Santorum on Marianne Gingrich accusations: These are issues of character

posted at 7:10 pm on January 20, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Rick Santorum walked a fine line in his response to questions about Marianne Gingrich’s accusations against her ex-husband and Santorum’s GOP rival, Newt.

“Personal matters are personal matters, but they are matters that are — particularly when you are in public life as he was at the time and the people involved were also in a sense in public life — those issues are issues that people will look at,” Santorum responded.

“I believe in forgiveness, I’m called to believe in forgiveness,” he continued. “I do believe having some accountability to a higher calling other than self is a very, very important aspect and perspective that is important for leaders.

“To make the final comment, these are issues of character and these are issues that people will consider based upon the time, when, where, how all those thing will factor in and I’ll let people make that decision, I’m certainly not going to make it for them,” he said to a crowd of about 150 people.

That’s about as balanced an opinion as another candidate could give on the subject. Santorum neither denies the relevance of Gingrich’s past life nor does he suggest Gingrich’s past is absolutely predictive. Instead, he acknowledges that the mistakes Gingrich has made in the past are reflective of his past character while simultaneously acknowledging that true change in a person is possible.

Given Santorum’s scrupulous refusal to be sidetracked by Newt Gingrich’s distracting and undisciplined attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital, his willingness to comment at all on the Marianne Gingrich episode does stand out, though. Perhaps his comments are yet another part of the differentiation process he says he began last night. Santorum is different than rival Mitt Romney in the consistency of his political past and different than rival Newt Gingrich in the consistency of his personal past. Surely that consistency should count for something.


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

If Newt is such a horrible person, why is his ex-wife still so bitter about it? Seems like he did her a favor in the long run.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM

I assume the “she” you were speaking of is Palin? I’d agree, if so.

Yes, she was. She had the potential for greatness that comes along once in a generation, and she walked away from it. People supposedly on our side made things worse for any future “crusader” types by using her as a pinata for three years. There is a reason we are having trouble getting good candidates, and the treatment of Palin is exhibit A.

Still, you say the economy and deficit are the biggest concerns for you, but you shun Ron Paul and throw your support for the guy who agreed with TARP, an individual mandate, a global warming tax, and other such liberal policies?

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 7:51 PM

I gave Ron Paul a hard look this cycle, because frankly after what has happened to the economy, some of his economic ideas and critiques are beginning to make a scary amount of sense, especially when it comes to gold (bought my first ounce in 2009 at $900 and now it’s $1667) and the Federal Reserve with “helicopter Ben” and his money printing rampages.

The problem is that there are waaaayy too many of his followers who are dangerously off the wall about foreign policy. I’m not talking about guys who want to stop with the humanitarian military campaigns, I’m talking about guys who think that al-Qaida is a “branch of the CIA” (or sometimes it’s Mossad). I am talking about guys who want to effectively disband the military and who thought Bush ordered the CIA to blow up the twin towers. Even if Paul himself isn’t that crazy, he has to cater to these people since they make up his voting base.

I am concerned that Paul would waste time harassing Israel and cutting defense spending than dealing with our core problems – entitlement and social security spending. I also question his ability to get legislation to cut spending through a Congress united in hostility against him. I am also concerned he would pull in the military so much we would start having major issues with piracy and diplomacy, hampering our basic ability to conduct commerce overseas.

I also have a problem with these kinds of tactics: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325875.php

In the case of Gingrich, I am relying primary on his 90s legislative record. Yes, he’s said nice things to make the liberals happy and made foulups like the Scozzafava endorsement. However, when push came to shove, he was able to get conservative legislation through and was able to get most items on the Contract With America passed. I am convinced he does have a good grasp of the serious fiscal crisis facing the country and given that he is selling himself to the Tea Party rather than the center left like Romney, I think there is a good shot that he will make serious attempts to cut spending and overhaul the government.

Doomberg on January 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM

But there is certainly an element of hypocrisy in Newt’s conduct at the time. Newt was certainly committing serial infidelities, as was
Clinton, and he was lying about it and trying to cover it up, as was Clinton.

He just wasn’t lying under oath about it.

novaculus on January 20, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Clinton wasn’t on trial for having affairs. He was on trial for sexual harrassment.

There’s no comparison to Newt on this.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Santorum added a provision to the 2001 No Child Left Behind bill that would have promoted the questioning of the theory of evolution in public school science classes and required the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative.[32][33] The bill, with the Santorum Amendment included, passed the Senate 91-8.[32][34] and was hailed as a victory by intelligent design theory promoters.

And this is some sort of problem how? Intelligent design should be taught and that is a conservative position. My understanding of intelligent design is that it doesn’t necessarily reject evolution but includes the logical premise that a higher power created evolution.

Santorum introduced the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005[48][49] which would have prohibited the National Weather Service from publishing weather data for free to the public where private-sector entities performed the same function commercially

Although I might not necessarily agree with his position, from a the perspective of promoting the private sector, what’s wrong with that…seems pretty conservative to me. I doubt the nature of that weather data included whether it was going to rain tomorrow or next week.

ironmarshal on January 20, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Evolution/Darwinism is junk science just like global warming. They never prove their theory but they say it must be taught in science classes, as though it’s necessary building block for future scientists.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I think the Darwinists are so vain. WE didnt’t even have modern plumbing until the past 100 years, yet supposedly some guy named Darwin figured out the origins of life? Darwin didn’t even know what DNA is.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:08 PM

I’m not against Gingrich being the nominee, but if you dump on Santy, he’s fair game. It’s a primary.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Clinton wasn’t on trial for having affairs. He was on trial for sexual harrassment.
There’s no comparison to Newt on this.
Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Oh yes there is! Just the facts, ma’am:

The GOP’s multimillion dollar ad campaign invoking President Clinton’s relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky was devised by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and tested before more than three dozen groups of likely voters before Republicans unleashed the assault, party sources said yesterday.

In reviving the presidential sex scandal just one week before Election Day, Gingrich and his chief strategists aimed to energize their most loyal supporters, whose enthusiasm appeared to be waning after House conservatives lost the budget fight and the Clinton scandal fell off the front pages….

In April, Gingrich told supporters, “I will never again, as long as I am speaker, make a speech without commenting on this topic,” referring to the presidential scandal.

PS: Clinton wasn’t on trial for “sexual harassment” so you’re not even right about that.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 9:09 PM

PS: Clinton wasn’t on trial for “sexual harassment” so you’re not even right about that.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Have you ever heard of Paula Jones? I think you are extremely confused. Clinton lied under oath in the Paul Jones sexual harrasment trial.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:11 PM

PS: Clinton wasn’t on trial for “sexual harassment” so you’re not even right about that.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Oh really! Then why did Cigarman lie in court about that?

Can you say ‘PERJURY’? /s

DannoJyd on January 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM

It’s ammazing how many people out there think Clinton was on trial simply for having an affair. Hah!

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM

The reality is Clinton would have been fired for having sex in the Oval Office if he was a regular federal employee. I would have argued for his dismissal from the presidency based on that alone.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Which one do you pretend to be outraged at, the adultery or the divorced part? Or is it the combination of the two that sends you over the edge?

ButterflyDragon on January 20, 2012 at 7:28 PM

What difference does it make? You want your daughter to be used as a doormat by men? Want your son sleeping with married women? Because that’s the message we as a society are sending when we turn a blind eye to it when it comes to electing a President.

lowandslow on January 20, 2012 at 7:42 PM

So, you’re saying the country would have been better off with Jimmy Carter getting a second term, rather than electing that divorcee Ronald Reagan?

ButterflyDragon on January 20, 2012 at 9:14 PM

To be fair, Reagan’s first wife left him.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:15 PM

What difference does it make? You want your daughter to be used as a doormat by men? Want your son sleeping with married women?

lowandslow on January 20, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Well … are they “soul mates?”

/

Axe on January 20, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Have you seen Newt’s ex and compared her to Calista?

I’m just saying. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Unfair comparision. She was attractive when they were together, but got old so he traded her in for a younger model. The younger model has benefited from his money.

He did this 3 months after they found out she had MS. Calista better hope she doesn’t get sick…….

Barred on January 20, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Ok, if Gingrich’s personal life bothers you, vote for Santorunm or the healthcare statist in Romney. It’s your vote.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Let’s all debate Creationism/Evolution when the country is on the brink of financial meltdown!

HA should just stop running stories about Santorum, he’s dead in the water and never really had a chance outside Bible country.

Besides, everyone knows that Aliens created Man.

1984 in real life on January 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Have you ever heard of Paula Jones? I think you are extremely confused. Clinton lied under oath in the Paul Jones sexual harrasment trial.
Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Of course I’ve heard of Paula Jones! Have you read the Articles of Impeachment?

CC: DannoJyd on January 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Of course I’ve heard of Paula Jones! Have you read the Articles of Impeachment?

CC: DannoJyd on January 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM

You do know the impeachment took place when Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harrassment trial brought by Paula Jones, right?

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:26 PM

So … I still have my money in my pocket wondering why I’m at the flippin’ races when I have no horse to bet. It quit being fun just watching them a few hours ago.

Axe on January 20, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Here, this is how I feel.

JPeterman on January 20, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Let’s all debate Creationism/Evolution when the country is on the brink of financial meltdown!

HA should just stop running stories about Santorum, he’s dead in the water and never really had a chance outside Bible country.

Besides, everyone knows that Aliens created Man.

1984 in real life on January 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM

it’s the Darwinists like you that always bring the subject up and then you want to shut people down when they engage you on it.

Santorum won Iowa. SC is considered “Bible country” but Gingrich is up there. I’ve had my fill of people tryign to make Santorum out as just a religious conservative. He’s full spectrume conservative…you just don’t like that he’s a social conservative and you want to run those people out of the party.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:28 PM

I don’t see how anyybody truly conservative could have a problem voting for Santorum. He’s not a bad candidate.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:29 PM

FTR:

Paula Corbin Jones (born Paula Rosalee Corbin; September 17, 1966) is a former Arkansas state employee who sued U.S. President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. The lawsuit was dismissed before trial on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was being appealed, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement, agreeing to pay Jones and her attorneys a total of $850,000.

The Paula Jones case precipitated Clinton’s impeachment. Charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were brought against Clinton based on statements he made during the depositions for the Jones lawsuit. The specific statements were about the nature of his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, with whom he denied having a sexual relationship.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 9:30 PM

He’s full spectrume conservative…you just don’t like that he’s a social conservative and you want to run those people out of the party.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Nope! That is 100% wrong and now you know why so many disagree with you.

Click on the links I provided earlier so you can get a REAL feel for Santorum. I’m certain you too are capable of handling the research.

DannoJyd on January 20, 2012 at 9:32 PM

The lawsuit was dismissed but there’s no doubt CLinton sexually harrassed the woman. He should have been rmoved from office.

Trying to compare Newt to Clinton is just lazy and dishonest.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:32 PM

You do know the impeachment took place when Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harrassment trial brought by Paula Jones, right?
Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:26 PM

There was no trial! Still waiting for a response to my link about how Newt went after Clinton for his affair with Lewinsky concurrent with his affair with Callista Bisek…

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Nope! That is 100% wrong and now you know why so many disagree with you.

Click on the links I provided earlier so you can get a REAL feel for Santorum. I’m certain you too are capable of handling the research.

DannoJyd on January 20, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Ok, you are shilling for another candidate. I get that, but I think he’s easily more conservative than Romney on his record, and more conservative than Gingrich has been since Gingrich left office.

We have to choose b/t one of these 3 and I think Santorum is the best of the bunch if you don’t want to listen to a bunch of contradictory positions, especially on healthcare.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Ok, there was some kind of sexuall harrassment trial, or “pre-trial”. There had to be for it to get thrown out. It only got thrown out b/c Clinton was president and the judge was covering for him.

It was about sexual harrassment, not affairs.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I’m not sure if Wikipeida is the best source of information on Bill Clinton. They generally have a problem with the truth on Democrats.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:36 PM

he lawsuit was dismissed but there’s no doubt CLinton sexually harrassed the woman. He should have been rmoved from office.
Trying to compare Newt to Clinton is just lazy and dishonest.
Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:32 PM

You’re the laziest commenter here. I posted a link which demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that you were wrong to say Newt can’t be compared to Clinton. Newt was in the thick of it for xsakes, prosecuting Clinton, while he himself was having an affair with a young staffer. How freaking thick are you?

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 9:37 PM

It was about sexual harrassment, not affairs.
Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Have you heard of Monica Lewinsky? Jeezus.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 9:38 PM

I’m not sure if Wikipeida is the best source of information on Bill Clinton. They generally have a problem with the truth on Democrats.
Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:36 PM

What is incorrect with what I posted about Paula Jones? The other link I provided for your perusal came from the Washington Post and had to do with Gingrich using ads to prosecute Clinton for L’affaire Lewinsky.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 9:40 PM

I’m not sure if Wikipeida is the best source of information on Bill Clinton. They generally have a problem with the truth on Democrats.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Or Republicans. Or historical figures. Or historical events. Or contemporary political issues.

– Basically, anything that doesn’t reduce to a chart of numbers.

Axe on January 20, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Impeachment

On August 17, 1998, after relentless media attention, leaks, and news of White House intern Monica Lewinsky’s upcoming testimony regarding her extramarital affair with the President, Clinton made history by becoming the first U.S. president to testify in front of a grand jury in an investigation of his own possibly criminal conduct. In an address to the nation, he admitted to having misled the public and a Federal Court over keys elements of testimony. Kenneth Starr, a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the case, was instructed to pursue the matter.

In the second term Clinton was accused of perjury when he lied under oath during the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. In the end Clinton was impeached in the House and was tried in the Senate for two counts: “perjury” and “obstruction of justice”.[18] Although a majority of 55 Senators voted to convict, a minority of 45 Senators gained his acquittal, a two thirds majority being necessary to remove him from office.

Clinton lost his law license in Arkansas because he had committed perjury before a Federal judge.

It was during this scandal that Clinton famously stated: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”.[20]

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I never knew a majority of Senators voted to convict Clinton, until now.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Thomas Jefferson, President from 1801-1809, had an affair with Sally Hemings.

Warren Harding, who was President from 1921-1923, had affairs with Nan Britton and Carrie Fulton Phillips.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was President from 1933-1945, had an affairs with Lucy Mercer.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was President from 1953-1961, had an affairs with Kay Summersby.

John F. Kennedy, who was President from 1961-1963, had numerous affairs. Among them were Marilyn Monroe, Angie Dickinson, Kim Novak, and a German spy named Inga Arvad who was being watched by the FBI.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was President from 1963-1969, had “the instincts of a Turkish sultan in Instanbul”, according to his former press secretary.

Reagan was divorced.

Bill Clinton was President from 1993-2001. ‘Nuff said.

http://nolanthomas.hubpages.com/hub/Sexual-Affairs-by-US-Presidents
Add to this list:
George Washington Abraham Lincoln.

Now please explain to me why someone’s marital affairs should have ANY bearing on his OR her qualifications for president. I do not remember reading anything in the Constitution or the Declaration that would remove these people from consideration. Has the Republican Party became soooooo exclusive that they will wipe themselves out?

annexwcp on January 20, 2012 at 9:43 PM

It’s amazinging stupid to suggest that Clinton was not impeached for his conduct in the Paul Jones sexual harrassment lawsuit.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Bill Cllinton was not impeached and convicted by a majority of the Senate because he had an affair. It was about perjury and obstruction of justice in the Paul Jones sexual harrasment lawsuit.

It’s not complicated.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Buy Danish is possibly the most ignorant person that I’ve seen post on here, and she has a lot competition for that reward.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:49 PM

It’s amazinging stupid to suggest that Clinton was not impeached for his conduct in the Paul Jones sexual harrassment lawsuit.
Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:44 PM

I never “suggested” that! You made a factually incorrect statement that Clinton was “on trial for sexual harassment” and I corrected you.

Bill Cllinton was not impeached and convicted by a majority of the Senate because he had an affair. It was about perjury and obstruction of justice in the Paul Jones sexual harrasment lawsuit.
It’s not complicated.
Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Why are you arguing with yourself? I know why he was impeached!

Buy Danish is possibly the most ignorant person that I’ve seen post on here, and she has a lot competition for that reward.
Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 9:49 PM

That’s rich! You get every fracking fact wrong and then turn around and call me “ignorant”?

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 10:02 PM

That’s rich! You get every fracking fact wrong and then turn around and call me “ignorant”?

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 10:02 PM

you stated that Clinton was impeached for adultry, and the Paula Jones sexual lawsuit and Clinton’s conduct in it had nothing to do with it. That’s what started our little debate.

If you want to say Newt is the same as Clinton, you are a hack, it’s that simple.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 10:07 PM

The reality is Clinton had Arkansas State trooper’s escort Paula jones to his office in the arkansas state house. Clinton dropped his drawers and told Paula Jones to suck it.

Comparing this to Newt’s adultry with a consenting adult is a lie.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 10:10 PM

The reason why Monica became relevant is that Clinton was using this “i’ve always been a good family man and never cheated on my wife” defensei n the Paula Jones lawsuit. That’s why Monica was called on to testify and why Clinton told her to lie about their affair.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 10:12 PM

you stated that Clinton was impeached for adultry, and the Paula Jones sexual lawsuit and Clinton’s conduct in it had nothing to do with it. That’s what started our little debate.
If you want to say Newt is the same as Clinton, you are a hack, it’s that simple.
Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 10:07 PM

I stated nothing of the sort! What the hell is the matter with you?

As for Newt’s similarity to Clinton, did he or did he not have an affair with a Congressional staffer while married? Did he or did he not go after Bill Clinton for having an affair with intern Monica Lewinsky at the same time he was having an affair with Callista? These are yes or no questions.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM

What the hell is the matter with you?

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Tesla has issues. It’s an Einstein thing.

Axe on January 20, 2012 at 10:21 PM

As for Newt’s similarity to Clinton, did he or did he not have an affair with a Congressional staffer while married? Did he or did he not go after Bill Clinton for having an affair with intern Monica Lewinsky at the same time he was having an affair with Callista? These are yes or no questions.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM

You compared Newt to Clinton.

I pointed out that Newt never sexuall harrassed women, never lied under oath in a lawsuit, etc.

You seemed to think that CLinton was impeached over adultry and Monica. There are a lot of Americans who think that. It’s ignorant.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Tesla has issues. It’s an Einstein thing.

Axe on January 20, 2012 at 10:21 PM

What are my issues, feel free to elaborate. If you going to insult somebody, be specific.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Did he or did he not go after Bill Clinton for having an affair with intern Monica Lewinsky at the same time he was having an affair with Callista? These are yes or no questions.

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM

No. He went after Clinton for LYING under oath to the Federal Grand Jury, in other words, PERJURY.

Fidelity is a subject between the couple. It should not be used as a basis for a presidential vote. Many of our greatest presidents cheated on their wives. That did not make them worse (or better) to lead the country. Leadership qualities should be the basis for a presidential vote.

annexwcp on January 20, 2012 at 11:04 PM

I know why the kind of intellectually lazy, self serving voter that comprises 80% of his base would vote for Obama. The only explanation I have for anyone voting for Newt is depravity. Sick sick depravity. The surge for Newt is scarier than Obama’s win in 2008.

aloysiusmiller on January 20, 2012 at 11:44 PM

“Besides, everyone knows that Aliens created Man.

1984 in real life on January 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM”

Yes, but which ones the Vorlons or the Shadows, always confused about that point!

Africanus on January 20, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Tesla has issues. It’s an Einstein thing.

Axe on January 20, 2012 at 10:21 PM

What are my issues, feel free to elaborate. If you going to insult somebody, be specific.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM

You’re right. Can I do it later?

Axe on January 21, 2012 at 12:13 AM

I know why the kind of intellectually lazy, self serving voter that comprises 80% of his base would vote for Obama. The only explanation I have for anyone voting for Newt is depravity. Sick sick depravity. The surge for Newt is scarier than Obama’s win in 2008.

aloysiusmiller on January 20, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Just curious, but you watch Nancy Grace religiously, don’t you?

ButterflyDragon on January 21, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Drop out Santorum!!

Sherman1864 on January 21, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Did you guys actually read his comments for Pete’s Sake?

He couldn’t have thrown back an easier softball considering how squeaky clean he is and the room he has to talk. I would have avoided the question all together but come on. This place is starting to sound like the mother of all medical conventions of Spin Doctors.

hawkdriver on January 20, 2012 at 7:43 PM

We don’t get honest reactions and comments too much anymore. We get shills spinning for their candidate or trying to destroy another candidate.

At least half the criticism aimed at Gingrich based on his sins is really driven by the fact that he’s currently the most likely to take the nomination from His Inevitability, the Annointed Frontrunner. For my part, I actually care about the character flaws I see in Gingrich, but I see him as far less dangerous than another RINO who has no intention of changing anything in Washington, and is perfectly fine with running as pro-choice when he thinks it will help him get elected.

Santorum honestly looks like the better choice to me. All the people calling him a religious statist and suggesting he really wants to put a camera in our bedrooms should read his answer here. He seems capable of accepting imperfect people, and doesn’t come across as self-righteous at all.

Granted, Santorum is no Reagan, or Palin, or even Fred!, but he seems the best of the current lot.

If he loses, I’m okay with Gingrich. He’s not as good a candidate as I would prefer, but he is actually conservative. Romney, on the other hand, would be a second Bush 41. Except that Romney comes out second best in a comparison to Bush 41.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 21, 2012 at 1:18 AM

How much did Santorum pay Vander Plaats?
http://minx.cc/?post=325008

workingclass artist on January 21, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Aw , crap in a hat! Missed the Big Interview. Wish Santorum wasnt so milktoasty. Wish Romney wasn’t Romney. Wish Sarah hadn’t been assassinated. So it’s Newt…with fingers crossed.

dhimwit on January 21, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Yes, they are issues of CHARACTER. They are issues of HYPOCRISY.

Newt Gingrich was having his affair with Callista at the very same time that he was lambasting Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

And, that is the crux of that issue; it’s not the affair itself; it’s the fact that Newt Gingrich was LYING, brazenly, and with intellectual dishonesty. Just as Bill Clinton was doing. If Clinton deserved impeachment for lying about an affair, what then does Newt Gingrich deserve for lying about HIS OWN AFFAIR while pressing for Clinton’s impeachment?!

mountainaires on January 21, 2012 at 8:54 AM

So, Rev. Santorum, tell us about your wife’s history with a certain abortion doctor.

stenwin77 on January 21, 2012 at 9:44 AM

So, Rev. Santorum, tell us about your wife’s history with a certain abortion doctor.

stenwin77 on January 21, 2012 at 9:44 AM

So what? Is that even on the radar for as far as Rick Santorum’s ability to govern? Is that even a scandal? Is that even worthy of mentioning in debate?

hawkdriver on January 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM

annexwcp on January 20, 2012 at 11:04 PM

No. He went after Clinton for LYING under oath to the Federal Grand Jury, in other words, PERJURY.

That is false. He went after both the specific items in the articles of impeachment and the impropriety of the sexual dalliance between B.J. and Lewinsky.

Fidelity is a subject between the couple. It should not be used as a basis for a presidential vote. Many of our greatest presidents cheated on their wives. That did not make them worse (or better) to lead the country. Leadership qualities should be the basis for a presidential vote.

What you do as a private citizen is your business, but when you are elected to the highest positions in the land you have a responsibility and duty to the American people and the party who elected you. The fact is Gingrich’s reckless behavior (like Clinton’s!) put each party’s agenda at risk, and made them potential targets for blackmail by our enemies abroad. Indeed Clinton knew about Gingrich’s affair and used to keep Gingrich on a short leash. We lost the W.H. and lost Congressional seats in 1996 (instead of picking up 20 more as Newt had predicted). Don’t you think it’s possible (if not probable) that Gingrich’s affair weakened him as speaker and thus threw our agenda into disarray?

Oh well, many people believed Clinton was a redeemed man when he had Jesse Jackson come in to pray for him, so there’s no underestimating the gullibility of the American people.

Buy Danish on January 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Santorum is very strong on social issues,but then so is Newt.But while in the Senate Santorum was almost as addicted to earmarks as Ron Paul and voted for a slew of government expanding measures including Medicare Drug Prescriptions,No Child Left Behind,and an increase in government involvement in the housing market via Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae.Couple that with strong pro-union votes,support for anti-gun legislation,endorsing Arlen Specter, and voting to raise the debt limit 6 times-and you wind up with one sanctimonious pro-life statist whose attacks on Gingrich’s claim to a Reagan Conservative mantel just reek of hypocrisy!

redware on January 21, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Santorum is very strong on social issues,but then so is Newt.
redware on January 21, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Sure he is! In an alternate universe. Seriously people are up in arms because Ann Romney donated $150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994 (who do provide contraception) yet Newt’s reckless behavior is given a free pass (as is Callista).

Buy Danish on January 21, 2012 at 12:12 PM

At the next debate, I hope Frothy Mixture gets asked how he can look at Newt and Marriane and still be against birth control. Follow up question. Why are you not using bedroom posters of Newt and his concubines as adversive therapy tools in your anti sex crusade?

borntoraisehogs on January 21, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Santorum must be trying to lose the evangelical vote. Or maybe he’s a stalking horse for Newt. Every time somebody adds to this meme, they are helping Newt.

Evangelicals, more than any other group, are seriously into repentance and forgiveness. Anybody doing what Santorum is doing is petting the evangelical cat’s fur backwards.

The cat will not put up with it for very long.

platypus on January 21, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Santorum is different than rival Mitt Romney in the consistency of his political past and different than rival Newt Gingrich in the consistency of his personal past. Surely that consistency should count for something.

Tina Korbe on Jan 20, 2012 7:10 PM

You are 100% correct, Tina. It should count for Santorum, but when you have Republican establishment figureheads like Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer and Bain Capital’s employees deliberately trying to help Romney, that consistency counts for nothing. Thanks.

apocalypse on January 21, 2012 at 12:48 PM

The difference between an open marriage and adultery is that in adultery, a man is sleeping with someone other than his wife without the wife’s permission.

When Newt didn’t get his wife’s permission to carry on a relationship that he was already having, he just continued on with out her permission.

Conservative Samizdat on January 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I’ve never been married but I hold such respect for the idea of marriage and what it stands for that its kind of crazy to me seeing commenters here basically saying “so what” when a married person cheats.

I look at it as if you stood up in front of the world and God and made a promise to this one person who you should love more then anyone else in the world. Then break that promise and ruin your family in the process. How can I expect that you’ll keep the promises you make to me as some faceless American citizen?

I wonder if those same people who are so flippant about marriage vows are those who complain about the institution of marriage being attacked if two gays want to get married.

Politricks on January 21, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I wonder if those same people who are so flippant about marriage vows are those who complain about the institution of marriage being attacked if two gays want to get married.

Politricks on January 21, 2012 at 3:27 PM

of course they are the same people…the institution of marriage can be trashed alright if it’s done by hetero individuals, mainly if they are Christian and if they are repentant and ask for forgiveness like Newt did :-) (this argument cracks me up :), but under any circumstances two gay people can actually have access to said institution…how jolly, their twisted values, no? I mean if the end purpose and result is trashing it, what does it matter who gets married, and most importantly, why do they care?

jimver on January 21, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I’m no Romney fan, but Romney give the right answer at the debates in response to the question about Gingrich. Which was no answer, and talk about focusing on winning

Santorum’s answer, though, despite Tina’s whitewashing, was very poorly received by those I informally polled.

Character is a fair question … which is why it is also fair to ask about Santorum’s lying about having a legitimate PA residence while Senator, as required by law. I would think lying about whether you meet the criteria for elgibility for office could be considered a question of character.

Let’s ask Rick-o about that one, Tina. While we are at, why do we care about Rick’s opinion of Newt at this point, since he’s done? Why not frame the conversation simply in terms of Newt’s character, even though its been re-hashed 1000 times? I’m ok with a 1001 times?

Except, you had to frame it in terms of an all-but-done candidate, since any other analysis you would provide would (a) add nothing new, and (b) you are still desparately clinging to your soon-to-be former presidential candidate.

PrincetonAl on January 21, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Poor Frothy Mixture. He has not changed from that nerd in the High School year book.

borntoraisehogs on January 21, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Gingrich was forced out of office by conservatives due to his ethics violations.

*Nothing to see here, move along.*

scotash on January 23, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Hey Tesla, would you mind cooling it a little? After 50 posts on the same thread, don’t you think others should be able to get a turn?

scotash on January 23, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3