He is? The Fox News chyron on this story said “(D)” plain as day.
(satire, not to be confused with actual facts or actual Fox reporting, or any intersections of the two that may occur)
You mean how the Democrats embraced John Edwards?
Cheating on your wife doesn’t mean you can’t be president. Dumping your wife for a mistress while she’s sick is douchebaggy. Dumping that mistress for another mistress is especially douchebaggy. Doing it in the party that pretends to be the party of morality is what should preclude him from president.
Except Republicans don’t practice what they preach. They value hard work and applaud Palin for quitting like a bitch half way through her term. They run on family values and corrupt animals like John Ensign stay in positions of power.
Although if Republicans are a party that embraces hypocrisy, I supposed Newt is the perfect candidate. 
It’s not the sex we object to, it is the hypocrisy. If a politician says that people’s sex lives should be their private affairs, I’m not going to criticize them. (Though Newt is a piece of slime for what he did when his first wife was sick - agree or disagree?) If they bray on about other people’s morals, though, theirs should be in good shape. Got it?
If someone says gay marriage is evil because it will lead to banging horses, they better not be found banging horses. (Cite: ONN.)
Not on the SDMB - being Republican is pretty much determinative.
I usually assume people are willing to read posts for comprehension, even when those posts contain points of view with which they might disagree. I don’t think this is “arrogant” - perhaps “naively optimistic” is a better term. I keep forgetting who I am dealing with. Sorry.
I’m not afraid per se - it’s just not that kind of thread. It might be in Great Debates, but it is not a debate - just another of the Two Minute Hates you folks love so much.
Enjoy your little hate-fest. I’ll be over here laughing at it. 
Regards,
Shodan
The difference is the Repubs run on religion and are critical of Dems who have affairs. Newt stood in front of congress and criticized Clinton’s affairs while he was knee deep in his own. Hypocrisy.
So, you’re unwilling to defend your statements? Color me surprised.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The difference is the Repubs run on religion and are critical of Dems who have affairs. Newt stood in front of congress and criticized Clinton’s affairs while he was knee deep in his own. Hypocrisy.
[/QUOTE]
If that’s true then yeah…major hypocrisy on his part. Of course, as Shodan is pointing out, there are plenty on this board who get riled up when Clinton’s affair is pointed out because we shouldn’t care if a politician is doinking the interns or getting DNA on their dresses, since we should be worrying about other stuff.
Me, I’m a live and let live sort of guy. I don’t care that Clinton was doinking the interns or that Newt has several wives and assorted mistresses (hell, I wish I had assorted wives and mistresses…they just don’t seem to go for fat, balding IT guys for some odd reason 
). What bothers me about both is that they were stupid enough to get CAUGHT. That indicates a lack of discretion on their parts and possibly terminal stupidity or thinkingwiththeirdickedness on their parts, which doesn’t exactly lead me to great confidence where their political abilities.
-XT
Check out Lawrence O’Donnell’s hilarious commentary on Newt’s apology:
I don’t care about Newt’s mistresses, his dumped his wife while she was on her deathbed. You just don’t treat people like that. The man is lower than a snake’s belly. He should not be President, based on that behavior.
Pardon my ignorance, but is he running? And if so, is he a front runner for President? I would have thought he was too controversial to even bother trying to run as President.
-XT
He has not officially announced that he’s running, but he’s made all indications that he will, and has named a date and place where he may or may not announce.
He may well be a front runner in the Primaries. He’s made a lot of effort to appeal to the teabaggers and he has better credentials than most of the others. It’s hard to tell whether the religious base will overlook his personal history or not.
He’d be a fool to run, unless he is doing it for what I presume is the juicy speaking engagement money and phat campaign funding cashola. If he’s running with some actual hope of winning even the primaries I’d say that he’s delusional at best, unless I’m totally out of touch with Republican politics these days (which, granted I probably am).
-XT
Quoth Shodan:
Not so. I think you’ll find that many people here would consider, say, Mitt Romney to be fit for the Presidency. Most Dopers would probably prefer for Obama to remain President rather than Romney, but he’s certainly qualified. Gingrich, however, is a has-been and a hypocrite.
You seem to have a propensity to state what other people think, but you’re not very good at it.
I think Newt is unfit to be President because he’s a douche. John Edwards is a slightly smaller douche, and I don’t think he’s fit to be President, either.
Does someone believe that there is an actual debate in this thread, or should I just merge it with the one in The BBQ Pit?
[ /Modding ]
Tiger could certainly use Secret Service protection. A Norwegian supermodel spy nearly beat him to death with a golf club. I understand that Bill Clinton was grateful that the Secret Service prevented Hillary from doing much the same to him.
He filed the paper work to run.
Do you think we know about all of them? He is a horn dog that uses his political power to have sex with underlings.
Do you have anything resembling evidence of this accusation?
I am not sure how Ms. Ginther met Newt, but I do not recall hearing that he was in a position of power over her.
Ms. Bisek was a House staffer, but her actual boss was a different congresscritter, not Newt.
Beyond that, where is the evidence that he is actually promiscuous?
I have no use for the guy, a scoundrel who would dump his affair on his hospitalized, cancer-stricken wife, a demagogue who holds more personal responsibility for the extreme level of partisanship dividing this country than anyone else, not excluding Karl Rove, and a general ass. However, those traits do not necessarily translate directly to someone who abuses power to gain sexual favors on multiple occasions, which is what you are claiming.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Does someone believe that there is an actual debate in this thread, or should I just merge it with the one in The BBQ Pit?
[/QUOTE]
If you are taking a vote, I’d say no…there is no debate here. Either MPSIMS or the Pit, though the thread will probably peter out before more than a page or two, unless a couple of 'dopers decide to play ‘Oh yeah? But what about what YOUR side did??’ for 15 or 20 pages while the rest try and be clever. 
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
He filed the paper work to run.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a cite? I haven’t heard that he’s officially running.
-XT