Gingrich's reply was (a) the only possible response he could make and (b) very much to the point. Namely: what does his marital history have to do with his qualifications to be president?

If he said this in a way that convinced the religious conservatives, good for him.

I'm always confused as to why people follow any politician with such a frenzy.

Obama's hope campaign seemed ludicrous for many reasons, but especially because it was just another slick marketing campaign.

But what about "family values" republicans that try to legislate things like abstinence education, abortion, divorce and who can and can't get married. Knowing you have those values how can you get behind Newt? Just because he says he's repented?

...what about "family values" republicans that try to legislate things like abstinence education, abortion, divorce and who can and can't get married. Knowing you have those values how can you get behind Newt? Just because he says he's repented?

If they are single-issue voters, presumably they can't support him. However, I would hope (wish, dream) that people would realize that there are more important issues at stake.

Mind, I avoid these topics with large segments of my family, because many of the older generation are exactly the kind of people you are referring to...

Can't say that I'm particularly thrilled by any of the GOP wannabes.

I could *almost* go for Paul, except that he's doing a fine impression of an escapee from the set of Monty Python's 'spot the loonie'.

Newt's kind of a shady, cheaty character, but at least he'll stand up and fight, while pretty much the rest of the pack seems to be lining up to present themselves as the most vanilla candidate possible.

And all of that said, I'd still vote for a sea cucumber over Obama when it comes down to it, if for no other reason than to have something different.

..what does his marital history have to do with his qualifications to be president?
He's running for the nomination of the party that wants us to think they have higher moral standards than the other?
It demonstrates a history of lack of good judgement?

This is the man who volunteered to talk to the NAACP about how paychecks are better than food stamps. I've seen the whole portion of the speech, so I'm not 'taking it out of context.'
Are you really considering him as a viable candidate for president?

So it looks like our presidential options in 2012 are going to be bad and worse.

Using the phrase 'moral standards' and *any* presidential candidate of either party in the same sentence is like trying to use quantum mechanics and witchcraft in the same sentence (she turned me into a newt!).

And as for, '... about how paychecks are better than food stamps ...', I'm not sure I see the issue there. Paychecks *are* better than food stamps. This isn't to diminish those who actually need food stamps through no real fault of their own, but in what way is self sufficiency somehow worse than dependence upon government largesse?

Even so, I'm starting to be of the opinion that a flip flop covered with gravy would be a better option for president than the ones we seem to have now.

Sex. SEX. SEX! SEX!

There. I have completely eliminated any thoughts whatsoever about qualifications to lead the country.

And is somebody actually insisting that paychecks are worse than food stamps? Does anyone really think that a crime rate 3 to 10 times that of other ethnic groups can BE fought without actually saying something about false entitlement and the total lack of values which that teaches every day?

Then - watch faces and see who means what they say. About half the time Mr. Romney ends a sentence, his face says, "Well, I'm done saying that line."

Actually, Gingrich's response in SC did not indicate that the GOP had changed the rules, but that he recognized that the rules had been changed during the Clinton administration (blowjobs ain't sex, sex ain't none o' yo business), and Gingrich's reply was just an acknowledgement of that fact. If the Dems are going to choose a mudhole as a duelling place, then if you're going to fight them you have to be prepared to get dirty.

He is a politician. Of course he's lying. The people who want the job are the ones who shouldn't have it, but somebody has to do it.

So, pick the one who can harm you the least. Keep him or her on a short leash, and get change them often.

We've seen what Obama has done. Does anyone seriously think any of the Republicans can do worse? Notice the word can before you start screaming that Santorum will force evolution to be taught in schools, or outlaw abortion by presidential decree. Despite Obama's attempt to declare Congress not in session when they say they are in session, we do have limits to governmental powers. The president isn't a dictator. The only way we keep their attention is by tossing them when they cross us. See Obamacare and the last election.

What, exactly, would Gingrich do? Make us all eat fish on Fridays again? Make us pray in school? Outlaw murder?

Most people have some sort of religious or moral code. I'd be far more receptive to the Democrat/Catholic social values if they actually lived what they preached (have we forgotten the church's pedophile problem or are we going to just ignore the fact that most of the richest members of Congress are Democrats?)

They have theirs already, and it's wealth - not income so it's not taxed. You, and I can pound sand.

Well, Romney made a point to have a squeaky clean personal life, and it has bought him limited support, if any.

If we are going to punish bad behavior, we should reward good behavior. Since we don't, why bother worrying about such things if you are a candidate?

but that he recognized that the rules had been changed during the Clinton administration (blowjobs ain't sex, sex ain't none o' yo business),

I'd find it endlessly entertaining the ways conservatives contort themselves to justify their party's poor behavior. That is, if it weren't so pathetic and obvious. What you're saying is that social conservatives no longer have moral standards for their candidates, and everything they pretend to believe is just words, words, words. If that's true, it's good to know.

You'd think these single-issue family-values voters would be lining up to vote for Obama. He's never been caught with his pants down. He's had only one marriage. He's taken an anti-gay marriage stance. On the abortion issue, he's done about as much as any Republican president. (To be clear, I wouldn't care if he admitted to a circle jerk in the Oval Office. It'd not one of the things I care about. I will not be voting for him for other reasons.)

People treat politics like sports: They're cheering for the jersey. The guy inside it is irrelevant.

Gingrich's reply was (a) the only possible response he could make and (b) very much to the point. Namely: what does his marital history have to do with his qualifications to be president?

If he said this in a way that convinced the religious conservatives, good for him.

Posted by: a_random_guy

Namely: what does his marital history have to do with his qualifications to be president?

If this is indeed his stance then expalin why it mattered when Clinton was in the White House

I'm less interested in Gingrich's self-exculpation than I am in the many supposed family-values types who have roosted in his camp.

After years of telling us that This Yardstick Is Important, they're not just throwing out the yardstick, they're smashing it into splinters. It's the equivalent of a tax-cutting advocacy group going all in for a blank-check candidate.

Newt defenders behave as if somehow people are saying it was ok for Clinton so its ok for Newt and as if somehow this was Clinton's fault. Anthony Weiner got caught with his pants down, so to speak, and ended up being forced to resign his office. He wasn't even running for President. I wonder where all the outrage that was directed at Weiner is now and why isn't it being directed at Newt.

Let us also not forget that the man recently signed a Pledge to Fidelity at the behest of a Christian rights organization. You don't get to do that and also escape the scrutiny of your personal life.

"You'd think these single-issue family-values voters would be lining up to vote for Obama. He's never been caught with his pants down. He's had only one marriage. He's taken an anti-gay marriage stance. On the abortion issue, he's done about as much as any Republican president."

He's also been the recipient of the media double standard when vetting candidates: Democrats gently, Republicans savagely. The media won't even harass him to release his college transcripts, for crying out loud, do you expect them to really go digging for dirt on him? Remember the battalions of reporters that flew to Alaska when McCain chose Palin as his running mate? Were there any similar battalions of reporters vetting Obama's personal history? I think not.

The media won't even harass him to release his college transcripts, for crying out loud, do you expect them to really go digging for dirt on him?

They did, however, hound him endlessly for his birth certificate. And when they got it, some still refused to believe it was real. (To be fair, most Republicans I spoke with didn't give a rat's ass about this. It was just a vocal, retarded minority.)

If Obama has any pants-dropping in his past, it would have come out by now. If there's one thing the media loves, it's a good sex scandal. Obama is likely as corrupt as any politician, but he's managed to either keep his eye on the prize long enough to keep his pants on, or he's done a masterful job of covering it all up.

Also, it's weak to turn this issue on the media. Every time someone's candidate is taking some heat for something or other, people go sobbing about the media. The media has nothing to do with this. I'm talking about Newt's voters. The people who claim to be so passionate about fidelity are going to throw their support behind Newt Gingrich, a man they know is a slimeball, and give all kinds of reasons why this is OK.

If everyone wants to play this game, I just have two words to add: Larry Sinclair.

One need not reach the marriage issue to determine that Newt is not fit for the presidency. Though the hypocrisy is staggering, as Newt was in the midst of a six-year affair when pushing for the impeachment of Clinton over his affair with Lewinsky.

Newt's history of bad judgment and poor leadership should be plenty. This is the former speaker of the House, who resigned in disgrace, after being fined $300,000 for ethics violations. After years in the house, I don't believe that even one of his former colleagues has stood up to endorse him. New is a man proposed a law that would enable the death penalty for people who bring a mere 2 oz of pot into the country. The Ph.D. historian whose grasp of our constitution is so poor that he fails to understand basic separation of powers issues and who thinks it's OK to fire government employees because of their political beliefs.

We've had ample opportunity to evaluate Newt, and it's entirely clear that he's unfit for the presidency. It's not necessary to consider that he's shameless philanderer prone to leaving sick wives. But that certainly does not help

lujlp:
"If this is indeed his stance then expalin why it mattered when Clinton was in the White House"

Perjury. In the attempt to avoid liability for sexual harrassment.

"He's also been the recipient of the media double standard when vetting candidates"

That's because the gigantic, multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates are owned by hippies, not businessmen.

All corporations are.

The applause was for two reasons; Newt was right, given that we are in a sinking boat, discussing a potential new Captain's previous marriages is wasting valuable time, and the press is far from an objective reporter of events, but rather the broadcast news arm of the Obama Campaign, and the audience loved seeing Newt call them out on both points.

As far as the whole Family Values thing goes, it is far down the list of important qualifications at this moment. Obama is great on that issue and is at the same time horrible on the stuff that really matters, like the economy and foreign policy and personal freedom.

At this moment in history, I'd vote for Lindsay Lohan if I thought she would restore the traditions of capitalism, small government, self reliance, liberty, and a sensible foreign policy.

The support for Newt comes from two places. Many people, myself included have no faith in Romney's ability to win, or his making the big changes we need if he does. Many suspect that if he lucks into a win, he would just manage the decline and enact the Progressive program more slowly than Obama.

Plus he looks like the next in the long line of dismal GOP Establishment candidates. Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, & Romney. I doubt that Dr. Frankenstein could make one good candidate using them for parts. I really wish we could find a good candidate for a change.

It isn't that they think Newt is the best possible candidate, just the best one with a chance of winning the nomination at this time. He appears to be the only one who can and will take the fight to Obama and engage him in the conversation we need about the direction and future of this country. He is the only one who appears to have ever thought about anything beyond; "what do I need to say to become President?"

>> To be clear, I wouldn't care if he admitted to a circle jerk in the Oval Office.

Thank you Monica. Now I finally have the image of Newt's penis out of my mind. (It was something like Pilsbury biscuit dough with raisins...)

>> multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates are owned by hippies, not businessmen

ABC - Disney Corporation
Fox - News Corp
NBC - General Electric
CBS - Westinghouse*
CNN - Time Warner

*who changed their name to CBS

@Old Guy

What isn't sensible about Obama's foreign policy? I don't like him much, but it seems like ending the Iraq war, killing Bin Laden and much of the AQ leadership, successfully getting sanctions against Iran (while avoiding a war there) all should be considered uncontroverial successes.

Also, GHWB was not an exciting guy for the base, but he was an effective president, particularly on foreign policy.

It isn't that they think Newt is the best possible candidate, just the best one with a chance of winning the nomination at this time.

You do understand that most people don't like Newt, right? That he's an oppo--researcher's wet dream, with a deep history of bad behavior in his personal life, ethical violations as a politician, and flip-flopping on all kinds of issues?

He may take the fight to Obama, but he will be crushed by his past transgressions. His ability to channel the base's id may help him in primaries and Republican debates, but it his impulsiveness and anger will make him seem unhinged in the general election against Obama, who is very good at baiting his opponents into attacks that backfire. Romney is not exciting, but he is also disciplined, not prone to unforced errors, has successful management experience, and isn't perceived as scary or crazy by lots of Americans. Romney has a much better chance than Newt of capturing the political center, which is what will win this election. The Republican base is already going to vote for the nominee.

lujlp:
"If this is indeed his stance then expalin why it mattered when Clinton was in the White House"

Perjury. In the attempt to avoid liability for sexual harrassment.

Posted by: Unix-Jedi at January 24, 2012 8:11 AM

This.

What Old Guy said. I have zero-zilch-nada faith that Romney is anything but a big government guy, just maybe not as big as the current SCFoaMF.

[The media] did, however, hound him endlessly for his birth certificate. And when they got it, some still refused to believe it was real.

The media didn't hound Obama, the birthers did ... and they were caricatured by the media and dismissed by members of both parties as nuts.

Then, Donald Trump came along and asked why, if it was no big deal, didn't Obama just release his birth certificate and silence the birthers. No one had a good answer for that, so Obama finally released a .pdf copy of his birth certificate.

It didn't completely silence the birthers, but it did finally push them to the fringes.

Still no word on the college transcripts.

==============================

Though the hypocrisy is staggering, as Newt was in the midst of a six-year affair when pushing for the impeachment of Clinton over his affair with Lewinsky.

As Speaker of the House, Gingrich was pushing for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, not for the affair, but for knowingly perjuring himself about it to a grand jury.

Big difference.

Gingrich may be many things, and some of them reprehensible, but he didn't commit perjury while president. If he wins the presidency and then perjures himself, you'll have hypocrisy.

==============================

Clinton's perjury, by the way, is why he has been banned from ever arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court and had his New York law license suspended for a period of time.

==============================

I love how the media lectured us that adultery is a private thing and none of our business when it was committed by Bill Clinton, but is trumpeted as damning evidence of low character when committed by John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, or Herman Cain.

==============================

Gingrich has admitted he has failed in his marriages and has been less than stellar as a husband.

And he gave a better mea culpa than "I have caused pain in my marriage."

Come on, Bill. Anyone who has been married for more than a few days has caused pain in his marriage ... it comes with the territory.

==============================

Gingrich's daughters have defended him as a good father. That, like Obama's concern for his daughters, should count for something.

It may not be a presidential qualification, but it should count for something.

==============================

Newt Gingrich may be the smartest man in Washington, but his lack of personal discipline is disconcerting and deserves consideration when deciding whether to vote for him.

There's a typo in this headline. It should read "Newt Gingrich: Penis".

Here's Newt lying about budget surpluses (the surpluses were real, just not on his watch):

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-gingrich-flubs-history-gop-debate-030803027.html

Note that Romney jumped right down that memory hole with him.

He may take the fight to Obama, but he will be crushed by his past transgressions. His ability to channel the base's id may help him in primaries and Republican debates, but it his impulsiveness and anger will make him seem unhinged in the general election against Obama, who is very good at baiting his opponents into attacks that backfire. Romney is not exciting, but he is also disciplined, not prone to unforced errors, has successful management experience, and isn't perceived as scary or crazy by lots of Americans. Romney has a much better chance than Newt of capturing the political center, which is what will win this election. The Republican base is already going to vote for the nominee.

The problem with Romney is he doesn't excite the base. An unexcited base does not turn out en masse to vote.

Bob Dole failed to excite the base, so many of his potential voters stayed home or voted for Perot.

John McCain failed to excite the base and was headed for oblivion until Sarah Palin came along and got the base on board ... and was successfully caricatured as a book-censoring, gun-toting, ignoramus (a caricature which she helped create with her folksy ways and ambiguous answers) by the media to scare away the independent voters.

If he is nominated, Romney will need a base-exciting VP candidate.

While there are enough base voters for Republicans in solidly Republican states, it's in the swing states that energizing the base (and converting independents) is crucial.

Romney's strength is his organizing skills and strategic thinking. American elections are decided in the Electoral College. Too many states have a "winner takes all" set up with their electors (New Mexico is one of the few that award electors by district).

That means, many Republicans in states like California, New York, and Illinois frequently don't bother voting - their votes don't matter as those states are overwhelmingly Democratic. Obama already has them locked up. George W. Bush didn't bother to campaign in California and rarely visited the state as president.

Republicans have some states locked up as well, but not as many (or as solidly) as the Democrats do. Texas is the only "big" state the looks solidly Republican. Florida and Viriginia are considered toss-ups.

All of this means Obama only needs a few states in order to win reelection. Real Clear Politics estimates Obama already has 229 electoral votes locked up going into the election while Republicans only have 191. It takes 270 to win.

So far, Gingrich has based his campaign on popular appeal while Romney has based his on capturing the requisite number of primaries in order to win the nomination.

Following these strategies in a general election means Romney will fight to carry specific swing states while Gingrich will appeal for popular votes across the board.

Which one will work? That's what primaries are for.

@Christopher:

What isn't sensible about Obama's foreign policy? I don't like him much, but it seems like ending the Iraq war, killing Bin Laden and much of the AQ leadership, successfully getting sanctions against Iran (while avoiding a war there) all should be considered uncontroverial successes.

Not killing bin Laden after they found him would have been political suicide, and Obama knew it. Nothing remains secret in DC, and letting bin Laden slip out of our grasp would have leaked within a week. Even Chris Mathews would have abandoned him if he let that opportunity pass by.

The drones are low risk and the continuation of a Bush II policy.

Abandoning Iraq was also low risk, weather vane policy.

Whoever was president would have done these three things.

I am more concerned about the many stupid things he did, like screwing up our relationship with the UK, our strongest and most reliable ally. Standing by as the Islamists took over Egypt and helping them take over Libya. Not helping the uprisings in Syria and Iran. Coddling our enemies and dissing our friends in general.

It would have been better for the country if Hillary had won and was the odds on favorite in '12, than the Obama Disaster.

Also, GHWB was not an exciting guy for the base, but he was an effective president, particularly on foreign policy.

Bush II was terrible on spending and was a GOP Progressive who would have enacted the entire Democrat program, only slower, were he President for Life. Romney strikes me as a virtual Bush III.

As for foreign policy, Bush II made the stupid decision to try and bring democracy to two Muslim countries. We should have bombed them until they had no modern infrastructure left and were thusly rendered harmless, and then moved on to Iran and Syria. After that tell the Saudis that if they don't stop funding terror, we'll seize their oil fields and destroy their infrastructure. They want to live in the 9th Century, we should help them.

@Me:
"It isn't that they think Newt is the best possible candidate, just the best one with a chance of winning the nomination at this time."

You do understand that most people don't like Newt, right? That he's an oppo--researcher's wet dream, with a deep history of bad behavior in his personal life, ethical violations as a politician, and flip-flopping on all kinds of issues?

Romney is just as much of a target. The Democrat Press Corpse is only giving Romney a free ride until he gets the nomination. Then they will unload on him with both barrels.

The truth is, all our candidates sucked in one way or another. It is too bad no one who was qualified ran, but as Rummy said, you go to war with the army you have. It would have been great if we had a viable candidate, but we don't. Newt is the only actual candidate who will fight back in the election, and the only one who will cut taxes and the size of government and roll back the Police State if elected.

If it is Romney, I'll vote for him, but he does not excite me in any way. He is the GOP's John Edwards. (10 - 1 we get to meet the mistress and love child in late October.)

Not helping the uprisings in Syria and Iran.

Even though they didn't ask for or want our help?

As for foreign policy, Bush II made the stupid decision to try and bring democracy to two Muslim countries.

Yes, his foreign policy was a disaster. I was referring to his father's foreign policy as being effective.

...roll back the Police State if elected.

A man who proposed a bill to execute people for holding weed does not strike me as likely to roll back the police state.

Not helping the uprisings in Syria and Iran.

Even though they didn't ask for or want our help?

You know that how?

As for foreign policy, Bush II made the stupid decision to try and bring democracy to two Muslim countries.

Yes, his foreign policy was a disaster. I was referring to his father's foreign policy as being effective.

GMAFB Bush I had Sadam on the ropes and stopped because they didn't want to preside over a slaughter. The slaughter still happened, but it was the Iraqi people rather than Sadam's army & henchmen who got slaughtered. Most of BushI's successes were momentum left over from Reagan.

...roll back the Police State if elected.

A man who proposed a bill to execute people for holding weed does not strike me as likely to roll back the police state.

I assume Newt has said everything possible on both sides of every issue. His biggest flaw is his need to sound smart and extreme on every topic. No one believes that will happen. We can barely execute mass murderers, let alone pot smokers.

In the end, he is as likely as Romney to win, and is not a Progressive RINO. I believe the election will be about Obama, and attacking Obama will be the winning strategy. I do not believe Romney can win, or I'd back him. He is Mitt Milquetoast from the Very Exclusive Country Club. John F Kerry (Who served in Vietnam) except he pays his yacht tax. Another in a long line of bad GOP candidates.

Also, GHWB was not an exciting guy for the base....

That is why George Herbert Walker Bush (not to be confused with his son, George Walker Bush) selected Dan Quayle as his running mate.

Despite his success in the Texas oil business and war hero status, Bush was still seen as essentially a Washington insider (son of Senator Prescott Bush, head of the CIA, and ambassador to China), a New England preppie, a Yalie (complete with J. Press suit), and a Rockefeller Republican ... none of which went over well in heartland states.

Quayle, on the other hand, had a solid conservative voting record and was from a heartland state (Indiana) ... all the things GHWB was not.

I don't care about 'family values' style "morality". I do however care about hypocrisy!

But even more importantly people who support Newt should be asking themselves this: If he stabbed his cancer stricken wife in the back what makes you think he'll treat you any better? After all Newt had a personal relationship with his wife; not to mention that he made a vow before her, and both of their families to care for her "in sickness and in health". That's how he treated someone who he loved and who he made a serious lifelong commitment to. How do you think he'll treat a stranger e.g. you?

people who support Newt should be asking themselves this: If he stabbed his cancer stricken wife in the back what makes you think he'll treat you any better?

Given that she is still alive, she wasn't all that stricken, nor was the back stabbing successful. And Newt's children support him in this.

No one knows what goes on in a marriage. Perhaps she was a complete bitch, or had Overly Dramatic Woman Disorder, or had refused to have sex after marriage, or behaved in other ways that ruined the marriage, we'll never know. Newt is being a gentleman and not bad mouthing his Ex.

What is important is, he has about the same chance as Milquetoast Mitt to win, so for me the deciding factor is what he did while actually in office. Mitt passed Obamacare Lite and made nice with the Democrats, Newt cut spending, bringing on the only balanced budget in living memory, and has a history of confronting the Democrats on important issues.

What is more, the press is doing all it can to knock out Newt, while giving Mittens the soft ride, which means the Democrat Press Corpse thinks Newt is more likely to win. If he really was the loser he is being made out to be, the Democrats, through their media outlets, would be telling us how great a candidate he is, just like they did with McCain.(Until after the conventions.)

We need someone to save the country from the Democrats, and Mitt ain't likely to get the job done.

The Gingrich divorce, according to factcheck.org:

The story of the hospital visit started with a lengthy and unflattering profile of Gingrich that was published in Mother Jones magazine in 1984. Author David Osborne reported an anecdote from Gingrich’s former press secretary, Lee Howell, who said that Gingrich wanted his wife to sign off on a written list of divorce terms while she was recovering from surgery. Howell said Battley was “still sort of out of it” at the time.

Mother Jones, Nov. 1, 1984: Jackie had undergone surgery for cancer of the uterus during the 1978 campaign, a fact Gingrich was not loath to use in conversations or speeches that year. After the separation in 1980, she had to be operated on again, to remove another tumor.

While she was still in the hospital, according to Howell, “Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad, and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of out of it, and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it.”

Others later embellished that account, some claiming that Gingrich served his former wife divorce papers, and that she was dying of cancer. But there is no support for the idea that papers were served, or that Battley’s condition was life-threatening at the time.

Update, Dec. 27: In fact, Newt Gingrich had already filed for divorce about two months before the September visit, and Battley was contesting the divorce. Newt Gingrich said the marriage was “irretrievably broken” in a “complaint for divorce” filed with the court on July 14, 1980. Battley (then Jacqueline Gingrich) had been officially served with the divorce suit in July. She filed an answer stating that she had “ample grounds for divorce” but “does not desire one at this time.” She asked for alimony and support, for custody of the children, for a “reasonable division” of property, and for her husband to pay her legal fees in the divorce.

[...]

Asked if he had handled the matter in an insensitive manner, Gingrich told the Post: “All I can say is when you been talking about divorce for 11 years and you’ve gone to a marriage counselor, and the other person doesn’t want the divorce, I’m not sure there is any sensitive way to handle it.”

"On the abortion issue, he's done about as much as any Republican president."

Oh? What?

Thank you Monica. Now I finally have the image of Newt's penis out of my mind.

I live to serve.

The birthers went after the birth certificate, but the media made it an issue by choosing to take it seriously. A small group of Republicans were being absolutely ridiculous, and the media gave them the airtime and inches they needed to make it a national issue, because for some reason journalists have started thinking fairness means giving every crackpot idea equal time. Look at the whole intelligent design "debate." The media pretends intelligent design is on an intellectual par with evolutionary theory and we all start treating it like it is.

The mainstream media isn't about news anymore. They are about entertainment. They have 24 hours a day of news to fill, and they will run with whatever they think will grab people's attention. It's why Anthony Weiner tweeting his package and gay family-values figures booted out of the closet make the news. They make people point and laugh. Bread and circuses.

At their best, the real journalists shouldn't be "going after" anything or anyone. They should be reporting the news. Blame the media if you want, but this is what sells. We get what we pay for.

I didn't really give a rat's ass about Clinton getting head, I thought Ken Starr was a huge wast of money and resources. Yes, he perjured himself, but they looked vindictive as hell in that ridiculous trial about dress stains. I also don't really care what Obama does with his penis. It's what he does with the rest of him that I hate. Nor do I care what Newt has done. I'm not sure he's my choice, but his sex life isn't the deciding factor. I do like his answer to it-a LOT.

The democrats want us conservatives to be upset by sex, but you all don't get to tell us how we feel or how to vote. Who knew you all were such prudes?

A fair number of people are unfaithful. Eliminating them all from potential office-holding is going to leave you with a pretty slim list of candidates. Not to mention pols tend to be narcissists and those tend to be unfaithful.

I didn't really give a rat's ass about Clinton getting head....

Nor did I.

But a president committing perjury to a grand jury (no matter how wrongly empaneled) is just a bit more serious than the salacious media coverage and repeated calls to "move on" would have you believe - as Clinton's permanent ban from the Supreme Court attests.

Agreed. Republicans made themselves look vindictive and silly in this. Like the OJ prosecution team, they went for the big win and blew the case (no pun intended).

However, even presidents need to be held accountable. We are still a nation of laws ... I hope.

If you object to Ken Starr, perhaps you should ask who established the office of Special Prosecutor and why.

I also wonder if Mr. Clinton asked Mrs. Clinton for permission to engage in whatever he was doing, but I'm not going to invoke "two wrongs".

Nor do I care what Newt has done. I'm not sure he's my choice, but his sex life isn't the deciding factor. I do like his answer to it-a LOT. -- momof4 at January 24, 2012 6:01 PM

While I agree his sex life is not my business, it shows to his character. Apparently by the timeline he was screwing around with his mistress/future second wife before the divorce papers were filed on the first. Then he screwing around with his mistress/future third wife before the divorce papers were filed on the second.

If the relationship is dead, file the papers, then go looking for the new Mrs. G. And this was happening while he was excoriating Mr. Bill for f'ing with Ms. L and crowd.

That says something, to me, about his character.

I will grant his response was good, but not enough overcome my dislike for him.

And all of that said, I'd still vote for a sea cucumber over Obama when it comes down to it, if for no other reason than to have something different. -- there are some who call me 'Tim?' at January 24, 2012 2:22 AM

I couldn't vote for a sea cucumber. But how about Bozo the Clown? I want a professional clown as the president.

Newt dumped his first wife while she was battling cancer then dumped the second while she was fighting MS. The 2nd wife has stated he wanted an "open marriage"

Newt is like a closeted gay republican strolling bathrooms for sex. You like kinky sex but are conservative? Fine keep your mouth shut when it comes to legislating adult sexual behavior.

Gingrich's reply was (a) the only possible response he could make and (b) very much to the point. Namely: what does his marital history have to do with his qualifications to be president?

If he said this in a way that convinced the religious conservatives, good for him.

Gingrich could not only cheat on his wife for six years, he could have raped fifteen women, molested twenty-seven kids, swindled hundreds of elderly people out of their life savings and, if he repented of all those sins and accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior, religious conservatives would embrace him and, according to those same religious folks, he'd eventually go to heaven (assuming, that is, that he didn't revert to his cheating, raping, molesting, swindling ways.)

On the other hand, a lesbian who runs a shelter for battered women and volunteers at a food bank and a children's hospital and once saved the lives of an elderly couple by heroically pulling them from a burning car, but who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as her personal savior, would be condemned as a sinner by religious conservatives and, according to those same religious folks, would go to hell.

What isn't sensible about Obama's foreign policy?

Oh man, where to start? How about the fact that we stayed in Iraq for another three years after he was elected? How about the fact that we are still in Afghanistan, with no defined goals and no prospect of leaving any time soon. How about attacking Libya without Congressional authorization? How about the fact that he apparently supports the idea of yet another war, this time with Iran.

How about Gitmo? Those are foreign nationals he is holding indefinitely, with no charges and yet with no prospect for release.

Finally, how about his most recent arrogance in lecturing Europe on how to handle their national debts, while running up record deficits in the USA?

Regarding the Republican candidates:

- Romney was governer of Massachusetts - you know, the place dominated by the Kennedy clan for decades. The fact that he could be elected there shows what his politics are really like, on many levels. Think about it...

- Newt is a died-in-the-wool politician, with all the disadvantages that implies. His positive features are that (a) he actually has a brain, unlike various other candidates and (b) his attack-dog speaking style will give him a fighting chance against the incumbent. He may be the best of a sorry bunch.

I'll most likely vote third-party, just because I cannot stomach either the Democrats or the Republicans. Two sides of the same clipped coin.

Newt is a hypocritical douche and while on a personal level its satisfying to see him get some come-uppance, ultimately these sorts of thing don't impact my assessment of a person's politics.

Honestly, I'd take Vlad the Impaler over Obama at this point.

No one knows what goes on in a marriage. Perhaps she was a complete bitch, or had Overly Dramatic Woman Disorder, or had refused to have sex after marriage, or behaved in other ways that ruined the marriage, we'll never know. Newt is being a gentleman and not bad mouthing his Ex.

Didnt stop Newt from passing judgement on Clinton

lujlp:

I answered what the (potential) difference was above, and it seems to have bypassed you.

So let's examine what the importance of context is.

Let's take this hypothetical as a fact:
A male has sexual relations with a female.
Is that good or bad?

Now, let's ponder what some minor changes in context can make.

* A male has sexual relations with a female (his wife).
* A male has sexual relations with a female (not his wife).
* A male has sexual relations with a female and his wife.
* A male (Age 40+) has sexual relations with a female (age under 18).
* A male (Age 40+) has sexual relations with a female (age under 16).
* A male (Age 40+) has sexual relations with a female (age under 12).
* A male has sexual relations with a female (his sibling).
* A male has sexual relations with a female (his step-sibling).
* A male has sexual relations with a female (his mother).
* A male has sexual relations with a female (his daughter).
* A male has sexual relations with a female by force (blackmailing her).
* A male has sexual relations with a female by force (direct physical force).
* A male has sexual relations with a female (paying her for it).
* A male has sexual relations with a female (buying her dinner and a movie).
* A male has sexual relations with a female (she pays him for it).
* A male has sexual relations with a female (she buys him dinner and a movie).

All of these are of the same *act*.

Yet the context *radically changes* both the societal acceptance and the legal ramifications.

Clinton defenders want to focus on the act. "All he did was get a blowjob!" and want to ignore the context of what actually happened, where a 50+ year old man, who was in direct authority over a 22 year old woman had sexual relations.
Then when he was sued and investigated over similar claims (due to a law championed and signed by Clinton himself, where such a relationship was potentially criminal!), lied to a criminal grand jury over his actions.

But it's the context that's important. (And I'm leaving out a lot of the objectionable content, just for space reasons.)

Newt surely did pass judgement on Clinton. Newt's affairs also weren't illegal, and he wasn't convicted of perjury as a result of them.

There's more-than-a-slight-difference there.

I got the point Unix Jedi, I ignored it becuase it wanst apropo

A few things

1. I'm not really a fan of Clinton
2. Most of Newts comments werent about the perjery but the morality of adultery
3. She was an intern who was of legal age
4. The affair itself was NOT illegal as she was not forced or harrased
5. I'll admit I've never seen the transcripts of his questioning, but based on what few direct quotes I have been able to see I'm not sure if Clinton did commit perjury

Putting aside entierly the argument of the end run they did around his 5th amendment rights by using a criminal investigation on bank fraud to dig into his sex life - I think on his direct testimony he used a careful selection of words to deflect.

Let me be clear - I think he violated the spirt of perjury laws, but from a technical standpoint I dont think he broke the law.

As for his punishment I think he took the deal as it was cheaper and more expediant in the long run

lujlp:

It was very appropriate, it was about why there was a massive difference.

2. Most of Newts comments werent about the perjery but the morality of adultery

Comments are one thing - and I don't recall them being about the morality. He may well have (And I can't stand him long enough to go google it), but his _actions_ are what concern me, just as they did for Clinton. (Heard at the range. "Clinton? Best politician EVER. Hell, he got a JEWISH GIRL TO SWALLOW!". (Apologies to any offended Jewish Girls, but I busted a gut.))

3. She was an intern who was of legal age

"Legal age", yet 30 years younger than he. In most sexual harassment/work rape cases, that's often presented - hard - as 'proof' that there was coercion/impressment. He was her supervisor, many levels removed. This is an abuse of power - and if you disagree, you've got a LOT of law and precedent to change.

4. The affair itself was NOT illegal as she was not forced or harrased

You say this based on what?

What they said. Which is problematic.

In Sexual Harassment law the guiding principal is "Disparity of Power." Granted, both of them claim it was consensual. It was stupid. But you're right, this affair wasn't illegal, in my opinion. (The blowjobs while he was on the phone discussing top-secret troop movements in what was/is/etc Yugoslavia, another story entirely.)

5. I'll admit I've never seen the transcripts of his questioning, but based on what few direct quotes I have been able to see I'm not sure if Clinton did commit perjury

Convicted. Plea-bargained. Guilty.

It seems that you just know the media version, and you don't know the details. But they're important here. In short:

Clinton allegedly exposed himself propositioning Paula Jones when he was governor of AR and she was a state employee.
She filed complaints, and criminal proceedings were underway. (I'm skipping/compressing a lot.) She was also suing him in civil court, and as a result of the allegations, a Special Prosecutor (Ken Starr, who was appointed because the Democrats thought he was a great, fair, guy) was appointed, and word of the Lewinsky Affair came to Starr, and Clinton was asked, under oath, about it. After he knew she'd been deposed and testified.

So not only did he commit perjury, he committed it knowing that everybody on the other side of the table knew it - and knew he knew it!

(Then he of course lied to the American People, and insisted that it was all a smear campaign, until, of course, it came out that Starr had the dress with his smear of Presidue on it...)

So yes, it's entirely appropriate to make a distinction between "consensual sex" (I use the quotes, because I've known quite a few people to be _fired_ over such affairs being revealed, without any complaints civil or criminal, the current state of Sexual Harassment criminal and civil law make that a _very_ risky place to be.) and "merely" picking up a girlfriend after divorce papers were filed.

Putting aside entierly the argument of the end run they did around his 5th amendment rights by using a criminal investigation on bank fraud to dig into his sex life....

No one did an end run.

Paula Jones (nee Corbin) filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton three days before the statute of limitations expired - following a story in The American Spectator detailing Clinton's use of state troopers to procure women for him. Jones claimed Clinton propositioned her when he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee.

Jones had no eyewitnesses to back up her version of events. The state trooper said Jones had stated at the time that she wouldn't mind being Clinton's girlfriend. Jones denied this.

The judge (Susan Webber Wright) ruled that Jones was entitled to gather and use information about any other allegations or evidence of harassment from the relevant timeframe.

Women who knew Clinton at the time came forward, publicly and stridently denying any harassment. Friends and associates of Clinton's came forward saying such behavior did not sound like Clinton and Clinton's legal team began to build a public picture of Jones as a money grubber, crazy, and/or a woman scorned.

In response, Jones' lawyers began to gather evidence showing an ongoing pattern of Clinton's harassment of and affairs with employees (as permitted by Judge Wright). They subpoenaed women with whom they suspected Clinton had had affairs. One of those women was a young White House intern named Monica Lewinski.

Clinton was deposed and ,after reviewing the court document laying out the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations," Clinton flat-out denied an affair with Lewinski (no equivocation).

Linda Tripp had provided tapes and other evidence of the affair to Kenneth Starr which led Kenneth Starr to conclude that Clinton had perjured himself. Starr obtained permission from Attorney General Janet Reno to expand his investigation of Clinton wrongdoing to include the perjury. In order to avoid having multiple independent prosecutors and empaneling multiple grand juries, Reno had expanded Starr's investigations several times already into non-Whitewater areas - including the death of Vince Foster, the firing of the White House Travel Office staff, Madison Guaranty, and the possible abuse of FBI files (on political enemies) by the Clintons.

Starr called Clinton to testify before a grand jury regarding perjury in the Jones deposition. In his testimony befor the grand jury Clinton said he had relied on the documented definition of "sexual relations" agreed upon by both legal teams in the trial. The document did not specfically mention "mouth" as an area of contact, but did not specify area-to-area contact either, leaving only contact as the standard. Clinton stated he believed oral sex was not covered by the earlier court. The grand jury disagreed and handed down an indictment.

Starr later said he regretted the expansion of his investigations into so many areas.

He's probably right. If you spend that much time investigating someone ... for a continually-expanding list of infractions, you begin to believe them guilty. As a result, you stop investigating and start chasing.

==============================

Let me be clear - I think he violated the spirt of perjury laws, but from a technical standpoint I dont think he broke the law.

The Supreme Court would disagree with you. William Jefferson Clinton is barred for life from ever arguing in front of the Supreme Court because he committed perjury, not because he equivocated about an affair.

In Sexual Harassment law the guiding principal is "Disparity of Power."

And hear I thought it was "How THe Woman Complaining Feels"

Again not saying he wasnt guilty, just that technically he parsed his words in such a manner the he didnt technically violate the law.

And again thats based soley on what I've seen. If you know where I can see a full transcript of his direct testimony under oath I'll look at it. It was the first political scandal I was aware of as a teenager just starting to pay attention to politics