Gingrich's personal history proves him RARE honest politician

Saying any politician is honest is naive and laughable, especially Newt Gingrich.

The fact that the Republicans would even give a serious look at a sewer-rat like Gingrich is laughable. The fact that he could take Romney out for us and become their nominee is downright hilarious. This could be his slogan: Gingrich - Bringing down the GOP by exposing its hypocrisy once and for all.

Man....its a great day to be a Democrat!

Cheaters:Look at the statistics.

"The chance of a successful relationship born of infidelity is not even one in 100. A marriage that starts in infidelity has no foundation. You go into it with guilt, shame, angst, worry, and all the baggage that comes with that."

(Dr. Phil)
http://drphil.com/articles/article/127

Click to expand...

The fact remains that "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior" and a man who has repeatedly failed to honor his marriage vows can't be trusted to keep his presidential Oath of Office!

American said:

I suppose that once you murdered someone, you'd immediately decide that murder isn't wrong, wouldn't YOU?

Click to expand...

His cheating was not all prior to his proclaimed support of family values, but was done while he claimed to support it. And maybe he knows and knew it's wrong, but he still did it - what does it say about a person that choose to do things they know and say are wrong? At the least they are hypocrites.

The guy cheated on his wife, honesty is irrelevant, he's clearly not trustworthy.

iguanaman said:

Wow, so Christians that follow the word of Jesus or "family values" candidates that actually have family values are hypocritical to ask for? No wonder I find both groups so pointless.

Click to expand...

Actually, Christ came to Earth for a purpose, which is for us all to love one another, be giving, and accept him as Savior. You would not recognize Christ's love at all in some who call themselves Christian. But one thing is certain - America was founded on secularism, and that the church is not to be merged with the state in any way whatsoever. This means that Christ cannot be used in government as an excuse to feed the hungry, evangelize people in prisons, help the prostitutes out of prostitution, giving to the sick, showing compassion towards alcoholics by helping them get off booze, giving a helping hand to children, or anything else that Christ taught that we should do. Therefore, those who say that we do not owe the poor anything, and should not pay taxes towards making America better for all, are completely correct. We are NOT a true Christian nation, and we were not meant to be one, lest we would end up favoring one religion over another, or even over those who regard themselves as infidels. However, as Christ put it, those who take such a hard line towards the poor will have their reward, and it won't be everlasting life. What is it worth for one to gain the world, but lose his soul? Wherever we go, we won't be able to take it with us. Losing one's soul over about a 75 year period, having everything for such a short period, and then being dead forever, when one could have had life eternal, is the saddest outcome imaginable. But, as far as government goes, they are right. Government owes nobody anything. You only owe your fellow man if you belong to Christ. This is not to say that all Christians in America don't give. Many do, but if ALL who call themselves Christians did, there would be no hunger. Those who don't follow Christ and give, according to his word, know who they are, and unfortunately for them, Christ does not know them. 75 years, or thereabouts, is such a short time.

That's not what the word "honest" means.

AdamT said:

Gingrich is lying sack of crap. He went after Clinton over the Lewinsky affair and any other damned thing imaginable. Maybe you're too young to remember, but I'm not and neither are a lot of other folks.

Click to expand...

Republicans go after Democrats and Democrats go after Republicans on sexual morality issues. There is no difference. If a Republican is caught soliciting gay sex, suddenly Democrats are hell-and-brimstone burn-gays-at-the-stake. On Gingrich, suddenly Democrats are morality purists.

The FACT is that the impreachment proceedings were, specifically, for perjury. That also is why Clinton was disbarred. He was not disbarred over an affair. During this, Democrats kept crying the impreachment process was over the affair to attempt to divert from Clinton not only lying to the public, but specifically lying under oath in sworn federal depositions. The latter is a federal felony offense, thus arguably cause for impeachment.

When it comes to affairs, the liar to the public was Clinton, not Gingrich.

What is forgotten is that IN THE SAME TIME FRAME Gingrich admitted to his affair and resigned from Congress. Clinton lied repeatedly and adamently ("I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN!") on television to everyone - and then lied under oath in a federal sworn deposition. Clinton only admitted he was lying and to the truth after it learned there was DNA evidence against him.

joko104 said:

Republicans go after Democrats and Democrats go after Republicans on sexual morality issues. There is no difference. If a Republican is caught soliciting gay sex, suddenly Democrats are hell-and-brimstone burn-gays-at-the-stake. On Gingrich, suddenly Democrats are morality purists.

Click to expand...

When has the modern Democratic Party ever been "hell-and-brimstone burn-gays-at-the-stake"? You are making things up.

This is not about "moral purists" but about hypocrisy and dishonesty.

The FACT is that the impreachment proceedings were, specifically, for perjury. That also is why Clinton was disbarred. He was not disbarred over an affair. During this, Democrats kept crying the impreachment process was over the affair to attempt to divert from Clinton not only lying to the public, but specifically lying under oath in sworn federal depositions. The latter is a federal felony offense, thus arguably cause for impeachment.

When it comes to affairs, the liar to the public was Clinton, not Gingrich.

What is forgotten is that IN THE SAME TIME FRAME Gingrich admitted to his affair and resigned from Congress. Clinton lied repeatedly and adamently ("I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN!") on television to everyone - and then lied under oath in a federal sworn deposition. Clinton only admitted he was lying and to the truth after it learned there was DNA evidence against him.

Click to expand...

Gingrich didn't resign because of his affair but because he was forced to over his ethic violation conviction. Gingrich didn't admit to the affair from the beginning, he had the affair with his current wife for 6 years. Nor are the 2 the only women he is alleged to have had affairs with. He was having affairs while talking about "moral decline" in America and forming a "conservative coalition" against these evils.

Joko,

Honesty to save ones own ass after being caught is not honesty. The Newt, (not MR speaker, former if anything) constantly lacks knowledge on topics, so instead of looking a fool to other fools, he uses the age old method, "If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bulls***."

The greatest example is his speech on Islamic law. Newt implied that the US was attempting to impose Sharia (Stoning, cutting off hands, etc.) this is completely groundless. Never has it even been discussed. Yet he gained followers after this speech in September of 2011, enough to make his next move running in the primaries. He does this sort of thing constantly, dodging questions without giving any sort of answer to prove otherwise, other then 'no I did not.' His method is laughing at the person asking the question - and people like you eat it up like ignorant, uneducated bully wannabes who couldn't poor piss out of a boot if the directions were on the heel.

Newt is one piss-poor lie after another. With the way you portray opinion, and your pathetic word choice attempting to insult; I would not expect you actually know what a lie is. So let me spell out the combined definition of a lie: Anything sent to
deceive.

IQlimited said:

Joko,

Honesty to save ones own ass after being caught is not honesty. The Newt, (not MR speaker, former if anything) constantly lacks knowledge on topics, so instead of looking a fool to other fools, he uses the age old method, "If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bulls***."

The greatest example is his speech on Islamic law. Newt implied that the US was attempting to impose Sharia (Stoning, cutting off hands, etc.) this is completely groundless. Never has it even been discussed. Yet he gained followers after this speech in September of 2011, enough to make his next move running in the primaries. He does this sort of thing constantly, dodging questions without giving any sort of answer to prove otherwise, other then 'no I did not.' His method is laughing at the person asking the question - and people like you eat it up like ignorant, uneducated bully wannabes who couldn't poor piss out of a boot if the directions were on the heel.

Newt is one piss-poor lie after another. With the way you portray opinion, and your pathetic word choice attempting to insult; I would not expect you actually know what a lie is. So let me spell out the combined definition of a lie: Anything sent to
deceive.

Click to expand...

I agree. Never read what I post about Gingrich as endorsing or supporting him. He is an ego maniac ever shifting ideologue maverick of the most dangerous kind. I am looking at all this from a 3rd eye as an outsider.

As you put it, Gingrich knows how to dazzle them with BS and amazingly turn his worst negatives into somehow the audience is cheering him over it. Cheering him over the topic adultery, cheering him for his resigning Congress, cheering him on his ethics violations...

You gotta admit that old man is quite the salesman! He's what Republicans want and what Romney isn't. They want a warrior, a go for the throat asshole to take it to Obama. Romney should take a couple lessons from Oliver North. At least Romney should hold his chin high a little bit. I mean, even his body language is sheepish. Maybe he should stop hiding his hand in his pocket! :doh

I'll stand on my point that the topic of divorce and adultery for how it's broke out is a positive for Gingrich. How many people have exs- married or not - who trash talked him/her after? So he gets empathy and he did was is expected. Apologized. Said he was wrong. Said he regrets it and moves on. That is the current social expectation. And that also is the expectation of evangelicals. But I've explained that concept elsewhere enough times. Being an sinner and being evangelical are one in the same.

I also will stand on my point that at least while in Congress, rarely it appears he wasn't on the take. Later, yes, but not while in Congress.

I don't consider a BJ to be sex - sex being intercourse.
I do consider cheating on sick wives to be > a BJ
I mean if you kill someone and admit to it doesn't make it more acceptable than kicking someone and saying "i did not lay a fist on that woman"
Honest about being a douche or not youre still a douche.

UtahBill said:

Newt has a direct short between his penis and his brain, as did Clinton. Not sure that it means that Newt is automatically and forever a slime ball, but he is certainly slimy enough to be a career politician, and that is reason enough to NOT vote for him.

Click to expand...

UtahBill, now it is you who are being disingenuous, being a male as am I, you should also know that ALL men have a direct short between their penis and their brain.

merfd45 said:

I don't consider a BJ to be sex - sex being intercourse.
I do consider cheating on sick wives to be > a BJ
I mean if you kill someone and admit to it doesn't make it more acceptable than kicking someone and saying "i did not lay a fist on that woman"
Honest about being a douche or not youre still a douche.

Click to expand...

I could write something but it would seem wasted effort.

joko104 said:

I'll stand on my point that the topic of divorce and adultery for how it's broke out is a positive for Gingrich. How many people have exs- married or not - who trash talked him/her after? So he gets empathy and he did was is expected. Apologized. Said he was wrong. Said he regrets it and moves on. That is the current social expectation. And that also is the expectation of evangelicals. But I've explained that concept elsewhere enough times. Being an sinner and being evangelical are one in the same.

I also will stand on my point that at least while in Congress, rarely it appears he wasn't on the take. Later, yes, but not while in Congress.

Click to expand...

So evangelicals feel that

Cheating on your wife, lieing to your wife and lieing to the public in general is ok as long as you feel bad about it and say it was wrong. They dont expect that the person would do the same thing over and over again, or believe that the person might be making such statements only because they were caught and will continue to do the same thing when the spotlight goes away?

I would not have expected evangelicals to be so childlike in their expectations for honesty and probable future behavor.

Personally I believe if one cheated on their wife and family ( more then once from appearances) I certainly would not expect that person not to cheat me. If one can break what should be about the most important vow they will make in their life, breaking a far less important one would be much easier.

Lord Tammerlain said:

So evangelicals feel that

Cheating on your wife, lieing to your wife and lieing to the public in general is ok as long as you feel bad about it and say it was wrong. They dont expect that the person would do the same thing over and over again, or believe that the person might be making such statements only because they were caught and will continue to do the same thing when the spotlight goes away?

I would not have expected evangelicals to be so childlike in their expectations for honesty and probable future behavor.

Personally I believe if one cheated on their wife and family ( more then once from appearances) I certainly would not expect that person not to cheat me. If one can break what should be about the most important vow they will make in their life, breaking a far less important one would be much easier.

Click to expand...

Another Democrat preaching at Christians how Christians should behave, pretending to be one himself. That is always funny.

Clinton cheated on his wife. Kennedy cheated on his wife. Eisenhower cheated on his wife. Want me to go on?

But you really don't understand evangelical Christianity and fail to grasp the divorce rates in this country.

Yet here are some more specifics. Evangelicals do NOT believe that the marriage vow is THE most important vow in life. The most important vow is a vow to God. They do NOT believe sin is not redeemable. They do NOT fixate on that single issue like you do (which you only do about Republicans because YOU claim it hypocritical and YOU demand Republicans act how you claim they should.

This is a counter productive issue to Democrats and they should give it up. Over half of adults that will vote have divorced and those who haven't have friends and relatives who have. The percentage of people who have affairs reaches upwards to 70%. Now, if you add people who cohabitate out of marriage - almost as many as married - who break up and cheat?

What a swell campaign strategy of Democrats - to declare that 80% of voters are the most evil people on earth and should absolutely never be allowed to hold public office, should be continuously condemned by the Democratic Party and the government, and should never be trusted at anything.

I really find this tactic of Democrats extra foolish. The America you want to exist - and exclusively against Republicans - ceased to exist at least 2 decades ago. Reagan was divorced too. She divorced him on the grounds of "mental cruelty," and not "no fault."

Of the gzillion words about Reagan now, I never see it even mentioned that he was the divorced president - first one. Somehow, I suspect Gingrich will remind at some point that common ground he shared with Reagan.


Want proof? His poll numbers doubled overnight and he won S.C. over it. Try again to figure it out.

So you are saying Evangelicals are fine with lieing and cheating provided you say it was wrong afterward

You can lie and cheat multiple times, and after each time provided you say it was wrong, evangelicals will forgive and forget. Only to be suprised when it occurs again

You will note I never stated how evangelicals should behave, I was in fact asking if that is how evangelicals behave. I am only suprised that evangelicals would not expect a cheater and a lier to repeat that pattern of behaviour

Amigo said:

I have said this before; Gingrich's personal past doesn't matter, because he has said his wrongdoings are wrong.

Click to expand...

HAHAHA so if a criminal said what he did was wrong the we should forgive him and let him free?

Lord Tammerlain said:

So you are saying Evangelicals are fine with lieing and cheating provided you say it was wrong afterward

You can lie and cheat multiple times, and after each time provided you say it was wrong, evangelicals will forgive and forget. Only to be suprised when it occurs again

You will note I never stated how evangelicals should behave, I was in fact asking if that is how evangelicals behave. I am only suprised that evangelicals would not expect a cheater and a lier to repeat that pattern of behaviour

Click to expand...

It is always a mistake to stereotype even a group of people as if clones of each other. However, generally, evangelicals expect everyone to sin. The question is whether a person appears remorseful and reformed.

Lord Tammerlain said:

So you are saying Evangelicals are fine with lieing and cheating provided you say it was wrong afterward

You can lie and cheat multiple times, and after each time provided you say it was wrong, evangelicals will forgive and forget. Only to be suprised when it occurs again

You will note I never stated how evangelicals should behave, I was in fact asking if that is how evangelicals behave. I am only suprised that evangelicals would not expect a cheater and a lier to repeat that pattern of behaviour

Click to expand...

It is always a mistake to stereotype any group as if all clones of each other. Generally, evangelicals believe everyone is a sinner and everyone has been a liar and cheater -towards God if no one else. All are hellbound for this reason. The issue, instead is one of remorse, penance and redemption.

Why are you expecting the metaphysical aspects of any religion to be particularly logical?

I don't honestly care what Newt does with his personal life. I don't care if his 2nd wife would of agreed to an open marriage and he had a wife and a woman on the side while in the White House. I do care about his caustic rhetoric about how Liberalism is evil evil evil and destroying the moral fabric of this country. He was a "moral crusader" in the 90's. So either he things that he personally is above any moral standard the rest of Americans should be held to or he doest believe what he says and uses the rhetoric to win votes.

As for Fannie, the guy railed against the institutions after it became politically popular but after he left office was recieving money from them. He is telling people that he made over a million as a "historian" which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

He's also now pretending to be this great unifer as Speaker of the House when he was leading a do nothing Congress until he got smacked down after forcing a government shutdown. At the end of the day, everybody will make their own choice but don't pretend that ethics is a strong suit of his. That's complete BS.

PeteEU said:

HAHAHA so if a criminal said what he did was wrong the we should forgive him and let him free?

Click to expand...

Most evangelicals would say that if his adultery was a criminal offense he should be punished under criminal law - ie render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, applying to both taxes and to law.

Most evangelicals believe that all final judgment is God's, not man's, and accordingly only God can truly judge anyone - doing so upon a person's heart, not their sin-history. To evangelicals, all are sinful and condemned to hell but for the redemptive power of God on the sacrificial death of Jesus. Intermixed in all that is, of course, human nature, the inherent contradictions that people are, combined with some blending of social traditionalism and religious institutional dogma - which constantly evolves.

Again, you keep trying to apply logic to that. Religion has its own logic. I mean really. A religion based upon some pauper activist executed over 2000 years ago for which a person will have a wonderous eternal metaphysical life (heaven) or be unthinkably tortured forever (hell) based upon whether that person believes that person was a part of God doesn't really fall into humanistic logic, does it?

But, if you go the other route, ordinary logic, then basically no one is eligible to be president for immoral acts other than those who weren't caught at it. More voters have been in some situation similar to Gingrich's than not. That's why our society switched to no-fault divorce in nearly all states. The moral elective-death-offense you seem to want to exist ceased to exist a couple decades ago - whether from a social standard or evangelical standard. Few people actually have the rage over and sense of evil about Gingrich and adultery that you want or expect. That's just not how most of them think.

I know that from personal experience by two GLTBs I know who despite open generic hostility and condemnation towards gays in a social and spiritual sense, they both were absolutely fully welcomed and wanted to come into both very traditional Christian and conservative Republican circles. One of those is not only a lesbian but even openly an atheist. Yet she and her "partner" are not only welcomed to churches but even really liked. That also then "proves" they aren't bigoted against gays, rather they are loving - while still they condemn homosexuality as sinful. God, not they, will judge.

There is a HUGE difference between a person's generic judgmentalism towards others and judgmentalism towards a specific person. It's like Kerry who stupidly tried to use Dick Chaney's lesbian daughter to score points - BIG mistake.

As a footnote, to many evangelicals someone who WAS an adulterer - who confessed, acknowledged it wrong/sinful, claims to have found God and God's forgiveness - is FAIR better than someone who IS still a Mormon to the more extreme fringe of evangelicals.

There is NO contradiction for an evangelical preacher to be raging against fornication from the pulpit, fully knowing there are a dozen cohabitating couples in the congregation attending including a deacon and a Sunday school teacher.

Same with Obama for evangelicals. Just saying he is a "Christian" and talks about "Jesus" is contradicted by his statements such as "collective salvation," which is diametric opposite a core principle of nearly all Christianity, particularly evangelicals. Faith is highly personalized for which a person is in a constant and often terrible internal tug of war between God/good and Satan/evil on a highly personal level.

I'm not a Christian and am known to have a horrifically "sinful" past, children out of wedlock and more than one mother, cohabitate etc. Yet I am fully welcomes in the most friendly terms to those at and in Christian churches. In some ways even particularly desirable. But that would be difficult to explain. My personal past particularly my youth is somewhat an extreme Job-like history. Christianity and the ideals and concepts of it including emotional continues to evolve like everything social does. "Who am I to judge you?" is a common statement towards me in assuring and accepting tones.

Just like you tend to measure candidates beyond just the initial slogans, so does everyone else. Just saying "I'm a Christian" isn't enough. Its how you say it and what you say that matters to evangelicals. Politicians really can get tripped up on that, even with the wrong buzz words. Even not knowing them can trip a candidate up with evangelicals.

Its a bad, outdated issue that will backfire on Democrats if used. Democrats can't win by attacking a majority of voters as evil and immoral.

iliveonramen said:

I don't honestly care what Newt does with his personal life. I don't care if his 2nd wife would of agreed to an open marriage and he had a wife and a woman on the side while in the White House. I do care about his caustic rhetoric about how Liberalism is evil evil evil and destroying the moral fabric of this country. He was a "moral crusader" in the 90's. So either he things that he personally is above any moral standard the rest of Americans should be held to or he doest believe what he says and uses the rhetoric to win votes.

As for Fannie, the guy railed against the institutions after it became politically popular but after he left office was recieving money from them. He is telling people that he made over a million as a "historian" which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

He's also now pretending to be this great unifer as Speaker of the House when he was leading a do nothing Congress until he got smacked down after forcing a government shutdown. At the end of the day, everybody will make their own choice but don't pretend that ethics is a strong suit of his. That's complete BS.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of that. He also is an extremely narcisstic ego maniac unstable hothead and loose cannon on the deck. I'll give him credit where credit is due - he didn't go on the take while in Congress or so it appears and I don't care who or why he had or has sex with. But for other reasons I really don't care for him. But then I'm not fond of Romney and even less Santorum and Paul, and mostly see Obama as a wolf in sheep's clothing too.

Its like having to pick out a car from the worst tote-the-note lot in town only the most desperate go to - but all have not choice because they need transportation. There is no good deal and nothing you'll be proud of to pick from.

I agree with all of that. He also is an extremely narcisstic ego maniac unstable hothead and loose cannon on the deck. I'll give him credit where credit is due - he didn't go on the take while in Congress or so it appears and I don't care who or why he had or has sex with. But for other reasons I really don't care for him. But then I'm not fond of Romney and even less Santorum and Paul, and mostly see Obama as a wolf in sheep's clothing too.

Its like having to pick out a car from the worst tote-the-note lot in town only the most desperate go to - but all have not choice because they need transportation. There is no good deal and nothing you'll be proud of to pick from.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of that as well. I do have a different opinon on who I'm going to vote for but I sure as hell don't fault someone for not discounting Newt because of his past. I also think Newt has been in the public eye for so long that what you see is what you get so you can definately make an informed decision easily on what kind of President he would be.