Last Night's Debate & Newt

LadyJazzer wrote: Still trying to equate a b.j. to swapping three wives? (While railing against him in the House while he was doing it?)

Just how selective is that memory of yours? Clinton's sexual escapades with Lewinsky constituted far more than "a" oral sex episode. One of the sex sessions ended up with a stained dress, but there is no question that there was more than "a" sexual encounter between the two of them and some of the encounters occurred while Clinton's wife, our current Secretary of State, was in residence at the White House. There is also no question that Bill's philandering ways continued while his wife was a Senator - that she was, for all intents and purposes, party to an "open marriage" with her consent. She knew her husband had a mistress while she was campaigning for the office of the president, as did the press (though they conveniently decided to overlook it). Why didn't we hear any talk of Clinton's "open marriage" while she was on the campaign trail back in 2008?

The main point is that Newt stood up against this crap that really has no place in a presidential debate. The MSM has been exposed for being nothing more than the National Enquirer and left wing biased to the max. It was a stupid, ridiculous, and very obviously partisan first question...Newt tore King a new one.

So now infidelity is fine...will rape be OK next? It is only between the candidate and the victim right?

And Clinton was more than just one woman and one encounter. And did it affect his presidency? Ask the employees of that Somali asprin factory he bombed to divert attention from his daliances.

I think we should hold our candidates to a higher standard than your normal man. If you wanted a normal man, just have a national lottery to determine who will be the next president. Would be a lot cheaper for the nation and he wouldn't be influenced by all the fundraising Obama and others are doing right now.

What bothers me about this whole mess is how so many of the posts in this thread appear to be, at least to me, very sexist in nature. Many of the posts talk about the "men" in the context of being wronged somehow and that, in and of itself, would appear to justify their behavior. The fact is, there are men AND women involved in all of this and when one spouse goes outside the parameters of their marriage, whether they are getting along or not, whether the infidelity is on the part of the man or the woman, doesn't matter. The fact remains it is adultery and shows the individual's moral compass (IMO). Citing all the past pols who've engaged in adulterous behavior is neither here nor there. Because they did it, too, does NOT make it right. The fact is, they were adulterers, too. If we, as a society, choose to continue to try to force the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman (which apparently the Moral Majority and Evangelical Christians continue to do), then this is something we need to consider when choosing a politician to represent us. If you, individually, believe in the sanctity of the vows you took when you married someone, then you need to consider this when choosing the type(s) of individual(s) who will ultimately represent you. If we, as a society, choose to ignore, overlook, or go "winky, winky" whenever something like this comes to light, we have nobody to blame but ourselves when these types of people are elected.

Actually, the point is that Newt (and other Republicans) run on a platform of family values and are very vocal about defending the "sanctity of marriage," yet Newt behaves like this and expects us to believe that what he says is the truth? This is a perfect example of "Do what I say and not what I do."

To my knowledge, Clinton never accused and prosecuted other people that were cheating on their spouses, while he was himself cheating. That's the difference between Newt and Clinton. The former President was a cheating spouse, the former Speaker is a cheating spouse and a hypocrite.

My point is, we have a horrible prez now, who has no chance of improving our country with a 2nd term. We need someone else, and whichever rep ends up the nominee, regardless of their personal baggage, will be much better suited to attempt to redirect the ship. They may not succeed, but we know the current occupant is driving us straight over the cliff.

I would be more concerned about the fact that he dumped his wife right after she was diagnosed with MS. That shows his true character more than cheating on her with another woman.

To the best of my knowledge Fred, no one has intimated, directly or otherwise, that it is "fine" and that we should not expect better from holders of high political offices. I, personally, would not be "fine" with my spouse cheating on me and I can promise you that she would not be "fine" with my cheating on her either. I would not have been fine with my father cheating on my mother, or my brother from cheating on his wife or my wife's husband cheating on her. I would not be fine with a friend of mine cheating on their spouse.

Having said that, it doesn't alter the facts of the matter one bit and I think the history of our union, and the history of many foreign nations, shows quite clearly that many leaders have had both wife and mistress and that this is unlikely to change regardless of whether or not the populace is "fine" with the idea. I think the evidence of history is also quite clear that a leader with both wife and mistress is still capable of being an effective leader. Whether or not I approve of marriage infidelity will not alter the reality of its existence. Refusing to vote for a person because of their past infidelities, or even their present ones, will not prevent future office holders, or office hopefuls, from participation in extramarital affairs. When one is a position of authority is found to have engaged in such conduct, it should not be kept secret for partisan reasons as was so often the case in the past, but I think all of us were already well aware of the reality that former Speaker Gingrich had extramarital affairs in the past.

Gingrich has never denied that he was having an affair with his current wife while still married to his former one - twice. Marianne Gingrich herself was having an affair with Newt while he was married to someone else, so I fail to see why she wouldn't think that he would have an affair with someone else while married to her. She was willing to share him once before, with his first wife, so why would she be so opposed to sharing him with someone else simply because she was now the wife instead of the mistress?

As I said earlier, Newt would not be my first choice and I don't plan on advocating for him when it comes time to attend my precinct caucus early next month. Make no mistake, however, that if the Republican Party chooses Gingrich as the party's candidate in 2012, I will cast my vote for him in November. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate after all. I am not going to agree with any candidate on 100% of the issues - personal or political - and so my choice must be made by looking at which one of them I find the most agreement with what I feel are the most important issues. Any of the 4 remaining hopefuls easily fits that description when compared to our current president, so whichever one of them eventually gets the party's nomination is the person I will be voting for.

Newt's infidelity won't preclude me from voting for him but it will be a checkmark in the "con" column. And I find his attacks on capitalism even worse.

If Colorado was holding their caucuses today, I would still be undecided.

zhawke wrote: What bothers me about this whole mess is how so many of the posts in this thread appear to be, at least to me, very sexist in nature. Many of the posts talk about the "men" in the context of being wronged somehow and that, in and of itself, would appear to justify their behavior. The fact is, there are men AND women involved in all of this and when one spouse goes outside the parameters of their marriage, whether they are getting along or not, whether the infidelity is on the part of the man or the woman, doesn't matter. The fact remains it is adultery and shows the individual's moral compass (IMO). Citing all the past pols who've engaged in adulterous behavior is neither here nor there. Because they did it, too, does NOT make it right. The fact is, they were adulterers, too. If we, as a society, choose to continue to try to force the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman (which apparently the Moral Majority and Evangelical Christians continue to do), then this is something we need to consider when choosing a politician to represent us. If you, individually, believe in the sanctity of the vows you took when you married someone, then you need to consider this when choosing the type(s) of individual(s) who will ultimately represent you. If we, as a society, choose to ignore, overlook, or go "winky, winky" whenever something like this comes to light,we have nobody to blame but ourselves when these types of people are elected.[/i]

No... we have the left to blame. The liberals, socialist and progressives have done a very good job of inculcating relative morals and Modernism into our society and because of that, this is all going to backfire. The left tries to "outrage" us with these personal character flaws, but in general, society doesn't really care anymore. We've been through Kennedy, Clinton, Edwards and a slew of other philanderers on the right and left and it's not really an issue anymore... even thought the left keeps trying. But the left can't have it both ways... and in this case, the left is winning. Society doesn't care enough about Newts rutting around with various women. Thanks to the left, it's really not important to the leadership of our country.

Why does the right have to choose anyone that is any more moral than what the left considers moral? I think the playing field is leveling out, and it's driving the left crazy. Suddenly lefty media like ABC is concerned with Newt's ex-wife. Gee... did they ever decide to do a report on how she was harm in the past? Of course not. So... why are they worried about it now. Here's where I'm in COMPLETE agreement with the left... I don't care about how many people Newt has slept with. The morals are all relative. The progressives have won... it's all relative now.