Gingrich's past affairs should only be an issue

… because he presents himself as some sort of moral authority. As far as I'm concerned it's his views on policy and ideology that concern me more than how many wives he's cheated on. However his hypocrisy about it — leading the charge against Bill Clinton's affair while in the middle of his own — is something to be considered.

Which isn't to say that his fidelity isn't a concern to some people, but the people who most claim fidelity is important are the same people who will ignore his transgressions. Pretty much everyone already knows that he cheated on his past wives with the next one in the chain and very few people seem to be all that concerned about it regardless of what their views on fidelity are. I think it'll take more than this to knock Newt out of the race. #seb #Politics #newtgingrich #infidelity

Embedded Link

2nd wife: Gingrich asked me for "open marriage" so he could keep sleeping with mistress, now 3rd wife
Cheryl Casey / Shutterstock
ABC News has the interview with Gingrich's second wife of 18 years, Marianne (he's on his third now). But the Daily Beast does a nice summary of the interview, without having to be submitted to ABC's obnoxious auto-on videos that were very au courant in 1996.
Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife told ABC News that the Republican presidential candidate lacked the proper moral character to be president. In an interview that will Thursday night on Nightline, Marianne Gingrich said…

Google+: View post on Google+

4 thoughts on “Gingrich's past affairs should only be an issue

  1. I think it goes to character (honesty, fidelity, hypocrisy) — but, then, as you say, it doesn't really reveal anything we didn't already know, and he's already "repented" and "been forgiven" and thus "given a pass" by the folks inclined to support him.

  2. So, does Newt’s declaritive statement count as evidence for conspiracy to commit an unlawful act? If so, is it actionable at this time?

  3. Newt runs on the premise that he is defending Christian conservatism against secularism. But the central figure of Christianity, as presented by the Gospels, says nothing against science, drugs, abortion or gays but has a lot to say against divorce, re-marriage, adultery, and hypocrisy, which are Newt’s hallmarks. If the government has the right to impose religious mores, then Newt should go to the same prison that pot smokers, pro-choicers, and activist judges are headed to. But apparently only Newt has the right to privacy. Newt asserts that to bring up a politician’s private life is distasteful and negative, representative of everything that is wrong with our system; apparently this was not the case when Clinton was president. Newt is indicative of the incoherent fraud that is Republican conservatism. This is the party that runs on sanctimonious Evangelicalism, yet boos the Golden Rule and cheers attacks on poverty.

  4. Dave- that’s one of Christianity’s selling points, isn’t it? Doesn’t matter what you do as long as you repent before dying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.