Congressman on Gingrich’s marital past: “Jesus is not on the ballot”

posted at 1:05 pm on January 19, 2012 by Tina Korbe

As Rick Perry said when he endorsed Newt Gingrich, the guy is “not perfect,” but whose name are we looking for on the ballot anyway? Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a Gingrich supporter, reminds us we’re not gonna find that name, anyway, because it’s not there.

“All of us have baggage, but Jesus is not on the ballot. Maybe it would be great if he were, but the point is we have to, in this case, pick the person who can best lead this country into the place that the Founding Fathers dreamed it could be,” Franks, who has endorsed Gingrich, told TheDC at the GOP presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C. on Monday night.

“I think if Barack Obama is re-elected, we will see our economy really diminished into a European socialism that will be hard to ever break free from.”

When asked why he chose to back Gingrich over the rest of the field, Franks said, “He has an almost asymmetric capability, a political casucci I would call it, of being able to take the left’s questions — who are nearly always laced with false premise — and turn them around before they ever know what hit them.”

As Gingrich gains momentum in South Carolina, bolstered by the pseudo-endorsement of Sarah Palin and the outright endorsement of Rick Perry, conservatives must grapple again with the question: Are they comfortable with Newt’s past — or, more accurately, with the way the GOP’s opponents will exploit it? He’s still a longshot to overtake Mitt Romney, but, as fewer and fewer alternatives to Romney exist, the possibility that voters will coalesce around Gingrich (or Santorum) becomes greater. It’s never too soon to question how a candidate would fare in the general election. As we’re learning, the MSM won’t miss a single opportunity to rehash Gingrich’s old mistakes — but Gingrich also won’t miss a single opportunity to, as Franks said, turn reporters’ questions around on them. While Gingrich’s antagonism toward the media hasn’t exactly earned him friends among reporters, it has seemed to resonate with the GOP base. It’s less likely, though, that that antagonism will appeal to independents, who are more like liberals than conservatives in terms of what TV news outlets they trust and don’t trust.

In the meantime, Franks’ message is important not merely for the primary, but also for the general. In 2008, Barack Obama might have had the aura of The One, but, with the exception of Esquire writers, fewer and fewer voters think of Obama as a messiah-like, salvific figure. Between Romney and Gingrich, Gingrich is actually the candidate who is probably most likely to illuminate Obama’s many faults in debates. Then again, Romney is probably most likely to maintain message discipline. The two candidates aren’t interchangeable, but, all polls aside, either could beat Obama with the active support of conservatives and targeted campaign appeals to independents. Neither is Jesus — but Obama’s not, either.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

Winner!!

Understatement of the year!!!

NickDeringer on January 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Newt’s starting to make Bill Clinton look decent.
Still no support for Ron Paul?
Hell, I’d take Santorum over Romney or Newt.

Aizen on January 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Jesus is not on the ballot, but the devil will be on the Dem. ballot.

they lie on January 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Tina, there are some issues that can’t just be “turned around on the media” with snappy comebacks.

This ain’t exactly on the “using schoolkids as janitors” level of non-troversy.

Esoteric on January 19, 2012 at 1:09 PM

may God bless Newt. and Callista too!

GhoulAid on January 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

It’s true, Jesus is not on the ballot. But it’s also true that Jesus’ most scathing rebukes were for hypocrites.

Alma on January 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Since Newt is now ahead in the SC polls, I’m switching support to him for today. That is all.

a capella on January 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

From the Headlines post:

In 1995, when Vanity Fair magazine asked Marianne what would happen if Newt ran for president, she boasted she could derail the bid with a single TV interview.

“He can’t do it without me,” she said.

“I told him if I’m not in agreement, fine, it’s easy.

“I just go on the air the next day, and I undermine everything . . . I don’t want him to be president, and I don’t think he should be.”

portlandon on January 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Jesus is not on the ballot, but the devil will be on the Dem. ballot.

I should have added that the DNC journolistas will making the debil look like Jesus .

they lie on January 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Jesus ain’t the only guy who’s never cheated on multiple wives.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM

6th look at Newt?

DanMan on January 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Theme song of the lunatic-left d-cRAT stooges and puppets in the lamestream socialist media:

99 buckets of slime on the wall, 99 buckets of slime. When one is thrown at a American Patriot, there are 98 buckets of slime on the wall.

98 buckets of slime on the wall, 98 buckets of slime. When….

Come-on all you lunatic-lefties – join in !!! (It’s what you mental defectives do instead of rational discussion.)

“Perry Endorses Gingrich”

OK Santorum and moRon Paul – it’s your turn to do the right thing and GET OUT NOW to save us from romney(care) and more OBOZO !!!!

…and where’s Herman Cain’s endorsement ????

TeaPartyNation on January 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Gingrich is probably the only candidate that’s willing, and able, to walk up to Obama and depants him, metaphorically speaking.

RBMN on January 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I find it hilarious how the Newt supporter are still willing to overlook all of this stuff from his past, yet NONE of the “conservative” voters are willing to go with Ron Paul and fight him on national security issues if were to become President. At least with Paul, there’s less issues, overall, to fight him over.

Oh, well. I still hope Romney loses SC, so the race can keep going.

Aizen on January 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Not looking for perfect. I am looking for someone who can keep a commitment.

Zaggs on January 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Newt’s starting to make Bill Clinton look decent.
Still no support for Ron Paul?
Hell, I’d take Santorum over Romney or Newt.

I’d take Santorum and Romney and maybe Paul over Obama; but not over Clinton Gingrich.

Alma on January 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM

All of us don’t have this kind of baggage. Romney or Santorum or Paul don’t have this kind of baggage. I don’t know anyone that has this kind of baggage except Newt. Newt just asked Santorum to leave the race so he could go one on one with Romney… how about Newt get out now that a little of his past is now public. Romney vs Santorum and who ever wins between the two, let’s support him to take our country back from the edge of the cliff!

BobScuba on January 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Why again is the GOP even socially conservative?

IR-MN on January 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I’m pretty sure Jesus declined to run for public office so that his past wouldn’t be examined. Who knows what the “lame-stream” media could find on that guy!

RanchTooth on January 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Had enough of the RNC elites and the commie Democrats yet.

It is clear the RNC/inside D.C. crowd hates Newt.

Why?

Lets see what Mark Levin does on his show this afternoon.

It is about freedom, liberty and the Constitution.

Live free.

Our personal lives out here in the U.S.A. are not all that clean.

He without sin throw the first stone.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Right on . . . all those waiting for “JC” to run will be very disappointed.

rplat on January 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM

BOMBSHELL:

ABC thinks they are an ethical news organization.

bailey24 on January 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM

We got after Clinton for what he did, now we’re giving Newt a pass for what he’s done (and he’s not even conservative anyway).

Newt is immoral like the liberals because Newt is a liberal. How else do you explain the couch with Nancy, writing a book about Global Warming, advocating for a national mandate (which the hated romney never did), relentlessly attacking the free market sounding just like Barack Obama, etc. etc.

Yeah, the GOP is willing to sell their soul, but they’re not even going to get the 16 pieces of silver for it.

Ruiner on January 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I’m sure Trent Franks is a big fan of open marriage. And I’m sure his constituency will appreciate that.

JohnGalt23 on January 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Yeah MC, how do I set up that having sex vs making love line again? That was classic.

It’ll be settled by the time I get to weigh in votewise. ABO.

DanMan on January 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM

What a flip answer to something so serious.

You know, it’s not exactly commonplace for husbands to ask their wives for an open marriage. Even amoral people would find that pretty repulsive, to say nothing of people that take religion seriously.

Newt’s done, if I was the DNC I would be undertaking an
“Operation Chaos” to make Newt the GOP nominee.

Good luck with female voters.

BradTank on January 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Congressman on Gingrich’s marital past: “Jesus is not on the ballot”

or

“The Pope is not dead either”

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

There still exist in America a small number of people who believe that anyone who’s ever been divorced is a pariah.

But it’s perfectly safe to say that absolutely NONE of the people in the media who are attacking Newt Gingrich belong to that group. They are – with all due respect – lying their asses off.

logis on January 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

If adultery and infertility don’t matter to Republicans then what does matter? Trust counts. Newt isn’t trustworthy.

aloysiusmiller on January 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

As a voter, Mittens past troubles me far more than Newts.

Newts past suggest he is a horndog. Mittens past suggest he is a socialist.

Norwegian on January 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

i just have to say i think this is all funny and awesome at the same time. Newt was left for worse than dead after he took off for greece last summer, and now he is literally everywhere and on everyone’s tongue’s and making people go ape sh_t. i love it! i absolutetly love it!

GhoulAid on January 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Wasn’t Reagan divorced? Why, yes, yes he was.

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM

“I think if Barack Obama is re-elected, we will see our economy really diminished into a European socialism that will be hard to ever break free from.”

Best scenario

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Newt accidentally tripped into those affairs. Not his fault.

NotCoach on January 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Gingrich is probably the only candidate that’s willing, and able, to walk up to Obama and depants him, metaphorically speaking.

RBMN on January 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM

…except Newt’s already not wearing any pants.

Just accept his “open marriage” with conservatives and vote for him because that’s what he tells you to do.

And remember, it doesn’t matter what he’s doing, listen to what he says.

Ruiner on January 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Keep in mind that we picked an adulterer in 2008 and look what that did for us,

aloysiusmiller on January 19, 2012 at 1:17 PM

If adultery and infertility don’t matter to Republicans then what does matter?
aloysiusmiller on January 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Oh I dunno…
– fiscal policy ?
– foreign policy ?

But you’re right, this stuff is irrelevant. What matters is the sex life of the president.

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Someone tell Michelle Bachman Rick Perry Rick Santorum.

Pablo Honey on January 19, 2012 at 1:18 PM

of being able to take the left’s questions — who are nearly always laced with false premise — and turn them around before they ever know what hit them.”

Having nothing to lose, and only the land to save for his grandkids, I hope that Newt goes ballistic on Thurday, on CNN.

He s/b silent/nice toward Marianne and blast, blast, blast the media, Obama and his capos.

Get lots of popcorn and drinks, if you favor the latter.

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 1:18 PM

aloysiusmiller on January 19, 2012 at 1:17 PM

but this time we have an adulterer who will actually fight. not just demand that we fight with him and shake his gimp fist like a rabid animal.

GhoulAid on January 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM

The MSM defended Clinton’s affair with Monica as being unimportant as far as his presidency was concerned. It will be difficult for them to point out Newt’s past affairs as being relevant when Clinton’s current relationship wasn’t.

Rose on January 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Norwegian on January 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Delightful to read your comments.

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM

As a voter, Mittens past troubles me far more than Newts.

Newts past suggest he is a horndog. Mittens past suggest he is a socialist.

Norwegian on January 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Yeah, Newts 10 years of lobbying for a national individual mandate (which Romney never supported) and advocating Global Warming legislation and Amnesty is sure conservative.

Oh yeah, let’s not forget about the 2 weeks of marxist attacks on capitalism and the free market either.

Ruiner on January 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM

We got after Clinton for what he did, now we’re giving Newt a pass for what he’s done (and he’s not even conservative anyway).

Newt is immoral like the liberals because Newt is a liberal. How else do you explain the couch with Nancy, writing a book about Global Warming, advocating for a national mandate (which the hated romney never did), relentlessly attacking the free market sounding just like Barack Obama, etc. etc.

Yeah, the GOP is willing to sell their soul, but they’re not even going to get the 16 pieces of silver for it.

Ruiner on January 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Amazing, isn’t it? The hypocrisy of some knows no bounds. He’s a moral degenerate, and the fact that’s just fine to so many people is pathetic (but illuminating).

changer1701 on January 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Gingrich is probably the only candidate that’s willing, and able, to walk up to Obama and depants him, metaphorically speaking.
RBMN on January 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Yet the media still attack him more than any other candidate… Why could that be.

Maybe it really is because, as they constantly claim, they are qualified to act as the arbiters of morality and virtue in the world.

‘Cause, hey, anything is possible.

OK, that’s obviously not possible. But pretty much anything else is.

logis on January 19, 2012 at 1:20 PM

conservatives must grapple again with the question: Are they comfortable with Newt’s past — or, more accurately, with the way the GOP’s opponents will exploit it?

At least we know about his past, unlike Dear Liar’s.

rbj on January 19, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Jesus ain’t the only guy who’s never cheated on multiple wives.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM

This. I’m tired of this argument about Newt. Just because a voter expects the minimum of moral standards doesn’t mean they are awaiting a perfect person to run for office. Is it some huge deal to expect that your candidate not be a serial adulterer and philanderer? Apparently so. We’ve gone from ripping on Clinton and Edwards for their moral flaws to implicitly acknowledging that their behavior is ok by backing a guy with those same flaws in the name of ideology.

Tacitus on January 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM

salvific figure

Word of the day; good job, Tina.

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Between Romney and Gingrich, Gingrich is actually the candidate who is probably most likely to illuminate Obama’s many faults in debates. Then again, Romney is probably most likely to maintain message discipline. The two candidates aren’t interchangeable, but, all polls aside, either could beat Obama with the active support of conservatives and targeted campaign appeals to independents.

I hope that whoever comes out the winner has the backing of the losers in this primary and be willing to speak up for the Republican nominee.

I am tempted to wait for 2016 but we can’t have Obama for four more years of judicial appointments.

Vince on January 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Wasn’t Reagan divorced? Why, yes, yes he was.

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Typical Idiotbot.

Reagan isn’t running. If Reagan were running, his divorce would be brought up. Reagan had a far more defensible position morally speaking. Their marriage did not end over an affair. Reagan also seemed to be able to pick better women as well.

Jane Wyman: Though she remained silent during Reagan’s political career, she told a newspaper interviewer in 1968 that this was not because she was: “bitter or because I don’t agree with him politically. I’ve always been a registered Republican. But it’s bad taste to talk about ex-husbands and ex-wives, that’s all. Also, I don’t know a damn thing about politics.”

NotCoach on January 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Oh I dunno…
– fiscal policy ?
– foreign policy ?
But you’re right, this stuff is irrelevant. What matters is the sex life of the president.
angryed on January 19, 2012 at 1:17 PM

He pretty much fails at everything but sex. So he should stick with his strengths and continue banging whoever fancies.

Constantine on January 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Can’t wait for Newt to be POTUS so I can point to him and tell my kids that if they apply themselves, study, and work hard, one day they too can cheat on their spouses.

Weren’t we the party that said character matters? What happened to us?

And if Newt can say that what he says can be different than how he lives, how can you trust that he’ll actually live up to anything he says today?

Mitt may not be the best candidate from a governing record or politcal conservative philosophy. But to me and my family, character still matters.

bigdubs on January 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Wasn’t Reagan divorced? Why, yes, yes he was.

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Jane Wyman left Ronald Reagan because she didn’t love him anymore. Ronald Reagan did not cheat on her and was broken hearted when she asked for the divorce.

JPeterman on January 19, 2012 at 1:24 PM

We got after Clinton for what he did, now we’re giving Newt a pass for what he’s done (and he’s not even conservative anyway).

For those of us who didn’t pretend to care what Clinton did for purposes of working ourselves into righteous lather, the decision to support Newt is a lot easier.

Up to (but not including) rape and pedophilia, I don’t care what any of these people do. I don’t care if they wreck their marriages; I just want them to wreck federal departments.

HitNRun on January 19, 2012 at 1:24 PM

It’s true, Jesus is not on the ballot. But it’s also true that Jesus’ most scathing rebukes were for hypocrites.

Alma on January 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I seem to remember something about “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

The Devil is on the Democrat ballot. Anyone, not the Devil, is a better choice.

We either win and materially change the direction of the nation, or we become a 3rd world dictatorship. (And no, I’m not overstating the options.)

Are you going to forgive Gingrich’s past personal problems or are you going to let Barry destroy you and your kids?

It’s really a simple choice.

CrazyGene on January 19, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Ruiner on January 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Your comment is only half true.

Schadenfreude on January 19, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I don’t think Newt’s problem is with his “open” marriages to his ex-wives. It’s with his “open” marriage to conservatism.

ModerateMan on January 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

An excellent essay by Ace of Spades about how the press will focus on Obama the family man vs. Gingrich, The eater of women

thebrokenrattle on January 19, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Are you going to forgive Gingrich’s past personal problems or are you going to let Barry destroy you and your kids?

It’s really a simple choice.

CrazyGene on January 19, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Newt isn’t the last one standing yet.

NotCoach on January 19, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I would donate money to someone to put together a youtube video of the many times that Newt has criticized and called Clinton unfit for public office based on his improper conduct (Lewinsky).

The overall message being that by his own words Newt is unfit for the presidency of the United States.

chansen9 on January 19, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Yeah MC, how do I set up that having sex vs making love line again? That was classic.
It’ll be settled by the time I get to weigh in votewise. ABO.
DanMan on January 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I’m not MadisonConservative, but your request intrigued me to give it a shot:

Almost anyone can ‘have sex,’ but ‘making love’ is hard work, 24/7.

listens2glenn on January 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM

He (Newt) pretty much fails at everything but sex. So he should stick with his strengths and continue banging whoever fancies.

Constantine on January 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM

LMFAO!!!

Aizen on January 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Wasn’t Reagan divorced? Why, yes, yes he was.

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Was Reagan cheating on his wife with his next wife? Why no, no he wasn’t. Did he do that a second time? Why no, no he didn’t.

Your comparisons are awful.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I hope the candidates are smart enough to not give CNN what they want tonight–A soap opera.

CNN wants the candidates to rip each other not Obama’s humiliating secret love letter to Khemeni/Iran, or his idiotic decision to kill the pipeline.

I truly think that’s why all of this dirt was released now.
ABC got their orders from the WH–take the heat off of Obama, keep Newt from winning SC.

bailey24 on January 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM

DanMan on January 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM
listens2glenn on January 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Now I’m curious. Not sure to what you’re referring.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Amazing, isn’t it? The hypocrisy of some knows no bounds. He’s a moral degenerate, and the fact that’s just fine to so many people is pathetic (but illuminating).

changer1701 on January 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Exactly. The worst part is that the only support Gingrich is getting is from the (supposedly) most conservative people in the country.

They are acting like it’s OK to support Newt because it’s either him or Obama – meanwhile Romney, Santorum, and Paul are all in the race and have all outperformed that fat, hypocritical sleaze in every primary held so far.

Ruiner on January 19, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Tina, there are some issues that can’t just be “turned around on the media” with snappy comebacks.

This ain’t exactly on the “using schoolkids as janitors” level of non-troversy.

Esoteric on January 19, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Single issue poster, is this all you have to continuously add on the subject? Also for all the moral outrage where is the moral imperative to forgive those who seek or try to seek redemption?

Amazing, isn’t it? The hypocrisy of some knows no bounds. He’s a moral degenerate, and the fact that’s just fine to so many people is pathetic (but illuminating).

changer1701 on January 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM

That is a mighty big jump to make, maybe he is or isn’t but again for all the moral outrage you also are dancing on the hypocrisy fence making such sweeping condemnations of a man who at least states he has changed.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 1:30 PM

If adultery and infertility don’t matter to Republicans then what does matter? Trust counts. Newt isn’t trustworthy.

aloysiusmiller on January 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

1. I personally don’t care about it and didn’t care about Bill Clinton’s adultery. I do care that he lied about it in court, and about the rumors that he may have committed other crimes while chasing women.
2. It’s okay for us to elect a socialist like Romney, but NOT okay to elect a divorcee like Gingrich? Come on.
3. FDR was carrying on affairs for years and is one of America’s best-loved presidents.

Doomberg on January 19, 2012 at 1:31 PM

NOT PERFECT?

A serial adulterer that has a history of affairs and indiscretions?

Come on republicans, be honest with yourselves. If this was a Democrat maybe Obama and it came out that he had been involved with Larry Sinclair or Donald Young would we be saying “it’s no problem”?

Google: Newt Gingrich, NPR, 1995, English woman.

PappyD61 on January 19, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Someone get a comment from the Artic political master Sarah Palin.

And what timing for Rick Perry endorsing the new Herman Cain.

PappyD61 on January 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM

The biggest problem with Newt and his Clintonesque sex life might not be whether it disqualifies him in the eyes of social conservatives, but that it’s a very visible symbol of another big problem: Newt’s an annoying pompous ass who’s ethics, like his politics, are always situational and who doesn’t think the rules apply to him. Crawling in bed with Callista was no different from crawling in bed with Pelosi, but if you try to criticize Newt about either, he dismisses complaints as illegitimate.

He is The Great Newt. Whatever he does is OK.

That attitude is going to wear on voters.

urban elitist on January 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM

In other words, the “conservative” movement is willing to sell out virtually every one of their precious principles rather than support a principled candidate of good moral character.

CurpliTium on January 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Are you going to forgive Gingrich’s past personal problems or are you going to let Barry destroy you and your kids?

It’s really a simple choice.

CrazyGene on January 19, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Newt hasn’t even placed in the top 3 in a single ballot yet. Tell me again why we’re suddenly forced to overlook the fact that he’s a sleazy, dishonest, socialistic, self aggrandizing, Jabba the Hutt looking slimeball and act like somehow he’s our last best hope when there’s still 3 other candidates in the race (all polling better than him vs. Obama by the way) that have been beating him soundly thus far?

Ruiner on January 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Clinton’s impeachment was because of perjury, not from having an affair. Newt isn’t hiding his past, he acknowledges it and said it was wrong.

Rose on January 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Why does everyone just accept what Newt’s ex says as some kind of important or relevant truth? And why should what one person says decide anything for the rest of us? There are countless ways, having nothing to do with a spouse or personal relationship, in which a person can act immorally.

I’ve heard and read that Obama’s brilliance and validity as The One is largely based on the content of a book(?) in which there are enough holes in the stories it tells to keep the leftist mediots busy for a few decades investigating–if only they would. I find it totally amazing and almost beyond belief the pass that Obama has gotten and is still getting. Obama didn’t have a record to run on then, and he certainly doesn’t have one worth crowing about now.

I’m not defending Newt. I’m slamming the disgusting, underhanded tactics being used by a totally incompetent, dishonest, blatantly-biased media. Four years ago, if they had done their jobs, done their due diligence and focused this same kind of dirt-digging and vetting on a certain Dimbecile candidate, we might not be so far up sh*t creek without a paddle.

stukinIL4now on January 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Come on republicans, be honest with yourselves. If this was a Democrat maybe Obama and it came out that he had been involved with Larry Sinclair or Donald Young would we be saying “it’s no problem”?

Google: Newt Gingrich, NPR, 1995, English woman.

PappyD61 on January 19, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I guess we’d better vote for one of the two indistinguishable socialists running for election, at least they will “ethically” bankrupt the country.

Doomberg on January 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Jesus ain’t the only guy who’s never cheated on multiple wives.
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Give it up dude, Obama is not about to switch parties.

As crazy as it obviously sounds now, ABC’s moral grandstanding might actually have been appropriate a hundred years ago. But today there are many millions of Americans who have been divorced. Well over half of them cheated, and all the rest did something or didn’t do something that brought that cheating on.

On the other hand, there are an extraordinarily tiny handful of individuals who personally approved and oversaw the implementation of a Socialized Medicine program. What are the odds that two of them are really “The Only Electable” people in America?

logis on January 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Indeed my ex slept with her (not mine) second cousin. Next thing you know she gets alimony. Time for women to respect the sanctity of marriage.

May their open marriage endure and prosper. Amen.

hanzblinx on January 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Jesus is not on the ballot, but Rick Perry sure liked to invoke the Bible as a reason to support him. And let’s not forget that little incident at CPAC with the anti-Mormon, anti-Catholic Pastor Jeffers’ endorsement of Perry.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 1:36 PM

NOT PERFECT?

A serial adulterer that has a history of affairs and indiscretions?

Come on republicans, be honest with yourselves. If this was a Democrat maybe Obama and it came out that he had been involved with Larry Sinclair or Donald Young would we be saying “it’s no problem”?

Google: Newt Gingrich, NPR, 1995, English woman.

PappyD61 on January 19, 2012 at 1:31 PM

To paraphrase

A serial adulterer that has a history of affairs and indiscretions? (must never be forgiven)

Come on republicans, be honest with yourselves. If this was a Democrat maybe Obama and it came out that he had been involved with Larry Sinclair or Donald Young would we be saying “it’s no problem”? (please infer that Gingrich’s affairs are as equally perverted as homosexual relationships)

Google: Newt Gingrich, NPR, 1995, English woman. (Gingrich must never be allowed to escape his past, hold him forever accountable and in derision no exceptions)

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I’m not defending Newt. I’m slamming the disgusting, underhanded tactics being used by a totally incompetent, dishonest, blatantly-biased media. Four years ago, if they had done their jobs, done their due diligence and focused this same kind of dirt-digging and vetting on a certain Dimbecile candidate, we might not be so far up sh*t creek without a paddle.

stukinIL4now on January 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

This is an article of faith among conservatives, but if four years you’ve turned up nothing of substance. What do you think is out there?

urban elitist on January 19, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Was Reagan cheating on his wife with his next wife? Why no, no he wasn’t. Did he do that a second time? Why no, no he didn’t.

Your comparisons are awful.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I have no idea. And I don’t care. That’s the point.

Why do you care who Newt sleeps with?

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Not only would Romney not take Obama to task, he’d find it impossible to bring the most glaring issues because of his own unique baggage.

Ukiah on January 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Newt accidentally tripped into those affairs. Not his fault.
NotCoach on January 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM

He was forced into the open marriage thing because he had suffered so much for Americans.

whatcat on January 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Are you going to forgive Gingrich’s past personal problems or are you going to let Barry destroy you and your kids?

It’s really a simple choice.

CrazyGene on January 19, 2012 at 1:25 PM

That’s really what it all boils down to. Example: Continue to have this forum to express our political views or have it taken away from us.

VBMax on January 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Just remember, this gal isn’t exactly pure as the driven snow. She was the homewrecker that broke up Gingrich’s first marriage. Twenty years later, she’s surprised somebody else has moved in on her territory?

We’re not voting for a saint. We’re voting for somebody who can beat Obama, and rescue the country from the pit he’s dragging us into. We’re looking for a leader, and leaders have flaws. The trick is picking the guy who can lead successfully and with flaws we can live with.

As far as I’m concerned, I can live with Newt’s past. He’s not the kind of guy I would marry, but I’m not trying to marry him. I want him to save the country for me, my 7 children and my 10 grandchildren, and however many more may come along the line. I want my country to stay free, not become a debt-ridden, dying, European social democracy hellhole, or worse.

Gingrich and his marital problems are not my business. If he can save the country from Barack Obama and his merry Chicago thugs, that’s good enough for me. I’ll leave it to Callista to worry about whether Newt will stay faithful to her. I’m not interested in her problems.

hachiban on January 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Obama’s a great husband.
He’s not divorced.
Therefore he must be a great president.

Wait what? You mean a man’s marriage has absolutely zero relevance to his governance?

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM

I have no idea. And I don’t care. That’s the point.

Why do you care who Newt sleeps with?

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I don’t care who Newt sleeps with. I care who he lies to and betrays. If you don’t care about that, you’re not too bright.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM

I applaud Newt’s “antagonism towards the media”. It is exactly
how I feel. Antagonistic towards the lying bunch of fools more
interested in making a headline than good journalism.

Amjean on January 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Clinton’s impeachment was because of perjury, not from having an affair. Newt isn’t hiding his past, he acknowledges it and said it was wrong.

Rose on January 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Well then, let’s just forget everything Newt has ever done that proves he has no character and no moral compass and make him President because you don’t need character or a moral compass to be President, you just need to yell out a few one liners in a debate and get some applause.

God help us!

fight like a girl on January 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM

This is an article of faith among conservatives, but if four years you’ve turned up nothing of substance. What do you think is out there?

urban elitist on January 19, 2012 at 1:37 PM

What do you mean nothing of substance?

Just telling the public his parents, grandparents and mentors were Marxists probably would have affected the election don’t you think?

darwin on January 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM

This is an article of faith among conservatives, but if four years you’ve turned up nothing of substance. What do you think is out there?

urban elitist on January 19, 2012 at 1:37 PM

There is much of substance and much that is sealed blocked or prevented by teams of legal thugs.

dogsoldier on January 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM

I guess we’d better vote for one of the two indistinguishable socialists running for election, at least they will “ethically” bankrupt the country.
Doomberg on January 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Socialists feel the same way about all their leaders: “It doesn’t matter how much he abuses us — as long as he stays with us for life.”

logis on January 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM

That is a mighty big jump to make, maybe he is or isn’t but again for all the moral outrage you also are dancing on the hypocrisy fence making such sweeping condemnations of a man who at least states he has changed.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 1:30 PM

C’mon already. What separates Newt from the likes of, say, John Edwards, or Bill Clinton? He’s morally bankrupt, yet suddenly that doesn’t matter. The ethics sanctions, the leftist positions out of personal and political expediency, the self-serving pandering to the lowest common denominator…none of it matters, simply because he’s not Romney? Really?

changer1701 on January 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM

He is The Great Newt Clinton/Obama. Whatever he does is OK.

urban elitist on January 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM

I see what I did there…

NotCoach on January 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Obama’s a great husband.
He’s not divorced.
Therefore he must be a great president.

angryed on January 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM

What’s it like to be as stupid and short-sighted as you? Nobody here is saying that marital fidelity ensures a guy will be a good president. People are saying that marital infidelity casts a lot of doubt that a guy will be a good president.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Again, I support Santorum.

But as a social conservative, Newts political track record is preferable to Mittens. Did Newt ever donate to Planned Parenthood? Did he ever publically support abortion or sign a assault weapons ban? Whether Newt failed in his marriages is completely irrelevant to me.

If martial track record supercedes policy record, the Mittbots now claiming this is huge deal should have logically supported Obama over McCain in 2008.

Norwegian on January 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I don’t think we are looking for Jesus to be on the ballot we just don’t want to be voting in a Judas Iscariot.

Lily on January 19, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Not only would Romney not take Obama to task, he’d find it impossible to bring the most glaring issues because of his own unique baggage.

Ukiah on January 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Yeah, Newt doesn’t have baggage like Romney – who *gasp* worked in the private sector creating jobs *gasp*

What we need is a baggage free class warrior like comrade Gingrich to defeat these capitalists!

Ruiner on January 19, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Gingrich is an extremely intelligent guy who knows how to play the game. The problem is that his ego is gigantic even by political standards. For as much as Obama can’t resist talking about himself, he doesn’t let his ego trip himself up near as much as Gingrich does.

McDuck on January 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5