Thread: Newt Gingrich

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

As far as morality, it could be that Newt is not seen as a hypocrite because he has this pattern of immoral behavior, does not deny it, and does not demand higher values from others. In the past, Dan Quayle for example, have been burned by appearing to put on too much of a holier-than-thou attitude - Newt may be arrogant but I don't think he has that particular problem

I'm not sure that's the case. He was having an affair at the same time when he was trying to impeach Clinton. I guess that was technically over Clinton lying, not for having his cigars in unorthodox ways, but I bet to a lot of people the real issue was the sex.
Then recently he demanded that Barney Frank be fired for being 'close to lobbyists' when Gingrich was paid millions by the same people at the same time.
But I think the stuff that would be brought to the attention of those who vote in the primaries is going to be different than the stuff that's brought up to the attention of the larger pool who votes in the actual election.

I read that when he was challenged on his big government sins of the past last weekend or so his response was - pretty much all conservatives were in that same boat. At the end of the day it's a choice among those 5 or 6 who are actually running. One is a flip-flopper with a religion largely thought as a cult, one is having trouble stringing coherent sentences together, one is too consistent and often at odds with many of the 'conservative talking points' of the day, one is a woman and prone to gaffes of crazy talking without any facts, and the rest are barely getting any traction. So, compared to all of those Gingrich probably doesn't look all that bad, especially now that the primary campaigning has changed completely from the past and is primarily in a form where he has an edge to the rest.

Dont care about people's opinions, just want to throw a quick correction in there. Newt didnt serve his wife with papers while sick in a hospital bed, thats myth. He also left her a very wealthy woman.

like I said dont care about opinions so dont rip me, just want facts to be where they should be.

Originally Posted by alb1981

He also left her a very wealthy woman.

If he would leave a very wealthy woman for me, I would vote for him.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I doubt that. With Obama's approval ratings as low as they are now, I expect any republican to be a contender, simply by virtue of not being democrat.

While that is how it appears on the surface the anger of the American electorate is huge. Regardless of whether the person is a liberal, moderate, or conservative we all see the gridlock as a shameful display of non governance. Who is to blame ? Harry Truman had a similar situation in his first term and he successfully ran against congress, beating Thomas E. Dewey handily. Perhaps Obama can win using the same strategy ?

'Give 'em hell' Harry was rightfully viewed as a gutsy fighter who stood up for the American people. Barack Obama is, IMO, viewed as weak and stands up for Wall St., not main st. I read a really good book by Merle Miller, years ago, called Plain Speaking, an Oral Biography of Harry Truman. In it Truman talked about Adlai Stevenson's run for the presidency. Stevenson was too intellectual ..... not a 'practical' man, according to Truman IIRC. I was five years old when that election took place so I don't have an opinion on Stevenson but I do think that is a apt definition of Obama. OTOH, the old boxing adage comes into play, "you can't beat somebody with nobody." I don't see a candidate on either side who appears to be the man we desperately need with the situation we're in.

The fact that it is his daughters book is in itself proof it is biased, regardless of which side it takes.
If I would write a book about my parents, I'd be biased too

Originally Posted by alb1981

Dont care about people's opinions, just want to throw a quick correction in there. Newt didnt serve his wife with papers while sick in a hospital bed, thats myth. He also left her a very wealthy woman.

like I said dont care about opinions so dont rip me, just want facts to be where they should be.

No problem. That was what was reported in the news.
Was it a complete lie, or a technical lie? For example, he didn't serve the papers but told her he was going to, or something like that?

It is easy to start arguing about details, but I guess the heart of the matter is: did he drop the divorce on her in the hospital?

Originally Posted by Bruno

I guess the heart of the matter is: did he drop the divorce on her in the hospital?

Are we trying to establish whether he's a jerk, or what level of jerk he is?

From wikipedia, which I consider fairly reliable here: people with interests in both sides of the story have the ability to change it. Both sides of the story are represented:

In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther.[131][132] In 1984, Battley told the Washington Post that the divorce was a "complete surprise" to her. According to Battley, in September 1980, Gingrich and their children visited her while she was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, and Gingrich wanted to discuss the terms of their divorce.[133] Gingrich has disputed that account.[99] In 2011, their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay, and that Gingrich's visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple's children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.[134]

According to L.H. Carter, his campaign treasurer, Gingrich said of Battley: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."[135][136] Gingrich has denied saying it. His supporters dismiss Carter as a disgruntled former aide who was miffed at not being asked to accompany Gingrich to Washington.[137]

He cheated on both of his previous wives. Usually when politicians in US do something like this they have to resign. However this appears to be a very one-sided thing because 'complete transformation by God' seems to be at the core of the evangelical worldview (even though Gingrich I believe is catholic, the vast majority of the voters are protestant). If it's a liberal politician they are automatically denied the repentance/redemption narrative, if it's a conservative they're automatically granted it.

How much of a jerk he is beyond cheating on his wives probably doesn't matter all that much. In fact a lot of the partisan voters want their guy to be a jerk, so that he can take on and destroy the opposing side.

I have some friends from the south who are telling me that it would be next to impossible to get a mormon elected. It may be true, I've heard many times that the south turned from democratic to republican over the civil rights.

The south did turn republican based on the civil rights legislation that Lyndon Johnson was instrumental in passing in 1964. He told his then aide, Bill Moyers, that they would lose the south. It was no surprise to anyone but the legislation needed to be passed and instituted. Since then other 'hot button' issues have kept the majority of 'red' states where they are. I needn't name them. We all know what these issues are. To a southern conservative Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer are perceived as typical of the democrats. I guess to a democrat Michelle Bachman or the one who quit as governor of Alaska ..... can't think of her name ..... are the perceived zeitgeist of the republicans. The extreme views always seem to draw more attention.

I would be shocked if a Mormon could be elected president. OTOH, JFK was the first Catholic and that was surprising in those days. In terms of infidelity to a spouse I was amazed that Bill Clinton wasn't run out of office. Years ago he would have been forced to quietly resign to "spend more time with my family." Our society has changed quite a bit in the past forty years so it is hard to know where 'we' are going to end up morally.