November 18, 2011

"Aspects of Gingrich divorce story distorted."

WaPo divulges, after all these years.

37 comments:

PaulV said...

Same old, same old.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

So, what does it mean when the WaPo is writing favorably re Newt?

[enter right wing lamestream media conspiracy here.]

Widely Seen said...

Isn't this just another way to recycle and re-surface the story?
'Aspects' implies the core is still true even if some details are not. So unless someone has a good grasp of the entire situation, the net result is a sneaky reaffirmation of the bounder meme.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Newt and Mitt cannot beat the Obama Campaign. But Perry and Cain can.

You can figure that out for yourself.

Ok, it's because a general election in 50 states is still a popularity contest dependent on likable personality connecting with independent voters who vote for the man they like.

It is NOT an entrance exam to an elite school. I wish it was.

Will common sense return in time to get a winner nominated from among Perry and Cain? Maybe.

edutcher said...

It stinks to be a Lefty when documentation can blow your smear to Hell and gone.

bgates said...

Was it distorted by anyone in particular, or did it just kind of self-distort?

Carol_Herman said...

Who cares?

Newt was in charge of the attack on Impeaching Bill Clinton. While he was screwing Calista. Who worked in his ofice. While he was married to wife #2.

Wife #1 was his math teacher. Who was obviously older than her student. But he wanted a good excuse NOT to get drafted to go to Vietnam. And, high on this list (outside of running to Canada) ... was being married.

So, Newt married and immediately had a kid.

Why are there conservatives falling over themselves to now back Newt?

Because there's terror that none of the other GOP contendahs could win.

While most Americans really don't spend all that much time worrying about politics.

I don't think Mitt has a chance.

I don't think Herman Cain stands a chance.

But, on the other hand? Perry seems to attract the usual American voter, who isn't all that interested in politics.

On the other hand? Newt's like hard core porn. For those who are enthralled by the GOP primary process ... there are enough "grass root" types ... in Iowa and New Hampshire ... That seem to be "professionals" at being (or representing) "interested voters."

Glad Michael Lewis called the 9 republican condendahs, back in 1996 ... THUMB WRESTLERS.

It's not a sport for everybody.

Newt's about as interesting as watching hitler trying to run for the White House. Nothing Newt says is anything BUT a professional politician's stance.

And, one who knows how to dance for the media, no less.

The coservatives are still too buried in their own litmus paper.

And, IF Obama fails ... it's because he refuses to be anything other than who he is. But he's a nightmare for the elites.

Back when Monica's story broke? The elites broke into a sweat.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, just appealed to the voters.

Newt Gingrich was surprised to learn, then, than he couldn't bring his Impeachment to fruition.

Man's been through 3 wives. And, he's now a Catholic.

He's "winning" against a Black man. A Mormon. And, he's trying to overtake a Texan.

Maybe, Newt needs a whistle he can blow? That way he can wake Americans up. Because most Americans have their own problems. They're not about to trust politicians on coming up with solutions.

If Perry, on the other hand, comes out ahead. Ahead. Then you shouldn't discount the appeal of stupid. Dubya didn't mine the whole thing.

TCB-n-a-Flash said...

"Why are there conservatives falling over themselves to now back Newt?"

Because everyone wants to see Newt debate Obama. That simple.

edutcher said...

Carol_Herman said...

Who cares?

Newt was in charge of the attack on Impeaching Bill Clinton. While he was screwing Calista. Who worked in his ofice. While he was married to wife #2.


That's what she really doesn't like him. He actually had the gall to go after Carol's one-and-only.

chuck b. said...

"Most significantly, Battley wasn’t dying at the time of the hospital visit; she is alive today."

SEMICOLON WARNING! Later in the article, Newt wears shorts in the foyer!

Fen said...

Was it distorted by anyone in particular, or did it just kind of self-distort?

It was deliberately distorted by the MSM JournoList crowd. As well as most libtards on every political blog for about the last decade.

The only weird thing is Wapo coming clean about it now. For some reason, a decision was made by the Information Brokers to abandon one of their favorite lies about Newt.

chuck b. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cassandra lite said...

pbAndjFellowRepublican,

It means they think Mitt could beat O, and that they've got a lot more dirt on Newt

So we've got Mitt or Newt against Barack. What happened to John and Richard? (Cue Dion.)

Gary Rosen said...

"aspects distorted" == we just made it all up and are owning up to it 12 years later. Reminds of three days *after* the 2008 election when the WaPo "ombudsman" said "you know, it looks like our election coverage was completely slanted towards Obama".

cokaygne said...

They want a horse race to cover. They keep promoting alternatives to Mitt so they can have something to say about the GOP nomination process. For the same reasons Selig promotes interleague games and more wild card teams.

Robert Holmgren said...

And it wasn't exactly a secret. I read this 'news' months ago on Newt's Wikipedia page.

AllenS said...

The WaPo probably has another angle that they want to use to attack Gingrich with lies. 12 years from now, they will once again say: "oops".

Oso Negro said...

Sooo....married one of his high school teachers when he was 19 and she was 26. Apparently she is one of those women we are seeing dragged out of school for fiddling with the students here in modern times. It would appear that young Newt was a victim of female school teacher predation.

William said...

His marital history is a mess. It's just not as big a mess as you have been led to believe. Sandusky did not abuse ten children. He only abused eight.

nevadabob said...

Gingrich has been revealed as a Washington insider (i.e., a corrupt politician willing to sign Democrat legislation) so naturally, the WaPo will rehabilitate his image.

The NYTimes will soon announce a "grudging" new respect for this "maverick."

DKWalser said...

So, the "aspect" of the Gingrich divorce story that was "distorted" is that his wife wasn't dying. She was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery when he chose to discuss their divorce. She just wasn't dying.

That makes his behavior okay. Almost chivalrous when you think about it. The discussion was bound to be painful for her and there she was in the hospital where should could have ready access pain medication. Choosing that time and place for a discussion of divorce exemplifies the type of consideration for another person that makes Gingrich a shinning example for us all.

I cannot understand how some could have come to believe Gingrich is a self-centered prick. Must have been the fact we were told his wife was dying -- not just bed-ridden and recovering from surgery -- when he choose to press her about their divorce.

Phil 3:14 said...

Now we know that Carol Herman was the source-

Writ Small said...

The original story was that Newt wanted to callously force a divorce on his dying wife, so he could trade her in for a new wife.

Now we find that the wife - not Newt - filed for divorce, she wasn't dying, and that the entire event was considered unremarkable by the family.

Other than that, as they say, the story was correct.

Newt left the story unchallenged all these years because explaining it to a skeptical reporter was unlikely to make him look any better. Classic political hit job from the party opposed to the "politics of personal destruction." Kudos for WaPo for setting the record straight - just 20 years too late.

MikeinAppalachia said...

I've become a Newt fan now after Carol's revelation. Anyone who had the power at age 19 to forsee, in 1962, that they needed to devise someway to get a draft deferment, other than college, to avoid being drafted and possibly be sent to Viet Nam has the kind of insight we need as POTUS.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So, what does it mean when the WaPo is writing favorably re Newt?

It means that they hope that Newt will be the candidate because they know that the innuendo and lies that they have lathered on for the last decade or so will be firmly ingrained in the dim minds of the sheeple and that they will STILL be able to beat him over the head with untruth and gin up righteous indignation from the morons who mainly watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC.

The press knows that critical thinking is not needed by the masses.....they will do that for us....thank you.

The press beats down those who have a real chance to win or to save the country before they can get their message out and elevates the ones that they plan to destroy later because they have saved the worst for last.

We are so screwed.

Kirby Olson said...

This is good news for Newt but probably won't be widely distributed. It's also very hard to know whether Obama can be beaten at all. Much of that side is impervious to facts, and cannot even begin to think about alternative explanations. We still don't know what the OWS movement is about, aside from having sex with animals and socialism. If there's something else, I wouldn't know what it was. At least Newt sticks with his own species. That's refreshing.

Gary Rosen said...

"We still don't know what the OWS movement is about, aside from having sex with animals and socialism. ... At least Newt sticks with his own species. That's refreshing."

You speciesist!

Alex said...

Ah ye aren't all holier then thou? I don't want a saint as President. Just someone who will swear on a stack of bibles to uphold the Constitution and roll back liberalism.

Chase said...

Alex - I'm with your statement.

As if any Democrat or liberal has the right to discuss "character". After Truman, any Democrat or liberal wouldn't recognize character if it was spelled in front of their faces.

Give us a break.

Chase said...

Great Democrats of "character":

john kennedy - uh, well, maybe not . . .

Lyndon Johnson - no, no, there has to be, wait -

Jimmy Carter - yea, that worked out REALLY well -

Bill Clinton - PLEASE

barack Obama - . . . . . . . . . . .

Spread Eagle said...

They've got to rehabilitate him so they can later destroy him once and for all if and when he wins the R nomination. Kinda like McCain thataway.

Darrell said...

People are still slamming Newt here.

1) The biopsy was negative, hence the "cancer" part was always a smear. Cancer scare, maybe, but cancer? No.

2) According to his daughter, Newt gathered the whole family to announce the divorce months before the tumor biopsy. Her mother told them that she was the one that thought that divorce was the only option.

3) Again, according to the daughter, Newt was behind getting the whole family to be at the hospital to support their mother during her biopsy and that divorce was never mentioned. They all hugged when the results came in.

4) According to the daughter, her mother never would speak about the matter with reporters. The daughter was upset that the mother wouldn't set the record straight and the mother said that it wasn't her job to do that. On the other hand she never heard her mother tell the wrong version of events in her presence.

Freeman Hunt said...

Because everyone wants to see Newt debate Obama. That simple.

I think there's something to that.

After watching some clips of Newt verbally swatting silly reporters, I want to see him debate Obama too.

Can we vote on whoever will win but watch Newt debate Obama in any case?

murgatroyd666 said...

"Aspects of Gingrich divorce story distorted."

And in other news, the New York Times grudgingly concedes that Walter Duranty's reports of happy peasant, bountiful harvests, and sumptuous feasts in Ukraine may have been mildly exaggerated. (But they still refuse to return the Pulitzer.)

The Crack Emcee said...

I am not a Newt fan - I even did an album, years ago, called "Newt Hates Me" - but he's been on my radar lately as one of the few GOP candidates with the intelligence to debate on a level I'm comfortable with (everyone else seems more-or-less like a cartoon). Am I willing to overlook his personal life to elect him? If I have to - in order to defeat Zero - yes, but I won't like it.

The Boomers, to their generation's eternal shame, have destroyed (amongst many, many other things) the concept of marriage in this country - reducing it, from a deep commitment to others, to a selfish boyfriend/girlfriend shacking up until you find someone/something possibly more attractive. Unfortunately, until they're gone, we're stuck with the dregs of their existence and Newt is another poster boy for that reality.

I'll take him over Zero. I'll take him over Romney. I'll even take him over Cain, or Perry, if necessary. But I will not pretend he's anything more than what he is:

The best of the worst this country has produced since slavery.

Fen said...

The press beats down those who have a real chance to win or to save the country before they can get their message out and elevates the ones that they plan to destroy later because they have saved the worst for last.

Like I said, they're not just biased. They are the Enemy.

Tar and feather them.