Newt Gingrich Announces Presidential Run on Facebook,Twitter

AspenValley wrote: Considering the field of candidates, Gingrich is probably better than average.

At least he's not a moron or a raving fundamentalist.

He has shown leadership capabilities in the past.

But I doubt his staying power.

Do I really need to comment on that to make a sexual innuendo?????

AspenValley wrote: He strikes me as one of those guys who can make a big stir but kind of gets bored of his own spiel when it's time to actually get to work and implement all those grandiose ideas.

I do think he has been hypocritical about campaigning for "family values" while his own personal life has been less than sterling in that regard. But he certainly isn't the first public figure who tried to hide his own peccadilloes in a cloak of righteousness. And any way, if we had to eliminate every person who has had a sexual indiscretion from high public office I'm not sure how many would be left. And as mentioned above...the field is pretty skimpy as it is.

I really have no cares about candidates sexual behavior. That's their business. What I care about is the hypocrisy of rabidly persuing one politician for a certain sexual behavior while engaging in similar sexual behavior.

Kate wrote:

CinnamonGirl wrote: Okay, you bring up that Newt it is a cheater and that he is a hypocrite mostly because he is a rep. but we are not allowed to point out that Clinton was a hypocrite too and that it does not follow party lines. And for some weird reason Clinton lying and saying he didn't have sex is not the same. I am not making this up. You brought it up not me.

I don't think it's because he is a Republican, it's because he campaigned, along with the most of the Republicans, on moral and family values, while engaging in non-family values behavior. That's the hypocrisy.

Yes it is and he is not my guy, but not for that reason. My gut says that if elected he would go along to get along.

I will vote for the person that I think is most likely to fix the budget. I do not care if they married their sister and their mistress is a goat.

archer wrote: so PS....you too are saying don't condemn Gingrich because Clinton did it too....and if democrats supported Clinton then Republicans should have no problem supporting Gingrich. Got it.

Nope - I'm agreeing with all the progressives. A person's sexual behavior has no impact upon their ability to do the job. Their personal integrity, certainly, but not their ability to do the job. If you think that integrity is important, as well as the ability to do the job, then the integrity shown by Gingrich, Clinton and Lord only knows how many others should disqualify them from receiving your support. As I said, because I think integrity is at least as important as the ability to get the job done, I can't support Gingrich in his bid to become the Republican candidate to oppose Obama in 2012. If he manages to get there, I will hold my nose and vote for him in an attempt to unseat Obama. I think Gingrich can get the job done and his policies are closer to mine than Obama's are. I would prefer a president with more integrity than Gingrich has shown himself to possess, but the list of potential presidents who I would find more preferable than the current one is a lot longer than the list of Republican hopefuls is likely to be when the primaries start.

My statement was also more along the lines of a Democrat who found themselves able to support Clinton after his sexual escapades should not then oppose Gingrich solely on the basis of his sexual escapades. They have already demonstrated that they feel ability to do the job is more important than the integrity of the one doing the job, so Gingrich's similar lack of integrity in that area should not be a concern to them. If one's opposition to Clinton was primarily the lack of personal integrity, then that person should not support Gingrich because he has shown the same lack of personal integrity that Clinton exhibited. It makes absolutely no sense to say that Clinton's infidelity was of no consequence but Gingrich's should keep him out of the office. It also makes no sense to say that Clinton's infidelity was of serious consequence but Gingrich's infidelity is of no consequence.

Though I will give you points for trying to twist and distort what it was I said into something else in true progressive fashion.

PrintSmith wrote: Though I will give you points for trying to twist and distort what it was I said into something else in true progressive fashion.

I'm a good student PrintSmith, everything I know about twisting and distorting posts I learned from the conservatives here. If that is what you think I have done, then thank your righty friends for teaching me well.

:thumbsup:

psssssst......no twisting or distortion was really needed to show you all how much Clinton still dominates your psyches.....maybe it's time you all got over him, as you are so fond of telling us to get over Bush.

PrintSmith wrote: My statement was also more along the lines of a Democrat who found themselves able to support Clinton after his sexual escapades should not then oppose Gingrich solely on the basis of his sexual escapades. They have already demonstrated that they feel ability to do the job is more important than the integrity of the one doing the job, so Gingrich's similar lack of integrity in that area should not be a concern to them. If one's opposition to Clinton was primarily the lack of personal integrity, then that person should not support Gingrich because he has shown the same lack of personal integrity that Clinton exhibited. It makes absolutely no sense to say that Clinton's infidelity was of no consequence but Gingrich's should keep him out of the office. It also makes no sense to say that Clinton's infidelity was of serious consequence but Gingrich's infidelity is of no consequence.

Maybe I missed it, but most here who are critical of Gingrich are so because of the hypocrisy of campaigning on moral & family values while engaging in unfamily-values-like behavior.

I don't give a rats ass what he or Clinton do behind closed doors, or in the White House or in their Congressional office. Just don't tell me that you are against it while doing it.

CriticalBill wrote:

jmc wrote: Hypocrisy is the issue, dems don't pretend to be holy , only repubs have the baggage of self righteousness that they ( or noboby else) can't live up too.

Can you give some examples of high profile Republicans the have advertised their "self righteousness" in the last decade? Maybe there are some but I don't remember except in the 1990s. If just a few say they are champions of "moral values", you really can't paint everyone with that brush just like there are Democrats who have associations with Communists, you can't paint all Democrats either.

It does make it nice and simple to do that and TRY to ingrain that image in the minds of voters though...both sides do it and it's just dishonest.

Vetter and Ensign, just off the top of my head. Oh yeah the foot tapper guy from Utah. I'm sure that if I had 5 minutes i could find a dozen others.

Okay so Clinton is not a problem for lying after because he never professed to be faithful and his Not have sexual relations is not big deal.

Gotcha... okay that makes sense.

archer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Though I will give you points for trying to twist and distort what it was I said into something else in true progressive fashion.

I'm a good student PrintSmith, everything I know about twisting and distorting posts I learned from the conservatives here. If that is what you think I have done, then thank your righty friends for teaching me well.

:thumbsup:

psssssst......no twisting or distortion was really needed to show you all how much Clinton still dominates your psyches.....maybe it's time you all got over him, as you are so fond of telling us to get over Bush.

You, more than perhaps most here, I would have expected to stand up and accept what you have done as being of your own doing and not say that you did it because you were the victim of the actions of others. I guess progressiveism has indeed worked its wonders on what remained of your sense of personal responsibility. I know how to get a car started without a key. If I then avail myself of the knowledge to steal a car, who is responsible? Me, or the person who taught me how to start the car without the key? According to your latest offering it would be the person who taught me how to start the car without the key. We both know better than that - don't we. Notice that it wasn't a question, it was a statement.

Kate wrote: Maybe I missed it, but most here who are critical of Gingrich are so because of the hypocrisy of campaigning on moral & family values while engaging in unfamily-values-like behavior.

I don't give a rats ass what he or Clinton do behind closed doors, or in the White House or in their Congressional office. Just don't tell me that you are against it while doing it.

And perhaps you missed as well the problem with Clinton wasn't his philandering, it was his committing perjury while under oath. That same man took another oath - a presidential oath. If his sworn oath to tell the truth in a court of law meant nothing to him, what then are we to derive regarding the other sworn oaths he has taken?

Wow PrintSmith, who knew you could also be so good at twisting and distorting? I owned up to mine...can you do the same? Then, after we have all finished insulting other, I really would be interested which of the many Republican candidates will capture the voting publics attention, and which you think would make the best president.Those may not be the same person.