Gingrich's Moral Failings Must be the Media's Fault

In each debate Gingrich has attacked the media and apparently asking about his 3 marriages is reason to attack the media just for asking about them. And what do the Republicans in the audience do? They applaud his attacks because they have been so brainwashed by their own party that they give Gingrich a pass on one of the only consistent party platforms they have going for their party from campaign to campaign, family values. So you can question the values of black families, you can question the values of gay families, and you can questions the values of non-Christians, but don't questions the values of one of our candidates no matter how sleazy and scummy they are or we'll attack you for asking. HYP-O-CRITES!

 

It was a presidential debate. If you want sensationalized gossip fueled by an ex-wife's rantings, go read the Enquirer.

 

But that would spoil moen's fun. His sole purpose here is to berate and belittle all things right. If he cannot do that, he will have to rely on facts and that does not work for him.

 

So you are putting your trust in the word of a guy that started a sexual relationship with his much older HS math teacher at 16 married her, had 2 kids with her and started an affair with another woman while first wife was suffering from cancer, left his first wife to marry the woman he was having an affair with and then began having a second affair on his second wife and divorced her while she was in the hospital to marry his third wife who was one of his staffers all while trying to impeach a Democratic president for exactly what he himself was engaging in at the same time? He must just sit at home and laugh at the idiots he has so completely hoodwinked with his superior intellect.
I think the man’s character is pretty clear at this point. As a woman, you certainly must respect his serial monogamy for what it is….Very convenient monogamy at best.

 

Please see facts above. Which ones are untrue? Please, enlighten us.

 

Anyone who has taken time to read my posts on that candidates knows that I dislike Newt Gingrich. Despise might be a better word. But that doesn't change the fact that a presidential debate is not Real Housewives of Atlanta.

 

I know you have expressed dislike for him in the past and I give you credit for that. However, and you know that in politics there is always a however, primaries and debates in particular are both vetting processes and when you have questions that are considered to be too much in the gutter to even ask, you begin muting your own vetting process.
In other words, if the question seems too seedy for the venue, you just might be dealing with an actual crop of Real Housewives of Atlanta figuratively speaking. Sometimes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck. I hope the vetting process is actually allowed to continue on the Right.

 

Really, moen? You are going to feign outrage over this sort of thing?

 

Facts omitted are often more important than those presented. Like this was a presidential debate to pick a Republican candidate. Your opinion is meaningless at this point. Not only that, it was meant to inform the Republican voters. Despite your shortcomings of apparently not knowing of his past, I am sure the Republicans have heard plenty of them and are well aware of his past.

I further find it most interesting that ABC refused to allow Newt or any of his allies to participate in their show. There are always 2 sides to a story like that. Did you happen to catch my first line? Facts omitted are often more important than those presented is quite appropriate here also.

 

I understand what you are saying and I agree to a certain extent. However, I think that there needs to be a certain amount of decorum maintained at the debates themselves. If you allow every question under every circumstance, then at some point the debates will appeal only to the lowest common denominator and will be useless in actually doing what they are supposed to do: determine what candidates are suited to run for the office of president of the United States. There is plenty of room for that kind of vetting outside of the debates themselves, in regular interviews.

I'm still not certain about why this issue is so important to the media or to you, however. John F. Kennedy was not a faithful man, but he was a good man (by most accounts) despite that, devoted to his children, and an amazing president. Ronald Reagan is (currently) the only president ever to have been divorced--his then-wife Jane Wyman, divorced him on the grounds of mental cruelty. He was also a storied president. Bill Clinton, who I believe was perhaps the most effective Democratic president in my memory (I don't remember Kennedy and hold him higher than Clinton, but both were in my lifetime), was a serial adulterer. However, that did not stop him from being successful in his office. In my opinion what a person does in his or her bedroom should not automatically disqualify him or her from any kind of office. I'd rather vote for someone--or not vote for someone--based on important things, like jobs, the economy, foreign policy stance, etc. Call me crazy, but I'd rather have someone who was in an open marriage who brought inexpensive oil and jobs to the country than someone claiming to be devoted to family and turning his back on "shovel-ready" projects. Just saying.

 

So which "omitted facts" put Newt in a new light for the rest of us to consider? You can't simply say facts were omitted without including them yourself. That's not an argument that is just omitting nonexistent "facts".

Your arguments continue to be devoid of facts and obtuse. So what else is new? Moving on.

 

This all seems so hypocritcal coming from someone like moen.....so hypocritical in fact that the whole story comes across as a non-story.

 

Why is this even being brought up in a political forum? What does the man's love life have to do with his politics? The same chant I heard countless times from the LWers during Clinton's escapade was, "It's only sex"!

Please get your facts straight. Gingrich didn't go after Clinton for having an affair. He went after Clinton for the serious charge of perjury. Certainly you were aware of that, weren't you?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The man's love life is certainly checkered, but when did we start going after our politicians based on their love lives?

 

Why is always brought up when it is a Democrat and you guys pile on the criticisms with glee? Remember Anthony Wiener? I didn't notice any of you not wanting to talk about that for some reason. Now you don't want to talk about Newt's issues. Hum?

Like I've said many times in the past, I don't personally care if someone wants to sleep around every day of the week. I consider it their own business and their family’s business but when you have thrown out so many comments in public about "family values" you open yourself up to this type of criticism and public scrutiny by your own hands. If you want an endless list of family values comments old Newt has made publicly, I'd be happy to provide them. He has no business chastising the media for bringing this up when he has so often used the media to espouse his family values rhetoric. Class-A-Hypocrite.

 

Last time I checked, sending obscene pictures to a minor is and was a crime. Maybe you believe by your religious beliefs that what Gingrich did was a crime, but it isn't by any laws I am aware of. He has not even perjured himself about it.

BTW, you obviously do care. Else, just why did you bother to post a thread like this? Oh! that's right. You have to follow the left's talking point

 

Moen, the difference is that Weiner was not running for president and discussion was not taking place during presidential debates. Yes, what Gingrich had done in the past was wrong. What Weiner did was wrong (especially seeing as with that name you'd think he'd avoid sexual scandals!). What Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton did was equally wrong. The point is not "family values" or RW vs. LW. The point is that the other debaters' time should be respected and the intelligence of the people watching the debate should be respected. Contrary to some people's opinions, people who actually watch the debate care about more than Real Housewives stuff and are not the slack-jawed yokels that conservatives are often painted as. There is plenty of time to "vet" the candidates in this way, just not during the debates to determine the presidential candidate.

 

btw, I'd just like to add that people on both sides of this debate need to GROW UP. Moen and I are actually having a reasonable discussion. Guess that's what happens, I don't know, when you KNOCK OFF THE PERSONAL ATTACKS.

 

I obviously feel differently but I understand your point. I think anything along the lines of infidelity makes many people uncomfortable to talk about. I always remember the words I once heard from Donald Rumsfeld of all people. "As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

I'm used to it. I give as good as I get. It's a guy thing.

 

We are getting bombarded with snow so I think I head home...
http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/full_loop.php

 

Thanks for being reasonable. And yes, there are many days I am grateful for my relative lack of testosterone (even females have a bit!). By the way, you can keep your snow. It's 75 degrees out there--yay!

(Stay safe . . .)