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”?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Would you allow a Democrat to get away with that with one of the left’s core issues?
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.
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?
That’s an exceptionally stupid comment.
You’re grossly misrepresenting what I said.
You claimed that Republicans held themselves up as paragons of virtue.
I explained that Democratic politicians also presented themselves a paragons of virtue and use their families and personal lives to demonstrate this.
You’re now trying to shift the goal posts because I proved that your original post was very poorly argued.
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.
In other words: they are hypocrites.
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.
Yeah, you did:
Same thing.
Well, we mocked NOW for its silence on Clinton so I don’t see why not. 
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.
Even with the word “virtually” inserted, your statements are still demonstrably false.
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).
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.
Then demonstrate it.
If you’re going to accuse someone of saying something “demonstrably false” you should be able to prove it.
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:
Excuse me? I never introduced “the sanctity of marriage”, though I responded after you mentioned it. As usual, you are confused.