I'm confused as to why this is so upsetting. From the above, it sounds like Gingrich is saying that he believes sexual attraction is larger than just homo- or heterosexual, that it's more of a spectrum instead of just two points, that people are more inclined one way or the other but that they shouldn't define themselves by sexual attraction.

Gingrich-Jones said she plans to support Obama in the 2012 race: "The things we saw happen in the last four years of the Obama Administration would all, or many of them, go away under a President Gingrich. It would be a huge setback."

And this just seems selfish.

I agree JDThompson. He doesn't seem to come down one way or another. As for his neice, well lots of people don't support gay marriage. That is his right and its what his base expects. Also, I am not sure why his neice is so ill informed as to think the Big O had anything to do with the current status of gay marriage. I have never heard him give a speech about being for it, nor have I seen him out drumming up votes for it either. People who vote on single issues like Right to Life or Gay Marriage really piss me off. There is more to life than just your pet issue. So you don't care if Obama creates another entitlement that we can't afford, just as long as he says the right thing about gays? Nice. Can he club puppies to death too?

Also, I am not sure why his neice is so ill informed as to think the Big O had anything to do with the current status of gay marriage.

^This. At best, he stayed out of the way. But I'm pretty sure that Obama's on the record as being anti-gay marriage.

sheepmommy: "I agree JDThompson. He doesn't seem to come down one way or another."

You guys are missing the point. There is only one way to come down in liberal orthodoxy.

He didn't do that, so he must be vilified.

-Jut

""The things we saw happen in the last four years of the Obama Administration would all, or many of them, go away under a President Gingrich. It would be a huge setback."

This is also bullshit for another reason: Congress passes laws, not the, or any, President.

I long for a day when ordinary people take civics classes.

Newt is the smartest guy in the room most of the time. He will not be a TelePrompter In Chief.

"The things we saw happen in the last four years of the Obama Administration would all, or many of them, go away under a President Gingrich. It would be a huge setback."

This is also bullshit for another reason: Congress passes laws, not the, or any, President.

And also - because most people don't think entirely in terms of sexual identity - a reversal of most of "the things we saw happen" in the last four years (sic) of the Obama administration would hardly be a huge setback.

So, she's going to support Obama, no matter what? Or only if Newt (or one of the other social conservatives) is the R candidate? What I get from this is that Republicans shouldn't bother standing up for gay rights, because gays are going to vote D no matter what.

(Yes, Newt is a scummy, immoral, big-government hypocrit, and I certainly hope he doesn't win the primary.)

There are so many reasons to think Newt is a hypocritical idiot. The fact that he didn't go to her wedding or send a gift is not one of them. He doesn't believe in gay marriage so its not much of a stretch to see that he wouldn't be supportive if a family member married a member of the same sex.

Reasons to not want Newt in office.......the fact that he recently pledged fidelity to fidelity. Isn't he a little too late? The fact that he is allowing a group with a mission statement proclaiming God should be the head of all families force him to address a fidelity pledge. The fact that despite a separation of church and state, he is still basing any future promises of legislation on things that are moral and God based. And just for fun, I'll throw in his attack on Bill Clinton for getting caught cheating and his portrayal of a man disgusted and betrayed by an elected official all while conducting his own extramarital affairs.

It seems as if the Republican party thinks the biggest problem this country faces is same sex marriage. I did marriage poorly my first time. I think everyone should have the same right I had to screw it up royally and just as I have the right to do it again and again and again, so should everyone else have that right.

I'm not a big fan of Gingrich but don't see how his statement is 'hypocritical' or counseling anything. He's providing a description of human sexuality. You might not agree with it, but that doesn't make him a hypocrite.

The term hypocrisy has a specific meaning. It's not simply a pejorative. I bet that Remnick would find that fact 'ironic'.

I find it very interesting...and sickening...that Newt Gingrich seems to take this "fidelity pledge" he signed more seriously than his vows at the altar.

Why is he (along with other candidates) even taking this "fidelity pledge"? Is this somehow more binding on him than his vows at the altar? Will signing a pledge make the chronically unfaithful suddenly faithful?

Here's the info on the pledge.

It seems as if the Republican party thinks the biggest problem this country faces is same sex marriage.

Mm, yes, because all those massive grassroots protests over the past few years and the resulting 2010 Congressional overthrow were all about gay marriage. Nothing about the economy or out-of-control spending or fiscal discipline. Not sure where you're getting this.

And FWIW (and I'd be the last person to defend Gingrich on morals) - the Clinton impeachment was due to his perjury.

Newt Gingrich preaching fidelity is like Madonna preaching celibacy.

Newt Gingrich preaching fidelity is like Madonna preaching celibacy.

Oooh, yeah, or, like Obama preaching fiscal discipline. Or like Eric Holder preaching respect for the law. Or like Jon Corzine preaching business ethics.

Sigh. He signed because if he hadn't, people like you would be talking about how Newt Gingrich had refused to sign a fidelity pledge.

Actually, JDThompson, he signed it to placate those who seem to think that a fidelity pledge should be considered more binding than his marital vows.

I didn't hand him the fidelity pledge, so, no, I would not be talking about it if he didn't sign it. I think a fidelity pledge is a dumb idea. It would suggest that the marital vows aren't binding or as binding. I also think that a serial philanderer, like John F. Kennedy, for instance, is not going to become more faithful because he signed a pledge.

Actually, JDThompson, he signed it to placate those who seem to think that a fidelity pledge should be considered more binding than his marital vows.

Great, you answered your own question, fantastic. You've acknowledged that you knew all along that these pledges are an incredibly common political tool employed by all candidates on both sides with regards to special interest groups. Anyway...

So, what's the problem with Gingrich's statement - you know, the actual topic of the thread?

I think the pledge, or lack thereof is irrelevant. At the end of the election, we have President Obama or President not-Obama.

I don't know about you, but the past three years have been too much for me.

Stupid pledges signed for self-righteous special interest groups... and for what? So that when he leaves his current wife and has the next one on deck already, they can say, "Gotcha!"? Whatever.
"Read my lips... No new taxes!"
People on both sides- need to look at the records, not count on promises.

And I wouldn't give a crap about Newt's affairs or anything else in his personal life if he weren't campaigning as a social conservative. (Ok, really, I don't care anyway.) If social conservatives want someone who is (from what we know) a faithful, family man, they should vote for Obama if Gingrich wins the R primary.

Dumb bunny, what makes him a hypocrite is the fact that after numerous affairs and marriages, he would sign a fidelity pledge or think he is in a place to preach to anyone about morals or fidelity. His refusal to support a family member's same sex marriage seems to be one of the few times his actions match his words.

Does it bear repeating why it is more than sickening to hear Newt Gingrich counsel others on the benefits of sexual restraint?

Is discussing what choices people make and why the same as "counseling on the benefits of sexual restraint"? I didn't hear "don't have sex" in anything there.

There are a lot of people who appear to be so uneasy about the way that they lead their sex lives that they are entirely convinced that any statement at all by someone doing it differently is a direct attack on them.

I wouldn't care a rat's derriere about Newt Gingrich's affairs...except that he's such a pious hypocrite. JFK's dalliances (despite having the hottest First Lady in all of U.S. history) make Newt Gingrich look like St. Francis, but at least you didn't hear JFK criticizing people for not being family values, or self-righteously harrumphing that his is the party of family values.

I would prefer Newt Gingrich to keep his mouth off that particular topic and focus on issues that matter. But since he's going to brag about being all pro-family...despite the fact that his first wife had to take him to court twice because he wouldn't pay his child support...well, then I guess we're going to have a field day pointing out what a smug hypocrite he is.

For the record, I think it's unrealistic to expect our leaders to be family oriented...It's a conflict of interest. Family oriented role models are family first types. Great leaders are nation first types.

I have no idea, since I don't really care, but I would guess that there have been incredibly few instances where Newt has done anything remotely close to "preaching" about morals or family values without being directly questioned about it first. I'm pretty sure he knows he's weak on that, and would much rather talk fiscal policy, or about how badly Obama and the Dems are totally screwing the country.

But when a reporter or debate moderator asks him about morals or family values, would you rather wasn't a hypocrite and told people to go cheat on their wives?

And frankly, I couldn't give two sh*ts if Gingrich or any other Republican is a hypocrite on family values. I'm not voting for them on family values. I'm voting for them to cut spending and lower taxes and to try to save the country from the bottomless pit Obama and the left are dropping us into. At least when Gingrich cheated on his wife, the only people he was hurting were himself and his family. When Obama and the left lie and cheat and steal, they're screwing over everyone EXCEPT themselves. But hey, let's get all pissy about the Republican who's unfaithful to his wife. Because he's a Republican. Not because of any actual values or morals that you hold dear. Because you disagree with his political idealogy. That's it.

"The things we saw happen in the last four years of the Obama Administration would all, or many of them, go away under a President Gingrich"

So what exacly aside from massive bailouts of companies at the expense of tax payers, refusal to prosecute voter intimidaters because of the color of their skin, and the passage of a trillion dollar bill that noone bothered to read before it was signed designed to subsidise what is poised to be the laargest segment of the economy in the next 20 yrs has Obama given us that might be rolled back?

Luj, to take a swing at your three questions: In the first case, I suppose what's done is done, and the only thing any candidate can promise is to not do it again. There is a substantial ethical cleanup that has to take place, and call me paranoid, but I think that right now a President who goes full-bore after government corruption might not live very long. So it's probably going to have to be a very gradual process.

As for Eric Holder's so-called Justice Department, I'm completely with you. If I were elected President in 2012, I'd get the names of every political appointee in Justice and immediately fire all of them. Then I'd appoint an inspector general for the DoJ, make then the acting Attorney General, and turn them loose to prosecute any and all who were involved with Fast and Furious, money laundering, voting rights violations, and a bunch of other stuff that we probably haven't heard about yet. Eric Holder needs to rot in jail.

As for the third... yes, I think Obamacare can be repealed in its entirety if the new President and Congress act promptly in 2013. If they wait very long, it becomes a lot more difficult. After they tackle that, they need to do something about changing the tax treatment of employer-provided vs. non-employer-provided insurance. There is no reason in the world why health insurance should be coupled to employment; that's an artifact of WWII-era tax law that should have gone away decades ago. After that, I'd have a hard look at the FDA, the drug approval process, and how demands in other countries for drugs to be made available below cost fit in with free trade treaties.

JDThompson, you are something else...I don't know exactly what, but you're definitely something else. You've been contemptuously sneering at me and making assumptions because I choose to point out that Gingrich is being a hypocrite. Then you finally admit you don't know what you're talking about...quelle surprise...sort of like Boy George coming out of the closet.

You say, "I have no idea, since I don't really care, but I would guess that there have been incredibly few instances where Newt has done anything remotely close to "preaching" about morals or family values without being directly questioned about it first."

Well, since you don't know, perhaps you'd like to educate yourself before you decide to bray like a jackass.

It's here.

Yeah, Newt does shoot his mouth off, and attack his opponents' family values. Read it for yourself.

I am not a fan of Obama. I do wonder if he will win reelection simply because the Republican party is going to tear all it's own candidates to pieces before the election. It doesn't look good right now. And Bachmann? Really? No. Just no.

Voting for Obama because the Republican doesn't support gay marriage is like voting for the Republican because Obama doesn't support gay marriage.

As I said over at Ace's place the other day, the Republicans should just ignore all homosexual political issues because after the response Bush got from his AIDS in Africa campaign (i.e. nothing at all) we already know that there is nothing they can do to get the homosexual identity-group vote.

Stop pretending that they're gonna vote for the R. They're wedded to their dream that some Democrat somewhere is going to give them what they want.

And it isn't going to happen.

I agree with Rad...
The experiment with an inexperienced community organizer has proven to be exactly as conservatives predicted - a disaster.
Newt is an "outsider" in the sense that he rankles the feathers of the GOP elite. His resume makes Obama look like a grade-schooler. His intellect is indisputable and he will trounce anyone in a debate (including Obama).
As an Independent, I'm less concerned with social issues than I am with current fiscal matters and foreign affairs, thus Newt's personal life is of minimal interest.
The left risked it all and rolled the dice on Obama to gain control in '08 with the results obvious to anyone with an I.Q numerically higher than their age. I'm prepared to vote for anyone nominated to run against Obama, but at least with Newt I won't have to hold my nose while doing so.

> at least with Newt I won't have to hold my nose

Sincerely curious, not meant to be sarcastic: Are you old enough to remember when Newt was calling the shots in the lower house 15 (16?) years ago?

There were odors.

(The foregoing comment isn't meant to suggest that anyone needs to be too concerned about Newt's sexual feelings... Judging him on his integrity will take care of everything)

I couldn't really care less about what Newt thinks. I thoroughly agree with Bachmann -- he and and Romney are the same.

I'm between Bachmann and Paul when the primaries come around.

Jim - Ron Paul is a fundamentally unserious man. And Bachmann is stark raving mad.

There's only one answer: Zombie Reagan.

Crid -
Yep, I remember Newt serving as Speaker. I remember him dragging the Clinton Administration kicking and screaming into a balanced budget. I remember him out maneuvering Clinton on the Welfare Reform Act. I remember Newt as a LEADER.
That is not to say that he didn't do things for political expediency that were distasteful, he did. Political leaders must often make tough decisions. He also had affairs while pressing Clinton about the Lewinsky scandal. The difference was that Clinton lied about his affair to a Grand Jury, then went on national TV to lie directly to us.
My statement stands, I will vote anti-Obama. If Newt is the GOP nominee, I will unashamedly vote for him because I feel that he has the experience, intelligence and the intestinal fortitude to be a good president despite the left and the religious rights protestations about his marital indiscretions or any dissection of the minutia of past decisions made while attempting the balancing act of leading the republican congress while actually working with democrats to get thing accomplished.

If the Republicans nominate anyone other than Ron Paul, I'll vote for them. Ron Paul is probably the only person in America that would be a worse president than Obama.

It doesn't matter who I want, because by the time the primaries make it to CT, the choice is already made.

It wasn't just expediency... Newt was twitchy. He was weird.

If you back Bachmann -- beware of candidates promising to do as President what they failed to do as a member of Congress, when it is their Constitutional duty. I dunno if she's done this, but still.

When he was asked if someone could choose to be heterosexual, he said, "Look, people choose to be celibate. People choose many things in life. You know, there is a bias in favor of non-celibacy. It's part of how the species recreates. And yet there is a substantial amount of people who choose celibacy as a religious vocation or for other reasons."

I believe that attraction is innate. When I was young, I was attracted to girls. It wasn't something I chose (okay, heads girls, tails boys...and it's heads!) Gingrich is correct, of course, that acting on who you're attracted to is a choice and if people want to choose celibacy for religious or other reasons, good for them. But, to me, it seems fundamentally mean-spirited to suggest, as religious (and other) conservatives do, that gays and lesbians should choose to not act on their attraction to someone just because that someone happens be a consenting adult of the same sex.

I can't stop myself from stopping at WalMart to buy two cartons of butter pecan ice cream but I can stop myself from having sex with a married women.

Newt keeps painting a target on himself. Now he's vowing to press for the impeachment of judges. Perhaps someone should tell that dumbass that if he were president, he would have NOTHING to do with impeachments.

I support Newt exactly because I do remember him "dragging the Clinton Administration kicking and screaming into a balanced budget" and I have high hopes that he could do it again.

Perhaps, I am naive.

Here's the Paradox of Idiocy:

Idiots won't vote for a genius, because he has nothing in common with them.

Idiots complain when an idiot is elected, because he doesn't have more skills than they do.

Carlin, once again, was right (from Wikipedia):

"But where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky; they don't pass through a membrane from a separate reality. They come from American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, and American businesses. And they're elected by American voters. This is what our system produces, folks. This is the best we can do. Let's face it, we have very little to work with. Garbage in, garbage out.
Ignorant citizens elect ignorant leaders, it's as simple as that. And term limits don't help. All you do is get a new bunch of ignorant leaders.
So maybe it's not the politicians who suck; maybe it's something else. Like the public. That would be a nice realistic campaign slogan for somebody: "The public sucks. Elect me." Put the blame where it belongs: on the people.
Because if everything is really the fault of politicians, where are all the bright, honest, intelligent Americans who are ready to step in and replace them? Where are these people hiding? The truth is, we don't have people like that. Everyone's at the mall, scratching his balls and buying sneakers with lights in them. And complaining about the politicians."

Hey! I really LIKE those sneakers that light up. I cannot find them in my size.

Minnesota state Senator Amy Koch, a Republican, recently resigned as Senate majority leader after it was learned that she was having an "inappropriate relationship" with a staffer. She is married. And naturally, as a Republican (with the Republican belief that government should get off people's backs and into their pants) she also opposes same-sex marriage.

So, Jim, do you think something would be different if Ms. Koch was a Democrat?

After all, thousands lined up to defend adulterer CLinton with the cry, "It's his own personal business!"