Newt Gingrich And The Personal Lives Of Politicians

[klunderbunker]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ingrich-wanted-open-marriage-abc-reports.html

First of all, I'm not LSN so read the article for yourselves if you want to read specifics.

Now as you've probably heard, there's a new interview with Marianne Gingrich where she says that Newt Gingrich, current candidate for the GOP nomination for president, wanted an open relationship because he was having an affair on the side and that his mistress (and current wife) was fine with him being with two women. Gingrich later divorced Marianne and married his mistress, Callista Gingrich.

Gingrich is the former Speaker of the House and famously condemned President Clinton for having an affair while President. Allegedly, Gingrich was having his own affair at the time but said that it didn't matter because America needed to hear this from him. Gingrich is currently in his third marriage after cheating on his previous two wives with the person he would marry next.

Now for my question: does any of this matter? Should any of these things determine whether or not Newt Gingrich should be President of the United States? Remember that he himself has condemned a sitting President of the same thing and now is saying that it's in the past and he's been forgiven of it and all that jazz.

Your thoughts?

 

[SavageTaker]

Personally, I don't care. Everyone has their flaws and if his aren't a hindrance on his ability to be president then I don't see the problem.

This definitely does make him look like the biggest hypocrite in America and doesn't say much about his personal character. But regardless of that, if he has the experience needed, the skills necessary and has good ideas that would really help and improve this country then I'd rather vote for him than someone who seems perfect on the surface but has atrocious ideas that would lead us into a path of destruction.

There's a difference between someone's personal live and someone's political life. I say let his personal live be just that: personal. So if you're going to vote for him then vote for the man based on his merits and not on mistakes he has made.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Of course it matters. I think people vote for politicians based on their character as well, not just their policies. Newt Gingrich has shown himself to be an unscrupulous blowhard and a hypocrite, I think that should factor in to whether or not people vote for him. I think if you take out all of the personal information we know about Newt Gingrich you wind up with a candidate with don't a lot about.

This entire Republican nomination hasn't been about policies, it's more about the type of person the candidate is. If you watch any Republican debate, half of the comments are vague insults about how horrific Obama is, forty percent are about the other candidates character, and maybe ten percent of what is said is actually about policy, and usually that's very vague as well. I know this is par for the course in nominations, but considering this entire nomination process is based almost entirely on the character of the nominee, this is fair game.

 

[Davi323]

Of course it matters. I think people vote for politicians based on their character as well, not just their policies. Newt Gingrich has shown himself to be an unscrupulous blowhard and a hypocrite, I think that should factor in to whether or not people vote for him.

As a conservative who is a Christian, I couldn't agree with this more. I do vote as much because of a candidate's character as I do their platform. I would have a hard time voting for Newt precisely because of that. I was very critical of Bill Clinton, and I continue to be very critical of Bill Clinton for his wandering eyes. It would be the height of hypocrisy to give Gingrich a free pass for his cheating when I wasn't willing to do it for Clinton. Now, the particular allegations about wanting an open marriage are completely unprovable, it's going to just be a case of he said/she said...but, that doesn't matter to me. He has cheated on 2 spouses, and it would not surprise me if he cheated on spouse #3 either.

I do have to admit, that a few months ago, when he was busy playing the role of elder/wiser statesman, I thought about looking past it. He intrigued me, despite all of that. But in the end, my belief that character matters overrode any curiosity I had about supporting him. Just couldn't do it.

Now, with that being said, it will be interesting to see the responses of many of those media types who excused Clinton in the 90s, claiming that his personal life has nothing to do with his ability to run the country, etc, who will now excoriate Newt, simply because he is a Republican who cheated, rather than a Democrat. There will also be those Republicans who will excuse Newt, but blasted Clinton...Both sides will be full of hypocrites. I am not going to defend Newt simply because he is a Republican, I am more principled than that. Cheating is cheating is cheating, regardless of which side of the political aisle you fall on.

Both Clinton and Gingrich suck.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Now, the particular allegations about wanting an open marriage are completely unprovable, it's going to just be a case of he said/she said...but, that doesn't matter to me. He has cheated on 2 spouses, and it would not surprise me if he cheated on spouse #3 either.

I think this is really important. No one knows for sure if there is any truth behind what Gingrich's second wife as said, and I think there's at least a bit of vindictiveness in her because it seems too much of a coincidence for her to come out with this interview just a few days before the primary. The point though is that false allegation or not, just the facts about Newt Gingrich alone make him a despicable character. I don't need the testimony of Marianne Gingrich and her allegations of Newt's wanting an open marriage to make me dislike Newt, his cheating on his wife with a woman whom he then married, and then cheating on her with another woman whom he then married is good enough.

I want Gingrich to win just because I don't want this race to end so quickly and so easily for Mitt Romney, but if it were between Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, and Romney, I would have:

• Paul win
• Romney second
• Santorum third
• Gingrich last

I hesitate to put Paul on top because he has some very, very extreme policies, but I don't think they would pass the senate or congress at all, so he would probably just wind up being a genuine person with some good ideas that passed and some kooky batshit ideas that went nowhere.

 

[LSN80]

First off, I was going to start a thread on this, KB, so I'm putting your Gatorade on notice. I won't say when or how, but you'll know it was me.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I need to first say that I don't like Newt Gingrich. KB and I were talking about politicians we'ld like to punch in the face, and he said Gingrich, and I said Romney. Well, Gingirch isn't far behind Romney for me. I see no redeeming qualities in the man as a human being, and his promises to run a "clean campaign" lasted pretty long, didn't they? .

But putting personal feelings aside, there are two sides to this. I understand when people say "What does his personal affairs have to do with running the country?" There are perfectly terrible human beings who run some of the largest Fortune 500 companies in the world, obviously quite successfully. So if they can seperate who they are as a human being and what they do in their personal life to successfully achieve the goals of their business, why can't a scumbag like Gingrich? Who's to say he can't seperate what he does on his own time from what he does for the good of the country?

There's an argument to be made that he can, and that what he does in his own time should be private. For example, I've worked with many therapists who are terrible human beings. I've worked with drunks, some who cheated on their spouses, and one who openly flaunted that she drove drunk on a "nightly basis", as if it was something to be proud of. Yet they were terrific therapists, and I couldn't fire them based on morality grounds.

The other side of it is this: How in the world could we trust someone to run an entire country when one person can't trust him? I'm not downplaying the importance of marriage, as it's a great responsibility. But I'd argue that running a county is a greater responsibility, in the sense that you're responsible both for and to an entire country. If he can't be trusted to be honest with his wives, how in the world can we trust him to be honest regarding his policies? How can we trust that anything he says he'll follow through on? Those promises to me are far greater things then simply holding to your marital vows, which have been the easiest things in my life to keep. Not to bring religion into this, but it reminded me of when Jesus said this:

Luke 16:10
Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.

Pretty sound principle, isn't it? For me, it sums up what's going on with Gingrich pretty well. Couple that withe fact he was the man who condemned Clinton for having an affair, and I'm glad he's on the hot seat. For me, morality matters, and I don't want a lying hypocrite as my President.

But Sarah Palin supports him, so he must be the guy for the job.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Now for my question: does any of this matter? Should any of these things determine whether or not Newt Gingrich should be President of the United States?

No, it shouldn't matter, but it does. Americans are thrilled by gossip and love nothing more than discussing the allegedly sordid habits of its celebrities, which seems to include politicians. It's easier to try and judge the President on whether he cheats on his wife than attempting to analyze the fine points of the latest foreign policy treatise on Afghanistan. Juicier, too.

But it's all too simple for most Americans, isn't it? We don't understand the important matters we should be judging politicians on, so we turn to things that have nothing to do whether the guy can execute his oath of office. I'm sure that men (and women) of power have been committing infidelities since the American Revolution, but the press corps that covers the White House, while undoubtedly aware of what the President was doing, didn't report it, largely because it was considered irrelevant and against the code of gentleman's journalism. Probably, some of the garbage that went on during the presidential terms of Clinton's predecessors would make his tryst with an intern in the Green Room look like a Girl Scout picnic. But those incidents weren't reported, so the American people never knew to judge their President on them. Clinton wasn't as lucky.

Even at that, so many Americans didn't understand the process on which we were supposed to be judging Clinton. I remember the day the conviction process came up short in the Senate; a guy said to me: "You mean they couldn't find 50 Senators who thought he did it?" I asked him what he meant and learned that he thought the Senate was voting on whether Clinton had an affair or not. As far as this guy was concerned, if they thought Clinton cheated on his wife, he'd be convicted and thrown out of office specifically for that!

Do you understand what I'm saying? This American citizen didn't realize that what Clinton was being tried for was lying to Congress about having an affair......not whether he had one. You don't get thrown out of office for having an affair; yet that's exactly what this guy believed. As I said, it's so simple for Americans to judge people on what they don't understand rather than learn the issues so they can make a more informed decision. (And yes, I didn't miss the fact that it would take more than 50 Senators to convict ......you need 2/3 of the Senate, not 1/2).

Then came Newt. Today, he's saying that when he was instrumental in the impeachment effort, he wasn't commenting on Clinton's love life, but merely the legal aspects of lying to Congress. On the surface, that sounds valid, but I distinctly remembering this guy weighing in on the family values he said were necessary in a sitting President, even with everything Newt was doing "on the side." Pot.....kettle..... black.

In fact, when I think back, it occurs to me that Bill Clinton must have done a hell of a job as President, given that the three major things Newt and his posse attacked him on were matters that had nothing to do with his performance as President: Whitewater, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky (Those were the accusations for which they hired a Special Prosecutor named Kenneth Starr, specifically to "get" Clinton). In fact, the first two things occurred before Clinton was even President, which cancel them out as factors to judge how he did in operating the highest office in the land.

So, there's my answer: No, the zipper on the President's pants shouldn't be what we judge him on when it comes to his fitness to hold the office.

It shouldn't be........but it is.

Newt Gingrich doesn't like being judged on this kind of thing? Hell, he helped open the door to this kind of nonsense.....and now that it's open, he doesn't get to determine who else can walk though it..

 

[H33LTurn]

It shouldnt matter at all, specially when you consider that Newt as well as those others who have been accused of certain things have flat out denied the charges. A president should be elected on their position on the issues alone. You also have to take into consideration that a president is the representative of a nation, so maybe it wouldnt be the brightest idea to elect someone who is severely morally corrupt although its their personal business (I'm not saying Newt is, just speaking in general). But if we had Bush as a president and other nations still took us seriously I think we can undermine relationship specific issues and focus on the candidates' stance on the real issues our nation faces.

 

[J.J.]

Every candidate has their flaws but many people - specifically the older generations see a candidate that has had an affair or married multiple times question his morals. That was very hypocritical of him to condemn Clinton for his affair.

I'm not really fond of him or any Republican candidate for that matter(Green Party supporter). Only thing I agree with him on is his stance on education.

Jon Huntsman Jr. and Rick Santorum, will probably never see the light of day. They speak volumes in character and platform, but lack the catch word luster needed to fool voters.

 

[Loveless]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ingrich-wanted-open-marriage-abc-reports.html
Now for my question: does any of this matter? Should any of these things determine whether or not Newt Gingrich should be President of the United States? Remember that he himself has condemned a sitting President of the same thing and now is saying that it's in the past and he's been forgiven of it and all that jazz.
Your thoughts?

Usually I wouldn't give a toss, what people do in the privacy of their homes doesn't concern me as long it doesn't intefere with their job. This case however is different.
When you campaign for election on the back of a moral agenda and you're doing these things, you're a massive fuckoff hypocrite and you deserve ridicule, even moreso when you've criticised others for the same thing. This is not someone worthy of the position or responsibility that he's persuing.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

I remember when people were going after Bill Clinton for his personal life cheating in the WHite House. A guy I used to go classes with asked that why his personal life is any of my business ? I mean it's simple to say but the truth is Clinton was almost impeached for his personal flings and lying about it. SO to say it doesn't matter is little more than dishonest. We live in an era where personal affairs and/or lives of politicians and public figures (actors etc.) does interest us. Right or wrong. Add to that, many Republicans have protrayed themselves as the party that is dedicated to family values and morals, it seems a little hypocritical to now say that the personal life of their candidate(s) doesn't matter. It either is of importance or it isn't.

What I find really interesting is people like Gingrich claiming to be the outsider, when he's been a speaker of the house and a lobbyist in his career. I mean that's too funny.

 

[J.J.]

If personal life doesn't matter then look at former presidential candidate Herman Cain. Tell me how long he lasted after his sexual harassment and affairs became public.

Republicans are doomed if Newt is the best they can do.

Newt Gingrich, a serial adulterer, a man who told his wife he was divorcing her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer. He couldn’t wait to marry an intern whom he later divorced to marry yet another intern.. A deadbeat dad who refused to pay child support for his children but he could run up a half million dollars of debt supplying his third wife with jewels. Small wonder his children have turned their backs on him. Then there’s also the small matter of the house finding him guilty of ethics violations and fined him $300,000. He’s also a lobbyist and the ultimate Washington insider.

Sounds like a worthy candidate.

 

[Davi323]

Small wonder his children have turned their backs on him.

Turning their backs? You mean like adamantly defending him against Wife #2?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/20/9572610-gingrichs-daughter-defends-father-on-campaign-trail

Newt's children have been defending him against the accusations, how on earth does that count as turning their backs? It seems to me that when it comes down to their family issues, Newt's children are siding with him. Guy is definitely not a saint, I will NOT be voting for him, but if his children turned their backs on him at some point, they have clearly come back around since.

 

[J.J.]

Perhaps you need to go on amazon.com and pick up The Gentleman From Georgia. I read the book cover to cover and while they(his kids) back his political career they have a different perspective of him as a father.

I'm pretty sure I was in Columbia, SC when he said; "myself and my family have a lot to gain financially from this campaign. I would like to personally thank Rick Perry for his recent endorsement and belief in our campaign". Ironically Fox News only picked up on the latter part of that statement.

There's money to be made, which explains actions like in your link above. Read the book and it'll put it all into perspective for you.

 

[Larry]

I am pretty tired of the personal back and forth all together and don't think any of it has any relevance to this campaign. Listen people, I implore that you listen. Do not let the media spin cycle and dirt sheets cloud your judgment on this election as it pertains to any given candidate. If you were willing to overlook Bill Clinton and his actions, Newt Gingrichs' marital issues in the past should be of little to no concern for you. What does that truly have to do with his policies on the economy, job creation, foreign relations, education, healthcare, social security, immigration etc??? Please, do not let the the media or the in-fighting of the candidates distract you from the real issues at hand. We are in a tough spot where we know we can't afford another 4 years with this current President and must choose a new leader. If not Newt Gingrich than who? Realistically who? It won't be Ron Paul, you REALLY don't want Romney, and you REALLY REALLY don't want Santorum. Listen to the candidates policies and judge them on that alone.

Answer me this: if you sat down with a candidate and asked them the pressing questions about how they planned to fix the economy, and upon listening to them found that you agreed wholeheartedly with their ideals and plans and saw them as logical solutions to the problems we as Americans face, would you really care what their personal life has been like or would you be more concerned about making sure THAT GUY got into office to make the changes we as a nation need? Would you really care if they were the most "All-American-American-American Conservative-Conservative" or if they were Catholic of Mormon or Jewish or Muslim, if you agreed on every social issue, or would the gravity of the situation we are in be of more importance than to hang on to trivial issues and keep the right person from getting in office?

It is my belief upon listening to all the candidates through LITERALLY every debate, that Newt Gingrich is the person we must elect. In truth, he is not the most conservative candidate even though he has tried to say as much to win the votes of those who seek out the most conservative candidate, that's just what he has to do to get those votes which is the saddest part of the whole thing. Who cares if you're the most conservative? Shouldn't the only thing that REALLY mattered be whether or not you offer viable solutions and logical ideals? Why would you want one bias or the other? I don't want a Super-Conservative OR a far left Liberal. I want someone, like Gingrich, who can work on both sides of the aisle, a more bi-partisan President, not one hell bent on making socialistic changes to America or one determined to turn it into a church-state.

Let the policies and political ideals decide it, not the personal stuff that has nothing to do with how a person governs. Were you really able to trust Obama any more in 08 than Gingrich in 12'? He had no real record, a whole slew of shady associations, no real plans that he ever laid out, just a bunch of flowery speeches and empty promises, yet that was good enough for you to trust him with the Presidency.

 

[Kenny Powers]

If the voters really want someone that can beat Obama then I guess it really doesn't matter who it is or what their personal relationships were. Obama was attacked for having a crazy preacher in Jeremiah Wright, I wouldn't be surprised if the media was to bring up Newt's past marriages if he were the candidate. Personally I think he is hypocrite to speak of family values while he is pretty much having sex with anything that walks. He was trying to impeach President Clinton for doing the same thing.

I guess it all comes down to the voters. The race is still wide open with Romney, Santorum, and Newt having their fair share of delegates. If Repulican and Independent voters really do want to vote for someone conservative or someone they think will beat Obama, then I wouldn't be surprised if they voted for Newt regardless of his marital issues.

 

[J.J.]

I am pretty tired of the personal back and forth all together and don't think any of it has any relevance to this campaign. Listen people, I implore that you listen. Do not let the media spin cycle and dirt sheets cloud your judgment on this election as it pertains to any given candidate. If you were willing to overlook Bill Clinton and his actions, Newt Gingrichs' marital issues in the past should be of little to no concern for you. What does that truly have to do with his policies on the economy, job creation, foreign relations, education, healthcare, social security, immigration etc??? Please, do not let the the media or the in-fighting of the candidates distract you from the real issues at hand. We are in a tough spot where we know we can't afford another 4 years with this current President and must choose a new leader. If not Newt Gingrich than who? Realistically who? It won't be Ron Paul, you REALLY don't want Romney, and you REALLY REALLY don't want Santorum.

The House impeached Bill Clinton, it wasn't because of media scrutiny or public outcry. Bill Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for a sexual harassment case that dated back to when he was the Arkansas governor. The courts had agreed that her claims were valid enough to allow the case to proceed. In testimony he gave, he swore that he had not had sex with any employees. As everyone knows, this was not true. This is called perjury. And to make matters worse, he attempted to cover up his sexual relation with Monica Lewinsky and convince her to also lie under oath. This is called suborning perjury. He was not able to explain away the 'stained blue dress'. The cover up is so often more serious than the crime itself.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

In the grand scheme of things, it's easy to just write off what someone does in their personal lives as irrelevant when you factor in what it actually takes to be a good leader. In a lot of ways, the United States is still a prudish country when it comes to sexual matters. Many countries all over Europe & Asia find it laughable that Americans base so many of our choices in politics on what candidates do in their private sex lifes. Gingrich blasted Bill Clinton for his affairs, yet Russian citizens during the same time period were praising Clinton for having such youthful energy & verility while wishing their own leaders exuded that much vitality.

All in all, a politician's sex life generally has no real bearing on the issues that generally matter in my opinion. The problem I have is the general hypocrisy of the whole thing. The Republican Party is generally known for being the political party that's all about Christian morals. I can't count the number of times I've heard a politician go on and on about how conservative values, which often coincides with thumping The Bible in many respects, is the only way to go and that anything else is destroying us as a country. Yet, look at how many times these same upholders of Christian morals are, sometimes literally, caught with their pants down and/or engaging in activities that they themselves have criticized political opponents or rivals for. Gingrich is simply the latest in a long line of conservative politicians that either have or are currently doing the same thing.

The Republican Party as a whole wouldn't bother me as much if they weren't drowning in such hypocrisy. I'm not saying that those with Christian beleifs that are affiliated with other political parties don't lie their asses off as well. But, as I aluded to earlier, Bible thumping and the harking of Christian values has long since been the bread & butter of the Republican Party as a whole. Too many times they wrap themselves in the hallowed cloak of Holy Scripture to use it as a basis to elect them into public office.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I was never a fan of Gingrich. He has a lot of similar views as Nazis. Very nationalist, militant (wants to assassinate people too), wants there to be one religion, homophobic (says it violates the sanctity of marriage, as if he didn't do that himself). Just really don't like the guy. I don't really think you should look at a guys' personal life unless it has to do with their platform. Claiming to be the "moral majority", the "christian majority", saying "gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage and hurts our children" then going on to be a gigantic cunt basically means you're a liar and should not be elected.

I'm a moderate and would like to see a conservative candidate I could vote for since a lot of what Obama does is too far left for me, but between Gingrich being a nazi and Mit wanting to cut education, and Ron Paul having batshit policy ideas, I don't like any of them.

Basically it seems that 2 kinds of people will vote for Republicans. Rich people, or people who are dumb enough to be talked into the "I'M A CHRISTIAN, YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN, THIS IS 'MERICA WE IS CHRISTIANS AND FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY" bullshit.