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

Dr. Tesla adjust your bifocals. I said he does not want us to have sex. Hot Air offered a radio interview he gave in which he disagreed with people who said government should stay out of the bedroom. Disagreeing with that sentiment tells me he wants to know what you do and how often. And calling people stupid, come now.

Smedley on January 20, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Gingrich lies like a rug.

Hope all you true conservatives out there will be happy with an open marriage.

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Bishop on January 20, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Quite right. It wasn’t a zipper problem that lead to impeachment.

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

Wow, will a humble sprit and nice way be a big asset dealing with the mad mullas of islamic terror.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 20, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Ron Paul apparently thinks so…

cicerone on January 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Thanks, I guess I have to apologize for what I said about you on that other thread, hard to tell sometimes. I apologize.

Bmore on January 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Gingrich’s big ego kind of grows on you if you look at in a certain way. The anger he has when people run negative ads against him is a good thing if he’s our nominee…he’s not going to be a wimp against Obama like McCain. I think that’s missing in a lot of Republicans….anger at Obama. I’m not talking about faking anger, but there should be natural disdain for Obama if you are a Republican.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM

I like santorum but lets not forget he lost in a record landslide for the senate. He also voted for that no child left behind, prescription benefits, voted to have criminals vote, and he raised the debt limit 5 times.

jaboba on January 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM

If Newt wins the GOP nomination, the problem won’t be his past, it’ll be Calista’s. If you think the Dems were rough on Sarah Palin, you haven’t seen anything yet. The story will be the prospective First Lady is ok with open marriages and Tiffany spending sprees. The Dems, along with their cohorts in the media, will drive Calista’s negatives so low, Gingrich will completely lose the female vote and the election. It will be a disaster of epic proportions.

PatMac on January 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Bishop is always first.

de rigueur on January 20, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Thank you, my son, I will send you a nice engraved crozier.

Bishop on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Dr. Tesla adjust your bifocals. I said he does not want us to have sex. Hot Air offered a radio interview he gave in which he disagreed with people who said government should stay out of the bedroom. Disagreeing with that sentiment tells me he wants to know what you do and how often. And calling people stupid, come now.

Smedley on January 20, 2012 at 7:53 PM

You are just telling you are stupid if you truly believe Santorum wants to regulate how much you have sex. Mindless hyperbole.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

So, if your say out in the other peoples woods.

There are only 12 of you.

Only 6 working guns left.

Your out of water, your out of food, your back is to a river, the others are about to attack.

Who of the three, Romney, Santorum or Newt would you hand one of the guns to for the fight?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

“Out to get him”, huh? Is that an official legal process like impeachment?

Bishop on January 20, 2012 at 7:50 PM

No, but Newt had a sexual affair while criticizing Clinton for having a sexual affair. Before the impeachment proceedings, Newt still went after Clinton, despite his own personal issues.

That’s not hypocritical, to you?

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Thank you, Rick.

I don’t really consider you a conservative, but I couldn’t be more fed up with the Newtbots throwing character and morality issues out of the window as if this was a race between Democrats.

Morality, trust, honesty, willpower, self-control, ALL MATTER!

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Amen. Although, I think Santorum, while not my first pick, is pretty conservative, at least as much as George W.

BocaJuniors on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

As for the forgiveness stuff, we are asked to turn the other cheek; problem is, Newt used both cheeks. His two previous marriages lasted 18 years each; he’s on his 12th year. Do the math. :)

michaelo on January 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM

I don’t see what the big deal is with Gingrich’s credit line at Tiffanny’s. He wasn’t using tax dollars to buy the wife jewelry.

Meanwhile Michelle Obama is jetting all over the place at taxpayer expense b/c she don’t want to wait on the husband.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Gingrich will completely lose the female vote and the election. It will be a disaster of epic proportions.

PatMac on January 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM

He is already wayyyy underwater with the female vote. And it will get worse, yup.

BocaJuniors on January 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM

I’d need to see how ACU rates Republicans, b/c they have Paul Ryan way up there at 93% and I think that guy is a fiscal liberal on the big issues. He voted for TARP, the auto bailouts and a whole lot of other fiscallly liberal legislation and ACU still gives him a 93% rating. Santy was way to the right of Paul Ryan.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Santorum even wrote a book about his “compassionate conservatism ideals.” Santorum is a social con. But is a fiscal liberal. Always has been. And if you look at his record or any of his writing you will see that. The ACU rating is also done yearly. The year Paul Ryan voted for TARP his ACU rating was 83. The year when he voted for the auto bailouts it was 86. But his career ACU rating is 91.

Raquel Pinkbullet on January 20, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Latest talking points from the Newtist colony:

1. Newty invented the internet was Reagan’s brain.

2. If Newty wants to have an “open marriage” menage a trois then everybody needs to just shut-up about it!

cicerone on January 20, 2012 at 7:58 PM

18 years of marriage is a long time these days. He doesn’t strike me as somebody like Bill Clinton who is having affairs non-stop.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 7:58 PM

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

O_o

The better way to pose your odd question would be to ask which one to use as bait while you and the others escape.

Bishop on January 20, 2012 at 7:59 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

Bwahahahahaha… You think I teach my son to look towards politicians for moral direction? Really?

That’s rich. Real rich.

Politicians are the most morally corrupt beings in the history of civilization. Why is it supposed to all of a sudden change now?

ButterflyDragon on January 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

I thought Santorum did a great job last night.

He is the only conservative left in the race. Yes, I will support Newt or Ron Paul if either were the only alternative to Romney (I will NEVER vote for Romney). But as long as Santorum stays in the race, he got my vote.

Norwegian on January 20, 2012 at 7:23 PM

So you would vote for Obama over Romney? And don’t give me that “I’m staying home” crap, not voting is half a vote for Obama.

Anyone on that stage is a huge improvement over 0bama. Barry will destroy this country, and it will take decades to recover if he gets another 4 years with no constraints of facing a re-election.

Don’t be a putz.

iurockhead on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Seriously, you think Gingrich would protect any one but himself? Newt does not have the character as a team player. That is one of his greatest flaws.

You can’t see that? To me it is obvious, Gingrich will do what it takes to protect himself. He would find a way to negotiate the death of those around him to save himself and become one of the enemy.

uhangtight on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

If that’s the case, how does he explain his 7 kids? He’s had sex at least 7 times while married.

You need to ditch the hyperbole, especially the stupid kind.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Good evening Dr. It’s no use defending Santorum to many here because he has done the unforgiveable–he actually practices his Catholic faith. The horror! Also, it’s okay that their preferred candidates have passed bad legislation, have screwed-up pasts, or have done things that have shown them to not be “pure” conservatives, but Santorum is not entitled to the same standared–because he is a practicing Catholic. My word, the ignorance of some on this thread about Catholicism is stunning.

KickandSwimMom on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Smedley on January 20, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Post the interview. It’s not what he said.

hawkdriver on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Santorum even wrote a book about his “compassionate conservatism ideals.” Santorum is a social con. But is a fiscal liberal. Always has been. And if you look at his record or any of his writing you will see that. The ACU rating is also done yearly. The year Paul Ryan voted for TARP his ACU rating was 83. The year when he voted for the auto bailouts it was 86. But his career ACU rating is 91.

Ok, I think Paul Ryan is a Keynes guy. He’s not the F.A Hayek his fans want you to think he is. His Plan has obscured his horrible liberal voting record on fiscal issues.

You can be a social con and a fiscal con at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive but you want people to believe that. I understand the politics of your talking points. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

No, but Newt had a sexual affair while criticizing Clinton for having a sexual affair. Before the impeachment proceedings, Newt still went after Clinton, despite his own personal issues.

That’s not hypocritical, to you?

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Nice try at a history rewrite. Don’t think Newt went after Clinton for the affair, just went after him for lying under oath.

bgibbs1000 on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Bishop on January 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Any snow yet?

Bmore on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

I’ll take someone who had a messy divorce from an affair over a statist any day.

cpaulus on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Amen. Although, I think Santorum, while not my first pick, is pretty conservative, at least as much as George W.

BocaJuniors on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

I appreciate the “Amen” from you, but I don’t really consider George W. a conservative, either.

I mean, look what Bush gave us:

No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, Campaign Finance Reform, Homeland Security, TARP, Auto Bailouts, Stimulus, spending hikes, increasing the debt limit, Dubai Ports Deal, etc.

Santorum is more conservative than President Bush was, but I still would’ve preferred Perry/Palin/Huntsman, or someone like them.

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I probably shouldn’t say this, but I was married to Gingrich’s previous wife, I’d probably want an open marriage too, or a divorce. Not that he’s Brad Pitt or somebody. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Sure it’s hypocritical, also political. Maybe you haven’t noticed but pols do this to each other all the time, blame an opponent for something while doing the same thing themselves. Welcome to the American political system.

But Clinton wasn’t impeached for having you-likee-me-sailor-man-sexy-time with an intern.

Bishop on January 20, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Bishop,

It is not odd I have been there for things like that,
and I would bet my life Romney nor Santorum would get the gun from me.
I would hand it to the guy who will fight to win fight with death in his heart and soul.

Newt is lots of things, the one thing we have to do is fight.

So, vote like your a fighter and help fight.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 20, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Who of the three, Romney, Santorum or Newt would you hand one of the guns to for the fight?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

The best shot.

novaculus on January 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Nice try at a history rewrite. Don’t think Newt went after Clinton for the affair, just went after him for lying under oath.

bgibbs1000 on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Let me spell this out:

Newt had an affair.
Clinton had an affair.
The only difference was that Newt didn’t lie under oath.

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Yes, I agree your point, but for once, Santorum isn’t really coming off as a “moral crusader” type on this issue of Newt’s past. We’re electing someone for the highest office in the land, and the most powerful office in the world. This shouldn’t be taken lightly. Is it so much to ask that our political leaders be honest, faithful, dedicated, and proper in their behavior? We are not Europeans, and we shouldn’t approve of infidelity, sex-scandals, and raunchy behavior.

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Actually, I wasn’t referring to Santorum when I was taking a swipe at holier than thou attitudes. I was directing that towards all the people commenting on this thread who are in complete meltdown over Newt’s personal life.

I don’t care who the President is bonking, how many people he or she is bonking as long as they are abiding by the Constitution and looking out for America’s best interests.

ButterflyDragon on January 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Santorum has has to be the first anti-tax hike statist of all time. Guess there’s a first time for everything but I have time believing a statist wouldn’t have abused the power to tax.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

KickandSwimMom on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Well said both of you. And they all have someone they shill for. Honestly, it takes every ounce of thread courtesy I have to not just throw some ignorant nonsense out there about one of the others. I just want to see them all have a say till the convention when it’s decided. They all bring something to the debate.

And honestly, with Republicans the way the are, the media can actually take a break until the convention.

hawkdriver on January 20, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Let me spell this out:

Newt had an affair.
Clinton had an affair.
The only difference was that Newt didn’t lie under oath.

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

No, you are ignoring the fact that Clinton sexually harrassed women, and was accused of raped by a credible person.

If you got proof that Newt did this kind of thing, let’s hear it, Otherwise, there’s no comparison.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:05 PM

No, but Newt had a sexual affair while criticizing Clinton for having a sexual affair. Before the impeachment proceedings, Newt still went after Clinton, despite his own personal issues.

That’s not hypocritical, to you?

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

The worst thing is he’s now acting so high and mighty like this is a “personal matter” that no one else and certainly not the media should touch.

It’s like a double espresso of hypocrisy.

haner on January 20, 2012 at 8:05 PM

According to my Santorum Morality Counter, you have one curse, one taking the Lord’s name in vain, and one incorrect capitalization in your post there.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on January 20, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Yes, but that is mostly balanced out with the bolding, the all caps, and the exclamation points, even double exclamation points.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 20, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Santorum is more conservative than President Bush was, but I still would’ve preferred Perry/Palin/Huntsman, or someone like them.

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Never thought I see Huntsman included in a list of preferred candidates along with Palin and Perry. Heh.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Don’t think Newt went after Clinton for the affair, just went after him for lying under oath.

bgibbs1000 on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

BS. Why was Clinton under the oath anyway for that question? A little intellectual honesty is cathartic.

haner on January 20, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Santorum and Romney are going to try to tag team against Gingrich like Romney was tag teamed against last time by McCain and Huckabee. Santorum is Santorum/the Google version. He just wants to be Vice President “Pa-leaseee!!! Mr Romney!”

Marcus on January 20, 2012 at 8:08 PM

A lot of great and capable of presidents have had affairs, including Alexander Hamilton.

Men have a weakness for women. It shouldn’t be a sole reason to diaqualify Gingrich for consideration.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Oops, I didn’t mean to imply Hamilton was a president.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:08 PM

novaculus on January 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

LOL…

And, has Newt ever held a gun? Does he know how to shoot?
Ah, but he was a professor of history who couldn’t teach history and was forced into the Geography department. Maybe he could geographically get you out of the mess?

uhangtight on January 20, 2012 at 8:09 PM

My long comment was lost I think because I tried to link to the CNN transcript of last night which is now online. Here’s the short version.

I think Tina was right to describe Santorum as walking a fine line. He’s trying to point out the differences between him and Newt without implying that Newt is still the same as he was. It’s obvious it was tempting to him to bash Newt about it, he waivers about doing that, but all in all I thought he was attempting not to score points.

It’s obvious that some voters will think Newt’s repentance is sincere and he has changed, and some will not.

However, statements from Marianne Gingrich about events of 2000 don’t indicate whether or not Newt’s later change of heart was sincere.

INC on January 20, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Santorum and Romney are going to try to tag team against Gingrich like Romney was tag teamed against last time by McCain and Huckabee. Santorum is Santorum/the Google version. He just wants to be Vice President “Pa-leaseee!!! Mr Romney!”

Marcus on January 20, 2012 at 8:08 PM

If he wanted to be vice president, why wouldn’t he just get out and endorse Romney? Like T-Paw did.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Santorum is a nutcase, he doesn’t want people to have sex before or during marriage, he thinks government should have a bureau of sexual positions based on his bizarre theories that government’s place is in the bedroom. He needs to depart and let Gingrich and Romney settle it mano a mano.

Smedley on January 20, 2012 at 7:44 PM


This sounds kinda gay.

Herald of Woe on January 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Aizen

Clinton was doing it in the Oval Office.
Clinton was with a very very young girl.

But then he is a Democrat so that does not matter at all.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 20, 2012 at 7:44 PM

seriously??? and how do you know that Newt wasn’t doing Calista in his speaker’s office in the Capitol building, only a few miles away from the WH :-)…as for the ‘very young girl’, puh-lease, next thing you’ll say is that she was under age or something…. besides they were only doing playing the cigar game, not doing the whole shabang :-)…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Newt is (was) a dirty little ‘crazed sex poodle’ – he is morally corrupt.

Pork-Chop on January 20, 2012 at 8:14 PM

There’s absolutely no chance Romney would pick Santy to be his VP. Romney wants to play up executive experience, so he’s going to pick a governor for his VP. Santy would scare off all the gay-centric moderate voters who think Santy hates the gays.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Newt is (was) a dirty little ‘crazed sex poodle’ – he is morally corrupt.

Pork-Chop on January 20, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone- Jesus

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:16 PM

If Newt wins the GOP nomination, the problem won’t be his past, it’ll be Calista’s. If you think the Dems were rough on Sarah Palin, you haven’t seen anything yet. The story will be the prospective First Lady is ok with open marriages and Tiffany spending sprees. The Dems, along with their cohorts in the media, will drive Calista’s negatives so low, Gingrich will completely lose the female vote and the election. It will be a disaster of epic proportions.

PatMac on January 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM

What great point and worth repeating. The media will destroy her and Newt will implode trying to defend her.

Important issues out the window.

JPeterman on January 20, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Santorum is more conservative than President Bush was, but I still would’ve preferred Perry/Palin/Huntsman, or someone like them.

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Well, let me tell you what, peanut. I will take Newt and his baggage over Huntsman any day, because Huntsman became pro-life when it became politically convenient. Perry became republican when it became politically convenient. Newt has always been pro-life and republican.
And, Santorum loves his pork so much, he oinks. Another big spending republican.
No thanks, I’ll take Newt. Just keep him away from your wife.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on January 20, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Two words are enough for me: Dede Scuzzafava. I don’t need to look back to his cheating days to be disgusted by him. I don’t care for Santorum, but in general, he’s right if we’re assessing character. But for some reason, many aren’t.

greeneyedconservative on January 20, 2012 at 8:17 PM

And, Santorum loves his pork so much, he oinks. Another big spending republican.
No thanks, I’ll take Newt. Just keep him away from your wife.

Newt did support Romneycare and the individual mandate. That’s more big government than some bad votes on spending bills.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:18 PM

There’s absolutely no chance Romney would pick Santy to be his VP. Romney wants to play up executive experience, so he’s going to pick a governor for his VP. Santy would scare off all the gay-centric moderate voters who think Santy hates the gays.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Dr., I beg of you–don’t go there!!!

KickandSwimMom on January 20, 2012 at 8:18 PM

I don’t expect purity, just somebody more pure than the RomneyCare guy. I think Santorum is the guy.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone- Jesus

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Relevant how?

There’s a difference between stoning somebody and electing them as the leader of your (supposedly) socially consrvative party.

You’d think even with a room temperature IQ you could understand that.

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Men have a weakness for women. It shouldn’t be a sole reason to diaqualify Gingrich for consideration.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Newt disqualified himself when he acted as the moral inquisitor for the same immorality that he was actively participating himself. That’s the difference between Newt and JFK/Hamilton etc.

haner on January 20, 2012 at 8:19 PM

r., I beg of you–don’t go there!!!

KickandSwimMom on January 20, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Why? :)

People lose their marbles when people talk about gay issues. I don’t see why it’s a big deal. Words are wind.

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

I can just see it now: Newt and Callista walking the Inaugural Parade route as the first self-confessed adulterers ruling the free world, and every news agency will describe them as so. That will be great day for cultural conservatives.

Maybe Newt is a sociopath.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Why can’t we see Newts divorce proceedings and ethics violations documentation?

These candidates need to be properly vetted, we can’t have things coming out in October.

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:21 PM

I don’t care who the President is bonking, how many people he or she is bonking as long as they are abiding by the Constitution and looking out for America’s best interests.

ButterflyDragon on January 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

How do you square that? Any President that holds that much contempt for the institution of marriage and women isn’t looking out for America’s best interests. It’s like talking to a wall with you, everything the President (or any political leaders) does or did effects society as a whole. You can’t separate it.

lowandslow on January 20, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Newt disqualified himself when he acted as the moral inquisitor for the same immorality that he was actively participating himself. That’s the difference between Newt and JFK/Hamilton etc.

haner on January 20, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Clinton had sex with Monica in the Oval office. Any other federal employeed would have been fired on the spot for that.

Clinton also commited perjury in a sexual harrassment trial filed by Paula Jones, and he had Monica lie for him as well.

You seem not all that informed on these matters.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:21 PM

I can just see it now: Newt and Callista walking the Inaugural Parade route as the first self-confessed adulterers ruling the free world, and every news agency will describe them as so. That will be great day for cultural conservatives.

Maybe Newt is a sociopath.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Add in the fact that he was also a “moral inquisitor” during the clinton years, and you have the recipee for another decade in the wilderness for the GOP.

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:22 PM

I don’t think it’s that Newt has a weakness for women as much as he exhibits pathological self-destructive behaviors and does not care how they affect anyone.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Americans voted for Clinton twice. Everybody knows Bill Clinton was living in an open marriage. Voters didn’t seem to care.

It’s the economy, stupid.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Maybe Newt is a sociopath.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:21 PM

all politicians kinda are :-) but yeah Newt has crosed into pathological territory long time ago…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 8:23 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

Clinton also commited perjury in a sexual harrassment trial filed by Paula Jones, and he had Monica lie for him as well.

You seem not all that informed on these matters.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Cheating essentially includes lying and having your partner lie as well. You’re going to sit here and say that somehow Newt cheated for six years (only considering the Callista affair) without lying or having Callista lie for him?

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Cheating essentially includes lying and having your partner lie as well. You’re going to sit here and say that somehow Newt cheated for six years (only considering the Callista affair) without lying or having Callista lie for him?

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:23 PM

What I’m[ saying is that it’s different to lie under oath as a president in a sexual harrassment trial.

Newt’s never been accused of sexual harrassment nor has he lied under oath in any trial that I know of. Yet you are comparing Newt to Clinton. I think that’s fundamentally dishonet. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Bwahahahahaha… You think I teach my son to look towards politicians for moral direction? Really?

That’s rich. Real rich.

Politicians are the most morally corrupt beings in the history of civilization. Why is it supposed to all of a sudden change now?

ButterflyDragon on January 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

When you disregard a potentiality Presidents adultery you’re damn right you’re teaching your son to emulate them. The fact that you can’t see it is your problem.

lowandslow on January 20, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Add in the fact that he was also a “moral inquisitor” during the clinton years,

and you have the recipee for another decade in the wilderness for the GOP.

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:22 PM

and that’s the part that makes me barf about Newt…the humongous hypocrisy and the audacity to preach soc con values while pounding calista in his speaker office or wherever else, I don’t really want to know, the eww factor is too big…that makes Clinton appear almost defendable by comparison…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 8:31 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

I doubt Marianne has Callista’s Botox bills.

I remember when I heard about the half-million dollar line of credit from Tiffany’s. My first thought was that N00t got caught cheating again and that was his peace offering.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Newt’s a hypocrite, and he’s starting to remind me of Bill Clinton. Hell, Newt loves talking about Clinton every chance he gets, anyway.

Newt Gingrich wants to be Bill Clinton. The sooner people figure that out, the better.

If Newt wins the GOP nomination, the problem won’t be his past, it’ll be Calista’s. If you think the Dems were rough on Sarah Palin, you haven’t seen anything yet.

Bingo. And with her, it won’t be hard. Does anyone else think it is really creepy how insistently Newt pairs his name with hers everywhere?

18 years of marriage is a long time these days. He doesn’t strike me as somebody like Bill Clinton who is having affairs non-stop.

You strike me as a pretty smart cookie, Doc. Read this. It isn’t pretty.

Along with his amorphous political persona, Newt showed a propensity for the kind of behavior boys boast about in the locker room. Throughout his first campaign he was having an affair with a young volunteer. Dot Crews, who occasionally drove the candidate, says that almost everybody involved in the campaign knew. Kip Carter claims, “We’d have won in 1974 if we could have kept him out of the office, screwing her on the desk.”

Mr. Arkadin on January 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM

I doubt Marianne has Callista’s Botox bills.

I remember when I heard about the half-million dollar line of credit from Tiffany’s. My first thought was that N00t got caught cheating again and that was his peace offering.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:32 PM

the ultimate stepford horror :-)…robotic and faux :)…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM

If Newt wants transparency, then he should ask that any confidentiality agreement from his Fannie and Freddie dealings be waived.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Thomas Sowell: The Past and the Present
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/12/20/the_past_and_the_present/page/full/

To those who are stating the fact we are even talking about Gingrich underscores the moral decay in society, I say horse nonsense.

American history is replete with examples of leading public figures, including a number of past Presidents who have had messy personal lives and who have provided invaluable service to America.

What We Really Learned from ABC News and Marianne Gingrich
Neither fair nor balanced: the MSM is wrapped tightly around Obama’s little finger.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/what-we-really-learned-from-abc-news-and-marianne-gingrich/?singlepage=true

Am I surprised that Santorum would riff off of a slanted interview, conducted by a liberal media outlet, whose agenda is to help elect President Barrack Hussein Obama, to raise concerns about another conservative candidate.

No, but Santorum’s use of the interview, given that we know the media and political agenda, raises questions about him. It tells me that he is no better than any of the other candidates, even though he wants to use his personal character to distinguish himself from the other candidates.

IMV the better course would have been for Santorum to simply say, “what was discussed in the interview involves personal matters between Marianne Gingrich and Newt Gingrich which I am not interested in discussing.”

Then he would have shown himself to be a person of character.

john.frank on January 20, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I remember when I heard about the half-million dollar line of credit from Tiffany’s. My first thought was that N00t got caught cheating again and that was his peace offering.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:32 PM

You sound kind of nosy and a busybody to me. I really don’t care if Gingrich has a line of credit at Tiffanys. I see marriage as private and personal thing, and a lot of people get married who really were never that compatalible for the long haul.

Gingrich’s ex wife had to know Newtie Poo had a big ego when she married him. SHe knew what she was getting.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:38 PM

I know some folks just love how Newt “destroyed” the media during the debates, but it’s getting old. I’m thinking ahead to when these two might actually represent this country. And that will be an embarrassment. If you think the world is laughing at Obama, these two will be the laughingstock of the planet.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:39 PM

It’s a primary, Santy is trying to win, not say positive things about his opponents. You guys have a weird perspective on how primaries work.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I don’t see how anybody is worse than Obama. He’s never done anything in his life.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM

If Newt wants transparency, then he should ask that any confidentiality agreement from his Fannie and Freddie dealings be waived.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:37 PM

oh, but he was just the historian in residence for Freddie Mac :-), what dealings you insinuate he might have had with said mortgage giant, other than probably a modest stipend in return for his historian services :-)…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM

You sound kind of nosy and a busybody to me. I really don’t care if Gingrich has a line of credit at Tiffanys. I see marriage as private and personal thing, and a lot of people get married who really were never that compatalible for the long haul.

Gingrich’s ex wife had to know Newtie Poo had a big ego when she married him. SHe knew what she was getting.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:38 PM

No, I actually am not. However, I do read a lot, and I have read Newt’s mea culpas for his non-stop cheating and other bad behaviors. He talked about it all the time. Even if he didn’t, it’s not a secret; ask anyone who worked on the Hill during his tenure in the House. The Obama flunkies will use his own words against him (in addition to digging up loads of other dirt).

Manipulative people are very sweet when they want something. That seems to be the ruse. Love is a strange thing; it makes one believe they can change someone’s bad behavior. It’s sad when things go bad. Newt lived his failings in public for all to see.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:46 PM

I don’t see how anybody is worse than Obama. He’s never done anything in his life.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM

True.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone – Jesus

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:16 PM

I’m required to evaluate a person’s character before I put them into a position of authority.

And the suggestion, generally, isn’t “I’m better than Gingrich” — its that Gingrich isn’t good enough. The commenters aren’t running.

Gingrich seems (from this distance) extraordinarily bombastic, egotistical, intelligent, and creative, He also seems to be somewhat undisciplined — a flaw that might be common in people that intelligent and creative. And that flaw seems to be expressed in his life in everything from his public speaking to his sexual relationships.

In business, I would always want Gingrich on the team, because the results will be brilliant if he is. But I would never let a guy like that run the team. He’s too flighty, too unrealistic, and prone to make big changes in the big-middle; it never gets done.

I think both Romney and Santorum have a better temperament for President.

But Santorum does not appear to be a reformer. And Romney has not convinced me — and I’m trying to let him — that his position changes are the result of an ideological maturing process, not political expediency.

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

If Newt wants transparency, then he should ask that any confidentiality agreement from his Fannie and Freddie dealings be waived.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:37 PM

oh, but he was just the historian in residence for Freddie Mac :-), what dealings you insinuate he might have had with said mortgage giant, other than probably a modest stipend in return for his historian services :-)…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM

I’m sure Fannie and Freddie employs scads of historians for financial purposes.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Christian conservatives accept that Jesus died to forgive our sins and we do not have the right to hold any sin against someone who has sought this forgiveness. Those of us who support Newt accept that this is part of his forgiven past. If someone came forward and proved he had not changed it would be different, but this part of his life is past and we do not have the right to hold it against him.
I support Newt because I believe he is the best candidate.
Rose on January 19, 2012 at 12:16 AM

Flora Duh on January 20, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Seriously? I believe in redemption, but the fact remains Gingrich is a reckless person who carried on an affair with a young staffer at the very moment he was going after Clinton for his affair with young staffer, Monica Lewinsky. He put the entire Republican Party in general and the House of Representatives specifically at risk. I haven’t heard him apologize for that, but hey, maybe I missed it.

Moreover, what about Callista? She had an affair with the married Speaker of the House at the same time her lover was prosecuting Bill Clinton for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. She’s running to be First Lady and is therefore “fair game” as the saying goes.

When the two of them ask for forgiveness for their hypocrisy I’ll consider the possibility they deserve redemption (not that I’m in any position to provide it, but I can at least examine the ethics of it all).

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 8:49 PM

I just don’t like Gingrich, never have. I’ll vote for him over Obama but it will be with an 100% bad feeling. It isn’t his physical apperance, I could care less about that. But it’s this gut reaction I have to him personally, something is wrong there. To me he’s a cross between Pat Buchanan and Bill CLinton and I don’t trust him at all. I don’t think I could even shake hands with him. All of this is based on voting for over 40 years. You know, I would trust Nixon more that Gingrich. But again, ABO.

Deanna on January 20, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Gingrich seems (from this distance) extraordinarily bombastic, egotistical, intelligent, and creative, He also seems to be somewhat undisciplined — a flaw that might be common in people that intelligent and creative. And that flaw seems to be expressed in his life in everything from his public speaking to his sexual relationships.

In business, I would always want Gingrich on the team, because the results will be brilliant if he is. But I would never let a guy like that run the team. He’s too flighty, too unrealistic, and prone to make big changes in the big-middle; it never gets done

No offense, but I get a feeling you are repeating the standard talking points used by Ann Coulter and the emotional anti-Gingrich types. Undisciplined, unreliable, flighty…they love emphasizing these things.

But he never implemented RomneyCare. I think that’s something, flighty, bombastic, organized or not. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:51 PM

In 1993, Santorum was one of 17 House Republicans who sided with most Democrats to support legislation that prohibited employers from permanently replacing striking employees.

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.[

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.[50]

What a Conservative! /s

DannoJyd on January 20, 2012 at 8:50 PM

PA is a very unionzed state and it’s understandable that Santorum was never a union busting type of Republican. He would have never got elected.

What’s wrong with intelligent design being taught in class if evolution is? There’s no evidence of cross species evolution and science books still contained bogus evidence such as the spotted moth hoax. Is this really a reason to vote for or against any candidate?

The weather thing you posted looks like you are desperate. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:54 PM

I’m sure Fannie and Freddie employs scads of historians for financial purposes.

Philly on January 20, 2012 at 8:48 PM

you mean for ‘image shaping’ purposes :-)…that’s what Gingrich maintains he was doing for them, help them shape and polish their public image :-)…I am surprised that he doesn’t say he did it pro bono :-), as much nerve as he has…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Time magazine is known for being fair to Republicans, especially ones who are sociall conservative, like Santorum.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Thank you for proving that blind faith displaces rational thought and relevant history. /s

DannoJyd on January 20, 2012 at 8:57 PM

No offense, but I get a feeling you are repeating the standard talking points used by Ann Coulter and the emotional anti-Gingrich types. Undisciplined, unreliable, flighty…they love emphasizing these things.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I forgive your cynicism. Be advised, for what it’s worth, that I’m looking at the man, and he looks undisciplined.

But he never implemented RomneyCare. I think that’s something, flighty, bombastic, organized or not. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I’m having trouble stumbling over RomneyCare as well. I wish Mitt was better at convincing/lying/manipulating — whatever the case may be. The core issue here is ObamaCare, and the nominee is Romney? The Romney?

*incorporate previous frustration remarks by reference*

Axe on January 20, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3