on him. Santorum meets that ideals of very socially conservative voters.
    Kennedy was a Catholic and at the time, that was a big deal. What religion is BO? Has Romney paid his taxes as required by law? Did he make his money legally or did Rezko help him? There was a big to do about George Bush and Kerry having to disclose their college grades. What grades did BO get?
    Newt was right last night when he stated that he was appalled that the moderator would start the debate with a question about his ex-wife. Don’t we have bigger problems in this country?
    Enough for now. Thanks for your work on this blog.

  4. Concerned says:

    Interesting article, Jeff. I think it’s time for Newt to stop speaking in generalities about the LSM protecting Obama. I’d like to see him call out the LSM for specific instances of protecting Obama, such as the LA Times not releasing the Khalidi tape. Failure to report on Obama’s membership in the New Party (not something that can be excused as an individual association like Ayers). His support of Raila Odinga. Why focus on college transcripts when there’s so much already documented that can be reported on?

    I think Newt should call out every media outlet that considers his ex-wife’s verbal allegations newsworthy to explain why documented evidence related to Obama’s past is not newsworthy.

  5. Randy Wills says:

    I’m with you, Jeff. There is no “slam dunk” candidate for Conservatives this time around, and we are all going to have to make hard decisions regarding our individual support of the remaining four contestants.

    From my perspective, Newt Gingrich is the most qualified to carry the Republican banner into the election. His marital infidelities, if as reported, are shameful, but, on balance, and in terms of the job we’re asking the next President to do, I have to go with him and hope that his personal gyro has stabilized.

    Randy

  6. Anthony says:

    It’s a very messy situation between the Speaker and his ex. I can’t imagine how they are both feeling. Hopefully the Speaker can overcome the slanderous attacks from a jilted woman. No matter if you support Newt or not… it’s a horrible situation.

  7. As a fellow family law attorney, I also find it ironic when a spouse who begins the relationship as the “other woman” is shocked when she is left for “another other woman.” I am reminded of the Claude Rains character in Casablanca. That said, I find it entirely plausible that Newt sought an open marriage relationship when he was six years into an adulterous affair. He seems like the kinda guy who likes to have his cake and eat it too, i.e., grandiose. Plus he must have thought that it couldn’t help his political prospects to be a twice divorced serial adulterer (the Evangelical movement’s capacity to forgive these sins but take such a harsh view towards criminal rehabilitation is perhaps their biggest hypocrisy).

    Interesting Room for Debate in today’s New York Times on whether open marriage might be preferable to adultery: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/20/the-gingrich-question-cheating-vs-open-marriage/?ref=opinion

  8. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Folks — the “Gregory Forman” up above is one of the most talented family law attorneys in Charleston. If I were unfortunate enough to be going through a divorce in this area, Greg would be at the top of my list for representation. Well, Greg and my boss, of course.

    Check out his phenomenal family law blog at gregoryforman.com

  9. whats_up says:

    It sure is interesting watching Conservatives cave in to every value that they profess to follow. Really, Newt? That is the best that you can come up with. Pretty sad state of affairs for Conservatives, but at least never again will I have to listen to Conservatives tell me that they stand for the values of family or capitalism. Never again will I have to listen to them tell me that they stand for the rule of law and how ethical they are.

  10. Randy Wills says:

    I’m not sure that, as Gregory Forman says, that “the Evangelical’s capacity to forgive (Newt’s) these sins ———————- is perhaps their biggest hypocrisy” is an accurate reflection on the SC results. I believe that Eric Erickson has it pretty well nailed on “Redstate” this morning, that what we’re seeing is more of a protest against the Republican “establishment’s” (and Fox News’) pre-selection of thier “chosen one”.

    Most of us believe that the overwhelming establisment’s support/endorsement for/of Romney is largely an expression of contempt for the Tea Party’s influence on the 2010 election and quite possibly the fulfillment of a promise made to Romney in 2008; sort of a quid pro quo agreement offered to Romney to secure his support for McCain in the 2008 general election. There was a three-frame political cartoon in yesterday’s papers captioned “My Turn” and successively showing Dole, McCain, and then Romney. This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that none of the anticipated “first tier” possible Republican candidates chose to throw their hats in the ring this time around.

    I believe that this is the point that the base, including the Evangelicals, is trying to make; not an expression of hypocricy regarding Newt’s marital behavior, regardless of how morally despicable it has been. It only fuels the fire when notables such as Cris Christie pontificates on national television that Gingrich “has been an embarrassment to the Republican Party”.

    And by the way, Eric Erickson makes the same point that I have made several times over the past months that, as things stand, Obama has,at least and probably more than, an even chance of being reelected. I fervently hope that both he and I are wrong, regardless of the Republican candidate finally chosen.

    Randy

  11. Lee Sinclair says:

    Marianne Gingrich may be bitter, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t telling the truth. I know some people who lived in Carrollton, Ga., when Newt was married to his first wife, and they say even worse things about Newt than Marianne does. Are they bitter, too? or are they just telling the truth?

  12. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Randy, I saw that same piece by Erickson (who I actually ran into this past week; he’s a nice guy, and has been great every time we’ve crossed paths) and meant to run an excerpt along with a great piece by Jonah Goldberg at NRO as a South Carolina wrap-up, but I haven’t gotten around to it yet.

    Where I don’t agree with Erick is in his–and your–assessment that Obama is going to be reelected.

  13. Randy Wills says:

    I fervently hope – and pray – that you are right and I am wrong, Jeff. And you are certainly more in touch with the “ground game” than I am, so I’m prepared to buy you and Joanna the best dinner in Charleston if Obama loses in November.

    And to “whats_up”, I agree with you that the Republicans are faced with some difficult choices this year, and none of the presently-surviving candidates would be my choice other than out of necessity. But please don’t draw the conclusion (that “values” don’t count) that you express in your comment.

    I would like to think that in a Presidential contest, it is prudent to select the candidate who has a record of bi-partisan accomplishment without abandoning Conservative principles. “Values” are vitally important to me, but we’re voting for someone who has demonstrated the intellectual capacity to deal with an extremely complex world – both politically and economically.

    If I wanted a “it’s my turn”, Rpublican establishment, candidate, I would support Romney. If I thought that “family values” was the deciding factor, I would support Santorum. If I thought that isolationism was the correct foreign policy, I would support Paul. But I just happen to believe that Gingrich, by dint of his role in achieving a balanced budget, and hence, economic growth, is best suited to turn the ship of state around.

    And BTW, it’s good to see your name among the commentors again. I’ve missed you.

    Randy

  14. Randy Wills says:

    (Later in the day)

    Jeff, I would be interested in your reaction to Bret Stephens’ op-ed in today’s WSJ entitled “The GOP Deserves to Lose”. Pretty harsh stuff, but difficult to dispute.

    (And your AR readers are looking forward to your ground-level report from the SC primary contest.)

    Randy

  15. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Randy,

    You’re only allowed to buy Joanna and I dinner if you and your wife are here. We’ll put you up — no RV required :)

    Jeff

  16. Randy Wills says:

    (Later yet

    Don’t mean to be a pest, but another perspective on the Romney/Gingrich choice worth reading is Thomas Sowell’s piece “South Carolina message” (sic) posted on the “OneNewsNow” site earlier today.

    Randy

  17. Randy Wills says:

    God willing, it’s a deal, Jeff. Charleston is one of our favorite cities in the U.S.and we’d love to spend some time with you and your family. It would be quite a celebration, wouldn’t it? Sort of like the coming of dawn after a long, dark, fearful, night.

    Randy

  18. Dee says:

    whats_up, you’re right, conservatives will have to overlook the lack of some values in whatever candidate runs on the Republican ticket. That does not mean that they no longer stand for those values. It only means that none of the candidates running have all the values that would make them “the perfect candidate”. It seems to me that many people elected who they thought the “perfect candidate” was in 2008. He was the “one they were waiting for”. He was the one that would stop the oceans from rising. Look where that has got us and what is happening to the country. I can’t think of any modern day president who was “poor”. They all have money. The media never looked into BO’s past. Never. Not one soul has come forward to say “I knew him when”. It’s like he came out of the sky. I don’t think we have to agree on every value that the candidate has or doesn’t have but it is a political office and the person in charge of running our country. Can that person do the job that we want, no matter if their values are all the same as ours or not.
    As always, it is a pleasure to talk with you.

  19. whats_up says:

    @ Dee,

    I hate to tell you but there were many people that the media found who knew the President back when, I am sorry if you did not see the stories. I would agree that some of your candidates are wanting. Romney doesnt seem to be one of them but he doesnt appeal to the base, why I dont know. He is a successful businessman, has been faithful to his wife. It would seem to me that he possesses those traits that Conservatives seem to think that leaders from the Democratic side lack. The act of settling is what I find for lack of a better word amusing. Dems and liberals have been told since Clinton that character matters in our leaders and that they are role models. Doesnt look like that matters now, what happened to the principals that Conservatives stand for? Why are you willing to settle and what does that say about the hypocrisy of Conservatives? As always a pleasure.

  20. nanas3 says:

    whats_up, as Dee has tried to explain to you, conservatives want a candidate who has the characteristics of integrity, honesty and a pattern of upholding vows he has made to his/her spouse…those things DO matter to us but we are faced with a choice of selecting a candidate who does not have all those characteristics but is strong in some areas and maybe not so strong in others. We are not SETTLING when we look deeply into their character to determine who our best candidate would be. That’s what should have happened with Obama but much of his history was shrouded by the media. Yes, we have heard of people who actually knew him…Bill Ayers, Bernadean Dorn,etc. and all the other radicals who spent time with him but we do not have a clear picture of what his life was like….how he was influenced by Frank Marshall Davis other than what he disclosed in his books. You insinuate that we are ‘settling’ and find that amusing but I think you and the dimwits sold your soul to the devil because there was enough information about Obama to warrant further investigation but you chose to dismiss it. We want to hold our candidates feet to the fire and test them BEFORE they are elected rather than make excuses for them after they are in office. As always, an exercise in futility.

  21. Randy Wills says:

    To “whats_up”:

    I can understand why you would reach the conclusion that we “Conservatives” who profess to believe that “character makes a difference” are hypocrites, but please remember that Jimmy Carter had “character” but is rated as one of the worst presidents of the past 100 years. In fact, if marital fidelity is the primary criteria, as far as I know, President Obama would qualify, but it is his policies that disqualify him, in my opinion.

    The presnt situation – at least as I see it – is not encouraging for Republicans, but a choice must be made from the field of candidates that is offered. My choice of Gingrich is pretty much along the lines expressed by Thomas Sowell last week and referenced in an earlier comment of mine.

    If history is any indicator of future actions, the choice of Romney means little change, in terms of policies, from Obama’s. As articulated, in essence, by George Soros at Davos; “There’s little difference between President Obama and Mitt Romney, so either one is acceptable to me”. If accurate (obviously,I wasn’t there to hear Soros say that, so I’m repeating what I have read on the Internet), that about says it all.

    As I have said repeatedly, I do not like, nor do I trust, Mitt Romney and I am convinced that, in order to fulfill his father’s, and his church’s, long and deeply held political aspirations, he will do and say anything to become President (and by the way, I would have welcomed Jon Huntsman,another Mormon, as the nominee and was disappointed that others did not see him as I did. His business and political resume’ is far superior to Romney’s).

    At least Newt Gingrich has a record of Conservative accomplishments in governance that are consistent with my politics. I agree that his personal history, as reported ad nauseam, is as far removed from my personal standards of conduct as imaginable, but it has been amply demonstrated over the history of the Presidency that marital infidelity does not necessarily indicate the inability to govern successfully and in the best interests of the country at large.

    Randy

  22. Dee says:

    whats_up, we are not “settling” for a candidate but we have to “choose” who will do what’s best for the country. Their values may not meet those that conservatives want but are BO’s values more conservative than any of the Republican candidates? Are BO’s goals better for the country than the Republican candidates? Is BO taking our country in the right direction? I have concerns about each of the candidates but I have greater concerns about what is happening with this administration. As nanas3 as said, I have heard of all those people she mentioned but did you ever read an interview with any of them where they discussed their relationship with BO? Other than Reverand Wright, who was thrown under the BO bus when BO realized he was hurting the campaign, I don’t recall the others coming forward. Apparently there were no classmates, old neighbors, old girlfriends, etc who knew him. As nanas3 mentioned, nothing was ever investigated by the msm in regards to BO. Nothing. A big deal was made of Bush’s and McCain’s grades in college. What grades did BO get in college? If you have that answer, I would like to know. A big deal was made of Bush’s DUI. BO admitted he did cocaine. Where was the fuss? Nohting to see here, keep moving. Thanks again for keeping me on my toes.

Speak Your Mind

*