Forgiving Newt
Why is it that so many people seem to care less about Newt Gingrich’s serial infidelities than those (alleged or real) of other politicians?
Is it because it’s old news?
Is it because no one can imagine having sex with Newt, so it’s hard to believe he cheated on his wives even though we know it’s true?
Or is it because—in an archaic phrase—he made honest women of his paramours by marrying them (at least, the ones of which we are aware)?
It could be the sense of a “statute of limitations”.
Perhaps 10 years with Calista, with a recognition of his former failings, has demonstrated a reason to forgive him.
If Cain has not failed his wife, then he cannot ask us to forgive him for something he’s only suspected of doing.
If Cain did transgress, then we must feel betrayed also, by not being truthful with us.
Also, I wish that in Cain’s “suspension” announcement (how do you ‘suspend’ a campaign and declare you will endorse someone else later?) that he had referred to “unproveable” charges, rather than “unproven”.
There are things that a candidate can do to disqualify himself from public office. I don’t think that marital infidelity, or serial marriage/divorce, or whatever you’d call Newt’s history, is one of them.
If a President that’s faithful to their spouse is an absolute requirement, that is up to each voter of course. I believe in not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The number one problem we have right now is the sluggish state of our economy, and the accompanying high rate of unemployment. The Democrats have no interest in fixing the economy. Indeed, they seem to be driving into the ground on purpose.
Everything else is a distraction. The media like to keep reminding us about Newt’s past because they don’t want us thinking about what really matters.
We need to get the Democrats out of the Senate and the White House, and we need to keep them from getting the House back. If that means voting for a man who’s had a few divorces, I’ll do it.
I believe that Newt (if he’s the nominee and then goes on to win) will try to fix the economy, and do very little else during his first term.
few people, male or female, have been 100% faithful in their lives. In Cain’s case, assuming the stories are true, his problem was that until they became public they were secrets. In Clinton’s and Kennedy’s (all of the kennedys) case it was well known and so excessive to have long since passed being worthy of “outing”. Most of us don’t really choose a president because he/she had a pristine sex life. If Cain’s past had been well known he probably wouldn’t have been hurt by this.
Teflon reborn, with a black belt in rhetoric and no need for a teleprompter (to boot), exactly what the Republicans most need at this point in time…
GoneWithTheWind, I know many many people, including me personally, who “have been 100 percent faithful” in my life to my/their spouse.
I reject the “^everyone^ does it” mode of thought. NOT “everyone does it”.
As some other pundit wrote yesterday (I think it was), it does no good to fret over those who might have run but have decided not to run, be they Sarah Palin or Chris Christie or Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush — but (said pundit continues), we get to play with the hand we’ve been dealt.
Since the hand we’ve been dealt has only Romney and Gingrich as the only ones left standing (Paul’s not gonna be president, and the others just ain’t in the running any more; sorry, ’cause I myself had a preference for one of the also-rans), . . .
What I’m getting around to is, all the foregoing has a way of adding up to so many Republicans forgiving Newt Gingrich. But it’s not forgiving, per se, it’s ^overlooking^ and settling, considering who’s still in it (and realistically viable).
. . . ’cause so many of us really ^really^ want Obama booted from office, challengers’ warts and all notwithstanding.
Because infidelity is a trivial addition to Newt’s shortcomings.
I heard he slid his hand up Pelosi’s leg when they were on that couch. The perversion implied by an attraction to Princess Nancy is no threat to my pursuit of happiness. But the laws that follow from accepting the globalistical warmening fraud are a material attack on my well-being.
Gingrich is a proven statist tool. We have bigger things to worry about than Newt’s penis.
Me again.
My son, a twenty-something Ron Paul enthusiast, just sent me this YouTube video slamming Gingrich, titled, “Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy”. It’s just under 2+1/2 minutes long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY
(Caveat emptor and full disclosure — at the very end, it turns out to be a Ron Paul advertisement. [By the way, Ron Paul is not MJR’s candidate of choice.])
Can’t hardly argue with it. To me, it underscores how thoroughly Repubicans have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with a candidate to oppose The One. They (the mainstreamers, the Democrats, the ones who control the culture — apologies for any redundancies there) will have an ongoing blast-and-a-half ripping Gingrich to shreds — and they’ll succeed. How can they not, considering what’s in the video?
The 2012 presidential election ought to be a cake walk for the good guys, but it really looks like Obama has an awfully reasonable chance of being returned to office.
I am depressed / distressed.
“What happened to Herman Cain is what the Democrats intend to do to whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/the-moral-of-the-herman-cain-story.php
The Moral of the Herman Cain Story
by John Hinderaker
PowerLine
Posted on December 3, 2011
So Herman Cain is out; no surprise there. There is, I think, a moral to be drawn from his demise. Cain was a hit with Republican voters because of his relentless focus on the economy. He didn’t get personal in his attacks on the Obama administration, but focused on how to create jobs and spur economic growth. His 9-9-9 plan may or may not have been the best solution, but it was a creative and credible contribution to the debate.
The biggest problem Cain had was that when the conversation turned to foreign policy, it became apparent that he not only lacked experience, which is common among presidential contenders, but hadn’t devoted much thought to the issues. That hurt him, but he remained popular because he was a strong voice for conservative approaches to our economic troubles.
All of that changed when accusations of impropriety began to fly. Cain was diverted from the issues he had been pounding away on, to the extent that he was rendered ineffective. When was the last time you heard anyone talking about 9-9-9? Whether the accusations were true or not (and it is hard to believe that there was no fire anywhere in all that smoke), Cain’s effectiveness as a candidate was destroyed.
What happened to Herman Cain is what the Democrats intend to do to whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be. They know they can’t win a debate on the economy or on President Obama’s record, so they will do everything they can to distract the voters’ attention from those matters, which should be decisive, and instead turn the focus to the GOP candidate and his or her alleged foibles. If Republican voters allow that to happen by nominating a candidate with baggage that permits the Democrats to turn him into the next Herman Cain, it is all too likely that President Obama will be re-elected, with consequences that can hardly be overestimated.
If Newt becomes the nominee the MSM & the DNC are certainly not going to forgive him. His past transgressions will become a frequent topic in the media right up to the morning of 11/6/12.
The bigger the threat of someone to govt status quo the more attacks he’ll get from the MSM. Ever notice how retired or especially dead republicans go through a revering process among democrats? They aren’t a threat anymore and are always portrayed as less radical than any contemporary republican.
I don’t know what the voters will think as some of Newt’s nonconservative positions become known, such as his involvement with Freddie Mac. There are probably 3 things going on now: the anyone but Romney feeling, the memories of Contract With America, and the excitement at seeing Newt draw blood from opponents. It doesn’t surprise me that the infidelity takes a backseat for now, but it could come up again if Newt is shown to have flaws. It’s hard to distinguish current flavor of the month enthusiasm from a real committment to Newt’s proposals, but ultimately there will have to be a weighing of Newt’s pros and cons, including the affairs.
One other thing that may influence voters is the team of people advisors and campaigners visibly working for the candidate. The extent to which individual negatives can be subsumed by team positives could be a big factor in this head-spinning season.
It’s to soon to tell what will happen.
@neo
I think it is all three of your conjectures, plus a fourth:
most voters will not be swayed by infidelity.
I mean this: sexual harassment is considered abuse of a powerless victim. Most voters believe they would never commit sexual harassment. Most voters never feel tempted to commit sexual harassment.
Conversely: most voters have, many times, felt a temptation towards infidelity. Also, most voters know fine human beings who also commit infidelity, i.e. most voters have experience of watching unfaithful persons who do excellent work and who contribute to society.
Therefore, infidelity, in and of itself, is easily forgiven. Either most of us or all of us know what that temptation feels like.
Kathleen Parker:
I just finished watching Mike Huckabee’s two hour candidate forum in which Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Paul, Bachmann, and Santorum participated. Interesting format. Three Republican state attorney generals asked the questions and the candidates appeared individually, each getting 11 minutes of face time.
It primarily concentrated on the issues of states rights versus the Federal government. Each candidate explained their stances on such things as Obamacare, federal involvement in education, the role of the EPA, illegal immigration, etc.
In this format Gingrich did not come out as the masterful debater that he has in the previous debates. I thought they all acquitted themselves reasonably well, but Bachmann, Santorum and Perry were the most conservative. (I expected that.) Paul defends states rights and the Constitution well, but he has done no homework on the threat of Islamism since 9/11. He still thinks we were attacked on 9/11 because of our foreign policy (which he detests) and calls the attacks “crimes.” IMO, that disqualifies him to be C-in-C.
Perry is very likeable and pro states rights. However, he still gets a bit tongue tied, even in this format. I like him, but I don’t think he would not do well in debates against Obama
Both Gingrich and Romney are pro states rights, with exceptions. Both would get the Federal government out of education, but not so enthusiastically/quickly as Perry, Santorum, or Bachmann. Both are less conservative than the others. (I also expected that.) However, if they are the two front runners, we have one who has been married and, to all apperances, faithful to his wife, and one who has botched two marriages and is on his third. Interestingly, the other candidates all seem to have spotless family lives and marital faithfulness. So, Newt’s marital and fidelity problems, though now in the past, do stand out in this group. He needs to work hard to craft answers to the charges that will be coming if he’s the nominee.
Of course I can look at each of the candidates and see how they would be attacked by Obama and the MSM no matter their marital fidelity records. It’s just going to be a nasty, negative campaign coming from the Obama and his minions.
I liked this format. It gave each candidate equal time and the questions coming from attorney generals who are defending their states from the inroads being made by the Feds were good.
I think that they are old helps. The other part is sheer exhaustion coupled with Romney as a frontrunner. While I might, might, be convinced to vote for Gingrich, I am desperately hoping one of the Rick’s kicks up in the polling. Gingrich’s failures are enough to keep him from being viable, more so as both of us are “Catholic”. The Kennedys, and Pelosi more recently, killed any notion of ‘voting for one of my own’. Gingrich and Romney are both ‘for the money, crony capitalist’ Republicans, as I see it. They both completely abandon social conservativism, smaller government, and even some legal issues (mandates).
Your right, I couldn’t vote for Gingrich. Thanks.
you are, that is.
J.J.,
A slower approach on getting government out of education doesn’t bother me. It actually sounds like Romney and Gingrich are more aware of how entwined the feds and the states are and how states might need some time to take over. They will have to build some sort of non-fed conference to share information and cooordinate standards between themselves; you cannot expect Wyoming to have the same resources as a populous state, so states have to work together. The great advantage will be that the people responsible for education in the states will be more likely to come up with down-to-earth programs if they are freed from the lure of federal money and the need of national politicians to meddle for the sake of votes.
It is so easy to say we should get the government out of …, but in fact, a company that has to change its product to meet standards for 50 individual states would find this a nightmare. Imagine having Georgia say widgets have to be made of steel while Vermont wants them to be made of aluminum because they have a a pol with an aluminum widget factory. If we need the feds to create a legally binding minimum standard, that’s OK with me. The real problem is finding a way to prevent federal agencies from growing their power beyond the original intent and hiring ever more workers who think they can create a utopia. That, of course, is much harder to do than just shouting to shut the agency down.
We all need to remember that our founders did not decide to throw out all government after the revolution. We kept what we felt we needed from the British system. That perhaps saved us from the anarchy of the French revolution. We should be cautious now about what we throw out and how we throw it out. I sure don’t want an inexperienced enthusiast to make the decisions. We have more than enough of these types in the government right now on the other side of the aisle and in the various NGOs that influence them.
The latest example of this is the California move to recognize illegals and allow them to work. Do we really want Nevada and Oregon to build fences on the California borders so these people can’t migrate to their states? Imagine having to obtain state passports to go to Disneyland.
The Huckabee forum you described sounds like a really good way to change the way we discuss such problems. Thanks for sharing this.
I think many of us are ready to play Lincoln to Gingrich’s Grant. (“I’d like to send a case of whisky to all my generals.”) The question is, is Gingrich really a Grant?
I never said 100% faithful to your spouse. Therefore the idea that I was trying to say everyone cheats on their spouse is dead wrong. Everyone has been unfaithful to their friends, dates, family, fellow workers, etc, at some time in their life. Have you ever told a secret or withheld something from friends/family.co-worker?
The point is that we have all made mistakes and most of us can forgive or overlook a mistake. We also all know intuitively that even those who hold themselves up as never making a mistake have in fact made mistakes.
I repeat that Cain’s “mistakes” (if true) caused him trouble NOT because he was the exception and good people don’t do those things, but because they were new news and could be exploited by the media. If these actions had been well known for years the media could merely repeat what was already known.
You may recall the media were unable to discover John Edwards’ affair, which led to charges of substantial campaign finance violations. The NYT did, however, have the resources to fake up an entirely bogus story about McCain having an affair with a lobbyist.
The bastards–meaning the press and the dems–don’t care how often they’re busted. Maybe it’s because, so far, it hasn’t mattered. That’s the scary part.
GoneWithTheWind wrote, in part:
December 3rd, 2011 at 3:37 pm
few people, male or female, have been 100% faithful in their lives.
M J R wrote, in part:
December 3rd, 2011 at 4:09 pm
GoneWithTheWind, I know many many people, including me personally, who “have been 100 percent faithful” in my life to my/their spouse.
GoneWithTheWind wrote, in part:
December 4th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
I never said 100% faithful to your spouse. Therefore the idea that I was trying to say everyone cheats on their spouse is dead wrong.
M J R NOW REPLIES (in full):
Gotcher point this time. See ya.