Major reason why Gingrinch should not be president

[johnnyrodgers20]

Liberals care about family values as much as anyone. The issue is that Republicans are the ones constantly touting themselves as the party of family values, and I've seriously lost count of the number of times a Republican has gotten busted for soliciting for gay sex in a public bathroom, not paying child support, cheating on their spouses, soliciting young male pages for sex, the list goes on. Not to mention that they want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and have no problem taking a ham fisted approach to immigrants and splitting up families.

You can't jump on a pedestal and claim to be the protector of family values when you're pulling this sh#t. Especially if you want to elect someone like Newt as President. Remember when he was having an affair while trying to get Clinton impeached? Yea...

I do remember that and that is reprehensible. I also know that if you gave Clinton a break you need to give everyone a break. Newt made a mistake that is how many years ago, would you be willing to be held to the same standard? Go back and have your life dissected and any transgression would still be held against you? That is tough for any person, we are all sinners and fall short o fthe glory of God. If you exclude people who have an issue there would be no one left. Hey, great idea I am for that one!!! chuckleshuffle

 

[Comish]

Neither party has much traction on “morality” issues.

Fwiw……..the “affair while wife dying” myth has largely been discredited (by his own family), but has taken on a life of it’s own and is accepted as truth by those who want it to be so.

http://www.creators....d-straight.html

Like him or hate him, he has more pure intellect and ideas than anyone in either party. And, shoots from the lip so spontaneously that he earns a rep as a loose cannon.

The idea that Republican insiders are embracing him is ludicrous. The Rhinos are scared to death of losing their power and want the status quo as much as the dems

 

[Malth]

Liberals care about family values as much as anyone. The issue is that Republicans are the ones constantly touting themselves as the party of family values, and I've seriously lost count of the number of times a Republican has gotten busted for soliciting for gay sex in a public bathroom, not paying child support, cheating on their spouses, soliciting young male pages for sex, the list goes on. Not to mention that they want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and have no problem taking a ham fisted approach to immigrants and splitting up families.

You can't jump on a pedestal and claim to be the protector of family values when you're pulling this sh#t. Especially if you want to elect someone like Newt as President. Remember when he was having an affair while trying to get Clinton impeached? Yea...

I do remember that and that is reprehensible. I also know that if you gave Clinton a break you need to give everyone a break. Newt made a mistake that is how many years ago, would you be willing to be held to the same standard? Go back and have your life dissected and any transgression would still be held against you? That is tough for any person, we are all sinners and fall short o fthe glory of God. If you exclude people who have an issue there would be no one left. Hey, great idea I am for that one!!! chuckleshuffle

I'm just calling them on their bullsh#t.

And if I was running for President, then yea, I would be willing to be held to a higher standard.

 

[carlfense]

That comes from both sides of the aisle. Why are the dems making it an issue when they say it doesn't matter? :hmmph

Why do you care what the "dems" are saying? The GOP primary is not run by the Democratic Party.

My problem is the blinding hypocrisy of GOP leaders claiming the moral high ground of "family values" while endorsing candidates whose values are just as questionable as the worst of the Democratic Party candidates.

Can you see the difference? Do you want to?

 

[carlfense]

Neither party has much traction on “morality” issues.

Fwiw……..the “affair while wife dying” myth has largely been discredited (by his own family), but has taken on a life of it’s own and is accepted as truth by those who want it to be so.

http://www.creators....d-straight.html

Like him or hate him, he has more pure intellect and ideas than anyone in either party. And, shoots from the lip so spontaneously that he earns a rep as a loose cannon.

The idea that Republican insiders are embracing him is ludicrous. The Rhinos are scared to death of losing their power and want the status quo as much as the dems

How about we let the tumor stricken wife's words speak for themselves?

Jackie Battley, Jan. 3, 1985: He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery.

Family values, indeed.

FWIW I agree about neither party having a significant edge on "family values" issues. That's why I think that the GOPs claim of ownership is so obnoxious.

 

[Husker_x]

Gingrich has slotted no one for State. He said he would ask John Bolton under certain preconditions.

John Bolton should not be considered under any circumstance, or precondition.

Secondly, Gingrich does not favor war with Iran. He favors a variety of covert means of toppling a regime, focussed primarily on cutting off their gasoline supply and oil refinement capabilities, as well as funding dissident groups in the area. All of this to avoid military action, which would become all but inevitable if Iran were to produce a nuclear weapon.

So Newt doesn't favor overt war, he favors illegal covert operations.

In other words... Newt favors terrorism.

No, but unlike Ron Paul, some candidates on both sides of the aisle live in the real world where real consequences result in the death of real people. Taking, for example, a nuclear Iran. You're free to rail against whoever, but let's get our facts straight.

Well you see, when we sponsor terrorism or at least tacitly endorse it, it's perfectly fine, and even characterizing it as such makes you a damn dirty liberal apologist who hates America.

PS is there ANY compelling reason to vote for the Newtster besides his party affiliation and apparent ability to debate? He has absolutely nothing to stand on in the morals department and is the definitive political grifter. Seems to me like Republican leadership got to together about 8 months ago and decided to have a musical chairs nomination process with loud, angry people playing the music. Unbelievably, Newt may get the last chair...

Maybe you are too young or maybe you think it is a myth but he balanced the budget when he was speaker. Now most credit Clinton with that and I get the POTUS gets credit and criticism for things that he didn't do in office so it is OK for Clinton to get the credit. But Gingrich and the pubs contract with America dragged Clinton into balancing the budget. He is a very intelligent politician and one that has worked in a bipartisan way. Isn't that what people are looking for in this election? :dunno

Also, he resigned in disgrace because of 84 ethics violations and left his wife for another woman while she was in the hospital with cancer.

The perfect family values candidate! He regrets that he has but three wives to give for his country.

Edit: I hope Gingrich is the GOP candidate.

You seem to have forgotten the part where 83 of them were flatly dismissed, including the supposed tax violation which the IRS later apologized for. The actual ethics violation that was not trumped up appears to have been a mistake, and a pretty underwhelming and uninteresting one. Kind of how Obama's pastor was underwhelming and uninteresting in 2008. Kind of how the alleged shady dealings behind his house in Chicago is underwhelming and uninteresting. Kind of how Nancy Pelosi sitting on a supposed non-partisan 'ethics committee' makes the committee underwhelming and uninteresting.

Both Gingrich and his daughter who was present at the exact occasion have repudiated the story about the alleged 'death bed' divorce papers. I suppose it doesn't matter that Mrs. Gingrich did not have cancer, was only having a benign tumor removed, or that they were already separated, or that it was in all likelihood Mrs. Gingrich who wanted the divorce, or that she is still alive and well today.

I thought moderates were, you know. . .moderate.

 

[carlfense]

You seem to have forgotten the part where 83 of them were flatly dismissed, including the supposed tax violation which the IRS later apologized for. The actual ethics violation that was not trumped up appears to have been a mistake, and a pretty underwhelming and uninteresting one. Kind of how Obama's pastor was underwhelming and uninteresting in 2008. Kind of how the alleged shady dealings behind his house in Chicago is underwhelming and uninteresting. Kind of how Nancy Pelosi sitting on a supposed non-partisan 'ethics committee' makes the committee underwhelming and uninteresting.

Both Gingrich and his daughter who was present at the exact occasion have repudiated the story about the alleged 'death bed' divorce papers. I suppose it doesn't matter that Mrs. Gingrich did not have cancer, was only having a benign tumor removed, or that they were already separated, or that it was in all likelihood Mrs. Gingrich who wanted the divorce, or that she is still alive and well today.

I thought moderates were, you know. . .moderate.

I wonder what ol' Newt-ster himself would say about his ethics violations . . . well lookee here . . .

"In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee" -Stated Gingrich after he finally pled guilty in January of 1997 to charges brought against him by the House Ethics Committee.

This sort of thing happens every single day in criminal court. If you plead to ____ I will dismiss ____ and ____. It certainly doesn't mean that they didn't commit the violations that led to the dismissed charges.

I know one thing that I want in a family values candidate, and that is that they insist on discussing their divorce with their wife while she is in the hospital recovering from a surgery to remove a tumor. Particularly when that divorce is the result of that candidate cheating on his tumor-stricken wife with the 28 year old daughter of an Ohio mayor. (A pattern of conduct that Gingrich repeated, I might add.)

Are you suggesting that Gingrich is a moderate candidate? Genuinely curious.

Edit: I like how the Gingrich discussion is repeatedly diverted to being about Obama, Clinton, or Kennedy. I didn't vote for Obama. It looks like you are trying to say that I didn't scrutinize Obama during the DNC primary. I did. Try to focus. We are talking about GINGRICH here.

 

[Husker_x]

You seem to have forgotten the part where 83 of them were flatly dismissed, including the supposed tax violation which the IRS later apologized for. The actual ethics violation that was not trumped up appears to have been a mistake, and a pretty underwhelming and uninteresting one. Kind of how Obama's pastor was underwhelming and uninteresting in 2008. Kind of how the alleged shady dealings behind his house in Chicago is underwhelming and uninteresting. Kind of how Nancy Pelosi sitting on a supposed non-partisan 'ethics committee' makes the committee underwhelming and uninteresting.

Both Gingrich and his daughter who was present at the exact occasion have repudiated the story about the alleged 'death bed' divorce papers. I suppose it doesn't matter that Mrs. Gingrich did not have cancer, was only having a benign tumor removed, or that they were already separated, or that it was in all likelihood Mrs. Gingrich who wanted the divorce, or that she is still alive and well today.

I thought moderates were, you know. . .moderate.

I wonder what ol' Newt-ster himself would say about his ethics violations . . . well lookee here . . .

"In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee" -Stated Gingrich after he finally pled guilty in January of 1997 to charges brought against him by the House Ethics Committee.

This sort of thing happens every single day in criminal court. If you plead to ____ I will dismiss ____ and ____. It certainly doesn't mean that they didn't commit the violations that led to the dismissed charges.

I know one thing that I want in a family values candidate, and that is that they insist on discussing their divorce with their wife while she is in the hospital recovering from a surgery to remove a tumor. Particularly when that divorce is the result of that candidate cheating on his tumor-stricken wife with the 28 year old daughter of an Ohio mayor. (A pattern of conduct that Gingrich repeated, I might add.)

Are you suggesting that Gingrich is a moderate candidate? Genuinely curious.

According to Gingrich, he signed a document his lawyers drafted without reading it and presented it to the committee. It did constitute an ethics violation, but it may or may not have been intentional. If anyone has confirmation either way on the exact nature of the violation, I'd love to see it. The fact that no one ever seems to bring up the exact nature of the violation (and instead trumpets the 83 dismissed ones) makes me highly skeptical.

To answer your question, no, he's certainly a conservative candidate, and certainly not as moderate as Romney or Obama. He does, however, have several moderate stances--see immigration, for instance--and is well to the left of the tea party. Everyone held their breath for the blowback when Newt timidly suggested that we weren't going to boot long standing members of the community out of this country or engage in mass deportations.

It doesn't really matter to me who likes or doesn't like what candidate for what reason, except that it's factual. When you write that Newt resigned over 84 ethics violations, it's false. When you write he left his cancer-stricken wife for another woman while she was in the hospital, it's false. I'm only interested in political debate if we're talking about the truth. If it bothers you that Newt was married three times, fine, don't vote for him. Personally I couldn't care less. In a country with a divorce rate like ours, I don't feel I'm in a position to cast the first stone. No one seemed to mind with Clinton or Kennedy.

 

[Malth]

According to Gingrich, he signed a document his lawyers drafted without reading it and presented it to the committee. It did constitute an ethics violation, but it may or may not have been intentional.

In a statement, Baran insisted his firm "did not submit any material information to the ethics committee without Mr. Gingrich's prior review and approval."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/9612/19/1franken/

Anyway, I'm not convinced that he's *really* running for President, much like Cain.

 

[carlfense]

You seem to have forgotten the part where 83 of them were flatly dismissed, including the supposed tax violation which the IRS later apologized for. The actual ethics violation that was not trumped up appears to have been a mistake, and a pretty underwhelming and uninteresting one. Kind of how Obama's pastor was underwhelming and uninteresting in 2008. Kind of how the alleged shady dealings behind his house in Chicago is underwhelming and uninteresting. Kind of how Nancy Pelosi sitting on a supposed non-partisan 'ethics committee' makes the committee underwhelming and uninteresting.

Both Gingrich and his daughter who was present at the exact occasion have repudiated the story about the alleged 'death bed' divorce papers. I suppose it doesn't matter that Mrs. Gingrich did not have cancer, was only having a benign tumor removed, or that they were already separated, or that it was in all likelihood Mrs. Gingrich who wanted the divorce, or that she is still alive and well today.

I thought moderates were, you know. . .moderate.

I wonder what ol' Newt-ster himself would say about his ethics violations . . . well lookee here . . .

"In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee" -Stated Gingrich after he finally pled guilty in January of 1997 to charges brought against him by the House Ethics Committee.

This sort of thing happens every single day in criminal court. If you plead to ____ I will dismiss ____ and ____. It certainly doesn't mean that they didn't commit the violations that led to the dismissed charges.

I know one thing that I want in a family values candidate, and that is that they insist on discussing their divorce with their wife while she is in the hospital recovering from a surgery to remove a tumor. Particularly when that divorce is the result of that candidate cheating on his tumor-stricken wife with the 28 year old daughter of an Ohio mayor. (A pattern of conduct that Gingrich repeated, I might add.)

Are you suggesting that Gingrich is a moderate candidate? Genuinely curious.

According to Gingrich, he signed a document his lawyers drafted without reading it and presented it to the committee. It did constitute an ethics violation, but it may or may not have been intentional. If anyone has confirmation either way on the exact nature of the violation, I'd love to see it. The fact that no one ever seems to bring up the exact nature of the violation (and instead trumpets the 83 dismissed ones) makes me highly skeptical.

To answer your question, no, he's certainly a conservative candidate, and certainly not as moderate as Romney or Obama. He does, however, have several moderate stances--see immigration, for instance--and is well to the left of the tea party. Everyone held their breath for the blowback when Newt timidly suggested that we weren't going to boot long standing members of the community out of this country or engage in mass deportations.

It doesn't really matter to me who likes or doesn't like what candidate for what reason, except that it's factual. (1)When you write that Newt resigned over 84 ethics violations, it's false. (2) When you write he left his cancer-stricken wife for another woman while she was in the hospital, it's false. I'm only interested in political debate if we're talking about the truth. (3)If it bothers you that Newt was married three times, fine, don't vote for him. Personally I couldn't care less. In a country with a divorce rate like ours, I don't feel I'm in a position to cast the first stone. (4) No one seemed to mind with Clinton or Kennedy.

1. Gingrich was charged with 84 ethics violations. He admitted to 1 and the rest were dismissed. Subsequently, he resigned. Those are the facts. If you draw different conclusions from those facts than I do, fine.

2. He did leave his cancer stricken wife while she was in the hospital. He had an affair before, during, and after her uterine cancer surgery.

3. The hypocrisy is what bothers me. This shouldn't be a difficult concept. It's not the fact that Gingrich cheated on his first two wives and traded each in for a younger model. It's the fact that he is a leading representative of a party that desperately tries to portray itself as being family and morality first. I don't know how I can make this more clear but I am willing to try if my point is not coming through.

4. Again, trying to tie it to Clinton and Kennedy. What did Gingrich have to say about Clinton? How exactly do his actions during Clinton's impeachment line up with his own lifestyle? If that doesn't bother you then you must have an insanely high tolerance for hypocrisy and partisanship.

 

[Husker_x]

1. Gingrich was charged with 84 ethics violations. He admitted to 1 and the rest were dismissed. Subsequently, he resigned. Those are the facts. If you draw different conclusions from those facts than I do, fine.

2. He did leave his cancer stricken wife while she was in the hospital. He had an affair before, during, and after her uterine cancer surgery.

3. The hypocrisy is what bothers me. This shouldn't be a difficult concept. It's not the fact that Gingrich cheated on his first two wives and traded each in for a younger model. It's the fact that he is a leading representative of a party that desperately tries to portray itself as being family and morality first. I don't know how I can make this more clear but I am willing to try if my point is not coming through.

4. Again, trying to tie it to Clinton and Kennedy. What did Gingrich have to say about Clinton? How exactly do those statements line up with his own actions? If that doesn't bother you then you must have an insanely high tolerance for hypocrisy and partisanship.

This'll have to be my last round because I've got a lot to get done today and not much time to do it.

1. This is correct. Your initial sentence made no reference to the fact that 83 were only allegations which were dismissed, meaning he resigned over one ethics violation. Although it should be noted his actual resignation was caused by other factors as well. For the violation he payed a $300,000 fine.

2. The article I linked you to presents a different story. Mrs. Gingrich did not actually have cancer in 1980. His affair took place before she was in the hospital. He did not go to the hospital with the intent of divorcing her, and his daughter has repudiated the legendary accounts told by others not in the room. Even Mrs. Gingrich now refuses to be interviewed because she feels her words were misconstrued. My advice for Gingrich opponents is to let this one go. All Gingrich has to do is point out the series of factual errors in the story and it loses its legs. His behavior generally is a fair topic, but the dishonest way this story is portrayed is for me distasteful.

3. We can agree here, as well. For me this simply isn't an issue. Gingrich is at this time a happily married man who converted to Catholicism and is very blunt and open about the mistakes he made in his past. For me, that's sufficient. I can't control what Republicans believe or don't believe about their family values platform. I don't care that Clinton had an affair or that Kennedy probably had a string of them. Again, not an issue. I can only speak for myself on that. Gingrich himself has very little to say about family values (unless he's opposing his own party and the tea party by refusing to destroy families through mass deportation).

4. Hypocrisy and partisanship are synonyms for politics. I have yet to see a politician who doesn't exhibit these characteristics at one point or another. If you want to go down the he-said/she-said road, pick any politician and listen to them talk for a sustained period of time. Frankly I'm more interested in discussions about substantive issues about social policies that will actually affect me. Some other time I can give you a list of things that bother me about Gingrich if you like.

Have a good one.

 

[krill]

Gingrich is at this time a happily married man who converted to Catholicism and is very blunt and open about the mistakes he made in his past. For me, that's sufficient.

Really? A man who cheated on two wives, with the latter affair going on while he was leading the charge to impeach Clinton for lying about an affair, just has to say "I'm sorry and I love Jesus", and we move on like it's all water under the bridge? He hasn't been particularly blunt about it either; there was an interview not long ago where he tried to claim he was cheating because he worked too hard in congress, which somehow degraded his ability resist temptation. I don't believe there's any recovery or fix from being a serial adulterer besides age, and thanks to the marvels of modern medicine Newt ain't there yet.

T-Paw should have hung in this thing...

 

[carlfense]

1. Gingrich was charged with 84 ethics violations. He admitted to 1 and the rest were dismissed. Subsequently, he resigned. Those are the facts. If you draw different conclusions from those facts than I do, fine.

2. He did leave his cancer stricken wife while she was in the hospital. He had an affair before, during, and after her uterine cancer surgery.

3. The hypocrisy is what bothers me. This shouldn't be a difficult concept. It's not the fact that Gingrich cheated on his first two wives and traded each in for a younger model. It's the fact that he is a leading representative of a party that desperately tries to portray itself as being family and morality first. I don't know how I can make this more clear but I am willing to try if my point is not coming through.

4. Again, trying to tie it to Clinton and Kennedy. What did Gingrich have to say about Clinton? How exactly do those statements line up with his own actions? If that doesn't bother you then you must have an insanely high tolerance for hypocrisy and partisanship.

This'll have to be my last round because I've got a lot to get done today and not much time to do it.

1. This is correct. Your initial sentence made no reference to the fact that 83 were only allegations which were dismissed, meaning he resigned over one ethics violation. Although it should be noted his actual resignation was caused by other factors as well. For the violation he payed a $300,000 fine.

2. The article I linked you to presents a different story. Mrs. Gingrich did not actually have cancer in 1980. His affair took place before she was in the hospital. He did not go to the hospital with the intent of divorcing her, and his daughter has repudiated the legendary accounts told by others not in the room. Even Mrs. Gingrich now refuses to be interviewed because she feels her words were misconstrued. My advice for Gingrich opponents is to let this one go. All Gingrich has to do is point out the series of factual errors in the story and it loses its legs. His behavior generally is a fair topic, but the dishonest way this story is portrayed is for me distasteful.

3. We can agree here, as well. For me this simply isn't an issue. Gingrich is at this time a happily married man who converted to Catholicism and is very blunt and open about the mistakes he made in his past. For me, that's sufficient. I can't control what Republicans believe or don't believe about their family values platform. I don't care that Clinton had an affair or that Kennedy probably had a string of them. Again, not an issue. I can only speak for myself on that. Gingrich himself has very little to say about family values (unless he's opposing his own party and the tea party by refusing to destroy families through mass deportation).

4. Hypocrisy and partisanship are synonyms for politics. I have yet to see a politician who doesn't exhibit these characteristics at one point or another. If you want to go down the he-said/she-said road, pick any politician and listen to them talk for a sustained period of time. Frankly I'm more interested in discussions about substantive issues about social policies that will actually affect me. Some other time I can give you a list of things that bother me about Gingrich if you like.

Have a good one.

1. I should have been more specific. Apologies.

2. Mrs. Gingrich (Battley) had uterine cancer and underwent surgery in 1978. She had a relapse and had to have another tumor removed from her uterus in 1980. That's cancer. I too find the story distasteful. Our reasons differ.

3. Agreed. :wasted

4. Hypocrisy is a hot button issue for me. It irks me. I'm not entirely sure why.

You have a good day as well. It's a hurry up and wait day for me so I have plenty of time to banter. Hope you get everything done on time.

 

[carlfense]

Gingrich is at this time a happily married man who converted to Catholicism and is very blunt and open about the mistakes he made in his past. For me, that's sufficient.

Really? A man who cheated on two wives, with the latter affair going on while he was leading the charge to impeach Clinton for lying about an affair, just has to say "I'm sorry and I love Jesus", and we move on like it's all water under the bridge? He hasn't been particularly blunt about it either; there was an interview not long ago where he tried to claim he was cheating because he worked too hard in congress, which somehow degraded his ability resist temptation. I don't believe there's any recovery or fix from being a serial adulterer besides age, and thanks to the marvels of modern medicine Newt ain't there yet.

T-Paw should have hung in this thing...

Whoa! Now I remember that! He said that he cheated on his wife because he loved his country so much! How could I have forgotten about that?!

 

[krill]

"“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate,” Gingrich told CBN’s David Brody, in an interview taped at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition…"