Newt Gingrich’s daughter clears up a long-standing media lie about him.
13 thoughts on “Setting The Record Straight”
Wow, the commentariat there is most classy. Clearly they are the betters who deserve to rule us all.
They should not have allowed comments on that article. I felt unclean just reading them.
I don’t normally post “me too” or “+1” replies, but, me too.
It’s a shame that websites that allow comments don’t have this feature. It would be very useful.
Every instance of the ‘deathbed” story I’ve read cites the following:
“[Newt Gingrich] walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery … To say I gave up a lot for the marriage is the understatement of the year.”
These words, which are supposed to be those of Gingrich’s ex-wife, are usually cited as being from a Washington Post article (“Newt Gingrich: Maverick of the Hill”, Jan. 3, 1985). I have been unable to locate this source document. If anyone can help me find it, I’d be grateful.
But if you vote for the jar of mayonnaise, you are voting for Mr. Gingrinch. Or is it the other way around? Or, in Soviet Russia, jar of mayonnaise votes for you! Or is it, ballot marked for mayonnaise jar gets you sent to Siberia? Or maybe, the jar of mayonnaise is the only entry on the ballot? You figure it out . . .
Y’know, that is why we need ol’ Julian Assange. It is because of Wikileaks that we know 1) OJ “really did it”, 2) HIV really causes AIDS, 3) eating too much will make you heavy, 4) 9-11 was really the work of Middle Eastern (mainly Saudi) terrorists, 5) President Obama was born in Hawaii, 6) all of the purported cold fusion experiments are spurious, and 7) those neutrinos really aren’t faster than light after all.
You would think that the light of (forced) transparency would make known the truth behind all manners of conspiracy theories, but the opposite seems to be true, that Wikileaks is pretty much confirming everything sensible people have suspected as being true.
Let me get this straight. Rumors say Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife died of cancer. Her daughter says it wasn’t cancer and her mother is still alive. So, people who think they know better call her a liar???
This is like discussing space policy with Mark Whittington.
Dunno why did the daughter call her miracle mom if it wasn’t cancer. Know she says the tumor that was removed is benign. Though a 13 year old in a family divorce ain’t the most reliable witness, that like asking my 11 year old nephew why his parents are separated ” his momma kicked daddy out”(truth) but as far as he been told it was either daddy left or mutual. So her not knowing the full truth is not beyond the realm of possibility.
She had uterine cancer 2 years prior.
Benign tumors are still “cancer”, they’re just not dangerous.
And people who have a tumor and find out it’s benign often consider that an almost miraculous reprieve.
So I wouldn’t gainsay anyone’s personal choice of words regarding it, you know?
And of course, re. the divorce, she ain’t 13 anymore, and since both Mom and Dad are alive, there’s the crazy idea that maybe she’s talked to them about it.
Again, nobody outside has any basis to gainsay.
Some of the posters in that thread give sub-human a bad name.
It’s people like those that sometimes make me want to disavow the human race. Your way of looking at them does seem more effective though.
Wow, the commentariat there is most classy. Clearly they are the betters who deserve to rule us all.
They should not have allowed comments on that article. I felt unclean just reading them.
I don’t normally post “me too” or “+1” replies, but, me too.
It’s a shame that websites that allow comments don’t have this feature. It would be very useful.
Every instance of the ‘deathbed” story I’ve read cites the following:
These words, which are supposed to be those of Gingrich’s ex-wife, are usually cited as being from a Washington Post article (“Newt Gingrich: Maverick of the Hill”, Jan. 3, 1985). I have been unable to locate this source document. If anyone can help me find it, I’d be grateful.
As for Gingrich himself: I’d sooner vote for a jar of mayonnaise.
[ http://youtu.be/qi6n_-wB154 ]
But if you vote for the jar of mayonnaise, you are voting for Mr. Gingrinch. Or is it the other way around? Or, in Soviet Russia, jar of mayonnaise votes for you! Or is it, ballot marked for mayonnaise jar gets you sent to Siberia? Or maybe, the jar of mayonnaise is the only entry on the ballot? You figure it out . . .
Y’know, that is why we need ol’ Julian Assange. It is because of Wikileaks that we know 1) OJ “really did it”, 2) HIV really causes AIDS, 3) eating too much will make you heavy, 4) 9-11 was really the work of Middle Eastern (mainly Saudi) terrorists, 5) President Obama was born in Hawaii, 6) all of the purported cold fusion experiments are spurious, and 7) those neutrinos really aren’t faster than light after all.
You would think that the light of (forced) transparency would make known the truth behind all manners of conspiracy theories, but the opposite seems to be true, that Wikileaks is pretty much confirming everything sensible people have suspected as being true.
Let me get this straight. Rumors say Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife died of cancer. Her daughter says it wasn’t cancer and her mother is still alive. So, people who think they know better call her a liar???
This is like discussing space policy with Mark Whittington.
Dunno why did the daughter call her miracle mom if it wasn’t cancer. Know she says the tumor that was removed is benign. Though a 13 year old in a family divorce ain’t the most reliable witness, that like asking my 11 year old nephew why his parents are separated ” his momma kicked daddy out”(truth) but as far as he been told it was either daddy left or mutual. So her not knowing the full truth is not beyond the realm of possibility.
She had uterine cancer 2 years prior.
Benign tumors are still “cancer”, they’re just not dangerous.
And people who have a tumor and find out it’s benign often consider that an almost miraculous reprieve.
So I wouldn’t gainsay anyone’s personal choice of words regarding it, you know?
And of course, re. the divorce, she ain’t 13 anymore, and since both Mom and Dad are alive, there’s the crazy idea that maybe she’s talked to them about it.
Again, nobody outside has any basis to gainsay.
Some of the posters in that thread give sub-human a bad name.
It’s people like those that sometimes make me want to disavow the human race. Your way of looking at them does seem more effective though.