It would have been a cheap shot no matter if they were (D) or (R) on the stage.[/qutoe]
not really - it would have been a pertinent question given the circumstances to any candidate. it's just that it might not have been asked of a (D).
I'm not so moral that I think people are perfect because they are not. I am also not so moral as to think people cannot be forgiven, because they can, and I'm not so obtuse to think that if a person has asked for humility and repentance that they can never transgress again because that is not realistic. We are human, and therefore fatally flawed.
Amen. But that is why humility is so important - because none of us (yes, even those of us who are able to publicly lambast the media) have ceased to be flawed.
You're moral view of turpitude is no longer valid. You would not expect that if you made a mistake and sought new humility that you were never to be prideful again in your lifetime
Actually you should. Not just because Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins (Gingrich, after all, claims his faith is Catholicism), but because Humility is a trait that should stay with you always.
A simple "
Yes, I screwed up in that marriage, this is how I did it, I don't pretend it was the right thing to do - it wasn't, I've asked God for forgiveness and He's granted it, I've asked my former wife for forgiveness and I'm still hopeful that one day she will grant that as well. In the meantime, this is a Presidential debate and so don't you think that people might prefer to discuss how to create jobs?" would have simply sufficed and driven home the exact same point - but Gingrich didn't do that. Instead he turned into a morally self-righteous hypocrite and pretended that
asking him about adultery was the despicable act
rather than the adultery itself.
it's inane to believe such a thing and unrealistic to expect it of other, fatally flawed human beings - ESPECIALLY politicians.
that is incorrect. those who claim to possess superior moral fiber to lead the rest of us need to at least demonstrate
some.
So your way off base, in fact, you're not even in the stadium any more.
on the contrary. I apply to Gingrich the same standard that I apply to John Edwards. The difference being that Gingrich claims to be able to
represent our values.
You have unrealistic expectations and overcompensate by ignoring what clearly was bias and ignorance on CNN and John Kings part.
I don't have unrealistic expectations at all. I expect a person who has been a serial adulterer to at least own up to it if he expects to represent Republican values.
In some way I'm sure you feel he deserved it, and find that since he turned the tables on his punishment, maybe that makes you a little angry neh?
not really. this just sadly confirms what i believed about him
. He's decided to be a demagogue, whether he's repeating Occupy Wall Street rhetoric or hyperbolically pretending that expecting him to own up to his serial adultery is "despicable" rather than the serial adultery itself.
I don't want you to be for Newt or against him - I could care less... but I DO expect you to see a cheap shot and call it out as you've done in the past. And when you DON'T and actually take a contrary position, it's a dead giveaway. :shrug:
dead give away to what? this wasn't a cheap shot - it was the lead story on Drudge all day and a major news headline. Asking this question was perfectly salient.