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 4 5

Gunlock Bill on January 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM

This. Mellifluously said.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Everything but the last makes sense. But the final line is off.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Perhaps you misundertand. I’m not listening to the a55holes who did this to us last time ever again (and before that, and before that, and before that, ad infinitum). I’m looking at facts and looking at records for myself. From this, I make up my own mind about it.

People like Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, John Sununu and all the rest are a disgrace. They bend people’s opinion with complete bullshit after others are convinced they are “conservative”…whatever the hell that means any more.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM

More

In Olasky’s view, Gingrich’s recklessness may not only have hurt the impeachment effort but also exposed the Republicans to considerable danger. Yet he has never apologized to any of the party leaders:

As former Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., put it, “I do not recall Newt ever apologizing to the caucus about his affair. It is one of the gaping holes in the story…. It is almost unforgivable and a real weakness of leadership when you jeopardize your followers…. Why should those who followed him in 1998 follow him now? Will he put his followers at risk again?”

Note that I cite these because they are not from the scorned Marianne Gingrich who may be motivated by personal bitterness…

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Forgiving a pedophile does not mean you let him babysit your kids.

Forgiving an arsonist does not mean you make him fire chief.

Forgiving a rapist does not mean you put him in charge of a halfway house for women.

Forgiving a tax cheat does not mean you make him Secretary of the Treasury.

Forgiving a moral reprobate adulterer does not mean we make him a President marriage consular.

Gunlock Bill on January 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM

You need to review the use of logic, you make biased substitutions unwarranted / unconnected jumps which result in your argument being fallacious.

I get your point but you definitely failed to make it.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Newt Gingrich will not convince me that he is for constitutional government.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:40 PM

…okay. So you’re voting for Ron Paul. That’s not a problem, I’m just asking for practicality instead of gnashing of teeth.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Perhaps you misundertand. I’m not listening to the a55holes who did this to us last time ever again (and before that, and before that, and before that, ad infinitum). I’m looking at facts and looking at records for myself. From this, I make up my own mind about it.

People like Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, John Sununu and all the rest are a disgrace. They bend people’s opinion with complete bullshit after others are convinced they are “conservative”…whatever the hell that means any more.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM

That still doesn’t change the fact that we are debating a man’s marital record. Not his policy, not his beliefs (as demonstrated through his actions), but his marital record. I tell you, Republicans have their heads up their respective asses just as firmly as the Dems do albeit for different reasons.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I find it completely mind boggling that anyone could actually post the above quoted comments and think that kind of superficiality is acceptable. If someone had the nerve to make those comments to me face to face, it would take everything in my being not to smack them in the face. They are everything that’s wrong with this country and why it’s circling the drain.

The willful stupidity of the average person never fails to amaze me.

kim roy on January 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM

I take it you don’t consider yourself average, do you, tough guy? And yes, I would have the nerve to make those comments to your face, and no, you wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.

It isn’t superficial to call out a candidate for public office for bad character. In fact, not so long ago high quality of character was considered a requisite for a Republican candidate. Not so much any more, evidently.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Still don’t see how that’s relevant, though. So some people want an engraved apologia. why should I care? 15-year-old relationshipm transgressions do not matter. I’ve said as much, repeatedly.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:53 PM

…okay. So you’re voting for Ron Paul. That’s not a problem, I’m just asking for practicality instead of gnashing of teeth.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I’m not voting for Paul, either. Leastwise not in the primaries. He’s not a constitutionalist. He’s a neo-anarchist who wants you to believe he’s a constitutionalist. That dog don’t hunt for me. As it stands now, I am a voter without a candidate who will probably pull the lever in the primaries for whoever ends up being the least noxious candidate still running. Until then, I am hanging fire on all personal endorsements.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:53 PM

It isn’t superficial to call out a candidate for public office for bad character. In fact, not so long ago high quality of character was considered a requisite for a Republican candidate. Not so much any more, evidently.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM

So we’ll end up with another guy like George W. Bush: outstanding character, but not one earthly clue what it actually means to “protect, preserve and defend the constitution of the United States of America.”

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:55 PM

People should be allowed to make mistakes, even serious ones.
Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Granted, but what if they open themselves up to blackmail? This is where it is no longer merely a question of indiscretion or immorality or the behavior of consenting and non-consenting adults and forgiveness, but much more.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Granted, but what if they open themselves up to blackmail? This is where it is no longer merely a question of indiscretion or immorality or the behavior of consenting and non-consenting adults and forgiveness, but much more.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Marital indiscretions of the kind Newt engaged in would make any private citizen summarily ineligible for a security clearance for precisely that reason.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Newtron said that the progressive movement changed America for the better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zex6qptVIPU

But, disregard that now.

Gunlock Bill on January 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Question:

Why is it people of equally questionable character as Gingrich were able to create, defend while holding office the constitution when this country was founded but a now equally morally flawed candidate as those who crafted the constitution is unfit to be trusted to hold office and defend the constitution?

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Marital indiscretions of the kind Newt engaged in would make any private citizen summarily ineligible for a security clearance for precisely that reason.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

There’s no blackmail opportunity when everybody already knows. And by now, EVERYBODY knows.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Still don’t see how that’s relevant, though. So some people want an engraved apologia. why should I care? 15-year-old relationshipm transgressions do not matter. I’ve said as much, repeatedly.
alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Really? You don’t think it’s relevant that the course of history may have been changed, that Gingrich may have pulled back on his criticism/prosecution of Bill Clinton because Bill Clinton may have warned him of the consequences?

We’ve heard for awhile now that the House was annoyed with Gingrich for being too easy on Clinton. I always thought that was in reference to compromise over legislation. It hadn’t occurred to me that B.J. may have been effectively blackmailing him.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Question:

Why is it people of equally questionable character as Gingrich were able to create, defend while holding office the constitution when this country was founded but a now equally morally flawed candidate as those who crafted the constitution is unfit to be trusted to hold office and defend the constitution?

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Answer:

My mistrust of Newt’s constitutional credentials has nothing to do with Newt’s martial misadventures. Of course, I can only speak for myself. But then again, I don’t think we should even be having this debate at all.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM

So we’ll end up with another guy like George W. Bush: outstanding character, but not one earthly clue what it actually means to “protect, preserve and defend the constitution of the United States of America.”

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Bush the elder was a fair-to-middling president, agreed, but it’s pure hyperbole to say he didn’t have ‘one earthly clue’ regarding the nature and responsibilities of the job. We could do far worse than have someone of Bush’s caliber sitting in the Oval Office in January 2013. We could have Gingrich or Obama.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Marital indiscretions of the kind Newt engaged in would make any private citizen summarily ineligible for a security clearance for precisely that reason.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Not based on an ex spouses testimony alone, the FBI knows way better than to buy into that sort of testimony uncorroborated. Infidelity alone will not prevent security clearances unless it is current and actively being hidden.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:03 PM

There’s no blackmail opportunity when everybody already knows. And by now, EVERYBODY knows.
alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Does EVERYBODY know how Gingrich’s affair affected the Clinton impeachment and put the GOP at risk? You think this can be swept under the rug as so last century?

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:03 PM

There’s no blackmail opportunity when everybody already knows. And by now, EVERYBODY knows.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM

There was back during the Lewinsky scandal. And Newt must have had some sort of high-security clearance as Speaker of the House. Besides which, if I am applying for a security clearance as a private citizen, “Everybody knows” probably wouldn’t do the job in getting me through the process.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:04 PM

why not let’s interview some of Romney’s ex-girlfriends/acquaintances?

jfs756 on January 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Good luck with that. Pretty sure he was a virgin with Ann.

haner on January 19, 2012 at 4:04 PM

the active support of conservatives and targeted campaign appeals to independents

If both of those are necessary to defeat Obama, then Gingrich simply cannot be the candidate. He does not appeal to independents; he repels them, and he will also repel social conservatives. I just do not see a rational argument for Newt’s electability.

Rational Thought on January 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM

If he can’t be true to his family, can he be faithful to his nation? Or to conservatism?

Or will he buckle again and again, as he’s done on Pelosi’s couch, as he did when he ripped Paul Ryan’s excellent plan, as he did when he championed global warming?

Gingrich is a loose canon who is as likely to fire in our direction as he is the enemy’s.

shinty on January 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Not based on an ex spouses testimony alone, the FBI knows way better than to buy into that sort of testimony uncorroborated. Infidelity alone will not prevent security clearances unless it is current and actively being hidden.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Oh yeah, based on an ex spouse’s testimony alone! That sort of stuff ends up in FBI files precisely because it doesn’t have to be true to make someone a blackmail risk! The question is, “is there anything in your background that could possibly embarrass you,” not “is there anything you’ve been convicted of in a court of law that could possibly embarrass you!” The bar is EXTREMELY high, and rightfully so.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Marital indiscretions of the kind Newt engaged in would make any private citizen summarily ineligible for a security clearance for precisely that reason.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

But, but, that doesn’t matter Newtron.

Gunlock Bill on January 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Newtron said that the progressive movement changed America for the better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zex6qptVIPU

But, disregard that now.

Gunlock Bill on January 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Romney said all the following things:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-fifty-greatest-hits-from-john-mccains-giant-m

Way, way worse.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Marital indiscretions of the kind Newt engaged in would make any private citizen summarily ineligible for a security clearance for precisely that reason.
gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

True, but more to the point “any private citizens” is not at equal risk of being blackmailed because they don’t wield the extraordinary power of Speaker of the House or President.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM

why not let’s interview some of Romney’s ex-girlfriends/acquaintances?

jfs756 on January 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Good luck with that. Pretty sure he was a virgin with Ann.

haner on January 19, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Don’t think that al New York Times and others aren’t digging hard, they did it to Johnny Mac, and when there was nothing there they just made some stuff up.

slickwillie2001 on January 19, 2012 at 4:07 PM

You don’t think it’s relevant that the course of history may have been changed, that Gingrich may have pulled back on his criticism/prosecution of Bill Clinton

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Oh please! Can we say “overwrought”? I did not support impeachment then and I do not support it now. We have much more important things to be worrying about than who put whose d!ck where.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:08 PM

True, but more to the point “any private citizens” is not at equal risk of being blackmailed because they don’t wield the extraordinary power of Speaker of the House or President.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM

You can be a private citizen and get top secret security clearance, theoretically. That alone is more power than most individuals could ever hope to wield, viz-a-vis the burdensome responsibility of dealing in classified information.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:08 PM

He does not appeal to independents; he repels them

Rational Thought on January 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Prove it.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Oh please! Can we say “overwrought”? I did not support impeachment then and I do not support it now. We have much more important things to be worrying about than who put whose d!ck where.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:08 PM

You mean like prosecuting perjurers?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM

You mean like prosecuting perjurers?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Nope, spending months prosecuting this particular instance of perjury was a colossal waste of time. We should have been paying much more attention to OBL and much, much less to WJC. The Republican Party would be in better position today if they had.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Oh yeah, based on an ex spouse’s testimony alone! That sort of stuff ends up in FBI files precisely because it doesn’t have to be true to make someone a blackmail risk! The question is, “is there anything in your background that could possibly embarrass you,” not “is there anything you’ve been convicted of in a court of law that could possibly embarrass you!” The bar is EXTREMELY high, and rightfully so.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM

You are wrong here in a big way. I won’t go into details but I offer this. I, my 3 brothers, my daughter and my son all hold / held high levels of security clearances for the Navy / DOD. The question of embarrassment goes to if it can be used efficaciously, if not then there is no embarrassment. Also that bar has shifted over the years, when I was first cleared then yes, just the mention of adultery was major, nowadays given the divorce rate it ranks relatively low for list of concerns. It is all relative to the culture of the current generation.

A person who has been an adulterer but was public knowledge severely limits an ability to embarrass. Now if there is other related information like what kind of sex you like that may be abnormal, then yes that will be a problem.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Nope, spending months prosecuting this particular instance of perjury was a colossal waste of time. We should have been paying much more attention to OBL and much, much less to WJC. The Republican Party would be in better position today if they had.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:12 PM

You make it sound like the Republicans dropped the ball on OBL. Did you forget, his head was offered up directly to Clinton on a silver platter? As soon as you excuse perjury in one instance, I think it’s fair to call your respect for the rule of law-in-general into question.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Here’s the link to Marvin Olasky’s story for The World, as cited by the Esquire writer (Unfortunately I can’t access the entire story without subscribing)..

At the of the page:

Questions about the past: Did Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have secret meetings prior to Clinton’s impeachment hearings? How wide was the knowledge of Gingrich’s extramarital affairs? Did Clinton know? Did Clinton’s knowledge affect Gingrich’s actions? The question for the present: What does Gingrich’s conduct then, and the way he has dealt with it, tell us about him today? | Marvin Olasky

Is it fair to ask these questions? You betcha. ..

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:14 PM

As soon as you excuse perjury in one instance, I think it’s fair to call your respect for the rule of law-in-general into question.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM

LMAO!

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:14 PM

It’s only a matter of interest to historians and affects absolutely nothing today.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:16 PM

A person who has been an adulterer but was public knowledge severely limits an ability to embarrass. Now if there is other related information like what kind of sex you like that may be abnormal, then yes that will be a problem.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM

What I’m saying is, telling the investigating authorities “everyone already knows it” doesn’t mean it’s not a blackmail risk ipso facto. The investigating authorities decide on the merits of the evidence brought to them. And Newt Gingrich was a HUGE security risk during his time as speaker, as I believe Clinton also was throughout his presidency (and for much the same reasons). You can say that you don’t believe that Newt would be a security risk based on the information we know about him now, but I really doubt that a leopard changes its spots. That doesn’t mean by any stretch that Newt could necessarily pass a background check for security clearance now.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Oh please! Can we say “overwrought”? I did not support impeachment then and I do not support it now. We have much more important things to be worrying about than who put whose d!ck where.
alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Whether you supported impeachment or not is entirely irrelevant. Seriously, who the hell cares what your opinion is on that issue? That’s not the point…

And do remember that one of the legitimate criticism’s of Clinton was that he could have been blackmailed by a head of state in an country who is not an ally for his activities.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:17 PM

LMAO!

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:15 PM

That all you got, douchebag?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Here’s the link to Marvin Olasky’s story for The World, as cited by the Esquire writer (Unfortunately I can’t access the entire story without subscribing)..

At the of the page:

Questions about the past: Did Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have secret meetings prior to Clinton’s impeachment hearings? How wide was the knowledge of Gingrich’s extramarital affairs? Did Clinton know? Did Clinton’s knowledge affect Gingrich’s actions? The question for the present: What does Gingrich’s conduct then, and the way he has dealt with it, tell us about him today? | Marvin Olasky

Is it fair to ask these questions? You betcha. ..

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Seriously you are citing “The World” and the “Esquire” for news sources

LMAO O.O hoohohohohohohohahahahahahhahaha

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Question:

Why is it people of equally questionable character as Gingrich were able to create, defend while holding office the constitution when this country was founded but a now equally morally flawed candidate as those who crafted the constitution is unfit to be trusted to hold office and defend the constitution?

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Answer: We’re talking about the Presidency here. Our first President was George Washington, a man renowned for his utterly unimpeachable character. So was Adams. So was Madison. So was Jefferson (all inuendo regarding Sally Hemmings aside). To make the distinction, a crafter of the Constitution would be equivalent to a legislator such as a member of Congress, and a member of Congress is not a leader as, say, a governor or president is a leader. Typically, a leader must command respect from those he or she would presume to lead. This respect can originate from the office: we demonstrate respect for the President because he or she is the President, or we demonstrate respect because he or she has demonstrated leadership in his or her own right: for who they are, not what they are.

And some of you would nominate Gingrich to the Presidency, and if you could, put him in the same company as George Washington. That spinning sound you hear is Washington in his grave.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 4:18 PM

You make it sound like the Republicans dropped the ball on OBL. Did you forget, his head was offered up directly to Clinton on a silver platter?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM

They did drop the ball, by trying to impeach a president on flimsy bases. It was a huge national distraction that we didn’t need and couldn’t afford. We now have a president now who baldly defies constitutional limits on his office but we can’t even think of impeachment because of the WJC debacle. It was stupid, it was shortsighted, and it was wholly and unabashedly partisan.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:18 PM

You make it sound like the Republicans dropped the ball on OBL. Did you forget, his head was offered up directly to Clinton on a silver platter? As soon as you excuse perjury in one instance, I think it’s fair to call your respect for the rule of law-in-general into question.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Fully agreed.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM

It’s only a matter of interest to historians and affects absolutely nothing today.
alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:16 PM

REALLY? I beg to differ. He’s not retiring, he’s running for President and if this story about Clinton essentially blackmailing him is true it’s a very serious matter.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM

That all you got, douchebag?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I liked you better when we were both Palinistas against the world.

And yes, it is highly laughable to say that accepting one insignificant instance of perjury is the same as a general disrespect for the rule of law. Overwrought, indeed.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I am not a Romney Bot. Right now I am an anybody but Obamabot. But the last few posts make the case of exactly why Newt should not get the nod. We’re talking about crap from almost 15 years ago cripes sake. I don’t care about his baggage ( I don’t like it but it’s not a huge factor for me) The problem is that many people do and the media will beat Newt over the head with a club over this. It won’t stop. I mean we’re all supposedly on the same side and we’re back to Lewinsky? Geez. We have such huge problems right now. The campaign will be turned into a tabloid/TMZ debacle. And I think many voters will and are turned off by Newt’s past and we’ll end up with Barry Vs. 2.0. That is scary.

Minnfidel on January 19, 2012 at 4:21 PM

They did drop the ball, by trying to impeach a president on flimsy bases. It was a huge national distraction that we didn’t need and couldn’t afford. We now have a president now who baldly defies constitutional limits on his office but we can’t even think of impeachment because of the WJC debacle. It was stupid, it was shortsighted, and it was wholly and unabashedly partisan.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:18 PM

By “flimsy basis,” you mean there was some doubt as to whether Bill Clinton perjured himself and suborned perjury from Monica? Really? REALLY?! Or were my memories of Clinton’s disbarment for misconduct in Arkansas and before the Supreme Court delusional? I wasn’t aware that partisan = wrong. But thanks for clearing that up.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:21 PM

And yes, it is highly laughable to say that accepting one insignificant instance of perjury is the same as a general disrespect for the rule of law. Overwrought, indeed.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I submit this quote as a microcosm of why I believe that America will continue to spiral down the toilet of history in 2013 and beyond.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Answer: We’re talking about the Presidency here. Our first President was George Washington, a man renowned for his utterly unimpeachable character. So was Adams. So was Madison. So was Jefferson (all inuendo regarding Sally Hemmings aside). To make the distinction, a crafter of the Constitution would be equivalent to a legislator such as a member of Congress, and a member of Congress is not a leader as, say, a governor or president is a leader. Typically, a leader must command respect from those he or she would presume to lead. This respect can originate from the office: we demonstrate respect for the President because he or she is the President, or we demonstrate respect because he or she has demonstrated leadership in his or her own right: for who they are, not what they are.

And some of you would nominate Gingrich to the Presidency, and if you could, put him in the same company as George Washington. That spinning sound you hear is Washington in his grave.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 4:18 PM

ARE. YOU. KIDDING

Washington was a great man, but unimpeachable character? Look he was most likely honest than most but he was absolutely a ladder climber and more than willing to sacrifice those below him to rise up the ranks. I love what George represents but make no mistakes he had serious character flaws. So did all the others, everyone does some just rise above the flaws as did our founding fathers.

Our leaders are just as human, or perhaps I should say, our idolized founding fathers are just as human as our leaders today.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM

this story about Clinton essentially blackmailing him is true it’s a very serious matter.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM

It was a very serious problem for him to be prosecuting a president for issues related to infidelity when he was having his own infidelity issues. Did he stop doing wrong because Clinton found out about the hypocrisy? probably. Do I care? Do many people except Mitt partisans care? Doubt it. Again: It’s old and doesn’t matter.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:24 PM

It was a very serious problem for him to be prosecuting a president for issues related to infidelity when he was having his own infidelity issues. Did he stop doing wrong because Clinton found out about the hypocrisy? probably. Do I care? Do many people except Mitt partisans care? Doubt it. Again: It’s old and doesn’t it does matter.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Absolutely it was a very serious problem for Newt to prosecute Clinton for perjury while he himself was hiding something. But that speaks volumes about Newt and says nothing about the seriousness of the charges against Clinton.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:18 PM

The questions matter. Do you think it’s inconceivable this occurred?

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:26 PM

By “flimsy basis,” you mean there was some doubt as to whether Bill Clinton perjured himself and suborned perjury from Monica? Really? REALLY?! Or were my memories of Clinton’s disbarment for misconduct in Arkansas and before the Supreme Court delusional? I wasn’t aware that partisan = wrong. But thanks for clearing that up.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Have you ever heard the term “prosecutorial discretion”? We do not try all suspected criminals in this country. We do not even come close. Prosecutors pick and choose among the cases brought to them based on the strength and import of the case. That Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky is precisely the sort of insignificant perjury that didn’t deserve the brouhaha. I lie about my weight on my driver’s license. Who the fcuk cares?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Again: It’s old and doesn’t matter.
alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Ha!! The Clinton scandals don’t matter? How Gingrich did his job as Speaker doesn’t matter? Tell that to the Historians. Moreover, Clinton was not impeached over an affair, it was about lying and suborning perjury.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:28 PM

That Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky is precisely the sort of insignificant perjury that didn’t deserve the brouhaha. I lie about my weight on my driver’s license. Who the fcuk cares?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Gawd, you sound like a Democrat! He perjured himself AND suborned perjury from another in front of a Grand Jury, which was proven to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court AND his home state’s bar association! That is against the law! And you laugh at me for suggesting that your concept of “rule of law” may in fact be gravely warped?!

/ROFLMMFAO

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:29 PM

The questions matter. Do you think it’s inconceivable this occurred?

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:26 PM

No I do not think it is inconceivable, in fact I cannot imagine Gingrich not having a crisis of conscience during the impeachment process.

I also know in the end Clinton was impeached in the house, This showed Gingrich was able to do his job despite his own shortcomings. Remember the house impeaches, the senate then performs the trial and it was in the senate where Clinton was let off.

SO in my opinion this shows a strength in Gingrich not a weakness.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Rational Thought on January 19, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Both your links are from the same poll from late december, and we all know that polling in this contest has not been very consistent. Further, the GOP establishment was going all out to kill Gingrich’s chances in late December. That has an effect on independents. He can still win them.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Have you ever heard the term “prosecutorial discretion”? We do not try all suspected criminals in this country. We do not even come close. Prosecutors pick and choose among the cases brought to them based on the strength and import of the case. That Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky is precisely the sort of insignificant perjury that didn’t deserve the brouhaha. I lie about my weight on my driver’s license. Who the fcuk cares?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Prosecutors are ethically bound to prosecute a crime to the fullest possible extent where three conditions are met:

1. They believe a crime was committed

2. There is corpus delicti to prove that a crime was, in fact, committed

3. There is evidence to suggest means, motive and opportunity for a particular individual to have committed the crime in question

Now which of these three bars do you think was NOT cleared by the House impeachment proceedings?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Moreover, Clinton was not impeached over an affair, it was about lying and suborning perjury.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:28 PM

You say tomato, I say tomato. Should I be prosecuted for perjury for lying about my weight on an official government document?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM

You say tomato, I say tomato. Should I be prosecuted for perjury for lying about my weight on an official government document?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM

State laws vary, but theoretically you could be.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Prosecutors are ethically bound to prosecute a crime to the fullest possible extent where three conditions are met:

1. They believe a crime was committed

2. There is corpus delicti to prove that a crime was, in fact, committed

3. There is evidence to suggest means, motive and opportunity for a particular individual to have committed the crime in question

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM

That’s total BS. My city doesn’t even bother to prosecute most property crimes anymore when all those elements are met because they have too much other violent crime to deal with.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Gingrich is afraid to debate his ex-wife, so how does he expect to best Obama in a one-on-one debate? He said today that he wasn’t going to say anything in response to her interview with ABC, but if this causes him damage, she will again see his rath just as he did with Romney! The guy is a scumgag!

lhuffman34 on January 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM

You say tomato, I say tomato. Should I be prosecuted for perjury for lying about my weight on an official government document?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Listen to this douchebag.

Lying about sex = no big deal = perjury and subornation of perjury

HAH!

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM

State laws vary, but theoretically you could be.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Waste. Of. Time.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Listen to this douchebag.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM

What’s with the personal insults?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Washington was a great man, but unimpeachable character? Look he was most likely honest than most but he was absolutely a ladder climber and more than willing to sacrifice those below him to rise up the ranks. I love what George represents but make no mistakes he had serious character flaws. So did all the others, everyone does some just rise above the flaws as did our founding fathers.

Our leaders are just as human, or perhaps I should say, our idolized founding fathers are just as human as our leaders today.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Yes, Washington was a great man of unimpeachable character. Cite sources if you’re going to claim otherwise–or is it just one of those instances where ordinary folks are confronted with extraordinary folks and just can’t handle it, so the average sod tries to tear down the great, diminish that greatness, in order to make themselves feel less ordinary? News: there are truly amazingly extraordinary people in the world and sometimes, if you’re lucky, one of them will cross your path.

When I was a young paratrooper, I had a chance to ‘meet’ retired General James Gavin, former Division commander in WWII, after we did a demonstration jump for WWII veterans of the 82nd Division. General Gavin shows up in lots of history books; look him up. And by ‘meet’ I mean I got to shake his hand and try not to stutter too much when he asked me how I was doing.

General Gavin was not ordinary. He had a presence, a charisma, that is hard to articulate. Even though elderly at the time, he had a vigor and energy in his manner that young people would envy. I felt then (and now) that I would have followed him anywhere. I understand George Washington had a similar affect on those who encountered him.

You won’t win this argument.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM

That’s total BS. My city doesn’t even bother to prosecute most property crimes anymore when all those elements are met because they have too much other violent crime to deal with.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Then the burden is on the victim to file charges. Ethical obligations don’t mean that prosecutions will automatically happen, or that they will be successful, or that they will not result in ridiculous plea bargains. One reason of many that my view of the profession of law is rather dim to begin with.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Don’t think that al New York Times and others aren’t digging hard, they did it to Johnny Mac, and when there was nothing there they just made some stuff up.

slickwillie2001 on January 19, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Perhaps some hot French woman will fess up.

haner on January 19, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Keep in mind the House was fed up with Newt because he was a terrible manager and (this is key to the discussion) they felt he did things which empowered Clinton and cost them seats in the House in 96.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:36 PM

What’s with the personal insults?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I find your excuses for the horny hick from Arkansas to be personally insulting. I’m just more candid about it.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:37 PM

If Newt was a liberal, you never hear a peep….. I loathe the left and the double standard they continue to deny….

ultracon on January 19, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Waste. Of. Time.

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Which has nothing to do with whether Clinton should have been impeached for his behavior or not. His mark on history as the only popularly elected and subsequently impeached president will stand.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM

You say tomato, I say tomato. Should I be prosecuted for perjury for lying about my weight on an official government document?

alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Wow you don’t know what happened do you? Clinton a fully certified Bar lawyer attempted to coerce a witness into signing a statement that he did not have sex with the witness knowing what he was doing was a complete falsehood.

What happened is we had a Bar certified lawyer intentionally corrupting a witness’s testimony to a high level court. That is way beyond what someone says about their weight.

Look I can care less about Clinton’s adultery, but his actions to hide it went way beyond perjury. As the president he is actually the highest official in the land to enforce the law and he chose to not run but fly past at light speed all legal boundaries attempting to cover up his indiscretion.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM

You say tomato, I say tomato. Should I be prosecuted for perjury for lying about my weight on an official government document?
alwaysfiredup on January 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Who gives a flip about you? You’re not one of the most powerful elected officials in the land (either Prez or Speaker).

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Infidelity is the same as voter fraud….. it’s only a problem when Republicans do it.

ultracon on January 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Washington was a great man, but unimpeachable character? Look he was most likely honest than most but he was absolutely a ladder climber and more than willing to sacrifice those below him to rise up the ranks. I love what George represents but make no mistakes he had serious character flaws. So did all the others, everyone does some just rise above the flaws as did our founding fathers.

Our leaders are just as human, or perhaps I should say, our idolized founding fathers are just as human as our leaders today.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Revisionism at its best. Gingrich was a scumbag, but look Washington might have been one too!

You “true conservatives” are really grasping now.

haner on January 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM

You won’t win this argument.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I am, not trying to win anything, as for sources just read Washington’s own journals.

I don’t argue there are no great man, just no perfect ones and if that is where you are headed then if I want to, yes I can win that argument.

Choose to overlook the flaws in your idols there is nothing wrong with that, some prefer to to keep the image larger than life. I prefer to take it all in, for me it does not detract from a person’s greatness, in fact it reminds me I to can possibly achieve such things as well.

It places such achievements within my grasp not outside of it.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM

That still doesn’t change the fact that we are debating a man’s marital record. Not his policy, not his beliefs (as demonstrated through his actions), but his marital record. I tell you, Republicans have their heads up their respective asses just as firmly as the Dems do albeit for different reasons.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Only those who give a crap about his personal life are doing that. I don’t care. He’s a lech. So what? He’s also the only guy on the stage who actually moved the needle to the right at any level of government.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Revisionism at its best. Gingrich was a scumbag, but look Washington might have been one too!

You “true conservatives” are really grasping now.

haner on January 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Uhm it is only revisionism if I am creating a version that is not accurate. and I am not saying Washington scum believe me FAR FROM IT. I consider him one of the greatest leaders of all tiem becuase he did what no other had ever done. He reliquished power.

His act of stepping down was so amazing that the King of England said of Washington “he has done what no other ruler ever has”

I also know the reason Washington did as he did by his own writing is because he fancied himself after a Roman general who preferred to be a farmer but when called upon took up the mantel of general, destroyed Rome’s enemy’s and then when all of Rome was begging him to become emperor he refused and went back to farming.

Make no mistake I place Washington on a pedestal.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:50 PM

He’s also the only guy on the stage who actually moved the needle to the right at any level of government.

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Santorum’s welfare reform bill…?

Newt takes credit for the accomplishments of that congress, but he did have help without which he’d have done nothing.

shinty on January 19, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Gingrich was hardly “pseudo”.Do you think she was faking it when she urged South Carolinians to vote for him?

redware on January 19, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Only those who give a crap about his personal life are doing that. I don’t care. He’s a lech. So what?
MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM

He’s a lech who may have been blackmailed by Bill Clinton. Does it matter now?

Buy Danish on January 19, 2012 at 4:54 PM

…in fact it reminds me I to can possibly achieve such things as well.

It places such achievements within my grasp not outside of it.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM

That was my point: by attempting to diminish Washington, you’re attempting to put yourself on the same plane; rather, trying to make the heights he achieved attainable. And I’m telling you, based on my real-world experience meeting men who are, by any definition, great men, that you will never, ever achieve what they have achieved. By trying to whittle others down to your size, you eliminate even the possibility of achieving something great in your life, something bigger than you are.

My advice? Aspire to humility, not greatness. Humility is knowing exactly who and what we are as individuals–and more importantly, knowing what we could be if we work at it hard enough.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Marital indiscretions of the kind Newt engaged in would make any private citizen summarily ineligible for a security clearance for precisely that reason.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM

absolutely correct.

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 4:58 PM

And I’m telling you, based on my real-world experience meeting men who are, by any definition, great men, that you will never, ever achieve what they have achieved.
troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 4:54 PM

It is that very statement that prevents a child from becoming a great man. Sorry I do not believe men are born great, they become great. The people you defend with this statement would be the first to disagree with you.

Also this is nearly the antithesis of what it means to be a christian, all men are created equally in the eyes of the creator, some men become great though effort and deeds not by birth. I also believe it is God who gives the will to achieve those deeds not man himself.

We are obviously at odds philosophically here.

I am not some young cloistered pup, my real world experiences are also extensive and my experiences argue the opposite of yours.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Tell that to the social conservatives.

rubberneck on January 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Santorum’s welfare reform bill…?

Newt takes credit for the accomplishments of that congress, but he did have help without which he’d have done nothing.

shinty on January 19, 2012 at 4:50 PM

One bill does not leadership make.

Long before there was a mighty Republican machine running Georgia, there was a handful of brash conservatives plotting to lift their tiny, financially struggling party so they could end more than a century of Democratic dominance.

Among the chief architects was Newt Gingrich

MTLassen on January 19, 2012 at 5:02 PM

We interrupt this alley fight for an important message:

One Big Ass Mistake America!

jb34461 on January 19, 2012 at 5:02 PM

His act of stepping down was so amazing that the King of England said of Washington “he has done what no other ruler ever has”

I also know the reason Washington did as he did by his own writing is because he fancied himself after a Roman general who preferred to be a farmer but when called upon took up the mantel of general, destroyed Rome’s enemy’s and then when all of Rome was begging him to become emperor he refused and went back to farming.

Make no mistake I place Washington on a pedestal.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 4:50 PM

maybe he was just bored with and tired of politics…also, you forgot to mention his worth, apparently his was over half a billion in today’s dollars….so politics couldn’t bring him anything more, really…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Let’s be honest. I say this as someone who is not a supporter of any of our choices. But at the end of the day does Newt win with…Women? No. Evangelicals? No. Swing voters, most of whom vote based on if they like the guy? No. If we make Newt the Nom, then we Get Barry Vs. 2.0.

Minnfidel on January 19, 2012 at 5:05 PM

If we make Newt the Nom, then we Get Barry Vs. 2.0.

Minnfidel on January 19, 2012 at 5:05 PM

and you can’t even blame them for their choice…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 5:09 PM

“Jesus is not on the ballot”

Well, I hope he helps Newt, when he’s at the wheel!
Don’t want the next guy talking about how he drove us into the ditch!
OH WAIT!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Also this is nearly the antithesis of what it means to be a christian, all men are created equally in the eyes of the creator, some men become great though effort and deeds not by birth. I also believe it is God who gives the will to achieve those deeds not man himself.

We are obviously at odds philosophically here.

I am not some young cloistered pup, my real world experiences are also extensive and my experiences argue the opposite of yours.

Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM

No, it is not antithetical to the Christian faith to recognize that some men and women are smarter, stronger, faster, more accomplished and well-rounded, more charismatic, and possessed of greater character and beauty than oneself. They exist, and they won’t magically cease existing because your pathetic ego is too big to allow for their existence. And no, I never argued greatness was based on anything other than achievement.

Again, look up the meaning of the word ‘humility’. Knowing what it means might allow you to acquire it. At least you’ll know what you’re searching for.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 5:12 PM

I also believe it is God who gives the will to achieve those deeds not man himself.
Skwor on January 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM

there are a lot of people who don’t believe this to be true and who would disagree with this statement, yet this does not preclude them from achieving a lot of great things…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 5:18 PM

maybe he was just bored with and tired of politics…also, you forgot to mention his worth, apparently his was over half a billion in today’s dollars….so politics couldn’t bring him anything more, really…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Bored? That’s your take on Washington, really? After nearly 8 years of war and 8 years of the Presidency, I think you might allow President Washington was tired from his labors on behalf of the Republic that he, more than perhaps anyone, helped establish–an accomplishment greater than all but a very few human beings have achieved in the history of humanity. That George Washington was wealthy is beyond incidental here.

Talk about lowering the bar. Have we become so mediocre as a people that we cannot abide or recognize the idea of greatness–great art, great literature, great men, great women–because it might be somehow damaging to our fragile and precious self-esteem?

I guess that would explain the Gingrich candidacy, of course.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 5:25 PM

I find it completely mind boggling that anyone could actually post the above quoted comments and think that kind of superficiality is acceptable. If someone had the nerve to make those comments to me face to face, it would take everything in my being not to smack them in the face. They are everything that’s wrong with this country and why it’s circling the drain.

The willful stupidity of the average person never fails to amaze me.

kim roy on January 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM

I take it you don’t consider yourself average, do you, tough guy? And yes, I would have the nerve to make those comments to your face, and no, you wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.

It isn’t superficial to call out a candidate for public office for bad character. In fact, not so long ago high quality of character was considered a requisite for a Republican candidate. Not so much any more, evidently.

troyriser_gopftw on January 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I believe I noted a level of self-control in there. One that you apparently can’t parse. It doesn’t surprise me that reading comprehension is your problem when you actually floated out your second paragraph.

It’s sad I have to explain and clarify this, but talking about someone’s moral character and calling it out is a LOT different that refusing to vote for that person because of their personal life, not withstanding capability for the position, when the other choice is a grifter like Obama.

Then again, when you cite a bunch of people who quote Marx and Alinsky to you and haven’t clued into what their belief system is and then happy come here to parrot it as “the public”, it doesn’t really highlight your thought processes in a positive manner.

kim roy on January 19, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5