Despite the heavy lift among evangelical leaders hoping to convince their flocks that Newt Gingrich’s adultery-based serial divorces aren’t misaligned with Family Values and that Newt has earned forgiveness for his bad behavior, GOP primary voters actually have a long modern tradition of nominating wife-abandoners for the Presidency.
As GOP voters weigh the stylistic differences between Mitt and Newt, it’s important for them to understand their own party’s recent tradition, as well. Mitt Romney would break the party’s pattern of presidential picks’ — those not named Bush, at least — multiple marriages. The two Presidents Bush aside, all GOP nominees since 1980 had previously shed a spouse.
1976: The GOP experimented with putting divorce on the ticket; Appointed President Gerald Ford replaced Appointed Vice President Nelson Rockefeller (of whom, more later) with Kansas Senator Bob Dole as his Veep running mate. Four years previously, Dole had disposed of his first wife, the occupational therapist who nursed him back to health in a military hospital after his severe WW2 wounds, during the Senate recess in the summer of 1972. He arrived back in Washington a single man.
By 1975, Senator Dole had acquired a Watergate apartment that came fully equipped, including new wife Elizabeth Dole, whom he’d met spring 1972. Dole’s personal history wasn’t viewed as contributory to Ford’s loss, although his discussion of “Democrat Wars” — one of which he served and was wounded in — lent him the reputation, never shed, of a partisan bomb-thrower.
Practically unknown at the time, but an intriguing footnote, was that Gerald Ford had delayed his marriage to wife Betty when he first sought his Congressional seat because he didn’t know how voters would react to his marrying a divorced ex-dancer. That year, both GOP ticket-holders’ families had divorce in their past, one recent and one distant.
1980: Ronald Reagan, he of the dysfunctional family values, had been previously married to actress Jane Wyman before he locked in the special skills of the ambitious Nancy Davis.
Reagan’s tax-cut religion, grandfatherly befuddlement and nasty hippie-bashing charmed the GOP base, who have subsequently elevated him to undeserved small-government tax-cutter sainthood. He is now the icon of the party who wouldn’t ever nominate him. But Ronald Reagan also set the trend of nominees with colorful marital histories, embraced by the base.
1984: Reagan Redux
1988: GHWBush, whose wife Barbara Pierce tolerated peccadilloes but wasn’t about to be replaced, lending as she did a certain presidential sheen, albeit drenched in melancholia, to his ambitions.
1992: Bush Redux
1996: Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole topped the ticket. See 1976, above.
2000: Little Bush becomes the country’s first SCOTUS-selected occupant of the Oval Office.
2004: Shrub Redux
2008: Vietnam War Hero John McCain defeats marital-fidelity exemplars Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee for the GOP’s nomination. McCain had returned from his Hanoi war prison only to quickly dispose of his disfigured accident-victim first wife, who in his unplanned absence had raised their children, been through painful physical rehab, gained some weight and lost six inches in height after painful operations to repair her legs.
His history was spotlighted every time chic beer heiress and Wife Number Two Cindy Hensley appeared with him, dripping with money that financed his rise in GOP circles. The GOP base mumbled about having a RINO atop the ticket, but ignored his adulterous marital history as unimportant and, critically, forgiven in some unexplained way.
Let’s reflect, though, shall we? GOP voters now find themselves almost 48 years from the GOP nominating convention at the San Francisco Cow Palace. There, wealthy divorce’ and Governor of New York Nelson Rockefeller, having lost the presidential nomination to Barry Goldwater, insisted on his right to speak to the delegates who then booed and hissed (and, by some reports, spat at) him for 16 minutes. Rockefeller was reviled by the Goldwater Family Values Party because of his divorce from the mother of his five children and quick remarriage to a just-divorced staffer named, unhappily, “Happy.” The Rockefellers put the spotlight on the two-suddenly-broken-homes issue by giving birth shortly before the hotly contested California primary, which Rockefeller narrowly lost.
Additionally, Rocky had been publicly denounced by Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush, Hitler-backer and self-appointed marital moral arbiter, father and grandfather of the later Presidents Bush.
That was the last time the re-marital history of a potential nominee hurt his chances, though. It was, coincidentally, the last public paroxysm the GOP displayed at its nominating convention. I remember it, and the reaction across America to it. Rockefeller’s treatment at the hands of his party’s delegates was an ugly episode. It has never been equaled.
And, apparently, the Family Values that animated it have been turned upside down.
Now, divorce is a requirement to be nominated for president by the GOP — if your last name isn’t Bush. I wonder: can Mitt Romney successfully buck his party’s penchant for men who’ve disposed of their wives? Or will the GOP go with what they know, and double-down (if you’ll pardon the expression) with the twice-divorced former Speaker?
Don’t be fooled by anguished Villager pundits and cable news talking heads who despair over whether the GOP base will accept Newt Gingrich’s “colorful marital history.” Far from a disqualification, it’s a prerequisite.
It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.



51 Comments

wow teddy thanks for connected those dots… geez
tweeted and recommended
Thanks, Suzanne!
Yeah, I started thinking this through at about 3am today, and it’s consumed me ever since, sad to say. When I realized we’re dealing with a 35-year tradition, and that Mitt’s the one who needs to break the cycle, it hit me: if you’re not named Bush, you can’t have just one marriage to run for president successfully in the GOP.
Kinda weird, huh? I mean, I think we all know their Family Values crap is just that: crap. But I hadn’t figured out how craptastic it was until I laid it all out in my head: Dole (Betty Ford, bonus!); Reagan; Dole; McCain.
!
what is up with the phony, pasted-on smiles on the women in that picture? It look like decals peeled off a sheet of facial parts and glued on to their faces? Are they for real?
Republicans believe that words speaker louder than actions.
The Rs are always blathering words but they seem to get a lot of action – adultery-wise, anyway.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what anybody does with their genitals. I just want someone to govern honestly and competently, and to enfore the rule of law. If we want to focus on Rethug hypocrisy, we can do that in any other area.
Unfortunately Democrats — at least those who continue to support Obama — appear to believe that as well.
I loved this web site. It was so informative and now daily on the top of the list is crap about these irrelevant politicians. Has this become the veal pen? we have to make sure we talk about the Republicans and how horrible they are so Obama can get re-elected? I am so sick of it and do I really have to see and hear and read this crap for another year. I left the Democratic party because I could not stand it, I stopped listening to the so-called progressive radio stations because this is all they can talk about.
First – do you know what veal pen means? This site coined the phrase.
It means people/organizations who abandon their missions/principles/members to trade for access to the White House/Traditional power sources.
Second – an analogy. If you think of today’s politics as Oppressors and Vichy type collaborators, do you think it’s wise to only talk about the Vichy?
No, in my opinion. Both must be tracked, derided and opposed. Which is done here daily.
This site is still extremely informative. The number of posts about varying issues is unbelievable.
I still like it here.
Go Lake!
PS, I’m divorced, but not a Republican. Should I consider running?
People who use, abuse, and toss each other aside in marital relationships are hardly limited to GOP politicians, or politicians generally. Marriages are about career paths, wealth, and class in the upper reaches of society. See: The Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton for one of trillions of examples.
I’d recommend a couple more divorces, become a dry drunk, run some companies into the ground, and most important – have a lot of ultra rich conservative friends and do exactly whatever they want.
In other words, after your husband cheats on you while in the Oval Office, you stay married, why?
Well, because you can count on him serving as a basis for your quick purchase of a Senate seat in New York so that you can barter his position further into a presidential run.
The point being tossing people aside is as cheap as using them to get ahead. And they all preach “family values”.
I don’t either.
But I saw a pattern here, one I’ve never seen mentioned. For all their “family values” blather, the GOP exclusively nominates men who’ve been divorced, if they are not Bushes.
Did everyone else already understand this? I’ve been gobsmacked by seeing this pattern all day long, and I’m starting to think I’m newly in command of something terribly obvious.
This isn’t about GOP hypocrisy, it’s about GOP patterns of nominations.
Heh… I’m old enough to remember Rocky. I was born and raised in NYC. I’m also nasty enough to remember the name . As we used to joke, back in the day, Nelson came and went…
Please consider choosing an issue, or several, and writing diaries about it (or them) at the FDL diary site, MyFDL. Our content here is driven by reader interest; if readers share your interests, then you’ll get comments and recommends.
Or, as they used to say on the internet, with tongue-in-cheek: start your own website. *g*
Seriously, though, this website is what we make of it. Please feel free to influence its content by contributing to it. You’ll probably find that more rewarding than complaining about perceived changes, but since I don’t know you I can’t issue a guarantee about that.
Some people really like complaining: “Write about my issue, NOW!” Are you really one of those people? I doubt it.
Yeah, me too.
Great. No edit capability that I can find, and half my comment eated… This comment system here is the suxxors.
Just in case anyone gives a shit, the name is Megan Marshack. I actually tried to put up a link, but y’all can Google it on your own. The joke still stands.
In laugh-or-cry moments I usually tend to laugh, but it’s hard not to cry at this BS smear over trivia. Half of American marriages end in divorce: YAWN!
I heard from a very reliable source (but can’t prove) that Jackie once walked into the Oval Office and threw a pair of panties she’d found into John’s face. Bill Clinton enjoyed cigars marinated inside an intern.
Shall we also discuss Anthony Weiner, James McGreevey, Gary Condit, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Elliot Spitzer, and (of course) Ted Kennedy?
Or can we just acknowledge that in this respect — as in so many others — there’s no fucking difference (pun intended) between the two parties and people who pretend otherwise are partisan hypocrites?
Nowhere did I say this is exclusive to the GOP, but it’s probably worth noting the contrast: in every single election I mention in the post, the Democrats nominate a man who was in his first marriage.
Except, you know, war hero John Kerry.
I don’t think that makes the Democrats better. But I think it makes the parties different, considering one is based quite concretely in the ‘sanctity of marriage’ whatever that means. Don’t you find that pattern fascinating?
None of the Democrats you mention were nominated for the presidency by their party. Nor is your ‘reliable source’ linked.
I resent your calling this a smear. It’s a recitation of facts I found made up a pattern. It’s not about Democrats; it’s about an anomaly within the GOP.
And it’s about the party that claims, at its base, to value the sanctity of marriage, whatever that means.
Do you get it now? Not sure I can make it any clearer, but it’s certainly no ‘smear.’ I accept your apology, in advance.
the Rockefeller family, and Ms Marshak, have had no further comment about the former Vice President’s death since his children issued a statement saying they believed everything that could be done to save him was done (clearly not the case) and that they hoped the family could grieve their loss privately and without further speculation.
Which, of course, no one paid any attention to, thank goodness. It’s ingrained in the culture now: pulling a Rocky means dying atop your young mistress, in flagrante.
What a legacy!
And, no you do NOT really have to see and hear and read this crap for another year. Unless you’ve got the strangest web browser I’ve ever heard of, that only gets one ‘channel.’
Archival article: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20073017,00.html
(Is there a way for the HTML-impaired to post links? I’m pretty much a Luddite…!)
“None of the Democrats you mention were nominated for the presidency by their party.”
Uh… Bill Clinton? John Kerry? How much more of your foot will fit in your mouth, Teddy?
I reject your apology, in advance.
Don’t you always just love the “The Other Side Does It Too!” argument? And shall we begin to discuss who’s still serving in Congress and who isn’t, or would that embarrass ironymeter? (Well, assuming that such folks are even capable of embarrassment…)
We’re all delighted that you took off your 2 wet suits to be here. And we await more of your wisdom…
Opps! You’re right: I didn’t mention John Kerry.
Add him to the list, please.
So you don’t even read your OWN comments? Typical.
“we await more of your wisdom”
Naturally, since there’s none coming from you. Did you have something substantive to contribute, Marion, or are obscure insults (I have to admit: I don’t get it) all you’ve got?
I did not know his wife personally…but wiki says that they were separated for six years before divorce and that she always spoke well of him and that he called her the best mother their daughters could have had. Exactly what do you know that John Kerry was an adulterer. What kind of smear campaign are you on?
As a matter of fact, though comments are not numbered here, Teddy did mention that Kerry was divorced, and well before Ironymeter got hot and bothered.
Apparently you didn’t read (or didn’t comprehend) the comment.
I didn’t claim it’s okay because The Other Side Does It Too. I specifically said, “there’s no fucking difference (pun intended) between the two parties and people who pretend otherwise are partisan hypocrites”
Stick to insults, Marion.
Bill Clinton is not divorced.
Which is the subject of the post, not affairs or interns.
Thank you, Dearie, I thought I had done so but didn’t check.
This whole “but, but Democrats!” is a complete distraction from the point of the post and I refuse to engage in it here.
Of course our ruling classes are morally corrupt. My point here is that the Base of the GOP is as well.
Why can’t some people comprehend what they read anymore? Checking that meter too often, I suppose….
And I do not personally know Nancy Reagan, the “ambitious” lady with “special skills,” but from all appearances they did have a very happy marriage.
LOL! Okay, Teddy: my bad. I thought you were trying to make some point about morality.
If all you care about is divorce, then I guess I covered it all in my first post:
“Half of American marriages end in divorce: YAWN!”
omg this is Kafka-esque.
I didn’t even read your comment. But neither did you!
Done now.
… and ONLY those who are divorced (or named Bush) are eligible to be the GOP presidential nominee, providing a huge hurdle for Mitt Romney to overcome.
You are, slowly and with much remediation, coming to the point of the post. Do I really so wallow in the obscure constructs of the English language that my posts are this unclear?
Oh, wait, there’s two tango-ing here….
.. and I don’t really think anyone is hot and bothered.
Lonely and needy, yes. Desperate for attention, sure.
But hardly hot and bothered.
Okay, I’ll address that “special skills” comment of mine, since you asked.
Louis B Mayer, asked why he kept Nancy Davis around the Metro lot when several of his underling directors had tried to get her to act and failed miserably, is rumored to have replied that she gave the best head he ever had and she had a job as long as she wanted one at Metro.
No link, sorry.
So, yeah, the Reagans had a very happy marriage, I’ll grant you that. It was especially happy, of course, when St Ronnie was in Rejkyavik and Frank Sinatra visited the White House family quarters, where no staff were permitted to interrupt for four hours. Repeatedly.
These stories both come from Kitty Kelly’s very well researched book for which she was never sued.
ROFLMAO!
But I must admit: you’re right about one thing. I am most certainly neither hot nor bothered by either you or Ms. Wet Suit.
Teddy i must take your observation to the next step. How many GOP divorces/affairs could we see from now till 2016. I mean if this is a prerequisite to nomination. Nice post.
Make up your mind, Teddy: you can either resent my calling this a “smear” or you can repeat blowjob rumors. Not both.
What a bizarre sense of logic.
Something is only logical if you agree with the opinion.
It’s not logical if you don’t agree with the opinion.
And facts just go ZING out the window when you don’t like them.
Naughty Republicans. They don’t have the same high marital standards as — Bill Clinton!
Remind me again — when were the Clintons divorced?