Thread: Newt Gingrich

Originally Posted by gugi

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.

I heard something similar. I guess it is a cultural thing.
But Gingrich should raise red flags there as well, being a Catholic.
As a Catholic, he is technically subject to the pope in matters of theology (and therefore morality and conscience).
I seem to remember that this was a concern with Kennedy as well.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

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

The former. alb1981 stated that the story is not true. Which may be true, in the most literal sense. For example, he could have served the papers if she was leaving the hospital, or he could have announced it verbally and then followed up with the paper later on, etc. Dozens of possible scenarios exist, all of which could be used to argue that the story is not true.

However, if we take a step back from the specifics and simply ask: 'did he drop the divorce news on her while she was still dealing with cancer?' we come to the heart of the matter.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

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.

Kennedy had a reputation as womanizer, and people thought he was a hero.

Catholics are already well accepted in US, mormons are not even close. The current vice president is Catholic. Also the current supreme court is composed of 6 catholics and 3 jews, no protestants.
The mormon who's risen the highest in politics is Harry Ried, probably not the antichrist to the conservatives but surely one of his lieutenants

Not that i really know or care who this Gingrich dude is, but:

Politicians (and surprisingly not only politicians) sometimes have their affairs with opposite sex. It must be universal thing and not really a surprise anywhere.
Most people here seem to think that it is not their business to think what other people do in their private life, politician or not. What matters is how they do their job. We've had presidents, ministers and politicians whose affairs were somewhat a public secret. Sometimes it becomes really public and then the politician in question has no choice but to tell the truth. Rarely it becomes because such thing is really a private matter and not a case of public interest. Who is to throw the first stone?

There are exceptions, but they usually happen when person in question has done something worse. Few years ago one of our ministers had to resign after having an affair with a strip tease girl. The man had been known for last 30 years as a sort of 'divide and impera' -person with women and people saw him actually as a sort of the comedy person. Still he was very good at his job. After his affair with this strip tease bunny he was asked in public and when he denied, he also sealed his faith. He had to resign for telling a lie and that is a valid reason to get kicked out. Not sending stupid text messages to joybird who wasn't even pretty but rather looks like Miss Piggy. Still many feel sorry because he was really good at his job. Even opposite political parties did agree this. Nobody accepted a lie.

btw, and OT: Congrats Bruno for getting a new government after 541 days. That went for records!

Originally Posted by Sailor

Who is to throw the first stone?

Nobody cares about that, the real question is who is to throw the first bunga-bunga party, and we already know the answer

US is rather different than europe in this respect though - a lot more puritanical.

Originally Posted by gugi

. . . US is rather different than europe in this respect though - a lot more puritanical.

It's those damn puritans! We should have turned them away at the dock.

Originally Posted by Jimbo7

It's those damn puritans! We should have turned them away at the dock.

Why do you hate Thanksgiving so much!!!

Originally Posted by gugi

Why do you hate Thanksgiving so much!!!

Excellent point. We should have sent them packing that first December.

OK, wonderful job of baiting but I won't bite. I'll only say that given Obama's pole numbers and the state of the economy, it probably doesn't matter what Republican runs against him, he's gonna get his clock cleaned. Does Gingrich have baggage? Sure he does, who doesn't? It's remarkable to me though that the mainstream media will scarcely report on a Democrat's indiscretion but it seems like Republicans are called out for everything. I'm not defending Gingrich but there does seem to be a double standard.

More disturbing to me is the apparent campaign strategy from the Dems. Obama obviously cannot run on his record so the strategy seems to be smear and discredit any threats to the regime. As long as we have enough money to dig up or (if needed) making up damning evidence against this candidate or that, the media is a willing and capable accomplice. Of course, the electorate is obviously too stupid to engage in any critical thinking. This is the stuff of political campaigns in the Banana Republics of the 1970's.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

I'm not defending Gingrich but there does seem to be a double standard.

Not even close. Clinton, Wiener, Spitzer, Edwards, Inouye, Massa, McGreevey....
The double standard is in Republicans being let off the hook much easier - Vitter, Folley, Craig...


'Nice try' on smear and discredit, but somehow magically Romney doesn't get smeared and discredited on his morals. May be he's just one of the liberals, so it's the 'double standard'. Or for that matter Paul, Perry, Santorum and Huntsman as well.