Monday, March 12: Howard Kurtz notes that I was “wrong” about my prediction that this story would get blanket coverage. So I underestimated the media for a change. How refreshing. 
——————————————————————-
Will someone please explain to me why I’m seeing headlines like “Gingrich In Affair During Clinton Probe,” as if it’s a revelation? Newt Gingrich reportedly told James Dobson of Focus on the Family that he’d had an affair during Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton’s impeachment proceedings. But it isn’t news. It’s practically common knowledge.
During the impeachment hearings and subsequent trial, the press began digging into the lives of Republican politicians who criticized Clinton’s caddish and reprehensible behavior. A few things they uncovered:
- Pornographer Larry Flynt offered $1 million to anyone with dirt on Republicans. Someone sent him information that Congressman Bob Livingston, House Speaker-Elect, had cheated on his wife. Livingston resigned.
- Decades earlier, Congressman Henry Hyde, lead House manager of Clinton’s impeachment hearings, had cheated on his wife.
- Newt “Conservative Cad” Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, was screwing one of his aides while publicly condemning Clinton. Turns out that Gingrich had cheated on his first wife, discussed divorce proceedings with her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery, and told his second wife over the telephone while she was attending her mother’s birthday party that he wanted a divorce. So far, he’s still married to third wife Callista Bisek, the aide he was screwing during the impeachment hearings.
Two years ago I wrote a post titled, “Why I Wouldn’t Vote For Newt Gingrich” after hearing rumors about his presidential plans. An excerpt:
Lately there’s been talk in the media about his running for the presidency in 2008. I can’t tell you how cringe-worthy that is. And when I heard about his “Walking Tour of God in Washington, D.C.,” I thought, “That’s just what we need. A Republican philanderer lecturing people about God.” (See a transcript from a recent appearance on FOX.)
Why do I react this way? Because I think Gingrich is a man of low character. He served his first wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital suffering from cancer. During Bill Clinton’s impeachment scandal, he’d been cheating on his second wife with one of his staff and told her over the phone while she was attending her mother’s birthday party that he wanted a divorce. I won’t even get into the ethics violations.
Contrary to smooth Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton and his supporters, who made the nonsensical claim that a man’s personal life is separate from his professional/political life, a person is who he is in all areas of his life. Unfaithfulness is a character flaw, and that flaw affects the whole man, not just the “personal” one.
…
You’re tainted goods, Mr. Gingrich. Stay away from public office. Republicans don’t need you and the real conservatives in the party can’t afford you. Write your books, do your public policy work behind the scene, and for crying out loud, don’t embarrass yourself (or us) with lectures on “moral values.”
Clinton’s impeachment was all about his lying to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice, not his sordid sex romps. Unfortunately, because the lying and obstruction charges surrounded his affair, his defenders, including the media, accused Republicans of trying to punish Clinton because of what he did in his “private life.” I have to confess that Slick Willie’s impeachment played some part in my defection from liberalism. The more I listened to hare-brained liberals, black ones especially, defending Clinton’s disgusting behavior, including his lies, the more I realized I wanted no association with such people. I had an unpleasant front row seat, as I was working on Capitol Hill at the time.
As I wrote then and still believe now, unfaithfulness is a character flaw. We all have a past, and a distant affair does not a cad make. But someone who lectures others while he’s doing the very thing he speaks against (like Gingrich) and someone with a track record of cheating on and unceremoniously dumping wives (like Gingrich) is permanently stained, in my opinion. They’ll get neither my vote nor my respect.
So, in conclusion, what Gingrich reportedly told Dobson isn’t news, for crying out loud. But he’s a Republican, and the media aren’t going to pass up the chance to post stories all over the web about his hypocrisy. Expect this “news” to dominate headlines and Sunday morning talk shows.
Others blogging: Michelle Malkin, Captain’s Quarters, Right Wing Nut House, 7.62mm Justice, Rhymes With Right, Outside the Beltway, PoliBlog, Sensible Mom, Iowa Voice, The American Mind…
{ 10 trackbacks }
{ 66 comments }
I’d vote for Newt, despite his personal life issues. I’d vote for him because of his stance on the issues. I can forgive his lousy personal life and “cad” status, because I don’t feel that the current top three candidates are right on the issues.
I’d rather have a “cad” in the white house, than someone who won’t secure the border, take away my guns, and get me killed.
Feels like it’s you and me on this, LaShawn, though you’ve said it far better. It’s particularly disheartening in the gathering of conservatives over at FreeRepublic. This is the original “Character Counts” crowd. But argue this way, and too many of them respond, with apparently NO self-awareness, just like the Clinton enablers (and your first commenter) did.
Demanding perfection is one thing. Disdaining rank hypocrisy, and serial refusal to keep the most sacred oath they’ll ever take, is another.
I may hold out a greater hope for possible reclamation than you suggest in your essay. But I haven’t yet seen Gingrich do anything solid along those lines.
I agree, Newt will not get my vote either. I figure that if he can cheat on his own wife, he will cheat anybody, including the voters and his country. What it comes down to, is that people like Newt & Clinton care about only one thing, old #1.
It seems more and more that I won’t have anyone to vote for in the 2008 election.
Smart move on Newt to get in front of his personal issues in an election year and let the “naysayers” have their say now because by the time he decides to run(?) his personal issues will be old news and cannot be used by his rivals to injure his candidacy. As for me, Newt definitely has my vote. I have visited his website, heard him speak and even read his writings. He has the intellectual knack of placing current events into historical perspective to evaluate the severity of the times in which we are living. He’s a very thoughtful man who does not politically cater to the here and now. I believe his intellect alone will outclass him from the current crop of Repub. candidates.
And the liberals have their skeletons in the closet
Just like Gingrich, I also couldn’t vote for Guilliani. I don’t have a problem with the fact that both are on their third wife. I do however have a problem with a man who doesn’t have the balls to speak face to face with his wife about his decision to divorce her, but instead announces it to the public at press conference. (DRAMA QUEEN) I also have no respect for a man who has no respect for the rule of law and for his family. A real man does not bring his mistress into his home while his wife and adult children are still present, and a real man would never fail to attend his child’s graduation. Some people might think that Guilliani is tough on Islamic terrorists, but having two women in your home is actually quite Islamic, and his behavior is nothing short of disgusting.
His first marriage to his second cousin was annulled because he supposedly discovered he was related to her after 14 years of marriage. What a joke.
I will vote for Newt if it comes down to it. I certainly hope it won’t. Newt stirs up the negatives in a way only matched by Hillary. When Hillary and Obama form their tag team in ‘08 it is going to take a Republican with an agile mind, the ability to instill the confidence of leadership and a tough cookie to beat them. I don’t think Newt can.
I expect the nominee to be Rudy Giuliani. Now there is a man with a checkered marital past and who presents some real concerns for the Christian right!
It will be interesting to watch this all unfold. The MSM has got plenty of ammunition for either Newt or Rudy. And, I suspect that the MSM will tie Romney to the polygamy crowd while leaving Morman Harry Reid entirely unmentioned.
Meanwhile, Hillary and Obama will sail right through with only the “vast right-wing conspiracy crowd” trying to stain the hems of their robes.
Newt’s past is relevant, just as is the past of anyone else seeking the public trust. He can beg forgiveness, and that’s a good thing, but he can’t erase his poor judgement and questionable ethics.
Also, we can’t dismiss Newt’s actions by saying that the Dems are worse. That may be true, but one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Bottom line for me is this question: If Newt’s wife couldn’t trust him, why should the rest of us?
“Unfaithfulness is a character flaw, and that flaw affects the whole man, not just the ‘personal’ one.”
Your words from two years ago hit the nail right on the head.
“….a distant affair does not a cad make.”
I’m not quite as forgiving as you may be. I’m not perfect, but I will not vote for anyone who has cheated on their spouse.
If a man, or woman, cheats on their spouse they will be unfaithful to anyone.
La Shawn
Newt has now “begged God for forgiveness” – sure evidence that he is running for President.
But the Republicans scandalized by extramarital affairs behaved differently – they resigned, and apologized.
The Clinton impeachment has been stained by a lot of issues:
1 Ken Starr was over-reaching beyond the Whitewater investigation, as agreed by a Court.
2 I am unsure the sexual activities of Clinton amounted to “high crimes and misdemeanors” – this is to protect officials against endless harassment, as Bush is dealing with.
Republican voters expect more of their leaders, and so far, none of the candidates deserve election.
But there is a “dark side” to all this “taking the moral high ground” about both morality and ideology.
Many Republican voters “punished” their candidates for “not being real Republicans” – they didn’t think of the consequences for their “moral high ground” – NANCY PELOSI et al.
In my estimation, Gingrich is a better conservative, and a leader with a track record, than ANY other Republican candidate so far – he already had my vote.
The danger of speaking out about your “Values” is that those who believe you expect you to live up to them. If we will compromise in order to win an election cycle, what is the difference we show about ourselves. In fact, the world is important mainly because it give us the chance to put up or shut up about what we truly believe.
Maybe everyone has secrets, or skeletons or that dreaded dark side but if you’re going to claim the moral ‘high ground’ you’d better make sure you have the bonifides to do so…
I liked and I still love Newt but he sure let us down. Larry Flint might be doing Republicans a favor by offering a reward to out shame and dirt. One result might be cleaner politicians on the Republican side. He should do the same for big name Preachers. This might help the evolution of stronger Christians and Republicans.
#17 Ted Moore makes an important point: “The danger of speaking out about your ‘Values’ is that those who believe you expect you to live up to them.”
The nasty truth is that the Democrats can campaign on ending the “politics of destruction” and being “the most ethical” crowd Congress has ever met and slavering for “bi-partisanship” while all the time skewering the Republicans for not practicing what they preach.
The real problem the Republicans face is not “values.” It is Christian values. There is a great animus out there toward Christian conservatives. The libs love to rub “what would Jesus Do?” in the face of every conservative Christian they name as having strayed.
Politics is politics. If Newt has had commitment problems in his past marriages; it is a warning to heed. But if I have to judge his character against the character of Hillary and the choice is for who wins, I will take Newt and his flaws in a heartbeat.
Old news but sure to be used against him. You forget that Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats, good bad or indifferent that is the way it works. Everyone should know by now that if you’re a conservative you better be squeaky clean if you plan on entering politics. I am not sure if I would vote for Newt in a primary, but if I had to choose between him, Hillary or the ‘Articulate One’ it’s not a hard decision. Right now I’d rather vote for Rudy but the NV primary is a long way off.
I appreciate your input on this La Shawn. At the same time, I hope Newt has gone through a spiritual transformation. If it is genuine I have no doubt that the Lord we serve would have him make amends to his ex-wives and deal with him about his current wife (a marriage initiated after adultery.)
Does that translate into him being able to lead the country? I don’t know. I am looking at the Presidential field and seeing a bunch of Baby Boomer Baggage (I am so posting that later today…my title! Mine!) which has a strong vein of adultery and/or divorce running through the contenders marriages.
It’s a new dawn in American politics and I am trying to pull the lightning bolt out of the thundercloud.
>>2 I am unsure the sexual activities of Clinton amounted to “high crimes and misdemeanors†>>
Once again. It wasn’t the sexual activities that constituted the “high crimes …”, it was the lying about it under oath. That the case happened to involve sex was incidental. He lied under oath. The proof of the lie was the proof that he was having sex with Lewinski. Sort of like saying you didn’t take a bribe and being found with $90,000 in your freezer.
In my opinion, there’s no such thing as a “real conservative”.
People who call themselves conservatives are so fragmented these days.
While the economy is doing well and the country is pretty well off, there are numerous conservatives.
You have the social con, the moral con, the white con, the black con, the religious con.
I have religious conservative views and I’m a Jesus freak, but thats it, i’m a liberal everywhere else.
Plus, I’m willing to bet that today’s conservatives are pretty much going to support thrice-married, pro partial birth abotion – Guiliani for president. Huh?
People today want someone they perceive to be strong on defense, post 9-11. Who cares about moral and religious values anymore?
Real Conservative? Where?
Some relevant observations (using this news item and this post as an excuse):
1. A friend of mine wouldn’t vote for Reagan in 1980 because he had been divorced. My, how times have changed! (Cf. King Edward VIII vs. Prince Charles.)
2. As you say, and others echo, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. The liberals are still trying to paint the impeachment as adulterers condemning an adulterer–too bad the truth is the truth.
3. I said during the whole sordid Clinton affair (yes, with both meanings) that this was all the evidence we need to debunk the notion that what one does in his private life doesn’t matter. To paraphrase what you and some posters have pointed out, -It’s a character issue, stupid!-
4. We NEED a revival!
Ya see this is a problem for me. It’s not because he had an affair, he’s human everyone slips but the way he lead the CHARGE on Bubba. Honestly, it’s what tip me over to the right. I was just so disgusted with Bubba and the double fking standards. I still Bubba is scum but Newt, Newt dude Reps like him make all of us look like hypocrites who think the rules don’t apply to us. It hurts the big picture
La Shawn,
I would invite you to please visit
http://www.draftnewt.org
We’re a grassroots organization gathering the peoples support for a Gingrich Presidential bid.
We believe that one of the enduring qualities of our society and our judeo-christian ethic is that of redemption and forgiveness. It is in this spirit we invite you to our site and upon which we support Newt Gingrich for President.
Sincerely,
Matt Keller
Media Outreach Manager
Draft Newt
LukeNC
Rudy despite his failings would stack up much better against either Hillary or Obama because of how he acted during 9/11. He is not the perfect candidate but he can and would be able to poach votes from the other side. I wish he were stronger on pro-life but I’ve never been and never will be a single issue voter. If two candidates in my mind (such as it is) are the same and one is pro life that’s who I’ll vote for call it the swing vote issue. Right now I do support Rudy but I have not heard from everyone else yet so I’ll keep my options open.
Let me ask you this though…
Which Republican candidate (include Newt) would have the best chance in November against Hillary or Obama? Most voters won’t forgive anyone they perceive as too conservative Hillaryco will see to that so anyone that is a real social conservative is going to get tarred and re-tarred with the fallout of the 06 election and Iraq.
Unlike Clinton, Rudy has not hid his problems or lied about them under oath, nor was he part of the problems that plagued Republicans because they got too big for their britches and got the snot kicked out of them in 06.
Now it’s just my humble opinion but that’s why he has a big lead because of 9/11 and the fact he isn’t one of ‘them’ Again not the perfect candidate but far far better than anything the left has to offer.
Assuming he gets the nod who would be his running mate? Now there’s a question begging for a discussion…
Dear, dear, link-dropping Matt! Even if Christ has forgiven Newt for his sins, it doesn’t mean I have to support or speak favorably of his presidential ambitions. While we believers won’t be punished for our sin when we stand before God, we still face the consequences of our sin in the here and now. I stand by everything I said about your boss, and you can tell him I said so.
Although I would prefer that a candidate for President would have a good longstanding marriage, I would not say we should rule out voting for a president based only on fidelity. Unless, of course, the person is running on a platform of marital fidelity and “family values.” It then speaks volumes about a candidate’s integrity and willingness to prostitute their ideals to their whim.
As a financial adviser, I have long said that I do not care if the CEO of Coke is sleeping with his neighbor; although I would prefer that her/she were not. As a shareholder, I did not hire him/her because he/she has a good marriage. Within reasonable limits, I want them to be a good chief executive first and a good citizen second. This also points to why I do not believe that we can have corporations police themselves. They are in the job of making money and that is often rather amoral. This is, however, off topic.
I do not think you need to be a saint to run our country effectively. I do, however, believe you need to be low on the “hypocrisy scale.” How can you lead, if what you say is in direct contradiction to what you do.
I feel we have this problem now. Our President says things like “I’m a uniter not a divider” and “we need to hold people accountable” yet he does not, in my liberal estimation, follow through.
Here is the reason it is coming up now: James Dobson will be running an interview with Gingrich, today, where this is discussed.
I’m aware of the interview (I linked to Dobson’s site, after all). That people are acting like it’s a revelation is the point I tried to make. – Admin
>>…we still face the consequences of our sin in the here and now.>>
Undoubtedly true, and you’re within your rights…but…(you knew there’d be a “but”, didn’t you??) is there no room in your heart to recognize a possible change in _his_ heart?
What will you do if Giuliani or Gingrich becomes the Republican nominee, and runs against Hillary or Obama? Not vote?
When it comes to America’s safety, I would vote for Newt, before I condemned him for any affairs he might have had. I think it is totally selfish to cheat on a spouse and never would, but if it comes down to Newt or the burka, I’ll go for Newt every time. I saw him at a fast food restaurant in Atlanta not too long ago and I thought him quite unpretentious and approachable. Plus, the man is smart. I seriously would vote for him.
I’m amazed with all the backsliding the conservative commenters are making. There was so much fury surrounding Clinton, and now there is this acceptance with Newt. What phonies! What’s the real reason (you) are a conservative?
If I were in the U.S., I most likely would be a Democrat, but I applaud your convictions and consistency, LaShawn. I can respect a conservative who doesn’t falter or compromise on their beliefs and holds everyone (including herself) to her standards.
I’m with you LaShawn. Just because he says he has repented does not mean that he has regenerated. More time is needed for an assessment of that.
And, as you say, repentance does not mean that there should be no consequences. I could never completely trust a man who has lied on multiple occasions to multiple wives.
After all-he could be lying about his position on the issues such as protecting the border, etc.. I don’t want to find out the hard way –like his wives did about how much he valued his vows to them.
#37 Paige chides: “I’m amazed with all the backsliding the conservative commenters are making. There was so much fury surrounding Clinton, and now there is this acceptance with Newt. What phonies! ”
Clinton defiled the Oval Office with a child the same age as his own and then helped her suborn perjury and lied to a grand jury himself. Those are the cold facts and he lost his law license as a result. (Not to mention his impeachment.)
Newt has a lousy track record with former wives. He says he seeks forgiveness. Would Christ cut him some slack?
You say we conservatives are phonies; because we have faith in redemption?
It really is easier to reject the Christian moral imperative and the remission of sin and go the way of the worldly cynic. Everyone knew Clinton was a liar, a bounder and a cad. So, when he played sex games with Monica, it was no big deal to the wise, sophisticated, modern smart set.
When you have no belief system to speak of, it is hard to be a phony, isn’t it?
Newt is the best idea man in America. His grasp of history and his pro-American, pro-liberty perspective, combined with his eloquence makes him rare if not unique in our nation, unfortunately.
That said, I see him as a Goldwater figure to whomever the dhimmies finally nominate: Right on the issues, unable to win at all. His inability to fight out of the rhetorical traps he fell into in his first term as Speaker means he would be too easily framed and defined in an election.
But whoever does run should do what it takes to get him to to serve in the campaign and then as Sec. of State or Sec. of Commerce or possibly Sec. of Education. He still has years of great ideas and service ahead of him. I hope he gets to put those years to good use.
Heliotrope
You can rationalize this all you want, cherry picking whichever facts support your position.
Phony (in my opinion)concerns the hypocrisy and the convenience some conservatives express their “so-called” beliefs.
Both men lied (one to his wife and country, the other to his wife) and hid their affairs for their own selfish desire. Both men are smart, and were fully aware of the wrongdoing at the time.
Newt is a hypocrite and has conveniently asked for “so called” redemption now that he may be up for the presidential bid.
I guess “Slick-Willy” can ask for redemption, and he, too, shall be absolved.
You and my DH feel exactly the same way about Gingrich. He could have written your post word for word. His behavior is a real disappointment, and it speaks poorly of his character.
#41 Paige:
Read my lips: Clinton suborned perjury and committed perjury. His sex romps were in the White House while he was the President. His punishment was for lying to a judge and grand jury while under oath.
Clinton did go on a 20 minute or so atonement tour under the guidance of Jesse Jackson who had a personal experience that allowed him to feel Clinton’s pain.
Ok, until facts should prove differently, Clinton deserves to be believed that he has cleaned up his act.
That puts Newt and Clinton on equal footing.
If Clinton decides to run for an office, he should be given the benefit of the doubt if he swears to keep his roving instincts in check.
That is where Newt stands. It is axiomatic that those who profess an abiding Christian faith are more subject to being excoriated if they fail. You will recall that Clinton carries his 40 pound Bible off to church with him and professes a deep and abiding faith.
I’m a bit confused where secular progressives stand on this. Do they think that Clinton is outsmarting the dumb Christians by playing their game?
Clinton got in hot water over perjury, not over nailing an intern with a cigar. That being said, the idea that he did not have full sex with her is absurd to me. The only way he didn’t “hit that” is if he’s impotent, which is admittedly a real possibility.
When the lefties try to pretend that the issue was sex it really demonstrates their fundamental dishonesty. When non-lefties call into the trap and begin arguing about sex, it makes them look like fools.
Clinton lied to the grand jury. Had he told the truth and said “Yeah, I @#$%ed her, what’s it to you?” then it would of course been a scandal, but he wouldn’t have had to endure impeachment proceedings.
Newt’s inability to keep it in his pants is of course pathetic, but last time I checked he didn’t lie to a grand jury about it. If he had then I’d expect him to be held to the same standard of accountability that Clinton (almost) was.
I have always felt that Gingrich does not have all the qualities one looks for in leadership. As more details from his scandal emerge, my beliefs have been confirmed. Republicans need a strong leader firm in his beliefs and I do not think Gingrich is the man for the job.
Turns out that Gingrich had cheated on his first wife, discussed divorce proceedings with her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery, and told his second wife over the telephone while she was attending her mother’s birthday party that he wanted a divorce.
If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that Gingrich and my ex-husband were separated at birth.
Newt Gingrichs infidelities are old news. Many did say it was about perjury, when former President Bill Clinton was being impeached for lying about his intern affair. But many on the right still pointed the sexual shenanigans finger at Mr. Clinton for his illicit affair with the intern. Before all this was proven true, I remember Mr. Gingrich using sexual infidelity based problems of a well known acting and producer/director based couple as an example of what is common in the world of the liberal democrats. He went on to say that one would not find any thing like that with the conservative republicans, because conservative republicans were strong on family values. Mr. Clintons sexual shenanigans right along with his perjury were set up as prime examples of what was wrong with liberal democrats by many on the right. Now many of todays conservatives are at least willing to give their support to possible presidential candidates with strong moral failings and weakened (if any) family values.
Obviously I agree with Lashawn, and I agree with #10 poster Tristan (about Giuliani). If this had been a couple of years ago, I would have been either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama supporter. For the first time I am only looking at republican conservative presidential candidates. So far the choices are not that great.
2008 is not going to be a choice between saints.
If the Republicans could round up a candidate of true virtue, would he/she be electable? (I am trying to think who that might be.)
The purpose of running a candidate is to win. The reason to win is to gain the power to get your programs in place.
Gingrich and Giuliani are total heels when it comes to marital conduct and fidelity. There are plenty of people among the 535 members of Congress who share their problem.
But what should be on the litmus test to decide who will get our vote?
If you are a single issue voter and a clean and clear marital history is the issue, then it might come down to Ralph Nader.
I have a rough rank order of my issues. I want national security (which includes secure borders and controlled immigration), a robust economy, minimal government, a conservative court system and issues such as abortion returned to the states where they belong.
I would sooner vote for a cad who can win and will work hard to accomplish these goals than vote for a saint who gets swamped.
Politics always involves compromise. I am not beating the drum for either Gingrich or Giuliani, but I do not intend to sit out the election if one of them gets the nomination.
I have tried to not bring up this uncomfortable subject, but I don’t want to conservatives to sell their souls just to win an election. I don’t want liberals to do it either.
It seems to me that many conservatives are willing to loose a battle and settle for Newt or Rudy in order to “win the war on things like abortion.” Yet, if we look at the countries with the highest abortion rates we find it is full of ones that have outlawed it. The ones with the lowest abortion rates are ones where it is legal and there are very active sex education programs that give women the tools to control their fertility.
I am no fan of abortion and thus will tend to go with the Swedish/Norwegian plans rather than the plans of a number of South American countries with the highest rates.
Another interesting note. The rate of abortion in the US rises as people get poorer. That is, people opt not to have a child as they decide they just can’t afford one. Perhaps we should figure out ways to lift people out of poverty as a way to control unwanted pregnancy and thus abortion.
As a child of the 50s I remember a time when abortion was illegal. Abortion was a big problem then, and women were also dying in alleys along with their unwanted children. Just because we outlaw abortion does not stop it. Sex education, personal control of fertility, and economic power are proven ways to reduce abortion to almost zero. I, for one, am willing to work on those issues because they work.
I can believe that you people do not see the real picture. Clinton should not have had to commit perjury because they should not be asking about who he was sleeping with. That should have been a question for Hillary and her response should not be judged either.
Newt comes across as an a**hole just because he was trying to discredit Clinton. What makes me angry about the whole situation is that both of them lack morals and I do not let those acts weigh in on which is greater.
Will Newt get my vote? No! Do I vote for mud slinging politicians? Yes! It usually boils down to the one who throws less mud or does it as a response to some hypocrite.
Why no discussion of Hagel? The man has an impeccable conservative record and seems a man of integrity. I would hate to have to come up against him as a Democrat. He has been against the war, but then so are most of out generals at this point. They just can’t say so until they retire, then they do.
#50
Finally someone sees the forest for the B.S. trees. People got so hopped up on Clinton hate that they lost all perspective and were manipulated by a political agenda bent on power. They were willing to take down the opposition, Clinton, at all costs. I think it cost us too much in terms of an America divided and loss of respect throughout the world. “But he lied to us.” Yes he did, save your indigence. He lied about his personal life, a life we had no business exploring anyway.
Point of order; Clinton did not “have” to commit perjury, but he chose to do so.
And this was not a matter of private sexual behavior to be settled between a philandering husband and his wife. Clinton’s resultant problems (fines and revocation of his law license) were not due to some nosy prosecutor simply wanting to know with whom he was sleeping. He lied during testimony in the case of sexual harassment brought by Paula Jones against him.
Andrew, you certainly do have an interesting take on things.
1.) “It seems to me that many conservatives are willing to loose a battle and settle for Newt or Rudy in order to ‘win the war on things like abortion.’” Well, Rudy would not be our “abortion war” candidate, would he? From the perspective of liberals, we Republicans always choose true dolts like Eisenhower, Reagan and the Bushes. But the liberals choose saints like Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and the Clintons. Oh, my.
2.) “Perhaps we should figure out ways to lift people out of poverty as a way to control unwanted pregnancy and thus abortion.” People get pregnant through no fault of their own and if we just gave them a basket of welfare support, they would be smarter and go out and get a house with a lawn and act in an entirely responsible manner. All they need is someone else’s money which is taken by the government and passed on to them (after expenses.) A real strong conservative view if there ever was one.
3.) “As a child of the 50s I remember a time when abortion was illegal. Abortion was a big problem then, and women were also dying in alleys along with their unwanted children.” As a child of the 40’s, I missed the alleys with dead women and children. I taught girls who went off to “homes” to complete their pregnancies. I knew of a woman who was sent to prison for having an abortion “shop.” But this whole “coat hanger” scare story does not stand up under even cursory research. I will stop there. My research on this topic is extensive and well published.
4.) “Why no discussion of Hagel? The man has an impeccable conservative record and seems a man of integrity.” You can not possibly be serious. Arlen Specter could get more funds from conservatives than Hagel. Kucinich could get more votes from conservatives.
5.) “He (Clinton) lied about his personal life, a life we had no business exploring anyway.” The second part of this sentence is a bombshell. You are clearly saying that Paula Jones had no right to bring suit against Clinton. (What happened to the little people have a voice against the powerful?) Sometimes I think liberals have gone around the bend. It is like watch a Marx Brothers farce.
Your comments are an interesting addition to this blog. But when you take on the job of giving advice to us conservatives, I suggest you use a little less of what your heart wishes and the trite lore of urban legend and a lot more intellectual challenge.
Ms. Barber.
I wonder what you think Scooter Libby’s indictment and conviction is all about. Do you believe it is all about Libby’s lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury and obstructing justice? Or do you side with Libby’s hare-brained conservative defenders, white ones especially, like Ann Coulter, who continue to defend his criminal behavior, including his lies? Any plans to disassociate yourself from these people?
The beauty of thinking for myself is that I don’t have to prove anything to anyone by disassociating myself with anything or anyone, and I feel no compulsion to comment on every scandal. I haven’t blogged about the Scooter Libby case because I haven’t been following it. Again, as I advised you in response to your previous comments, take your issues with “white conservatives” defending Libby and Ann Coulter white conservatives. LBC is not a trash bin for frustration dumps.
#55 Nate:
As a hare-brained conservative, I suggest we offer up poor old Scooter to incarceration at Gitmo so long as Joe Wilson, Sandy Burger, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry go too.
Scooter would be the sacrificial lamb, as he is only “guilty” of having been caught in the jaws of criminalizing politics. (Tim Russert and Richard Armitage would be “guilty” as well, if they were subjected to a trial.) Burger and Clinton are convicted liars. Wilson and Kerry could not survive a judicial inquiry.
Glad you are happy with the company you keep. I’ll take Scooter any day to your crowd.
I’ll be more than happy to let ol’ Scooter pay the penalty for lying in court, just as soon as the Clinton defenders stop whining about how unfair it was for him to have to pay the price for lying in court.
Helio, does this (#57 & #58) mean that we’re lodge brothers in the Mystical Hairbrained Conservative Order?
Non-story. Libby will be pardoned as Bush nears the end of his term. Lying is lying is lying. Clinton is Gingrich is Libby. That’s what politicians will continue to disappoint you. I thought conservatives will supposed to be for small government. Why all this interest in who actually wins anything? Because, it is about money and power. It always is. Virtue in politics doesn’t exist. Never has. Never will.
“I’ll be more than happy to let ol’ Scooter pay the penalty for lying in court, just as soon as the Clinton defenders stop whining about how unfair it was for him to have to pay the price for lying in court.”
Again, another example of it’s okay because somebody else did it. I love politics!
Angel, you’re looking at my comment upside down and backwards. I wasn’t defending Scooter. I was saying I’d be happy to see him pay for his lies. I also said it would be nice if the Clintonista would stop defending their guy’s lies. How on earth is that in any way saying that lying in court is ok?
Redbeard,
Sorry, but I’m reading exactly what you said. If your intent was different, then I apologize. I’m sure if you look at what you posted, it’s easy to see how I could come to my conclusion.
Red,
Your willingness to see Libby pay for his crimes was conditional. That should never be the case. Either someone is a criminal or he isn’t. I don’t mean to put too fine a point on this, but that is what you said.
LaShawn,
“Screwing”….yikes!!! When you “say” it, it sounds so bad. I’m really not picking on you. It’s just funny.
Late commenting on this blog, but I just happened to think, does anyone remember JFK and the many women, including Marilyn Monroe, who he had affairs with. And, then there’s FDR and Bill Clinton and now we have Gingrich and Guiliani and I’m beginning to wonder how many candidates or former presidents didn’t have affairs??I’m actually going to have a hard time voting next election for anyone in either party. If they’re not womanizers, they’re for allowing amnesty for illegal aliens. Come to think of it, some of them are both. Sheesh
Angel, take a wrap or two off your mainspring. Relax.
Dianne, you’ve hit upon something that has bothered me for a very long time. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to want a man in the Oval Office who respects his wife, and by logical extension respects himself by remaining faithful. Honoring marital vows is a rather basic test of character.
These concerns about Mr. Gingrich’s personal failings will be moot if Fred Thompson enters the race. I think he should, and I hope he will. He could be our next President.
Trey
Angel,
Just to throw some kerosene on the blaze—— Scooter Libby was entirely sucker punched by a special prosecutor who refused to hold either Tim Russert or Richard Armitage to the same charges in the prosecution of Scooter.
The Libby case was brought in an investigation to see if the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was violated in the naming of Valarie Plame as a CIA operative. The prosecutor (Fitzgerald) found no way to charge Libby with the violation. But, he charged that Libby had lied to a federal prosecutor about when he first heard the name Valarie Plame.
Angel, anyone who does not have a dog in this case would recognize that Fitzgerald over reached. I suspect that this opinion will be upheld when the whole case is overturned on appeal.
If the Democrats had any confidence that Scooter Libby, Carl Rove or Dick Cheney had any part in violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in regard to Valarie Plame they could force resignations through exercising their Congressional powers.
But the Democrats prefer the Fitzgerald route as it lets him do their political dirty work for them. Fitzgerald knew from the very outset that Richard Armitage leaked the name of Valerie Plame. No government entity has claimed that Valerie Plame was covert and subject to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The cast of characters who are all in the boat with Scooter Libby are Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, Richard Armitage, Tim Russert and Joe Wilson. But only Scooter Libby was prosecuted. How strange is that?
Angel, you noted in #64 that: “Either someone is a criminal or he isn’t.”
I am sure you will agree that not all “guilty” verdicts are the final word. Right now, Scooter Libby is guilty and therefore a criminal. When the dust settles, he will be found to have been the victim of a political show trial.
By the by: Henry Waxman is planning to bring Valerie Plame before his House committee. I guarantee you that she will not testify under oath. Otherwise it would all be the taking of the fifth amendment or prison for Ms. Plame.
Let the politics of destruction games continue!
Redbeard,
A man’s mainspring is his own concern.
Trey,
Fred Thompson could do it because as history as shown, we don’t necessarily want somebody who believes what they’re saying as much as we want someone to make us believe he believes it. Thompson is a fine actor. He has gravitas. I would buy him as President.
Helio,
I guess it depends on whose ox….you know the rest. But, there was a little too much breast beating about the “rule of law” when it came to Clinton and if you’re the man I think you are, you know that too. That’s why again I say politics is a dead end as far as making real changes in the culture.
La Shawn,
I’m not trying to offend you.
I never said or suggested that you have to prove anything to anyone by disassociating myself with anything or anyone or that you felt, or should feel, compelled to comment on every scandal. I simply took your words about Clinton’s impeachment, his “hare-brained” liberal defenders, and how their words led you to disassociate yourself with them, and asked if you felt the same way about conservatives who continue to defend convicted felon Scooter Libby. So, the comment/question wasn’t about taking out my frustration (of which I have none) with white conservatives defending Scooter and Coulter, it was about gaining insight into your thinking process.
Said another way, President Clinton’s impeachment played some part in your defection from liberalism because the more you listened to hare-brained liberals, black ones especially, defending Clinton’s disgusting behavior, including his lies, the more you realized you wanted no association with such people. Isn’t Scooter’s criminal conviction all about his lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury and obstructing justice, not the Democrats? Aren’t conservatives doing the same thing with regard to Scooter as liberals did with regard to Clinton? Of course you don’t have to answer, or agree, or even allow this comment to stay posted on YOUR blog, but isn’t it fair for me to ask if there is a possibility that you will have the same reaction to Conservatives now that you had to liberals then and defect from conservatism?
Angel, do you know something about Fred Thompson’s political convictions that you’d like to share with us? Or did you just not like Ronald Reagan?
Thompson was a prosecuting attorney, counsel to the Watergate committee (responsible for some of the most pointed questions aimed at Richard Nixon), prosecuted the Tennessee Parole Board case that resulted in the fall of the governor on corruption charges, all before he got into acting. He then served two terms in the Senate before voluntarily leaving to resume his acting career. I’m not sure what in that resume would make anyone think that Thompson doesn’t have strength of character and a proper set of beliefs.
Redbeard,
I know Thompson’s resume. And, that’s exactly why I don’t think he would run. He’s an honest man. Reagan wasn’t Jesus. I liked his fiscal policies, but the social stuff….eh.
Angel,
I must not be the man you think I am.
Bill Clinton did something remarkably stupid for a graduate of the Yale Law School, an Attorney General of the State of Arkansas and a law professor at the University of Arkansas.
He suborned perjury and committed perjury while sitting as President of the United States. His oath of office was short and sweet and can be found in the Constitution.
Bill Clinton, like Scooter Libby, was found guilty. Bill Clinton was caught red handed. He had nothing to appeal. Therein lies the difference.
Had Bill Clinton chosen not to smear and rile up Paula Jones, he probably would have avoided everything that followed. I know that libs love to sweep it all under the “it was just about sex” carpet, but that is patently not true.
Clinton is a lot like Nixon. If Nixon had not been so arrogant about his legacy, he would have burned the tapes and left the Watergate investigation high and dry. If Clinton had not stonewalled the Paula Jones litigants, he would have escaped the whole mess with lying, probably would have never have had his Monica business revealed and would not have been impeached.
Sorry, Angel, but Scooter’s sin is small potatoes to Clinton’s foolishness. You can love Clinton all you want, but he was still an arrogant buffoon who is a classic protagonist for a Greek tragedy. And, he did not uphold the Constitution to the best of his ability.
Comments on this entry are closed.