Can Gingrich Be Serious?

[brocks]

In tonight's debate, Gingrich went on a tirade against CNN for asking him about his second wife's "open marriage" allegations, and said that the networks were clearly anti-Republican because they had not accepted his offers of proof that the story was false. According to him, this proof would have consisted of denials from his daughters and his friends.

Can any adult take this seriously? Does he expect anyone to believe that he would have consulted his daughters and his friends before asking his wife for an open marriage?

Or does he think everyone but him is an idiot?

[Snowboarder Bo]

I'm gonna go with some variation on your last possibility.

Remember that this is a guy who famously persecuted Bill Clinton for having a brief affair, while he himself was also cheating on his wife.

[BrainGlutton]

Does he expect anyone to believe that he would have consulted his daughters and his friends before asking his wife for an open marriage?

No, but I actually prefer to imagine it happening that way, it's creepier.

[Argent Towers]

What a slimy scumbag Gingrich is. This is how he justified his extramarital affairs:

"There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."

Holy shit, what an unbelievably pompous statement. I wish he'd just own up to what he did. And I wish more politicians genuinely were in open marriages, because politics and monogamy don't seem to mix. Political power is a strong aphrodesiac and the temptations of women are legion. It'd be nice, for once, to have a politician who lived openly either as a swinging bachelor or a swinging husband.

But I think we'll have a gay, Muslim, Green Party president before we'll have a president known to be in an open marriage.

[Simplicio]

I think someone told him he could win if he impressed "swing voters" and he misunderstood.

But more seriously, I thought he played off the question pretty well. Republican voters love a round of "blame the media", and the question was kind of an eye-rolling one to start the debate off with, so his complaint wasn't totally without merit, either.
Granted the irony of Newt playing all indignant at trolling peoples personal lives was still pretty eye-rolling.

I don't think there was any better strategy for him to use anyways, assuming traveling back in time and not cheating on his ex-wife is off the table.

[Little Nemo]

He doesn't need to convince everyone that he's right. He just needs to convince 51% of the voters to pick him.

So he can work on various angles. Convince some people that his enemies are spreading lies about him. Convince some people that even if he's a scumbag the other guy is worse. Convince some people that it doesn't matter what you think of him personally as long as you agree with his political ideas. Convince some people that what might appear to be character flaws are actually the signs of a strong leader. Convince some people that they should back him because he'll play ball with them when he gets elected. Convince some people that the situation's really confusing and nobody knows who to believe.

[Snowboarder Bo]

He'll also need to convince people he isn't a flip-flopper: cheated on his first 2 wives, married his (younger) mistress shortly after the divorces were each finalized.

Changed religion at least 3 times.

Resigned not only his position as Speaker but also his House seat.

He once wrote that he wanted to be a "definer of civilization" and "teacher of the rules of civilization". It's not hard to show that his version of civilization would include jackassery, reneging on promises, failing to uphold social contracts, etc.

He's unelectable. Zero chance.

[Fear Itself]

This doesn't surprise me at all; what I find disgusting are the Gingrich supporters interviewed about his infidelity, and they are totally in the tank for him. Oh, no big deal, he repented, it's his personal life after all, blah, blah, blah. If this had been a Democrat, it would be shouted from the rooftops as a sign of depravity of liberals and how they are morally unfit for the presidency. Idiots.

[Gagundathar]

His multiple adulterous affairs should be enough to deny him the GOP nomination.
That was stated by most pundits early on in his campaign.
The fact that he has stayed in this, this long says more about his ego than his electability.

Seriously, y'all, it is going to be Romney vs Obama.

And Mr Obama will win.

So we get a center-right POTUS, a GOP senate and a crippled House.
For four years.

This wasn't quite the change I expected, but we aren't in a nuclear exchange with anyone, nobody has invaded us, women are still allowed to decide if they want to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy, our civil rights haven't been breached by any NEW law.

Heh
sigh

At Least It Isn't Raining (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CueTheRain)
.

[dalej42]

I'll give Gingrinch credit for his response. He knew he was going to get hit with a "If your wife were raped and murdered, would you favor the death penalty?" type question.

A good deal of Republican primary voters do believe that there is a liberal media elite and if it isn't on Fox news, it is a smear campaign. Gingrinch had nothing to gain and everything to lose by actually answering the question. So, he plays the liberal media card and he seemed to do it pretty well.

[BrainGlutton]

I'll give Gingrinch credit for his response. He knew he was going to get hit with a "If your wife were raped and murdered, would you favor the death penalty?" type question.

I'd shoot right back with, "What for you?!" :)

[Frank]

A good deal of Republican primary voters do believe that there is a liberal media elite and if it isn't on Fox news, it is a smear campaign. Gingrinch had nothing to gain and everything to lose by actually answering the question. So, he plays the liberal media card and he seemed to do it pretty well.
Not having watched the debate, I'll accept that he played the liberal media card pretty well. Is it the belief of his supporters that his adulterous affair with his second wife broke up his marriage with his first wife, or was it the liberal media? Is it the belief of his supporters that his aldulterous affair with his third wife broke up his marriage with his second wife, or was it the liberal media?

[Fear Itself]

Not having watched the debate, I'll accept that he played the liberal media card pretty well. Is it the belief of his supporters that his adulterous affair with his second wife broke up his marriage with his first wife, or was it the liberal media? Is it the belief of his supporters that his aldulterous affair with his third wife broke up his marriage with his second wife, or was it the liberal media?It is the belief of his supporters that since he repented his sinful ways, he is now a righteous man and suitable for the presidency.

[John DiFool]

This doesn't surprise me at all; what I find disgusting are the Gingrich supporters interviewed about his infidelity, and they are totally in the tank for him. Oh, no big deal, he repented, it's his personal life after all, blah, blah, blah. If this had been a Democrat, it would be shouted from the rooftops as a sign of depravity of liberals and how they are morally unfit for the presidency. Idiots.

Rush is onboard. That should tell you all you need to know.

[Kolga]

I can't wait until the Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul sideshows are over. The Republican nominee is Romney. It's been Romney for, like, a frigging year now. The desperate graspings of "anybody but Romney" have distracted the GOP from dealing with Romney's very real failings - if they'd accepted reality earlier and started dealing with the reality, they might have actually been able to establish a strong starting point.

Instead, they've been spilling their spunk on various "not-Romneys" for so long that there are some real Romney weaknesses that haven't been addressed. Not that I think that Obama's a shoe-in - but the year of "here's yet another batshit crazy candidate that's not a Mormon. Yes? No? Crap. How about this one? Yes? No? Damn." has really weakened them.

[John Mace]

The OP assumes that an ex-wife would have no reason to try and undermine Gingrich-- that her version is correct. But the fact is, we have two people giving conflicting narratives. Gingrich offers up people who are close to him and know what he's like to validate his narrative.

Can anyone not realize that many, many Americans will sympathize with a person dealing with the vindictiveness of an ex-spouse?

[BrainGlutton]

The OP assumes that an ex-wife would have no reason to try and undermine Gingrich-- that her version is correct. But the fact is, we have two people giving conflicting narratives. Gingrich offers up people who are close to him and know what he's like to validate his narrative.

Can anyone not realize that many, many Americans will sympathize with a person dealing with the vindictiveness of an ex-spouse?

It's just that, he's a man who makes it really hard to think the best of him.

[Little Nemo]

The OP assumes that an ex-wife would have no reason to try and undermine Gingrich-- that her version is correct. But the fact is, we have two people giving conflicting narratives. Gingrich offers up people who are close to him and know what he's like to validate his narrative.

Can anyone not realize that many, many Americans will sympathize with a person dealing with the vindictiveness of an ex-spouse?There are other people who have confirmed many of the allegations of Gingrich's infidelities. When Gingrich denies it, he look as plausible as Bill Clinton did when he argued the meaning of "is".

And the Republicans might want to consider how many Americans have ex-husbands.

[kaylasdad99]

The OP assumes that an ex-wife would have no reason to try and undermine Gingrich-- that her version is correct. But the fact is, we have two people giving conflicting narratives. Gingrich offers up people who are close to him and know what he's like to validate his narrative.

Can anyone not realize that many, many Americans will sympathize with a person dealing with the vindictiveness of an ex-spouse?

Excellent point, John Mace. Ladies, let this be a lesson to you: If your husband/fiance asks you for an open marriage, get him to put the request in writing. For that matter, put your demand for a written request in writing, have it notarized, and obtain a proof of delivery.

ETA: Can anyone not realize that most of your likely GOP primary voters are going to be (or at least profess to be) uncomfortable with someone HAVING an ex-spouse?

[BrainGlutton]

Excellent point, John Mace. Ladies, let this be a lesson to you: If your husband/fiance asks you for an open marriage, get him to put the request in writing. For that matter, put your demand for a written request in writing, have it notarized, and obtain a proof of delivery.

With guaranteed residuals or royalties for all commercial use of videorecordings, etc.

[Simplicio]

ETA: Can anyone not realize that most of your likely GOP primary voters are going to be (or at least profess to be) uncomfortable with someone HAVING an ex-spouse?

Profess maybe, but of the last five GOP Prez nominees, three had ex-wives. So they're apparently its not that big a deal.

[brocks]

The OP assumes that an ex-wife would have no reason to try and undermine Gingrich-- that her version is correct.

I said nothing of the kind, and you have no idea what I know about ex-wives. I'm just saying that only an idiot would produce character witnesses who would say he's lying, and only an idiot would consider their testimony as proof that he isn't lying.

It wouldn't be proof even if this were about some business dispute. But when it's about his sexual relations with his wife, it's not even evidence. It's not even hearsay evidence. It's sheer speculation --- unless, of course, they were involved in the open marriage.

[Chronos]

It is the belief of his supporters that since he repented his sinful ways, he is now a righteous man and suitable for the presidency.Repentance would require that he reconcile with the woman he cheated on. At least, if you start with a Christian notion of repentance, not a Religion of Republicanism notion.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Did y'all hear what Gingrich, the history professor, said at tonight's debate?

GINGRICH: "Under Jimmy Carter, we had the wrong laws, the wrong regulations, the wrong leadership, and we killed jobs. We had inflation. We went to 10.8 percent unemployment. Under Ronald Reagan, we had the right job - the right laws, the right regulators, the right leadership. We created 16 million new jobs."

FACT CHECK: Sure, inflation was bad and gas lines long, but under Carter's presidency unemployment never topped 7.8 percent. The unemployment rate did reach 10.8 percent, but not until November 1982, nearly two years into Reagan's first term. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-19-23-11-45)

ETA: Let me repeat myself: Zero chance.

[Linden Arden]

There is a first person account from a campaign manager of Newt where the manager is walking Newt's two young daughters toward a car he sees Newt in. He gets close enough to see Newt is receiving a blowjob from a staffer in the front seat. Newt sees them approaching and gives his manager a thumbs up sign and smiles without trying to stop for the girls (who were presumably too short to see the action).

[John Mace]

There are other people who have confirmed many of the allegations of Gingrich's infidelities. When Gingrich denies it, he look as plausible as Bill Clinton did when he argued the meaning of "is".

And the Republicans might want to consider how many Americans have ex-husbands.

His infidelities are not in dispute. He admits to them. What is in dispute, per the OP, is his request to his former wife for an open marriage. I have no idea whether he asked for this or not. As far as the evidence produced in this thread goes, it's he said she said.

The OP has provided nothing other than his own post to back up his claims, thinly disguised as a question.

Excellent point, John Mace. Ladies, let this be a lesson to you: If your husband/fiance asks you for an open marriage, get him to put the request in writing. For that matter, put your demand for a written request in writing, have it notarized, and obtain a proof of delivery.
I don't understand your point. Is it your contention that an ex-wife is always to believed over an ex-husband? If not, then what do you bring to this thread as evidence that either spouse is telling the truth?

[CJJ*]

It's just that, he's a man who makes it really hard to think the best of him.
That's putting it mildly. He's a sanctimonious prick who proves just how little it takes to reel in the Freeper crowd for his next book/TV show/insert-moneymaking-scam-here. He could tattoo 666 on his forehead and still win their undying love so long as he keeps "stickin' it to them libruls".

Still, I still wish he had a real chance to be the GOP nominee; he so perfectly reflects the irrational desires of the modern conservative base that his thorough and utter beating in the general would serve as a stern rebuke to the self-described "patriots" of the Tea Party. Instead, when Romney loses in November, these same tools will conclude they could have won if they'd only had a "real" conservative in the race, and double down for the next run. You think Newt's dog-whistle racism is bad? You ain't seen nothin' yet...

[YogSosoth]

I think anyone is to be believed over Newt Gingrich, so in this case yes, I believe his ex-wife, the one he cheated on, the one who he cheated with on his first wife.

[TheMightyAtlas]

I think anyone is to be believed over Newt Gingrich, so in this case yes, I believe his ex-wife, the one he cheated on, the one who he cheated with on his first wife.

I had a boss, who was cheating on his wife. The cheating was well known by many of us in the office, as the "other woman" worked for one of our major vendors. Then he got divorced and married the other woman. But he was cheating on her even before they got married with a third woman in the office. The second wife found out after a year or so. She angrily demanded to know why none of us who knew about the second round of cheating didn't tell her, and let her be humiliated. I was the only one who said what I am sure everyone was thinking. Hey lady, we didn't tell his first wife about you either. You knew that. Why would you expect us to tell you about the next one.

So yeah, I don't think the second wife has any more credibility than Newt. He is a liar and a cheat, but so is she.

[Ibn Warraq]

There are other people who have confirmed many of the allegations of Gingrich's infidelities. When Gingrich denies it, he look as plausible as Bill Clinton did when he argued the meaning of "is".

And the Republicans might want to consider how many Americans have ex-husbands.

Gingrich has never denied the allegations of infidelity either to his first or his second wife.

What he is denying is that he went to his second wife and asked her for an open marriage.

Now, I'll be honest and say I find Newt Gingrich to be a disgusting pig for a number of reasons, but I honestly don't think that the interview will hurt him. The story of him asking for "an open marriage" has been around for a while and to a huge number of people, the timing of the interview just makes the second wife look really vindictive.

You'll notice that Andrew Sullivan, who hates Newt, has said he lost a lot of sympathy for her based on her timing.

Also, for myself, while I do have a certain amount of sympathy for her being cheated on by her husband of nearly twenty years with a vastly younger woman, she had no problems fucking him while he was married to a woman stricken with cancer so I think she learned the hard way that karma is a bitch.

[Lantern]

I think Gingrich is a scumbag and a hypocrite but his point was quite valid: do his past martial problems really merit the opening question in a presidential debate? More importantly for him, it was an absolutely brilliant piece of counter-punching and I think he actually managed to turn his ex-wife's interview to his advantage. Just watch the crowd go crazy, it is as brilliant a piece of political theater (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yf_005EqDM&feature=player_embedded) as you will see this year. Newt is a buffoon but he can rile up the GOP base like nobody else which is why I think this primary is far from over.

[jtgain]

Can any adult take this seriously? Does he expect anyone to believe that he would have consulted his daughters and his friends before asking his wife for an open marriage?


I don't think HE would have consulted, but I would guess that if his ex-wife was so appalled by the idea of an open marriage, when discussing the break up with mutual friends, she would have told someone, "That disgusting pig actually told me that he wants an open marriage so he can keep fucking his young girlfriend, blah, blah, blah."

So, yeah, I think that their mutual friends would be in a position to confirm or deny things that happened contemporaneously with the split.

[RTFirefly]

Repentance would require that he reconcile with the woman he cheated on. At least, if you start with a Christian notion of repentance, not a Religion of Republicanism notion.Yeah, but this is happening on Religion of Republicanism turf, so their notion of repentance is applicable, and adherence to it suffices here.

Did y'all hear what Gingrich, the history professor, said at tonight's debate?



ETA: Let me repeat myself: Zero chance.Like facts actually matter in a GOP primary.

[Fear Itself]

I don't understand your point. Is it your contention that an ex-wife is always to believed over an ex-husband??No, his point as I see it is, the ex-wife is always to be believed over Newt Gingrich. All else being equal, who has publicly demonstrated disdain for the truth; Newt or his ex-wife? It is Newt's credibility that is the determining factor, and Newt has decades of lies that would suggest he is can never be trusted when self-interest in on the line. Gingrich is a serial liar.

[Gagundathar]

You know, way back when, Gingrich was a firebrand that almost quite literally threw bombs into the 'liberal' Democrats. I kind of admired that chutzpah because, well I liked conflict back then. When he led the 1994 rebellion and defined the manifesto known as the "Contract with America" (also known as the "Contract ON America"), I was initially impressed.

That is, until I watched while civil liberties were tramped upon and opposition was deliberately smeared in a way I didn't expect. Even Nixon wasn't that heinous... and that is saying something.
This is why we have something like the PATRIOT ACT, and why we spent a trillion dollars in Iraq for no obvious reasons. The moneyed interests have always held sway in USA politics. It is just now that there is little opposition to such power-mongering from more moderate elements in the populace.

[Czarcasm]

About a decade or so ago DC Comics had a running story line where Lex Luthor ran for, and won, the Presidency of the United States, and fans thought that it was a stupid plot line because the general public knew that he as a bad guy. A couple years back Marvel Comics had a long-running story line where Norman Osborn was put in charge of the nation's security, and fandom was up in arms because everyone that supported the decision in that story knew that he was the Green Goblin.
I look at the presidential campaign we are currently in the middle of, and one question comes to mind: Who the hell is writing this comic book?

[jtgain]

I liked how the other candidates responded.

Other Candidate: Let's move on to real issues that Americans care about. This is not a relevant topic. Now, on a completely unrelated note, I would like to thank my born again Christian wife of 103 years for being here and supporting me throughout the campaign. Were it not for my stable and non-adulterous family, I wouldn't be where I am today. Unlike some other people. *winks. Tilts head towards Gingrich.

That's a paraphrase, but it was obvious. :)

[Kobal2]

Holy shit, what an unbelievably pompous statement. I wish he'd just own up to what he did. And I wish more politicians genuinely were in open marriages, because politics and monogamy don't seem to mix. Political power is a strong aphrodesiac and the temptations of women are legion. It'd be nice, for once, to have a politician who lived openly either as a swinging bachelor or a swinging husband.

See, but that's where your Republicans stomp your Democrats right into the ground. Any politician, when faced with an adultery scandal, can go into "deny, deny, deny" or try to make the news look the other way.
It takes a special kind of man to take the opportunity of an adultery scandal to wrap himself in the flag and sound a fanfare. He just loves America and your freedoms so damn much, he just had to stick his dick in 'em. That's his story, and he's sticking to it.

Chutzpah, thy name is Republican Party.

[Gagundathar]

Who the hell is writing this comic book?

And the answer is, we are.
Right now.

If we don't get a better editor, we are in for a long ride down a very steep slope.

[shiftless]

I think Gingrich is a scumbag and a hypocrite but his point was quite valid: do his past martial problems really merit the opening question in a presidential debate? More importantly for him, it was an absolutely brilliant piece of counter-punching and I think he actually managed to turn his ex-wife's interview to his advantage. Just watch the crowd go crazy, it is as brilliant a piece of political theater (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yf_005EqDM&feature=player_embedded) as you will see this year. Newt is a buffoon but he can rile up the GOP base like nobody else which is why I think this primary is far from over.

I agree with all you say except the buffoon part. Newt if a frikken genius at political theater. He knew this question was coming at some point and he was prepared to turn it into a "liberal media bashing the poor ol' God fearing conservative" moment. Genius. The fact that it was a ham-fisted question served him all the better.

Newt has managed to cast himself as a family values candidate even though everybody knews full well he has zero family values. I think there is a certain segment of the population that sees that kind of in-your-face brass as Presidental. They believe that a great man has great appetites and doesn't need to follow the same path a the common man. Imagine how he would handle the commies,.... errr I mean the Taliban, if they tried anything with him.

But really, Newt dragged his steaming cesspool of a life in front of the camera, into a Presidential campaign, by his own choice. We will still hear him crying about the mean old liberal media long after his campaign is over, just like I heard from Herman Cain doing this morning, sucking at the teat of CNN.

[lieu]

Does he expect anyone to believe that he would have consulted his daughters and his friends before asking his wife for an open marriage?I'm with John Mace, Ibn Warraq and jtgain here. He fully admits to failing WRT having affairs. But what he says didn't happen was that he asked his wife for an open marriage, the point being that if he had she surely would have voiced her displeasure to their mutual friends, family, etc. He's simply saying they would know so check with them and they'll confirm that it's the first they've heard about it. Conclusion: manufactured by the ex wife.

In my mind the reason he finds this a distinction worth making is because lots of people have affairs and some will find it within themselves to overlook that failing on his part. But an open marriage is a horse of a different color, that's likely perceived as some weird-assed deviancy there and understandably he is drawing a line between the two.

I'm no fan of Gingrich, but there's plenty of real things he's done that disqualify him and no need to exaggerate or inflate his record to make him unattractive as a candidate.

[Gagundathar]

Yeah... 'open marriage' is a difficult thing to reconcile with 'family values'.

I remember when my wife asked my if I wanted an open marriage and I said, "yes, sweetheart, I want to be open with you about everything."
That handled that question and got me a really nice result.

Seriously, ya'll, if you want to be married to a gal, then be MARRIED to her.
Otherwise, just have her as your girlfriend that you are fooling around on.
There is a reason we have a marriage ceremony.
Or we used to.

[BrainGlutton]

The moneyed interests have always held sway in USA politics. It is just now that there is little opposition to such power-mongering from more moderate elements in the populace.

It is also just now that there is considerable opposition from less moderate elements, have you not noticed?

[BrainGlutton]

I remember when my wife asked my if I wanted an open marriage and I said, "yes, sweetheart, I want to be open with you about everything."
That handled that question and got me a really nice result.

What, a 3am "Surprise!" and some dude's nads dangling in front of your nose? Wife goin', "What did you think I meant, honey?!" :confused:

[C3]

Based on the 20 second clip they keep showing everywhere, I don't think Gingrich was asking her for an "open marriage". She used that term, but it sounds like he was just saying, "Either leave or quit your bitching."

[SenorBeef]

I really wish that a certain level of hypocrisy could just cause people to spontaneously combust. This is the guy who created a fucking national witchhunt over Clinton's blowjob, who has a worse record in office himself, having the righteous outrage that a news agency had the audacity to involve personal matters into politics.

And instead of getting fucking laughed off, his supporters cheer him on. I bet 98% of those supporters, at least those who were old enough, were also OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!!! about Clinton's blowjob.

So fucking stupid.

[JohnBckWLD]

What's more boorish?
A. Cheating on your second wife
B. Asking permission to have extra-marital sex

Choice C, "don't cheat", isn't valid. This woman was implicit in the affair he had with his first wife and most men aren't monogamous by nature.

[Maus Magill]

About a decade or so ago DC Comics had a running story line where Lex Luthor ran for, and won, the Presidency of the United States, and fans thought that it was a stupid plot line because the general public knew that he as a bad guy. A couple years back Marvel Comics had a long-running story line where Norman Osborn was put in charge of the nation's security, and fandom was up in arms because everyone that supported the decision in that story knew that he was the Green Goblin.
I look at the presidential campaign we are currently in the middle of, and one question comes to mind: Who the hell is writing this comic book?

And the answer is, we are.
Right now.

If we don't get a better editor, we are in for a long ride down a very steep slope.

As long as we don't have to relive Maximum Clonage, I'll be okay.

[Fear Itself]

What's more boorish?
A. Cheating on your second wife
B. Asking permission to have extra-marital sex

Choice C, "don't cheat", isn't valid. This woman was implicit in the affair he had with his first wife and most men aren't monogamous by nature.Most men don't pretend they support "family values" while boinking bottle blondes. This is why Newt deserves to be crucified over this, not because the infidelity is unthinkable. Democrats should get a pass, because everybody knows they have no morals. Republicans hold themselves to a higher standard, so when their peccadillos are exposed, they have further to fall, and justifiably so. Republicans created the unrealistic standard, so let them be broken upon it.

[brocks]

But what he says didn't happen was that he asked his wife for an open marriage, the point being that if he had she surely would have voiced her displeasure to their mutual friends, family, etc.


Her general displeasure, maybe. The sordid details? I doubt it. There is surely no "surely" about it.

The guy has a track record. He has close associates who have stated for the record what an asshole he was to his first wife. He claims she wanted the divorce, but the court documents show that she fought it, so he is a proven liar about that (and is still lying about it). And the daughters that he is offering as character witnesses are the children of his first wife. In other words, they feel they have every reason to despise Marianne, whom they see as a homewrecker. How likely is it that they would be so close to her that she would tell them the most humiliating details of her sexual relationship with their father?

And if that's not enough, both have a financial stake in Newt's success. One daughter is president of Gingrich Communications, and probably hopes to be the next White House Director of Communications. The other just published an insipid book, which wouldn't have gotten to first base if Newt hadn't put his name on it as a co-author. This daughter is such a piece of work that, by an amazing coincidence, she waited until just after her book was published to break her 31-year silence about Newt's infamous hospital divorce discussion with his first wife, and say no, he didn't do that at all. As if he would have done it in front of a 13-year old girl.

So which do you think is more likely --- that the serial liar is telling the truth, or that his daughters are happy to combine business with pleasure in trashing a woman they hate, and maybe getting a chance to work in the West Wing?

[SenorBeef]

Most men don't pretend they support "family values" while boinking bottle blondes. This is why Newt deserves to be crucified over this, not because the infidelity is unthinkable. Democrats should get a pass, because everybody knows they have no morals. Republicans hold themselves to a higher standard, so when their peccadillos are exposed, they have further to fall, and justifiably so. Republicans created the unrealistic standard, so let them be broken upon it.


While that's taking it far, certainly it's quite bizarre how these family values groups undyingly support guys like Gingrich and all of those anti-gay congressmen who get discovered giving a blowjob to some dude every 3 weeks or so, and while hating family man Obama and his impeccable personal life.

Or... hypocritical. That's probably a better word for it. Retarded? Assholish? Despicable? Rimjobesque?

[brocks]

What's more boorish?
A. Cheating on your second wife
B. Asking permission to have extra-marital sex

Choice C, "don't cheat", isn't valid. This woman was implicit in the affair he had with his first wife and most men aren't monogamous by nature.

How about:
C. Asking permission to have extra-marital sex after cheating on your second wife for several years?

Best guess is he was boinking Callista for at least five years before he asked Marianne for an open marriage.

[brocks]

Or... hypocritical. That's probably a better word for it.

I think it was Jimmy Kimmel last night who said that Newt really puts the "hippo" in "hypocritical."

[Gagundathar]

What, a 3am "Surprise!" and some dude's nads dangling in front of your nose? Wife goin', "What did you think I meant, honey?!" :confused:

Yeah.
That is exactly what happened.

Nice.

[Enderw24]

The OP assumes that an ex-wife would have no reason to try and undermine Gingrich-- that her version is correct. But the fact is, we have two people giving conflicting narratives. Gingrich offers up people who are close to him and know what he's like to validate his narrative.

Can anyone not realize that many, many Americans will sympathize with a person dealing with the vindictiveness of an ex-spouse?

We could ask Jackie Battley to share any anecdotes that come to mind about a vindictive Gingrich. Oh wait.

[Jack Batty]

We could ask Jackie Battley to share any anecdotes that come to mind about a vindictive Gingrich. Oh wait.

Jackie Battley ... Jack Batty ... close enough.

What do you need to know?

[Enderw24]

Jackie Battley ... Jack Batty ... close enough.

What do you need to know?

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/611/close_enough.png

So what was the sex change like?

[joebuck20]

Personally, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the notion that a guy who looks like the spawn of Dwight Schrute and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man is apparently a chick magnet.

[Boyo Jim]

He'll also need to convince people he isn't a flip-flopper: cheated on his first 2 wives, married his (younger) mistress shortly after the divorces were each finalized...

That's not flip flopping. That's a trade-in. Both wives were several tears old with serious engine problems.

[Vinyl Turnip]

There is a first person account from a campaign manager of Newt where the manager is walking Newt's two young daughters toward a car he sees Newt in. He gets close enough to see Newt is receiving a blowjob from a staffer in the front seat. Newt sees them approaching and gives his manager a thumbs up sign and smiles without trying to stop for the girls (who were presumably too short to see the action).

These eyes have seen goatse, Tubgirl, Eel Girl, and Lemon Party and my gaze never wavered. I watched 2 Girls 1 Cup with the stoicism of a moai. I've seen all manner of depravity--- the zoophile, the coprophage, the necrophile. None of these burned-in images makes the vomitus rise in my throat faster than the fleeting thought of a fellow human being engaged in a sex act with Newt Gingrich.

[Fear Itself]

Personally, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the notion that a guy who looks like the spawn of Dwight Schrute and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man is apparently a chick magnet.Wrap your mind around his wallet. That's what they do.

[Jack Batty]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/611/close_enough.png

So what was the sex change like?

If you ever touched Newts cock, you'd change genders too.

[Hampshire]

Why is it even important that he literally went to her and asked for an open marriage when it's obvious that it's what he wanted? How can he even deny that's what he was trying to do? Not only was it what he wanted it's what he went ahead and did anyway.

"Did I cheat on my wife?"... "Yea, sure. Next question."
"Did I ask my wife for a divorce?"..."Pfft,no. Next question"
"Did I ask my wife for an open marriage?".. "Why, that's preposterous! How could you ask such a question? Did the liberal media put you up to this? She's a liar! I never asked such a thing!"

Wag your dog much?

[Happy Lendervedder]

Based on the 20 second clip they keep showing everywhere, I don't think Gingrich was asking her for an "open marriage". She used that term, but it sounds like he was just saying, "Either leave or quit your bitching."

I think this is spot-on. She was editorializing history for the cameras. This doesn't make him any less of a scumbag, but it does give him plausible deniability. It's his own personal "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

[BrainGlutton]

I think this is spot-on. She was editorializing history for the cameras. This doesn't make him any less of a scumbag, but it does give him plausible deniability. It's his own personal "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

I wish I'd been a Congresscritter on the committee Clinton said that to. I would've stood right up and said, :mad: "Mr. President! Will you please make it clear once and for all to this Committee and to the American people! Is you is, or is you ain't, my baby?

"The way you actin' lately makes me doubt." :(

[Boyo Jim]

I think this is spot-on. She was editorializing history for the cameras. This doesn't make him any less of a scumbag, but it does give him plausible deniability. It's his own personal "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

I would argue that saying, in effect, "I'm going to keep fucking other women, and you ought to get used to it" is an unconventional way to suggest an open marriage. I did get the impression that if she accepted, they could have stayed married.

[Little Nemo]

Why is it even important that he literally went to her and asked for an open marriage when it's obvious that it's what he wanted? How can he even deny that's what he was trying to do? Not only was it what he wanted it's what he went ahead and did anyway.

"Did I cheat on my wife?"... "Yea, sure. Next question."
"Did I ask my wife for a divorce?"..."Pfft,no. Next question"
"Did I ask my wife for an open marriage?".. "Why, that's preposterous! How could you ask such a question? Did the liberal media put you up to this? She's a liar! I never asked such a thing!"

Wag your dog much?"How dare you ask that question! I have never cheated on my wife! I have never asked my wife for a divorce! I have never asked my wife for an open marriage!"
"And these denials include all three of your wives?"
"Oh...well in that case, no comment."

[Little Nemo]

I don't understand your point. Is it your contention that an ex-wife is always to believed over an ex-husband? If not, then what do you bring to this thread as evidence that either spouse is telling the truth?Besides why should we believe Marianne Ginther? That tramp had an affair with a married man.

[Ibn Warraq]

Besides why should we believe Marianne Ginther? That tramp had an affair with a married man.

A married man who's wife had cancer.

I think this might serve as a lesson to anyone male or female who breaks up a marriage and then marries the person who left the marriage.

Someone who's cheated once, when given the opportunity will do so again and no matter who you are there's always someone out there younger and better-looking than you.

Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

[Frostillicus]

What's more boorish?
A. Cheating on your second wife
B. Asking permission to have extra-marital sex

Choice C, "don't cheat", isn't valid. This woman was implicit in the affair he had with his first wife and most men aren't monogamous by nature.

Considering that Newt asked wife #2 for permission after he had already been banging eventual wife #3 for 6 years, I vote for none-of-the-above.

[John Mace]

A married man who's wife had cancer.

I think this might serve as a lesson to anyone male or female who breaks up a marriage and then marries the person who left the marriage.

Someone who's cheated once, when given the opportunity will do so again and no matter who you are there's always someone out there younger and better-looking than you.

Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

Ann Landers, is that you? :)

[kaylasdad99]

Excellent point, John Mace. Ladies, let this be a lesson to you: If your husband/fiance asks you for an open marriage, get him to put the request in writing. For that matter, put your demand for a written request in writing, have it notarized, and obtain a proof of delivery.

I don't understand your point.I have to have a point now? AWWW, MA-A-A-A-N!
Is it your contention that an ex-wife is always to believed over an ex-husband? Certainly not. But it does make me start wishing I could have been a fly on the wall at THAT cocktail party:

"Say, Newton! How they hangin'?"

"Little bit over to the right, Irving, how else? Hahahaha!"

"Hahahahaha! How about to the FAR Right! Hahahahahaha!

"Hahahahaha! I told Marianne about Callista today..."

"Whoa. How'd she take it?"

"Coulda been better."

"Did you tell her that you only did it because you love this country so much?"

"SIGH Yeah."

"And that didn't WORK?"

"Yeah. Go figure."

"Well, you already know Callista is on board with that one. Have you thought about asking Marianne to let you have one of those , what do you call 'em, "open marriages," so's you could stay married and keep seeing Callista on the side?"

"No, I think she'd probably take that the wrong way. I don't think I will."

"Well, how about if you divorce Marianne, have an open marriage with Callista, and keep bangin' Marianne on the side?"

"Now there's an idea; she certainly can't object to me proposing to have an open marriage with Callista. Plus, I'd still be able to get a little sumpn' - sumpn' from her now and then."

If not, then what do you bring to this thread as evidence that either spouse is telling the truth?Well, in the absence of Newt's written request, I guess I'm bringing what I asserted I was bringing in Post #19.

I did bring my $7.95 annual membership fee that lets me post to threads without getting ads...

[kaylasdad99]

I think anyone is to be believed over Newt Gingrich, so in this case yes, I believe his ex-wife, the one he cheated on, the one who he cheated with on his first wife.

I had a boss, who was cheating on his wife. The cheating was well known by many of us in the office, as the "other woman" worked for one of our major vendors. Then he got divorced and married the other woman. But he was cheating on her even before they got married with a third woman in the office. The second wife found out after a year or so. She angrily demanded to know why none of us who knew about the second round of cheating didn't tell her, and let her be humiliated. I was the only one who said what I am sure everyone was thinking. Hey lady, we didn't tell his first wife about you either. You knew that. Why would you expect us to tell you about the next one.

So yeah, I don't think the second wife has any more credibility than Newt. He is a liar and a cheat, but so is she.That story SO needs to be posted in the "workplace griping" thread in the Pit...

[Uncle Jocko]

Let's not be too tough on the Newtster. He's just following the long-established propensity of Republicans - they talk a great game about how the free-market and personal responsibility are self-correcting guides to a perfect tomorrow; then disprove that theory entirely with their actions.

[Marley23]

It does make him a scuzz as a person, but all things considered, this kind of salaciousness doesn't have much to do with the issues. Gingrich was always going to face scrutiny over his marital and extramarital history, but I'm not sure about ABC's decision to air an interview with wife #2 right before this primary and giving Gingrich a freebie debate question doesn't fix things. However it should be noted that earlier in the campaign he was lying about his first divorce: he said his first wife initiated the proceedings, and documents showed that wasn't true.

[Steve MB]

Still, I still wish he had a real chance to be the GOP nominee; he so perfectly reflects the irrational desires of the modern conservative base that his thorough and utter beating in the general would serve as a stern rebuke to the self-described "patriots" of the Tea Party. Instead, when Romney loses in November, these same tools will conclude they could have won if they'd only had a "real" conservative in the race, and double down for the next run.

It makes no difference -- if Gingrich gets the nomination and gets trounced in the general election, they will immediately conclude they could have won if they'd only had a "real" conservative candidate.

[Fear Itself]

It makes no difference -- if Gingrich gets the nomination and gets trounced in the general election, they will immediately conclude they could have won if they'd only had a "real" conservative candidate.Or someone who wasn't a "Washington insider". There wil always be an excuse.

[John Mace]

They could try blaming Diebold. That might actually generate some sympathy around here!

[Saint Cad]

So Gingrich should not be President because he cheated on his wife and lied about it?
But if he were already President this would be a witch-hunt because his private life shouldn't matter, right?

[joebuck20]

So Gingrich should not be President because he cheated on his wife and lied about it?
But if he were already President this would be a witch-hunt because his private life shouldn't matter, right?

Oh fuck me, not this fucking horseshit again. This has been addressed already several times in this thread. Bill Clinton didn't make his career building himself up as a paragon of virtue or railing against immortality or cozying up to the family values crowd and religious right.

Living in glass houses and all that.

[saoirse]

While that's taking it far, certainly it's quite bizarre how these family values groups undyingly support guys like Gingrich and all of those anti-gay congressmen who get discovered giving a blowjob to some dude every 3 weeks or so, and while hating family man Obama and his impeccable personal life.

Or... hypocritical. That's probably a better word for it. Retarded? Assholish? Despicable? Rimjobesque?

I think you're missing the fact that he promotes family values all the time. He just doesn't live them. I really believe that family values groups aren't concerned about his behavior, as long as he continues fighting for their issues. It's not even hypocrisy on their part. They really do want to go back to a Mad Men society.

[Gagundathar]

If you ever have been a husband of a woman with cancer, and then ditched her to be someone else, I have a very hard time sympathizing with you.
Really, that is about as unethical as it gets.

As a man who stood by his wife for 14 years of chemotherapy, I can say this without prejudice.
Scum.
Bottom-feeding scum!

[YogSosoth]

I wish there was a liberal media like the conservatives keep claiming. I want someone to ask Newt "So who are you cheating on Callista with right now?"

Or better yet, ask her how she will feel when Newt divorces her for a younger woman

[Ibn Warraq]

Oh fuck me, not this fucking horseshit again. This has been addressed already several times in this thread. Bill Clinton didn't make his career building himself up as a paragon of virtue or railing against immortality or cozying up to the family values crowd and religious right.

Living in glass houses and all that.


I wasn't a fan of the Clinton witch hunt, but the above is hardly the whole story.

Clinton, like all politicians, went out of his way to portray himself as a happily-married family man and regularly put his wife and child in front of the cameras.

Now, no he didn't talk about family values to the extent that the Gores did, but all politicians to one extent or another tout famly values.

Why else do you think they always drag their wives/husbands along the campaign trail and put their kids on the platform with them.

[Fear Itself]

I wasn't a fan of the Clinton witch hunt, but the above is hardly the whole story.

Clinton, like all politicians, went out of his way to portray himself as a happily-married family man and regularly put his wife and child in front of the cameras.

Now, no he didn't talk about family values to the extent that the Gores did, but all politicians to one extent or another tout famly values.

Why else do you think they always drag their wives/husbands along the campaign trail and put their kids on the platform with them.NIce try. Conservatives have always had a corner on the sanctimonious, holier-than-liberals market. Everybody expects Democrats to be immoral; Republicans hold themselves up as paragons for children to emulate. Newt deserves to twist slowly in the wind on this one.

[Marley23]

Conservatives have always had a corner on the sanctimonious, holier-than-liberals market.
I'll grant that part-
Everybody expects Democrats to be immoral; Republicans hold themselves up as paragons for children to emulate.
But that's simply not true. Just about every politician tries to present a particular image of their moral personal life, although they don't all do it to the same extent. Plenty of people It's not as if nobody cared about the Clinton or Edwards scandals. I'll put Spitzer and Weiner in separate categories because of the lawbreaking and public humiliation issues involved.

[Evil Captor]

They could try blaming Diebold. That might actually generate some sympathy around here!

Sure, if someone like the CEO of Diebold had said something like, "I am committed to helping the US deliver it's electoral votes to Obama next year." Sure would generate some sympathy, with evidence like that! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions#O.27Dell.27s_fundraising)

[NDP]

Personally, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the notion that a guy who looks like the spawn of Dwight Schrute and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man is apparently a chick magnet.

Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.--Henry Kissinger

Conservatives have always had a corner on the sanctimonious, holier-than-liberals market. Everybody expects Democrats to be immoral; Republicans hold themselves up as paragons for children to emulate. Newt deserves to twist slowly in the wind on this one.

"Deserves to" is the operative phrase here. It's likely that a good portion of the "Family Values" crowd and Religious Right will still support Gingrich without hesitation. Those people who do this, incidentally, should automatically forfeit their right to speak about matters of morality without being met by a chorus of loud guffaws.

[Polycarp]

About a decade or so ago DC Comics had a running story line where Lex Luthor ran for, and won, the Presidency of the United States, and fans thought that it was a stupid plot line because the general public knew that he as a bad guy. A couple years back Marvel Comics had a long-running story line where Norman Osborn was put in charge of the nation's security, and fandom was up in arms because everyone that supported the decision in that story knew that he was the Green Goblin.
I look at the presidential campaign we are currently in the middle of, and one question comes to mind: Who the hell is writing this comic book?

I am more concerned with how you retcon reality.

[Ibn Warraq]

Republicans hold themselves up as paragons for children to emulate.

If you honestly don't believe democrats don't do that just as much as the Republicans then either you haven't been paying much attention to politics or you've allowed your political beliefs to cloud your objectivity.

You'll notice that all politicians use their wives and kids as props and most love to tell stories of their upbringing or personal tragedies they've suffered to explain why they deserve to be elected to high office.

To use three obvious examples, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John Edwards.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The OP assumes that an ex-wife would have no reason to try and undermine Gingrich-- that her version is correct. But the fact is, we have two people giving conflicting narratives. Gingrich offers up people who are close to him and know what he's like to validate his narrative.

Can anyone not realize that many, many Americans will sympathize with a person dealing with the vindictiveness of an ex-spouse?
Help me out here--why is it the open marriage request, not the cheating, that's the problem? From my perspective, asking for an open marriage is at least an honest thing to do; it gives his wife the chance to make an informed decision about staying married to him despite his lack of monogamy. But cheating is dishonest, and denies her the power to make an informed decision.

[Starving Artist]

Oh fuck me, not this fucking horseshit again. This has been addressed already several times in this thread. Bill Clinton didn't make his career building himself up as a paragon of virtue or railing against immortality or cozying up to the family values crowd and religious right.

Living in glass houses and all that.I've heard it argued that Newt is a man of greater character and honesty than Bill Clinton because he at least asked his wife for an open marriage, which Clinton never did before cheating on his wife/committing perjury/getting disbarred. :D

And of course family values voters are going to support a candidate who espouses those values even if he falls short of them himself in one way or another. Would you be dissmissive of Arnold Swarzenegger as a spokesman for healthy lifestyles simply because he smokes the occasional cigar? Positive lifestyles, be they family values or exercise and diet, are still worthy goals even if their champions sometimes fall short. No one is perfect, and it's better to have a flawed evangelist fighting for healthy values than to have no one at all. This isn't rocket science.

[Marley23]

Help me out here--why is it the open marriage request, not the cheating, that's the problem?
I agree. It's odd that people are focusing on the phrase "open marriage," which was her paraphrase of the situation and not what Gingrich is actually supposed to have said to her. The gist of her claim is that he wanted her to look the other way while he continued his affair. Theoretically, saying 'I want an open marriage' is a suggestion up for discussion and it applies to both spouses. 'I want to keep cheating' is a different story.

[Marley23]

No one is perfect, and it's better to have a flawed evangelist fighting for healthy values than to have no one at all.
And thus "Do as I say, not as I do" is passed to another generation. I understand your point, but the people who support these 'flawed evangelists' have a habit of assuming people will pay attention to what the evangelists say and fail to notice that they fail to live up to those values.

[Marley23]

I say I don't know how much this stuff should really matter, but every time I read about either Gingrich's behavior during the Clinton impeachment or his own statements on the campaign trail over the years, I can't help thinking that this is something he should get tough questions about because he made it an issue himself.

[Starving Artist]

I think by and large people do pay attention attention. Take the Schwarzenegger analogy for example. People recognize the truth in the heathy lifestyle he promotes even if he doesn't adhere to it all the time himself. Same with Newt. Besides, I don't think Newt is so much trying to persuade nonbelievers of the benefit of family values as he is promising those who already believe in them that he will strive to promote those values in office once he's elected.

[Fiddle Peghead]

So, he plays the liberal media card and he seemed to do it pretty well.

I think Gingrich is a fundamentally profound (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/11/fundamentally-newt-gingrichs-favorite-word.html) jackass, but I'll agree with you here. He couldn't have answered it any better.

[Fear Itself]

If you honestly don't believe democrats don't do that just as much as the Republicans then either you haven't been paying much attention to politics or you've allowed your political beliefs to cloud your objectivity.If you think walking out on stage with your kids is the same as the family values plank in the Republican Party platform (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm), you are beyond reasonable debate.

[Fear Itself]

IBesides, I don't think Newt is so much trying to persuade nonbelievers of the benefit of family values as he is promising those who already believe in them that he will strive to promote those values in office once he's elected.And they should believe he supports marriage, because he has had more of them than any other candidate!

[Marley23]

I think by and large people do pay attention attention. Take the Schwarzenegger analogy for example. People recognize the truth in the heathy lifestyle he promotes even if he doesn't adhere to it all the time himself.
That's the difference between a general lifestyle like "eat healthy and exercise" and specific promises like "I won't cheat on my wife."

Same with Newt. Besides, I don't think Newt is so much trying to persuade people of the benefit of family values as he is promising those who already believe in them that he will strive to promote those values in office once he's elected.
Right, and I agree his supporters think he'd promote those values. He just hasn't had much interest in them himself, and that would tend to undermine his public support for them.

[brocks]

If you honestly don't believe democrats don't do that just as much as the Republicans then either you haven't been paying much attention to politics or you've allowed your political beliefs to cloud your objectivity.

And exactly how "objective" are you if you see no difference between having your family stand next to you for photo ops, and actively building your campaign around "the sanctity of marriage"?

[Starving Artist]

Right, and I agree his supporters think he'd promote those values. He just hasn't had much interest in them himself, and that would tend to undermine his public support for them.Oh, I don't know. I know that I certainly favor standards that I don't always abide by myself but still I'd fight for their adoption if I had the chance, and I think most people feel the same way themselves. Thus it isn't hard for those of us who support family values to think that Newt would strive to promote them even if he doesn't always abide by them himself.

Remember that he is pretty much preaching to the choir in this regard. Lots of family values conservatives feel they've largely been ignored by the politicians they've elected, and Newt is trying to let these people know that he will work to promote family values rather than abandon them in hopes of appealing to (or not alienating) other segments of the voter base.

[NDP]

I've heard it argued that Newt is a man of greater character and honesty than Bill Clinton because he at least asked his wife for an open marriage, which Clinton never did before cheating on his wife/committing perjury/getting disbarred. :D

Even if Clinton did do what Newt is said to have done, I doubt that would've mitigated anything with his enemies. In fact, news of that probably would've driven a mob of them to storm the White House and try to hang Clinton by the testicles.

[Marley23]

Thus it isn't hard for those of us who support family values to think that Newt would strive to promote them even if he doesn't always abide by them himself.
I'm not saying he wouldn't promote them. I'm saying the people who are being "promoted" to would notice that he doesn't care for those values very much himself.

Lots of family values conservatives feel they've largely been ignored by the politicians they've elected, and Newt is trying to let these people know that he will work to promote family values rather than abandon them in hopes of appealing to (or not alienating) other segments of the voter base.
I agree they have gotten less than they expected from a lot of "their" politicians. But it seems pretty stupid to expect Gingrich to be the one who breaks the pattern.

[Fear Itself]

Thus it isn't hard for those of us who support family values to think that Newt would strive to promote them even if he doesn't always abide by them himself.Would you allow a Democrat to get away with that with one of the left's core issues?

[Starving Artist]

I'm not saying he wouldn't promote them. I'm saying the people who are being "promoted" to would notice that he doesn't care for those values very much himself.Let me put this in blunt terms: they don't care! They want somebody in office who is fighting the political correctness that has turned our schools into liberal indoctrination centers and, as one poster here rather colorfully put it, liberal cuddle factories, and is turning us into a nation whose populace increasingly looks to a nanny state government to provide for its needs and protect it from the consequences of its irresponsible behavior. In short, Newt favors meritocracy, a strong and effective educational system, a strong work ethic and personal responsibility, and seems willing to stick to these principles in the face of politically correct insults and criticism. To many people these are the traits they are most interested in, and frankly, b if they can gat a candidate like that they aren't particularly interested in whether or not he cheated on his wife.

Would you allow a Democrat to get away with that with one of the left's core issues?Probably not, but then I wouldn't be voting for a Democrat in the first place (;)), just like you and most of Newt's detractors here likely wouldn't be voting for a Republican whether he was Newt or someone else.

[Fear Itself]

Probably not, but then I wouldn't be voting for a Democrat in the first place (;)), just like you and most of Newt's detractors here likely wouldn't be voting for a Republican whether he was Newt or someone else.Can we still mock Republicans who vote for someone who doesn't practice what he preaches?

[Ibn Warraq]

If you think walking out on stage with your kids is the same as the family values plank in the Republican Party platform (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm), you are beyond reasonable debate.

That's an exceptionally stupid comment.

You're grossly misrepresenting what I said.

You claimed that Republicans held themselves up as paragons of virtue.

you
Republicans hold themselves up as paragons for children to emulate.

I explained that Democratic politicians also presented themselves a paragons of virtue and use their families and personal lives to demonstrate this.

Me
If you honestly don't believe democrats don't do that just as much as the Republicans then either you haven't been paying much attention to politics or you've allowed your political beliefs to cloud your objectivity.

You'll notice that all politicians use their wives and kids as props and most love to tell stories of their upbringing or personal tragedies they've suffered to explain why they deserve to be elected to high office.

To use three obvious examples, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John Edwards.

You're now trying to shift the goal posts because I proved that your original post was very poorly argued.

[Ibn Warraq]

And exactly how "objective" are you if you see no difference between having your family stand next to you for photo ops, and actively building your campaign around "the sanctity of marriage"?

If I'd truly said that I saw no difference between having one's family stand next to one and building one's campaign around the sanctity of marriage then you'd have a point but I didn't so you don't.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Let me put this in blunt terms: they don't care!

In other words: they are hypocrites.

They want somebody in office who is fighting the political correctness that has turned our schools into liberal indoctrination centers and, as one poster here rather colorfully put it, liberal cuddle factories, and is turning us into a nation whose populace increasingly looks to a nanny state government to provide for its needs and protect it from the consequences of its irresponsible behavior. In short, Newt favors meritocracy, a strong and effective educational system, a strong work ethic and personal responsibility, and seems willing to stick to these principles in the face of politically correct insults and criticism.

I like how he stuck to his principals by resigning his House seat back in 1998. It's that kind of stick-to-it-tiveness that will carry him to, um, being a loser in this election cycle.

Still, he's already got US$5M from Sheldon Adelson to show for his efforts. That's more than he'd (legally) make as POTUS.

[Fear Itself]

If I'd truly said that I saw no difference between having one's family stand next to one and building one's campaign around the sanctity of marriage then you'd have a point but I didn't so you don't.Yeah, you did:
Clinton, like all politicians, went out of his way to portray himself as a happily-married family man and regularly put his wife and child in front of the cameras.


Now, no he didn't talk about family values to the extent that the Gores did, but all politicians to one extent or another tout famly values.


Why else do you think they always drag their wives/husbands along the campaign trail and put their kids on the platform with them.Same thing.

[Starving Artist]

Can we still mock Republicans who vote for someone who doesn't practice what he preaches?Well, we mocked NOW for its silence on Clinton so I don't see why not. ;)

[Snowboarder Bo]

Clinton, like all politicians, went out of his way to portray himself as a happily-married family man and regularly put his wife and child in front of the cameras.

You'll notice that all politicians use their wives and kids as props and most love to tell stories of their upbringing or personal tragedies they've suffered to explain why they deserve to be elected to high office.

Both of these statements are demonstrably false.

[Ibn Warraq]

Both of these statements are demonstrably false.

On second thought you're right, I shouldn't have said "all politicians" I should have said "virtually all politicians" since their are some politicians who aren't married and a very tiny, tiny number who don't drag around their families with them on the campaign trail.

I'm sure of course you wouldn't try and claim that such behavior is not overwhelmingly the norm for both Republican and Democratic politicians.

[Snowboarder Bo]

On second thought you're right, I shouldn't have said "all politicians" I should have said "virtually all politicians" since their are some politicians who aren't married and a very tiny, tiny number who don't drag around their families with them on the campaign trail.

I'm sure of course you wouldn't try and claim that such behavior is not overwhelmingly the norm for both Republican and Democratic politicians.

Even with the word "virtually" inserted, your statements are still demonstrably false.

[Snowboarder Bo]

What I was going to say is that not all politicians are male. And not all female politicians are lesbians (that they would have wives).

[Ibn Warraq]

Yeah, you did:
Same thing.

No I didn't and no it's not.

The quote you've provided most certainly does not equate "having one's family stand next to one and building one's campaign around the sanctity of marriage" as anyone with adequate reading comprehension skills can tell.

In fact, you only brought up the idea of "building one's campaign around the sanctity of marriage" after I showed that you initially implied that it was only the Republicans who set themselves up as moral paragons.

[Ibn Warraq]

Even with the word "virtually" inserted, your statements are still demonstrably false.

Then demonstrate it.

If you're going to accuse someone of saying something "demonstrably false" you should be able to prove it.

[Ibn Warraq]

What I was going to say is that not all politicians are male. And not all female politicians are lesbians (that they would have wives).

Ah, I see.

You thought you were being clever.

Next time I'd recommend reading all the posts in a conversation before engaging in nitpicking.

You'll notice in post 84, the first relevant one in the discussion I said:

Why else do you think they always drag their wives/husbands along the campaign trail and put their kids on the platform with them.

[Fear Itself]

In fact, you only brought up the idea of "building one's campaign around the sanctity of marriage" after I showed that you initially implied that it was only the Republicans who set themselves up as moral paragons.Excuse me? I never introduced "the sanctity of marriage", though I responded after you mentioned it. As usual, you are confused.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Oh, I don't know. I know that I certainly favor standards that I don't always abide by myself but still I'd fight for their adoption if I had the chance, and I think most people feel the same way themselves. Thus it isn't hard for those of us who support family values to think that Newt would strive to promote them even if he doesn't always abide by them himself.
I profoundly object to this. I support family values far more than Gingrich does, inasmuch as unlike Gingrich I support gay marriage and adoption, and also unlike Gingrich I support marrying someone for life and not cheating. And it's very hard for me to think that a man like Gingrich, who cheats on his wife while moralizing about another man cheating on his wife, would do anything useful to promote the family values that are so important to me.

[Marley23]

Let me put this in blunt terms: they don't care!
I understand that. My point is that they're encouraging hypocrisy from politicians: they've said over and over that they'll vote for someone who talks the talk. To that end they're also behaving like dupes (and they wonder why they keep getting disappointed). OK, so Newt gets elected and supports programs that are "moral" and "pro-family." How much does that accomplish? Anyone who looks at him knows he only believes in those things as long as it's convenient. Doesn't that actually teach people a lesson about how to get away with saying one thing and doing another? I don't think that's going to lead to a big uptick in moral behavior.

[SenorBeef]

And of course family values voters are going to support a candidate who espouses those values even if he falls short of them himself in one way or another. Would you be dissmissive of Arnold Swarzenegger as a spokesman for healthy lifestyles simply because he smokes the occasional cigar?

A closer analogy might be that Arnold Schwarzenneger in this scenario is actually a fat blob with twinkie goo running down his chin at all times, yet also promotes himself to a blind audience as a paragon of health. And then he saw someone else caught smoking a cigar and then went apeshit talking about how smoking a cigar is the worst thing you can do and makes you unfit to be a leader, and there should be dire consequences.

Then, years later, when pictures of him smoking a cigar comes out, he gets the righteous indignation to declare that anyone who thinks smoking a cigar is a noteworthy issue should be ashamed.

[Ibn Warraq]

Excuse me? I never introduced "the sanctity of marriage", though I responded after you mentioned it. As usual, you are confused.

Actually it was brocks that mentioned it.

You're the one who began by making the rather foolish comment

You
Republicans hold themselves up as paragons for children to emulate.

Which clearly implies that Republicans hold themselves up a moral paragons more than Democrats do.

I pointed out this was complete bullshit by making the argument that no reasonable person could argue with other than for the gender-specific terms.

Me
You'll notice that all politicians use their wives and kids as props and most love to tell stories of their upbringing or personal tragedies they've suffered to explain why they deserve to be elected to high office.

To use three obvious examples, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John Edwards.

You then tried to shift the goal posts declaring:

You
If you think walking out on stage with your kids is the same as the family values plank in the Republican Party platform, you are beyond reasonable debate.

You furthermore tried to double-down on the goalposts shifting by asserting that since I said:

Me
Clinton, like all politicians, went out of his way to portray himself as a happily-married family man and regularly put his wife and child in front of the cameras.


Now, no he didn't talk about family values to the extent that the Gores did, but all politicians to one extent or another tout famly values.


Why else do you think they always drag their wives/husbands along the campaign trail and put their kids on the platform with them.

Which you insisted was tantamount to claiming that I "saw no difference between having one's family stand next to one and building one's campaign around the sanctity of marriage".

Sorry, but you made a very poorly thought out argument and when I pointed out the error you've decided to lash out at me, engage in personal attacks, misrepresent what I said, and act as if you said something different than what you initially did.

[Marley23]

The quote you've provided most certainly does not equate "having one's family stand next to one and building one's campaign around the sanctity of marriage" as anyone with adequate reading comprehension skills can tell.

As usual, you are confused.

Both of you please tone it down.

[Fear Itself]

Which clearly implies that Republicans hold themselves up a moral paragons more than Democrats do.They do. Regularly.

[Ibn Warraq]

They do. Regularly.

Er, that's what I said.

They both do.

[Zakalwe]

In short, Newt favors meritocracy, a strong and effective educational system, a strong work ethic and personal responsibility, and seems willing to stick to these principles in the face of politically correct insults and criticism.Cite for the two bolded items? With specifics please.

[Fear Itself]

Er, that's what I said.

They both do.Republicans do it far more often. Clear on that now?

[Ibn Warraq]

Republicans do it far more often. Clear on that now?

No they don't.

Republicans are more likely to be strongly opposed to gay rights but that's hardly the same thing.

[Fear Itself]

No they don't.Yes they do. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Ibn Warraq]

Yes they do. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Repeating something doesn't make it true.

Perhaps you can provide some evidence for your assertion.

[Fear Itself]

Why should I be held to a standard you haven't met?

[Little Nemo]

Well, we mocked NOW for its silence on Clinton so I don't see why not. ;)Did NOW have a public stance against adultery? As far as I know, their platform is equal rights for women - so if Clinton was advancing that cause, NOW had no reason to denounce him on other issues.

Gingrich is different. He has advanced the principle that personal failings - like adultery - indicate a person is unfit for political office. So by his own standards, he is unfit for political office. So how do we know this is the only personal standard he is willing to break? How can we trust he won't lie if he was President? How can we trust that he won't take bribes if he was President? How can we trust that he won't break the law if he was President? How can we trust he won't commit treason if he was President? Gingrich, by his own words and actions, has shown he does not consider himself bound by any moral code, even his own.

[IntelliQ]

The opening debate question was puerile and out of place. I watched the CNN panel afterwards and even most of them thought so too.

If you substitute the names of the primary candidates with democrats, the type of bug-eyed exclamations posted here remind me of the substance and tone of the stuff Ive seen on FreeRepublic.

It's strange to see people who claim logic and fairness as their primary moving force in life, dive off a cliff when talking about politics. (This is also evident by looking at the section of this site following up on Cecil's column about the IQ of red vs blue states.)

[Argent Towers]

A closer analogy might be that Arnold Schwarzenneger in this scenario is actually a fat blob with twinkie goo running down his chin at all times, yet also promotes himself to a blind audience as a paragon of health. And then he saw someone else caught smoking a cigar and then went apeshit talking about how smoking a cigar is the worst thing you can do and makes you unfit to be a leader, and there should be dire consequences.

Then, years later, when pictures of him smoking a cigar comes out, he gets the righteous indignation to declare that anyone who thinks smoking a cigar is a noteworthy issue should be ashamed.

Right. And of course he smoked the cigar out of love for America!

[Marley23]

That really was one of the most grandiose excuses in the history of politics. Nevermind the dismissal of multiple affairs as only "inappropriate," even your typical ethically deprived politician doesn't have the stones to say he cheated on two wives because he loves his country so much.

[SenorBeef]

The opening debate question was puerile and out of place. I watched the CNN panel afterwards and even most of them thought so too.

If you substitute the names of the primary candidates with democrats, the type of bug-eyed exclamations posted here remind me of the substance and tone of the stuff Ive seen on FreeRepublic.

It's strange to see people who claim logic and fairness as their primary moving force in life, dive off a cliff when talking about politics. (This is also evident by looking at the section of this site following up on Cecil's column about the IQ of red vs blue states.)

Who's doing this specifically? Quote your posts and finds flaws in them.

The idea that holding a guy accountable for being a blatant hypocrite makes us the same as free republic is obnoxious.

Let's see these "bug-eyed exclamations" that are the equivelant of freepers. Let's see this supposed lack of logic and fairness. Examples and arguments please.

[Boyo Jim]

That really was one of the most grandiose excuses in the history of politics. Nevermind the dismissal of multiple affairs as only "inappropriate," even your typical ethically deprived politician doesn't have the stones to say he cheated on two wives because he loves his country so much.

Even less believable than the captain of the Concordia claiming he tripped and fell into a life boat and left the ship by accident.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Ah, I see.

You thought you were being clever.

Next time I'd recommend reading all the posts in a conversation before engaging in nitpicking.

You'll notice in post 84, the first relevant one in the discussion I said:

And you prolly thought you weren't being sexist.

There's a word for what you now say you meant: spouses.

[Gagundathar]

Even less believable than the captain of the Concordia claiming he tripped and fell into a life boat and left the ship by accident.

Oh dear OG, this is so great I am going to save it.
Very clear and to the heart of the problem.


We used to call this "The Big Lie" strategy.
If you say something that is utterly absurd and say it often enough, a significant amount of people are going to look at their TVs and say "Wow, that's weird. But you know... it make sense." and come away believing.
This is one of the reasons we have this odd 33-33-33 mixture in USA politics. It is just human nature for some folks to just believe stuff they hear.

I am not certain how we are supposed to 'solve' this weakness in the system.
Maybe we should just leave it for our children to do so.

[Windsong]

Maybe that's why the 1% are acting like such buttheads -- even subconsciously -- because it serves as a stimulus to wake up the rest of us to do what needs doing to make positive changes that will benefit the majority.

Oh dear OG, this is so great I am going to save it.
Very clear and to the heart of the problem.


We used to call this "The Big Lie" strategy.
If you say something that is utterly absurd and say it often enough, a significant amount of people are going to look at their TVs and say "Wow, that's weird. But you know... it make sense." and come away believing.
This is one of the reasons we have this odd 33-33-33 mixture in USA politics. It is just human nature for some folks to just believe stuff they hear.

I am not certain how we are supposed to 'solve' this weakness in the system.
Maybe we should just leave it for our children to do so.

[Ibn Warraq]

And you prolly thought you weren't being sexist.

There's a word for what you now say you meant: spouses.

My mother was the Chair of the English Department at her High School.

I'm familiar with the term "spouse". I didn't use it because it struck me as rather clinical.

[foolsguinea]

This wasn't quite the change I expected, but we aren't in a nuclear exchange with anyone, nobody has invaded us, women are still allowed to decide if they want to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy, our civil rights haven't been breached by any NEW law.

Heh
sigh

At Least It Isn't Raining (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CueTheRain)
.And That's Terrible.

No, really, central North America has been in drought for most of the last eight months.

[joebuck20]

Right. And of course he smoked the cigar out of love for America!

Well, you wouldn't want to know where that cigar's been.

[Steve MB]

I've heard it argued that Newt is a man of greater character and honesty than Bill Clinton because he at least asked his wife for an open marriage, which Clinton never did before cheating on his wife/committing perjury/getting disbarred.

You should stop listening to whatever moron you heard this argument from, then. Asking for a rule change after you've already broken the existing rules shows less character and honesty than simply breaking the rules -- the former includes the latter, with the additional aggravating factor of excuse-making.

I know that I certainly favor standards that I don't always abide by myself

Everyone who is surprised by this fact, raise your lower right hand.

[Marley23]

I've heard it argued that Newt is a man of greater character and honesty than Bill Clinton because he at least asked his wife for an open marriage, which Clinton never did before cheating on his wife/committing perjury/getting disbarred. :D
I think this was discussed upthread, but in case it wasn't: the "open marriage" conversation was between Gingrich and his second wife, Marianne. He had an affair with her while still married to his first wife (the one who had cancer), and at the time of the "open marriage" discussion, he was already cheating on Marianne with Callista, to whom he is now married. The point of the conversation (as Marianne recalls it) was that he wanted to continue a relationship with Callista, who was evidently pretty openminded and didn't care if he saw other women, while Marianne evidently wanted him all to herself - which he didn't consider satisfactory. So what he asked for, if her story is accurate, was explicit permission to continue the affair without getting divorced. It wasn't a conversation ahead of time and an offer to end the affair doesn't seem to have been on the table. I think even a very deluded Gingrich supporter would struggle to find any character or honesty there.

[Czarcasm]

I think even a very deluded Gingrich supporter would struggle to find any character or honesty there.You can still say that after reading through these threads? I'm not seeing much struggling.

[Little Nemo]

I've heard it argued that Newt is a man of greater character and honesty than Bill Clinton because he at least asked his wife for an open marriage, which Clinton never did before cheating on his wife/committing perjury/getting disbarred.I assume you heard this argument when you were reading one of your posts out loud.

[kaylasdad99]

So Gingrich should not be President because he cheated on his wife and lied about it?
No. He shouldn't be President because he's a Republican.

[Accidental Martyr]

Psychiatrist on Fox News says Gingrich's infidelity might make him a better president.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/21/keith-ablow-fox-news-newt-gingrich-marriages_n_1220761.html

[Damuri Ajashi]

The OP assumes that an ex-wife would have no reason to try and undermine Gingrich-- that her version is correct. But the fact is, we have two people giving conflicting narratives. Gingrich offers up people who are close to him and know what he's like to validate his narrative.

Can anyone not realize that many, many Americans will sympathize with a person dealing with the vindictiveness of an ex-spouse?

And how many will sympathize with a woman whose husband left for a younger woman.

There is a first person account from a campaign manager of Newt where the manager is walking Newt's two young daughters toward a car he sees Newt in. He gets close enough to see Newt is receiving a blowjob from a staffer in the front seat. Newt sees them approaching and gives his manager a thumbs up sign and smiles without trying to stop for the girls (who were presumably too short to see the action).

cite please.

I'm with John Mace, Ibn Warraq and jtgain here. He fully admits to failing WRT having affairs. But what he says didn't happen was that he asked his wife for an open marriage, the point being that if he had she surely would have voiced her displeasure to their mutual friends, family, etc. He's simply saying they would know so check with them and they'll confirm that it's the first they've heard about it. Conclusion: manufactured by the ex wife.

And you think she shared them with Gingrich's daughters from his first wife? The one he left for this woman?

Based on the 20 second clip they keep showing everywhere, I don't think Gingrich was asking her for an "open marriage". She used that term, but it sounds like he was just saying, "Either leave or quit your bitching."

Yeah, I agree that Gingrich wasn't asking his wife to be a swinger. He was asking his wife to accept his infidelity. WTF do you think an open marriage is, if it isn't one where you accept each other's infidelity.

The guy has a track record. He has close associates who have stated for the record what an asshole he was to his first wife. He claims she wanted the divorce, but the court documents show that she fought it, so he is a proven liar about that (and is still lying about it).

cite? I have also heard that his first wife wanted the divorce (presumably because of the cheating)

No I didn't and no it's not.

Well, it certainly seems like you are failing to understand why it is more hypocritical for a "conservative" "family values" candidate to cheat on his first wife and then cheat again on his second wife than it is for someone who is not a conservative family values candidate.

What strikes me as odd is that someone like Clinton and Weiner gets crucified when they cheat on their wives while Gingrich becomes a leading candidate for the Republican nomination.

Why should I be held to a standard you haven't met?

I bet Clinton was wondering the same thing.

I am not certain how we are supposed to 'solve' this weakness in the system.
Maybe we should just leave it for our children to do so.

Or we could make lying about material facts by public officials and candidates a crime or at least sanctionable by the FEC.

[BrainGlutton]

No. He shouldn't be President because he's a Republican.

This. We haven't had a decent Pub POTUS since Eisenhower, and he was practically apolitical.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

I don't know why all you people are attacking Mr. Gingrich for his infidelities. No matter what he has done in the past, his family values are better than the current white house occupant. At least Mr Gingrich is a Christian.














Heh.

[Starving Artist]

This. We haven't had a decent Pub POTUS since Eisenhower, and he was practically apolitical.Except, you mean, for Nixon, who was in point of fact an excellent and popular president (see '72 landslide referendum on his first term in office) prior to the press, after decades of effort, successfully hounding him from office. And except for Ronald Reagan, arguably the best and most effective and most inspirational president of the 20th century. And except for Bush 1, an Eisenhower-esque president apart from kicking Hussein's ass out of Kuwait. And except for GWB, who, unlike his predecessor, did a superb job of protecting us from terrorists, and whose defeat of Hussein and subsequent liberation of Iraq very likely played an initial, catalytic role in the Arab Spring uprisings which have occurred since.

Other than for those guys, though, you're right. No decent pubbies since the one famous for doing nothing - which of course speaks volumes as to your definition of decency in Republican presidents. A definition which, curiously enough, mirrors my own with regard to Democrat presidents and explains my relative lack of complaint about Barack Obama. ;)

[SenorBeef]

Did you just Poe's Law yourself?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Other than for those guys, though, you're right. No decent pubbies since the one famous for doing nothing - which of course speaks volumes as to your definition of decency in Republican presidents. A definition which, curiously enough, mirrors my own with regard to Democrat presidents and explains my relative lack of complaint about Barack Obama. ;)

Yes, yes… the SDMB is always abuzz with talk about your relative lack.

:p

[Gagundathar]

Did Starving Artist just present Nixon as an excellent President?
Does he do these kind of things just to get a rise from people?

[BrainGlutton]

Except, you mean, for Nixon, who was in point of fact an excellent and popular president (see '72 landslide referendum on his first term in office) prior to the press, after decades of effort, successfully hounding him from office.

He did that by cheating. Specifically, CREEP successfully sabotaged the primary campaigns of all Dem presidential contenders but McGovern, who was judged easiest to beat. (Watergate was only the tail-end of this.) You can read the story in Nixonland, (http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/0743243021) by Rick Perlstein. You can also read how private-citizen-lawyer Nixon sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks from behind the scenes in early 1968, just so the Vietnam War would still be there as an issue for him to run against in November. He wasn't just a bad POTUS, he was a bad person.

And except for Ronald Reagan, arguably the best and most effective and most inspirational president of the 20th century.

:mad: Tear Down This Myth! (http://www.amazon.com/Tear-Down-This-Myth-Right-Wing/dp/1416597638/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327179927&sr=1-1)

And except for Bush 1, an Eisenhower-esque president apart from kicking Hussein's ass out of Kuwait.

And he got only one term why?

And except for GWB, who, unlike his predecessor, did a superb job of protecting us from terrorists . . .

:rolleyes: No, he did a far worse job than Clinton in that particular regard, actually. Just by ignoring his briefings.

[Raygun99]

To paraphrase the Simpsons:
Nixon: "Why are you considering me a bad President? Oh, right, all that stuff I did."

[Little Nemo]

And except for GWB, who, unlike his predecessor, did a superb job of protecting us from terroristsCan you explain the logic here? There were more people killed by terrorists in America during Bush's administration than there were during Clinton's. In fact, there were more people killed by terrorists in America during Bush's administration then there were during every other President's administration - combined. So of the forty-three Presidents we've had, Bush seems to be a clear lock on 43rd place as far as protecting us from terrorists.

[Snowboarder Bo]

And except for GWB, who, unlike his predecessor, did a superb job of protecting us from terrorists, and whose defeat of Hussein and subsequent liberation of Iraq very likely played an initial, catalytic role in the Arab Spring uprisings which have occurred since.

By "protecting us from terrorists" did you mean "being in charge while terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people"?

[Boyo Jim]

By "protecting us from terrorists" did you mean "being in charge while terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people"?

Correct, and don't forget about shutting down the Pentagon team tasked with hunting bin Laden. I know I was grateful for that additional protection.

[Boyo Jim]

... and whose defeat of Hussein and subsequent liberation of Iraq very likely played an initial, catalytic role in the Arab Spring uprisings which have occurred since. ...

I would like to see ANY cite that suggests this.

[brocks]

cite? I have also heard that his first wife wanted the divorce (presumably because of the cheating)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html

The above article has links to the original court documents in PDF form, which clearly show that Jackie contested the divorce, although she evidently accepted the reality that he no longer loved her. So it seems that Newt asked the wrong woman for an open marriage.

It also reports something I hadn't heard before --- that Newt was also a deadbeat dad, to the point where the local church had a food drive to help out Jackie and the kids. And multi-millionaire Newt, who drops a half million on Callista's jewelry without batting an eye, is apparently enjoying a 1994 agreement that he suckered Jackie into, which prevents her from requesting an increase in the $1650/month alimony he pays her.

[brocks]

By "protecting us from terrorists" did you mean "being in charge while terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people"?

As every idiot knows, Bush's term began on Sept 12, 2001.

[Ibn Warraq]

By "protecting us from terrorists" did you mean "being in charge while terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people"?

I'm sorry but blaming Bush for 911 is asinine.

The hijackers were already in the US and the plan was already well on the way to completion.

If there was a time when it could have been stopped it would have been before they got onto US soil. Forget all the security crap at airports. That's just PR that only stops the complete amateurs.

That said, I'm not blaming Clinton either for 911, nor for that matter would I blame him for the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers bombing, or the bombing of the US embassies in Africa.

I'm sure we'd like to live in a world free of terrorist attacks on American targets but that's a fantasy world.

[Starving Artist]

By "protecting us from terrorists" did you mean "being in charge while terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people"?No, I mean by making sure that no other attacks planned, financed and trained for while Bill Clinton was in office gutting our intelligence services and making deliberate decisions not to go after bin Laden when he had the chance for reasons of political expediency, succeeded, and that none planned or attempted afterward were successful either. And of course Bush made sure that no Iraqi WMD found its way into al Qaeda hands as well. In short: Good Job, GWB!/dereliction of duty, Bill Clinton!

But you guys know all this. It's been talked about here dozens if not hundreds of times before. Thus your seeming confusion over the meaning behind GWB's protecting the country from terrorist attack seems rather...disingenuous.

[brocks]

I'm sorry but blaming Bush for 911 is asinine.


It's a lot less asinine than claiming he protected us from terrorists and made us safer. And before you ask, my cite is the same as yours.

[brocks]

But you guys know all this.

I think what you mean to say is that we've heard it before. It's just as funny now as it was the first time.

[Starving Artist]

And yet, somehow, you aren't laughing. ;)

[BrainGlutton]

I'm sorry but blaming Bush for 911 is asinine.

Not nearly so asinine as asserting that W, "unlike his predecessor, did a superb job of protecting us from terrorists."

[brocks]

And yet, somehow, you aren't laughing. ;)

Correct. It's funny in a very sad way.

[Ibn Warraq]

It's a lot less asinine than claiming he protected us from terrorists and made us safer. And before you ask, my cite is the same as yours.

I never said he did and there's nothing in my post that would give any reasonable person reason to think that he did.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I'm sorry but blaming Bush for 911 is asinine.

Did I say he was to blame? Can you quote me saying that? Or is this just another thing you made up in order to "win" an argument? If you can't quote me saying he was to blame, apologize or shut the fuck up.

[Gagundathar]

OK.

Back to Newt.

Do any of you think he has a reasonable shot for the candidacy?

[BrainGlutton]

OK.

Back to Newt.

Do any of you think he has a reasonable shot for the candidacy?

He won't survive Super Tuesday.

[Little Nemo]

No, I mean by making sure that no other attacks planned, financed and trained for while Bill Clinton was in office gutting our intelligence services and making deliberate decisions not to go after bin Laden when he had the chance for reasons of political expediency, succeeded, and that none planned or attempted afterward were successful either. And of course Bush made sure that no Iraqi WMD found its way into al Qaeda hands as well. In short: Good Job, GWB!/dereliction of duty, Bill Clinton!

But you guys know all this. It's been talked about here dozens if not hundreds of times before. Thus your seeming confusion over the meaning behind GWB's protecting the country from terrorist attack seems rather...disingenuous.So terrorist attacks that occurred during the Clinton administration were Clinton's responsibility and terrorist attacks that occurred during the Bush administration were not Bush's responsibility.

And Bush deserves credit for all the terrorist attacks that didn't occur during his Presidency. Even though there were fewer terrorist attacks during everyone else's Presidency.

And Bush deserves credit for the fact that Iraq didn't have WMDs. Even though he claimed they did have WMDs.

All this truthiness shouldn't obscure the real issues. Don't forget that during Clinton's Presidency the Earth was not conquered by aliens that blew up all our cities, stole all our women, and ate all of our household pets. I think we'd all agree that would have been the worst disaster in human history if it had occurred. So the non-events of the Clinton administration dwarf the non-events of the Bush administration.

[Ibn Warraq]

No, I mean by making sure that no other attacks planned, financed and trained for while Bill Clinton was in office gutting our intelligence services and making deliberate decisions not to go after bin Laden when he had the chance for reasons of political expediency, succeeded, and that none planned or attempted afterward were successful either. And of course Bush made sure that no Iraqi WMD found its way into al Qaeda hands as well. In short: Good Job, GWB!/dereliction of duty, Bill Clinton!

That's a fairly gross misrepresentation of the facts. Amongst other things there were no WMDs in Iraq and while Clinton and the Clinton team did make many glaring errors in the 90s to accuse them of dereliction of duty is outrageous.

Lots of US military leaders have made errors in every war but we don't accuse them of "dereliction of duty".

I'd recommend reading The Looming Tower: Al Quaeda and the Road to 911.

Yes, there were many errors made during that time and frankly too many of the US intelligence agencies had empty suits in positions they shouldn't have been in, but that's not the same as accusing Bill Clinton of dereliction of duty, which is a crime.

[brocks]

Don't forget that during Clinton's Presidency the Earth was not conquered by aliens that blew up all our cities, stole all our women, and ate all of our household pets. I think we'd all agree that would have been the worst disaster in human history if it had occurred.

[Steve Martin] What are you talking about? Don't you remember when after that happened, we had to abandon the planet? And the smart people figured a way to move us all to a new planet without telling the dumb people so they wouldn't panic.... Oh.
[/Steve Martin]

[Ibn Warraq]

Not nearly so asinine as asserting that W, "unlike his predecessor, did a superb job of protecting us from terrorists."

I think both statements were extremely foolish.

[Gagundathar]

He won't survive Super Tuesday.

Who, in your opinion, will?

[brocks]

...while Clinton and the Clinton team did make many glaring errors in the 90s to accuse them of dereliction of duty is outrageous.

I agree with your conclusion. Could you cite some examples of your premise?

[Ibn Warraq]

Did I say he was to blame? Can you quote me saying that? Or is this just another thing you made up in order to "win" an argument? If you can't quote me saying he was to blame, apologize or shut the fuck up.

What you said was:

By "protecting us from terrorists" did you mean "being in charge while terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people"?

Most people would certainly think that at the very least you were implying that Bush's negligence was responsible.

[BrainGlutton]

Who, in your opinion, will?

Romney. Get it over with, already.

[brocks]

Most people would certainly think that at the very least you were implying that Bush's negligence was responsible.

I saw no such implication. He merely disputed, correctly, that Bush protected us from that terrorist incident.

[Starving Artist]

Yes, there were many errors made during that time and frankly too many of the US intelligence agencies had empty suits in positions they shouldn't have been in, but that's not the same as accusing Bill Clinton of dereliction of duty, which is a crime.Clinton, subsequent to various al Qeada attacks on U.S. targets, was given knowledge of bin Laden's whereabouts and had the ability to strike and kill him, but instead made the conscious decision not to do so because his advisors felt there would be negative political consequences. In my opinion putting personal political capital ahead of your sworn duty to protect the country rises to the level of dereliction of duty.

[Lobohan]

Clinton, subsequent to various al Qeada attacks on U.S. targets, was given knowledge of bin Laden's whereabouts and had the ability to strike and kill him, but instead made the conscious decision not to do so because his advisors felt there would be negative political consequences. In my opinion putting personal political capital ahead of your sworn duty to protect the country rises to the level of dereliction of duty.Yeah, you are repeating right-wing misinformation there.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

[Measure for Measure]

This. We haven't had a decent Pub POTUS since Eisenhower, and he was practically apolitical. No. That. Half of the Congressional Republicans are insane and the other half are scared of being primaried by a crazy. Look at the inability of them to pass substantial legislation this year. The founding fathers designed the system for consultation and compromise: when the base demands posturing and hissy fits the system becomes dysfunctional.

Setting aside Starving Artist's highly dubious claims that all deficit-loving Republican Presidents since Nixon are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings every known to man, you could make a case that Bush I made some sound decisions. These include fighting the deficit with tax increases, encasing Saddam Hussein without sinking America into a quagmire and signing the Clean Air Act.

The problem today is that no Republican President would dare govern from the center: if he did, the swamps would go nuts. So a vote for a Republican is a vote for long term fiscal irresponsibility. Remember: all Republican candidates for President said they would veto a deficit plan that was gamed 10:1 in favor of spending cuts. And Romney plans to cut taxes deeper than GWBush.

[Little Nemo]

Actually I think Ford was a good President. Not a great one but he had to deal with a lot of serious crises during his administration and he handled them responsibly.

[Martin Hyde]

I think that a man with Newt Gingrich's background comes off very hypocritical in all this, but I also think he's right in general. It is honestly a sign of how flawed a wide franchise is, or even a significantly large franchise is. People aren't interested in real issues and never have been. Most voters decide on who to support either through historical party affiliation or vague "likability" and then they justify their support by adjusting to whatever things their chosen candidates does or believes throughout the campaign. It's embarrassing that for many Americans part of the "likability" metric is based on things like whether or not the candidate hunts or fishes, whether they've cheated on their wife, whether they've done cocaine in college, or whether or not they go to church regularly.

I would disagree with Newt for blaming the media though, the media don't create interest in trivialities, the media is a for profit bunch who cover and report on what the trash that is the majority of the public are interested in. Most of the higher up media types are well educated and wealthy people who probably internally roll their eyes at the inane garbage they have to report on to satisfy the trailer park or HUD house crowd that make up a large portion of their viewership; but business is business and they have to do what they have to do to attract viewers.

[Robot Arm]

Setting aside Starving Artist's highly dubious claims that all deficit-loving Republican Presidents since Nixon are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings every known to man,...That is a slanderous mischaracterization of what Starving Artist said. How dare you!



He left out Ford entirely.

C'mon, Starv, Ford was a Republican. He must have done something amazing.

[Gagundathar]

Romney. Get it over with, already.

Yeah, I agree. And he will lose in about a 55% to 45% contest to Mr Obama
With probably a 65% / 35% electoral vote decision.

What really matters is what happens in the House and Senate.

None of us are talking about that.

[Windsong]

I think it's likely there are some registered Republicans who are actually people that don't like any of the GOP possibilities. AND they're voting for the one they think doesn't have the chance of a fart in a whirlwind against Obama.

OK.

Back to Newt.

Do any of you think he has a reasonable shot for the candidacy?

[BrainGlutton]

What really matters is what happens in the House and Senate.

None of us are talking about that.

Done (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=639289) and done. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=639290) Start your engines!

[Gagundathar]

I think it's likely there are some registered Republicans who are actually people that don't like any of the GOP possibilities. AND they're voting for the one they think doesn't have the chance of a fart in a whirlwind against Obama.

Nice strategy.
I assume they are doing so in places where you don't have to register your party alliance.

OBTW, Hi.

[Windsong]

The current slate of nincompoops make Nixon look like a saint. He was a crook, but he looked rather amateur by comparison.


Did Starving Artist just present Nixon as an excellent President?
Does he do these kind of things just to get a rise from people?

[Windsong]

I mean, seriously... surely there are some ethical Republican voters out there, eh?

OK.

Back to Newt.

Do any of you think he has a reasonable shot for the candidacy?

[kaylasdad99]

Actually I think Ford was a good President. Not a great one but he had to deal with a lot of serious crises during his administration and he handled them responsibly.Nah. He should have saved the Nixon pardon for the week after Dick reported for any prison sentence he was handed.

[Windsong]

OBTW, Hi.

AM NOT!! :p

[Windsong]

I've told several of my friends and relatives who want to continuously bitch about Obama, that he does NOT make legislation, he only signs it... or not. Where they need to start is by pruning the House and Senate.

Yeah, I agree. And he will lose in about a 55% to 45% contest to Mr Obama
With probably a 65% / 35% electoral vote decision.

What really matters is what happens in the House and Senate.

None of us are talking about that.

[Fear Itself]

NBC has just projected Gingrich as the winner in South Carolina.

[Snowboarder Bo]

What you said was:



Most people would certainly think that at the very least you were implying that Bush's negligence was responsible.

You are avoiding the question. You are inserting your own words into my mouth (or into my writing, if you prefer).

Again: did I say that Bush was to blame?

If the answer is no, admit it and apologize.

[Frank]

And of course Bush made sure that no Iraqi WMD found its way into al Qaeda hands as well.
What WMDs did Iraq have?

You do recall that we invaded Iraq and found no WMDs. Don't you?

[BrainGlutton]

And of course Bush made sure that no Iraqi WMD found its way into al Qaeda hands as well.

Remarkably easy, considering.

[Ibn Warraq]

You are avoiding the question. You are inserting your own words into my mouth (or into my writing, if you prefer).

Again: did I say that Bush was to blame?

If the answer is no, admit it and apologize.

Sigh,

based on your reasoning after your post in which you demanded I apologize or "shut the fuck up" I could have demanded you show where in post 167(the post which angered you) that I said you blamed Bush for 911.

I could have simply said, "Show me where I said you blamed Bush or specified that you were the one who blamed Bush for 911. I merely said that 'It's asinine to blame Bush for 911.' I never said you were one of those people."

However, I didn't do it because that would have been an example of pedantry and hair-splitting which doesn't impress anyone.

In reality I made a statement that would cause most people to assume that I believed that you'd blamed Bush for 911 and you made a statement who's tone certainly very strongly suggested that somehow Bush's conduct as President was responsible for 911.

If the answer is no, admit it and apologize.

No, I have nothing to apologize for. You made a statement which strongly implied that Bush's conduct as President was somehow responsible for 911 occurring and I also have not accused you of bigotry nor have I told you to "shut the fuck up."

Anyway, I don't see why you're still arguing this point.

[Ibn Warraq]

Remarkably easy, considering.

You'll also notice that under his watch Al Quaeda never managed to get ahold of the Ark of the Covenant.

[BrainGlutton]

You'll also notice that under his watch Al Quaeda never managed to get ahold of the Ark of the Covenant.

The Ethiopians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Our_Lady_Mary_of_Zion) have that.

[Ibn Warraq]

The Ethiopians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Our_Lady_Mary_of_Zion) have that.

True, but under George Bush's watch was Osama able to get his hands on the Shroud of Turin?

[Gagundathar]

I personally warrant that was ONLY the Obama presidency that prevented the rise of Cthulhu.
Stop mocking the power of the magick man!
:smack:

[SenorBeef]

Guys, please, don't let SA troll you like this. He didn't even put any effort into it. He's rusty. He basically just said "Okay, what ridiculous shit would SA write here? Let's make it almost seem like a Poe's law parody..... hmm.... praise Nixon and GWB!"

Seriously, at least make him make an effort to hijack a thread. This attempt was lazy and pathetic. Back to Gingrich.

[kaylasdad99]

Guys, please, don't let SA troll you like this. He didn't even put any effort into it. He's rusty. He basically just said "Okay, what ridiculous shit would SA write here? Let's make it almost seem like a Poe's law parody..... hmm.... praise Nixon and GWB!"
And whatever else you do, please stop live-quoting him.

[Marley23]

Or is this just another thing you made up in order to "win" an argument? If you can't quote me saying he was to blame, apologize or shut the fuck up.
Guys, please, don't let SA troll you like this.
Both of you are out of line here. Posts like this aren't appropriate for a debate forum. If you have to make them, do it in the Pit.

[IntelliQ]

I've told several of my friends and relatives who want to continuously bitch about Obama, that he does NOT make legislation, he only signs it... or not. Where they need to start is by pruning the House and Senate.

We already pruned congress by ending the democrat super-majority. Rubber stamping by the President on bills that no one knew what was in it - ended a year ago.

[Little Nemo]

Nah. He should have saved the Nixon pardon for the week after Dick reported for any prison sentence he was handed.No, I think in the long run he made the right decision in pardoning Nixon. Not because Nixon deserved a pardon but because the Watergate situation had become an American version of the Dreyfuss Affair - the country had divided up into two sides and each side was determined to beat the other. Ford just decided that punishing Nixon wasn't worth the cost of breaking the country in half. Rather than let one side win and one side lose - which would have been a major blow to American society either way - he cancelled the game.

[Boyo Jim]

No, I think in the long run he made the right decision in pardoning Nixon. Not because Nixon deserved a pardon but because the Watergate situation had become an American version of the Dreyfuss Affair - the country had divided up into two sides and each side was determined to beat the other. Ford just decided that punishing Nixon wasn't worth the cost of breaking the country in half. Rather than let one side win and one side lose - which would have been a major blow to American society either way - he cancelled the game.

I believed this until pretty recently. But the country has broken in half anyway. Ind in more recent years, it seems more and more powerful people (and institutions) are getting let off the hook with a slap on the wrist, a fine, or nothing at all. There's a book out about this trend that traces it back to the Nixon pardon. The idea of not punishing the guilty because it will cause problems, ends up causing problems.

[Evil Captor]

I believed this until pretty recently. But the country has broken in half anyway. Ind in more recent years, it seems more and more powerful people (and institutions) are getting let off the hook with a slap on the wrist, a fine, or nothing at all. There's a book out about this trend that traces it back to the Nixon pardon. The idea of not punishing the guilty because it will cause problems, ends up causing problems.

Yeah, you 'd think that at some point someone would have figured out that leaving the crooks in charge of Wall Street would lead to nothing but more shenanigans. But nooooooo ....

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I believed this until pretty recently.

Didn't buy it at the time, didn't buy this morning. Can you imagine if say there were a Democratic Speaker (I think there was, actually, can't remember who) and Ford had suddenly died, that new Democratic President would have pardoned Nixon? Never in a zillion years. It was a cowardly, ass-covering purely political choice of Ford's that will forever sully his reputation, not that it was all that much to begin with. He was a hack, and this is his legacy. Too big to fail, my ass. Punishing a corrupt President harms the country, my other ass.

[Boyo Jim]

Didn't buy it at the time, didn't buy this morning. Can you imagine if say there were a Democratic Speaker (I think there was, actually, can't remember who) and Ford had suddenly died, that new Democratic President would have pardoned Nixon? Never in a zillion years. It was a cowardly, ass-covering purely political choice of Ford's that will forever sully his reputation, not that it was all that much to begin with. He was a hack, and this is his legacy. Too big to fail, my ass. Punishing a corrupt President harms the country, my other ass.

Actually, you're right in one sense. It didn't buy it at the time -- I was pretty outraged. Within a few years I began to think differently, and now I've come full circle.

And in particular about Nixon, I believe he's the guy we can point to when looking at the breakdown in trust between citizens and the government. Him and Reagan, who ran on the concept that government isn't a solution, it's the problem. But Nixon much more so.

[Kobal2]

The idea of not punishing the guilty because it will cause problems, ends up causing problems.

You don't say ?! :D

No, I think in the long run he made the right decision in pardoning Nixon. Not because Nixon deserved a pardon but because the Watergate situation had become an American version of the Dreyfuss Affair - the country had divided up into two sides and each side was determined to beat the other. Ford just decided that punishing Nixon wasn't worth the cost of breaking the country in half. Rather than let one side win and one side lose - which would have been a major blow to American society either way - he cancelled the game.

You know, one side did end up "winning" the Dreyfuss Affair. France found it in itself to truck on somehow.
Maybe it wasn't all that important after all.

[IntelliQ]

Actually, you're right in one sense. It didn't buy it at the time -- I was pretty outraged. Within a few years I began to think differently, and now I've come full circle.

And in particular about Nixon, I believe he's the guy we can point to when looking at the breakdown in trust between citizens and the government. Him and Reagan, who ran on the concept that government isn't a solution, it's the problem. But Nixon much more so.

49 out of 50 states disagree with you about Reagan.

[IntelliQ]

It wasnt Nixon and Reagan.............

You might want to pick up a basic 8th grade history book - the concept that government is the problem in maintaining a free society came from the founding fathers.

[BrainGlutton]

It wasnt Nixon and Reagan.............

You might want to pick up a basic 8th grade history book - the concept that government is the problem in maintaining a free society came from the founding fathers.

They did not originate that idea, and not all of them shared it, both of which your 8th-grade history book should have told you.

[BrainGlutton]

No, I think in the long run he made the right decision in pardoning Nixon. Not because Nixon deserved a pardon but because the Watergate situation had become an American version of the Dreyfuss Affair - the country had divided up into two sides and each side was determined to beat the other. Ford just decided that punishing Nixon wasn't worth the cost of breaking the country in half. Rather than let one side win and one side lose - which would have been a major blow to American society either way - he cancelled the game.

Defensible, but probably not his motive. When Ford died, I did a bit of research and found out he was a much closer friend of Nixon's than the public or press realized at the time Ford was appointed Veep. No doubt there was a quid pro quo.

[IntelliQ]

They did not originate that idea, and not all of them shared it, both of which your 8th-grade history book should have told you.

US History. That's what we're talking about here.

And if you want to go back farther, fine, it reinforces the point that it wasnt just doze evil wascally repubwicans.

[2sense]

You might want to pick up a basic 8th grade history book - the concept that government is the problem in maintaining a free society came from the founding fathers.

If the founding fathers were so opposed to governments then why did they found them? This is like saying that the idea that Art is the problem comes from artists.

[IntelliQ]

If the founding fathers were so opposed to governments then why did they found them? This is like saying that the idea that Art is the problem comes from artists.

I really hope that wasnt a serious question.

[Marley23]

You might want to pick up a basic 8th grade history book - the concept that government is the problem in maintaining a free society came from the founding fathers.
No, it didn't. This is just rewriting history to put words in people's mouths. They didn't believe in talking points from the 1970s any more than the Democrats of the 1830s were committed to social justice and concerned about income inequality.

[IntelliQ]

No, it didn't. This is just rewriting history to put words in people's mouths. They didn't believe in talking points from the 1970s any more than the Democrats of the 1830s were committed to social justice and concerned about income inequality.

Should I start flooding the thread with quotes regarding government by the founders?

Distrust in government is why they decided to write rules to keep it in it's proper place.

[Marley23]

Distrust in government is why they decided to write rules to keep it in it's proper place.
I would argue they were mistrustful of centralized and unaccountable power (kings), not "government." And "distrust in government" is not the same as "government is the problem." Like I said, that's a talking point from the 1970s. You could argue the talking point reflects a view derived from the founders if you wanted, but that's different from saying they actually held the same view in the 1780s than Reagan did in the 1970s. I'd also prefer you not "flood the thread" because this is all kind of off-topic.

[IntelliQ]

I'm of the opinion Reagan could be labeled as a liberal by the guidelines the founders intended.

[Simplicio]

Distrust in government is why they decided to write rules to keep it in it's proper place.

Those rules replaced a set of rules that had established a much weaker, less active gov't. So its obvious the founders thought that a stronger, more active gov't, at least compared to that of the Articles of Confederation, was the solution to the problems that they were actually facing circa 1787

[BrainGlutton]

I'm of the opinion Reagan could be labeled as a liberal by the guidelines the founders intended.

Yes, well, the Founders got a lot of things wrong, didn't they?

[IntelliQ]

It really is amazing to see such stretched perspectives. A person has to actually put effort into twisting their intent.

This guy (http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/) (Im sure you can find tons more on your own in 10 seconds) has grouped a slew of the founder's quotes regarding their unequivocal distrust of government spending, power, trust, etc. It's all there.

You can argue the merits of their mindset (perverse argument as it is) but not their mindset and intent, clearly.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Those rules replaced a set of rules that had established a much weaker, less active gov't. So its obvious the founders thought that a stronger, more active gov't, at least compared to that of the Articles of Confederation, was the solution to the problems that they were actually facing circa 1787

Not THOSE Founding Fathers! They were librul idjit second-gen ACLU-type FFs. We're talking about First-gen badass gangta no-gummint FFs here! Pay attention!

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Or in Newt's language, they were weak, despicable, sick, perverted pathetic Founding Fathers.

[Fear Itself]

It really is amazing to see such stretched perspectives. A person has to actually put effort into twisting their intent.

This guy (http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/)(Im sure you can find tons more on your own in 10 seconds) has grouped a slew of the founder's quotes regarding their unequivocal distrust of government spending, power, trust, etc. It's all there.

You can argue the merits of their mindset (perverse argument as it is) but not their mindset and intent, clearly.From your cite:
"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. "


Benjamin Franklin, letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783


Franklin was a Socialist. Is that what you intended to prove?

[IntelliQ]

From your cite:
Franklin was a Socialist. Is that what you intended to prove?

Cherry picking isn't helpful. (especially when most of the things he says reflect distrust, as in "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic")

A new thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14695091#post14695091) is better, sorry for the derailment.

[Fear Itself]

Cherry picking isn't helpful.Neither is a data dump where you just point to a whole website and say, "It's in there somewhere!"

The point is, your claim that the Founding Fathers were monolithic in their mistrust of government is wrong, which I demonstrated. There are many more quotes that reflect the ambivalence the FF had for government, so you are wrong to claim otherwise.

[IntelliQ]

I'm not going to do cherry picked quotation wars, but was only illustrating to you that Ben's attitude was anything but nanny state mentality.

[Fear Itself]

I'm not going to do cherry picked quotation wars, but was only illustrating to you that Ben's attitude was anything but nanny state mentality.So you don't have a cite. I thought so.

[IntelliQ]

So you don't have a cite. I thought so.

As you already know, I started a new thread for this.

[Fear Itself]

And yet you continued to hijack this thread.

[PrettyVacant]

You know, this 'founding fathers' thing is really, really spooky.

[Marley23]

Since IntelliQ did start a new thread, let's continue that discussion over there and keep this thread focused on issues related to Gingrich.

[BrainGlutton]

OK, here's one: If Paul represents the libertarian wing of the GOP; and Santorum represents the religious right; and Romney represents the mainstream-business-interest GOP; what does Gingrich represent? The neocons?

[SenorBeef]

Family values, duh.

[PrettyVacant]

The non-sentient.

[Fear Itself]

The angry.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I used to amuse my friends in high school by giving my impression of a speech that would get you, if not elected, a huge minority of votes in any election, that required zero knowledge and less skill. It went "Dis fucken city--yaw tax dollahs," shaking your fist a few times, "It just ain't right, yaw tax dollahs, dis fucken city" over and over. That's the angry, resentful, ignorant base Newt's appealing to--the question is if he can grow that base.

Of course, he's not appealing to NYC voters so it requires a little tinkering from my formula, more like "This great country, thanks to Obama's failure, wretched economy, your tax dollars, take our country back, American exceptionalism" blablabla. No need for rhetorical skill, cogent points, compelling arguments. You've got about 35%, 40% in strong support on the basis of that vapid jingoistic drivel. Can he build on that?