Surging Gingrich blasts U.S. media, Republican rivals
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 6 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
83 Comments
Login to comment
0
SushiSake3
Conservatives are finally realizing what Global Liberals have known for months - that Rick Perry never had a chance and was a compete joke candidate from the day he entered the race.
His run may have even fatally damaged his govenorship as many Texans have now seen - on the national stage - what a loser they elected.
"Gingrich’s campaign faced its own jolt just as new polls showed him rising: his second ex-wife says Gingrich asked for an “open marriage” in which he could have both a wife and a mistress, in a TV interview scheduled to air Thursday night."
OK, Rush Limbaugh said that in contrast to Bill Clinton, at least Newt 'had the courtesy' to ask his then wife for an open marriage (pretty weird comparison since Clinton was having an affair - quite different, in degrees only).
What also wasn't funny was a day after Newt asked his then wife for an open marriage, he gave a speech in front of a female audience about the importance familiy values.
Besides the eye-watering hypocrisyof that, he has been described as saying what he says in public and what he does inprivate do not have to be connected.
The GOP clown show rolls on.
By the way, great to see Newt is surging and that the primary will probably go beyond SC.
-3
plasticmonkey
The surge of Newt shows how clueless many GOP voters are in terms of what they want. Newt has swung wildly on all issues--the economy, family values, foreign policy, etc.
Since Newt has made a point out of pinning the unemployment problem in S.C. on blacks, isn't it ironic that the economy would be of such concern among white GOP voters there? After all, S.C. has gone out of its way to make sure these blacks are kept away from the voting booths. Oh, right, they don't vote GOP.
-2
USNinJapan2
Come on AP, it's one FEWER candidate, not LESS. Sad when 'printed' media can't even use correct English.
0
Laguna
At least he asked; probably used Powerpoint.
I kinka like Gingrich: overreaching pomposity contained in such a droll package by itself is pleasing, but then there is also his peripatetic self-absorption, the brain of a narcissistic weasel on speed. Sure beats that mannequin Romney. I hope Gingrich can hang on a bit longer.
0
zurcronium
America will miss the reassuring presence of Perry in the debates. Three reasons why, first he is a dope, second he cannot speak english and third, ah, oops.
What a horrible reflection on Texas to have this idiot as their leader for the last decade. Bush was bad enough but Perry is even worse.
Next to go hopefully the hateful petty homophobic man who was the worst senator in the history of the state of pennsylvania. But he likes his sweater vests. Only a republican would brag about that.
-1
TorafusuTorasan
"sweater vests"
Oh jeez, now you're going to get Mabodofuls over here with his eagle eye poiting out it's an Eddie Bauer vest. (See the nuclear protest photo of the day thread for a good laugh.)
-2
TorafusuTorasan
poiting=pointing, especially while doing a Sidney Poitier impersonation.
2
nisegaijin
Ron Paul is America's only hope. Unsurprisingly this article doesn't talk about him, neither do any of the posters. Sad...
-2
paulinusa
Go Newt ! More revealing sexploits to follow I'm sure.
-10
Serrano
"Rick Perry... was a complete joke candidate"
The complete joke candidate would be Barack Obama, who has been the biggest joke in presidential history, except that instead of laughter he has brought misery to millions.
-1
JeremiahW
Jolted !
5
yabits
Of course, Newt "Family Values" Gingrich was already having an affair with Calista when he asked his wife to accept the situation. While at the same time wagging his finger at Clinton.
Limbaugh is a real horse's ass.
-3
yabits
Perry supports Gingrich...
Oops.
2
yabits
LOL!! His aides want you to believe that pigs can fly.
0
paulinusa
Romney only wanted to do the Cayman Islands a big favor by depositing his money there.
2
Laguna
Hah! Gingrich just declared,
Let's clarify: when a Republican (or one's former spouse) brings up issues regarding another Republican in a Republican primary, and Republican-affiliated PACs publicize and push those issues, and when contending Republican candidates adopt and echo those issues: when Republicans generate all this cacophony and the media reports on it, it is a case of the media being biased?
Like I said, Gingrich has the brain of a narcissistic weasel on speed. Good try, though.
-1
JeremiahW
Gingrich absolutely humiliated the CNN guy who was dumb enough to open the debate with a question about dirty laundry.
I must say he is proving that he alone among Repubs is the anti-Alinsky...
-1
JeremiahW
You may have pin-pointed Romney's problem: he is too detached, too cold. He is too much like Obama.
-2
smithinjapan
Serrano: "The complete joke candidate would be Barack Obama,"
Didn't realize he was running in the GOP candidacy! I do realize you're awfully bitter, though.
"...who has been the biggest joke in presidential history, except that instead of laughter he has brought misery to millions."
Actually, after "except that" you need to insert, "...his predecessor was FAR worse and is directly responsible for the majority of problems Americans face today". Of course, you should also add, following that, that, "Obama has tried to change it but the GOP has simply said, 'no', regardless of what was being proposed, and solely to oppose the Democrats".
THAT would make your statement correct. But SushiSake was bang on -- aside from perhaps that idiot Michelle Bachmann he was definitely the biggest clown out of them (the biggest, mind you... they are all clowns running at the moment).
-1
smithinjapan
Anyway, good riddance to yet more bad rubbish. They should all quit, really, but one of the clowns needs to take center stage in the GOP before being whipped at the polls later this year.
This really is quite funny to watch.
0
JeremiahW
I wonder about Democrats who want you unable to arm yourself, unable to use the internet as you have til now (SOPA id madness) and keep your money where you please.
1
Laguna
Jeremiha, when you say, "Gingrich absolutely humiliated the CNN guy who was dumb enough to open the debate with a question about dirty laundry," you neglect to mention Gingrich's response:
Sure, everyone KNOWS personal pain, but few have CAUSED it like Gingrich has - not once, but twice. He might as well complain about his wife having the temerity to still be married to him when his capital-A Alpha male hormones were boiling for his hot congressional staffer Callista. Oh, the injustice of it all! Oh, the pain!
This is all pretty good stuff. I'm looking forward to the next debate in Florida.
-1
Elbuda Mexicano
Newt is not perfect?? Mr.Perry, took them words right out of my mouth!
-2
noriyosan73
Perry is looking for an appointment. Mr. g. is his only hope. No American wants another gun sliggin' cowboy Mr. m. for Johnson or Mr. r. for Bush cannot be in power. No more wars, no more nation building, unless it is the nation the US taxpayers pay for - USA. Please Japan, prepare now for the real meaning of self defense forces. The Yanks are coming home no matter who the president is.
-2
SushiSake3
Personally, I'm not concerned about Newt's character because I don't feel that he, or any of the GOP candidates have any.
But Newt knows full well that there is never an excuse for bad behavior until you get caught, then the justifications never end. This is another fundamental policy in the life of a dyed-in-the-wool hypocrite.
Interestingly, Newt is the same man who lead the charge to have Bill Clinton impeached, while Newt himself had a full-time mistress.
Also interesting is how Newt played the victim card right off the bat. I wonder who told him to do that? I'm guessing he's been on the phone to another well-known conservative up in Wasilla this week. HE is appalled and disgusted by the media? If he hadn't thrown his wives aside like so much garbage in the first place, he wouldn't be facing these allegations.
Thanks to the Internet and mobile media, dregs like him can't get away with as much anymore.
-3
SushiSake3
SmithinJapan - "This really is quite funny to watch."
"quite funny"?? It's freaking hilarious, even without Sarah Palin. :-)
This election cycle on the Right is even funnier than the last one.
-2
TumbleDry
SushiSake3: Give the mistress and impeachment a rest. Clinton lied under oath, not that his mistress had him in her mouth.
1
SushiSake3
TumbleDry - "Give the mistress and impeachment a rest."
Ironically, it was Newt who was going at Clinton tooth and nail.
1
sailwind
Would that be the last cycle where the Democrats lost 65 seats in the House of Representatives and other State and local races for the worst defeat of the any political party in the U.S in the last 62 years?
-1
SushiSake3
No, that'd be the one where the Right got shellacked by Obama and his buddies, thanks in no small part to the other idiot from Texas, GWB. :-)
-1
Madverts
"the worst defeat of the any political party in the U.S in the last 62 years?"
After inheriting the biggest recession in the last 79 years?
So if the trend continues you're surely predicting Romney is going to win in a landslide? Or will it be Gringrich?
Another 4 long years of the extreme right whining about Obama is the future. It's like listening to those people that blame all the failures and short-comings on their parents. Just substitute "Obama" for "parents".
-4
TumbleDry
Come on... They all kind of have skeletons in their closet (inside tradings, lovers, fiscal evasions, etc).
Just a bunch of kids fighting in a sandbox for the shovel that would run a country... The level is really low...
0
SushiSake3
I wonder what the GOP nominee is going to say when they get 100 million dollar super pac'ed by the Dems, every week for 10 weeks in a row?
Newt, of course, is. unelectable. He ran away from his last elected office before he could be impeached and imprisoned for perjury, abuse of office, and tax fraud.
Or are those the new GOP values? :-)
1
Laguna
Romney's best shot was to have put it away in New Hampshire. The horse is out of the barn, now, though: the Dems would have had to be very circumspect attacking Romney on his concept of "capitalism" and "fairness," but when that comes from the right, it's out there.
Right now, it's Romney's nightmare: it looks like SC will leave all 4 candidates in the race, and the attacks in Florida will simply escalate, particularly with all those elderly voters panicking over their entitlements.
He'll no doubt still win the nomination, but only as a shredded, shadow of the mannequin he is.
-1
Familienprobleme
A righty missing the point? What a surprise!
Its not because he had an affair. Its not because he left his wife over it. Those are forgiveable offenses in the mind of the voters.
One problem is the double standard. Obviously, the rules he holds everyone else to do not apply to him. Do we need a president, or any politician, who thinks he is not bound by the rules?
But for me, the core problem is that he wasted the time, energy, spirit and treasure of the country over something so insignificant that he himself was doing the same, including lying to hide it.
No no. He could have mistresses and prostitutes coming and going and I would not care much. What bothers me is that he would destroy good politicians for their sex lives while he did that. He would fiddle while America burns, perhaps stopping long enough to throw some gasoline on us.
-2
Familienprobleme
Agreed Nisegaijin. Ron Paul threatens to shake up the establishment, and that ain't us. The establishment does not want him. But we should. We all should.
0
Madverts
One thing Surging Newt did say about the media is:
"destructive, vicious and negative"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16643430
I think he's mixing up the media with the Republican party if you ask me because that's a perfect decision.
0
Madverts
whoops despcrition....
-1
Serrano
"Surging Gingrich"
Didn't he surge already?
-1
Serrano
How much much farther is the U.S. going to fall during Obama's second term? I shudder at the thought.
1
Serrano
One much, lol
-2
unreconstructed
I love how sushisake3, who actually refers to the repubs as the GOP ("Grand Old Party"), is also on a first name basis with Gingrich.
-2
unreconstructed
Scott Brown itaking Teddy Kennedy's seat in MA?
Anthony Wiener's seat had been staunchly Dem for 9 decades. It went to a Repub.
You funny.
-1
sailwind
One thing Surging Newt did say about the media is:
"destructive, vicious and negative"
There is some sort of disagreement with this?
2
Laguna
Madverts - the deficit as a percentage of GDP is high - very high - but it hasn't topped the peak of WWII. Restraint is needed for reduction; Democrats believe sacrifice must come from a balance of reduced spending and increased revenue, while Republicans believe sacrifice must be limited to the spending side (military exempted, of course).
This chart shows federal spending as a percentage of GDP. Notice how it rises during the Reagan years, falls during the Clinton years, then rises again during the Bush years - this despite what Republicans fondly recall as "economic prosperity." If the debt-to-GNP could rise so during such "prosperity," Republicans certainly have no standing in criticizing the Obama debt.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.php
This is not the end of the world. Solid, fundamental changes in global trends and American socioeconomics are bringing relief if slowly - to the middle class. Clinton produced a budget surplus in his latter year; the same can be done again. Obama's second term, I believe, will see more aggressive moves towards realigning the American economic structure towards production and employment and away from speculation and investor-led outsourcing.
-1
sailwind
Oh please.......Notice how the Soviet Union collapsed after Reagan spent on our Military and Clinton got the peace dividend windfall.
3
Laguna
Oh please .... Notice how the debt/GDP ratio fell even during the reviled Carter years. Don't think the Soviet Union existed during that time, Sailwind - or during the 30 years prior to that? You might remember the Cuban Missile Crisis; heck, you might even remember the Vietnam War. During that entire period, the debt/GDP ratio fell. Continuously. Steadily.
Until Reagan.
Clinton brought it down again; it skyrocketed once more under Bush II. What happened there? - another Soviet Union? Crimminy, Republicans complain when Democrats point at the toxic legacy of what happened a mere three years ago as the cause of our troubles today, but they never hesitate to point to the "shining" legacy of Reagan for events that occurred a decade after he'd left office. Nope: Reagan was the genesis of our current debt problem. It is an historic fact.
1
pointofview
Keep fighting for liberty Ron! The puppets will wake up when they realize the dollar is worth nothing, more wars are started and freedom no longer exists. By then it might be too late.
-2
The Truth Matters
Yep, Ronald Reagan alone brought down the Soviet Union. He wagged his hair and his pomade left them Ruskies stuck to the floor. Pope John Paul II? Totally sat on his hands. Didn't do a thing. It was all Reagan. No really. I read it in a U.S. History book.
-1
Serrano
"the dollar is worth nothing"
Heck, it's still worth at least 76 yen, ain't it?
"more wars are started"
Not by our Nobel Peace Prize President! So that means no more wars started by the U.S. and probably no wars fought by the U.S. even if they are started by others until at least 2017! Yea!
0
YuriOtani
Gingrich is just disgusting! Cheating on his first wife while she was in hospital. Wanting an "open marriage" from his second wife cheating on her. While at the same time blasting President Clinton for his infidelity. So he has apologized and made good with god. This is all very nice but he wants to be the most trusted person in America. Sorry Charlie! Mr former speaker, you are not morally fit to be President of the USA. You were not fit to be Speaker of the House. The best you can do is drop out of the race, endorsing no one. Getting the nomination is like handing President Obama a second term.
-2
unreconstructed
So Gingrich traded up, so to speak - - which is pretty much what every normal male with his power and influence would do in today's marriage market.
I just laugh at the pc-whipped Left. At least Gingrich told his '"partner'" directly what he wanted. Clinton? Anthony Wiener? The wife got the news of hubby's serial infidelity from the tabloids or the 'net. Given the destruction that Dem-supporting divorce lawyers have wrought in America I hardly think the so-called bombshell about Gingrich's marriage woes hurt him.Many Americans wonder why none of Obama's former girlfriends can be located. Even the one in Dreams From My Father , though a green-eyed brunette, old money New York, can't be found. She would be a media superstar. Is the 1PercentMedia so out of touch that they think we don't notice the discrepancies, the faux indignation and outrage????
0
yabits
The fact that so many die-hard conservatives are so willing, by their actions, to disagree with you shows their own lack of moral grounding. And it casts their moral crusade against Bill Clinton in the light that we liberals always knew it was: rank hypocrisy.
1
gelendestrasse
Gingrich would be an awful president and he deserves every comment the press makes. But the question should have been phrased "Given your inability to live up to your commitments and your large paychecks from companies like Fannie Mae, which helpd start the economic disaster, how can you present yourself as a committed president who is not beholden to special interests?"
Gingrich is no conservative. He's an opportunist. I would say he's no better than Obama and, possibly, worse. At least Obama isn't having serial affairs. I agree with yabits, anybody who supports Newt has ceded the moral high ground.
-1
TigermothII
I think there are a good many people on both sides who realize that Gingrich is a pompous, rather creepy jackass who should not be in the Oval Office.
Since it has been brought up; speaking as a conservative my indignation at the philandering of Bill Clinton was not so much that he would cheat on his wife (not something I would practice, condone or label as anything but pathetic), but rather the other factors involved. Firstly, he was engaged in these activities while 'one the job', i.e. on our taxpayers dime. Like or not, Presidential duties are 24/7 - it comes with the job. Getting pleasured by an intern during business hours is not acceptable. If I brought a hooker into my office, I would be fired. Secondly, he preyed upon a young, impressionable woman which I see as an abuse of power, and in an extremely nefarious way. That organizations like NOW were okay with this showed the true hypocrisy of the liberal world. Yes, she was of age to know better and it isn't exactly a case for Chris Hanson, but it's still creepy and unscrupulous to use a position of extreme power to seduce an impressionable (and definitely not a Rhodes scholar) young lady. Cheating on your wife means your a cad; seducing an intern to give you oral favors because you can goes a bit beyond. And then he lied about the whole thing (but then they all do that).
1
yabits
These kinds of statements show the craven dishonesty of those whose minds are totally given over to the "conservative world."
Only in their sick fantasies do they visualize a Bill Clinton "preying" on a Monica Lewinsky. It was Monica, after all, who sought some private time with Bill to show him her new thong underwear. I totally disrespect Clinton for giving in, but calling him a predator in this regard demonstrates contempt for the truth.
More importantly, this is not about Bill Clinton! It's about all those hand-wringing jackasses among the conservatives who decried Clinton's behavior who are now trying to sell the nation on Newt Gingrich. Note very carefully the mindset of the perverted conservative: Gingrich is to be respected because he gave his "partner" -- his partner!! -- the ultimatum to accept his affair with his new woman or file for divorce. (Note that he was already playing around with her before he got around to delivering his terms.)
Liberals were chided for being "pc" about all this, but we hear all about family values from one side of the mouths of these jackals while out of the other side they call wives of their conservative leaders "partners."
0
The Truth Matters
I just LOVE the rationalizations of our nutters on the fringe right.
This is a moral plug from a neo-con. At least Gingrich told his wife he was going to cheat on her. Yeah, I can see why he's your guy. Totally devoid of any values and only thinks for himself.
-2
TigermothII
And these kind of statements I normally would say show blithering BS of the common liberal, only the sexists 'it's the aggressive woman's fault' is more something I would expect by a old school, old boy network republican than I would a supposedly post-liberation 'free thinking' liberal democrat. Which in fact goes to show more that in your idiotic desire to support your liberal cause no matter what the failings, you can't see the forest despite the trees. If he had had any moral compass a simple 'no' would have put her pathetic waning into nothing more than a one-sided crush. You insinuate 'sick fantasies' while you yourself are quite obviously the sick lunatic that thinks it's okay for a twisted old perv to accept the advances of a young girl quite obviously drunk on the power of the Pres and somehow find it okay that he was getting his junk serviced - and then had the audacity to lie under oath about the whole thing . I'm afraid you the one with the twisted fantasies and why dolts on the left have to attack with whatever they can muster, because their own side can't keep it in their pants or stay sober (all I have to do is say 'Kennedy' on that one).
Your right, it's not about Clinton - but you're the ones that brought it up - duh. Anything is only good if it fits your argument - your such a pompous... I digress. Once again you lamely lump all conservatives into one big pile. Your arguments are so full of BS suppositions, acrimony and blundering denouncements based upon your own self-righteous belief in your intellectual superiority that they become tiresome and idiotic. Had I not just stated that Gingrich is a fool (jackass is actually what I said)? Does he lead in the polls? You take a few lines you read somewhere and brand it as conservative dogma. Don't you thing the 'part and parcel' argument is a stupid one? It's the mindset of a madman despot rather than a free thinking liberal. Why don't you chill on the venom, anger and hatred of the 'C' word and try to come up with arguments that are a little less negative and small-minded, and a little more constructive and open to dialogue? I think I know my answer to that.
1
yabits
What is "conservative" about the above statement is the assignment of "fault." Again, in l'affair Lewinsky, Clinton was NOT a predator. He showed he didn't have the character to resist temptation, but he was not the predator that some sick-minded people accused him of being.
There are many May-December romances out there, and certainly some young adults find more mature adults attractive. If thinking that's "OK" makes a person a "sick lunatic," then I think it's a charge that reveals more about the person making it.
It's about the ones, like Gingrich, who denounced Clinton's values while at the same time acting with similar low morals and character. Not Clinton, but those hypocrites who accused Clinton whose character is the topic.
Wrong. But there is one very big pile of morally bankrupt conservatives. (Not all conservatives are in it, but Gingrich certainly is.)
I don't refer to my wife of 30+ years as a partner, and I'd never demand from her the kind of ultimatum Newt demanded of his second wife. Compared to Newt's conservative standard, defended by other conservatives, I consider my "record" to be more in line with the way conservatives talk, though not how many walk.
0
Familienprobleme
I agree with Yabits on all points but the ones like this.
What we know for sure is that even though Hillary knows it all, she as not left Bill. That is a good indicator that she has accepted it. In fact, I would say there is a high probability that she did not necessarily care such a great deal but just did not want to know. In fact, I would wager she and Bill were not sexual for already for a long time anyway. We all have to make our own decisions with regard to our marriages, partnerships and sex lives. People outside just don't have a clue, and have no leg to stand on to declare moral or character bankruptcy. If a husband and wife are not even sexual, why should they be morally bound to be completely sexless? What leg do they have to stand on to demand sexlessness of the other?
Besides we all have different needs and desires. Calling a person who can be satisfied with one woman for life better than someone who can't, is along the same lines as saying an asexual person is morally superior to a sexual person, or that a person who never had to fight is braver than a person who fought many times, but ran away from one one time.
Yabits, you don't have enough details to judge anyone's marriages or affairs. So I wish you would stop doing it.
-1
unreconstructed
Seeing the pics of Gingrich's ex (she looks as sullen and angry as Michelle Obama) and hearing her patheitc story (contradicted by both daughters) probably bought Gingrich more favorable press than negative. By my mid-30s I had lost count of all the friends and classmates back in the States screwed over by divorce lawyers (some of the Dems' biggest financial backers ) and a system so thoroughly stacked against the ex-husband and, true to the same "progressive" agenda for "racial equality" , committed to making the government your ex-wife and kids' Daddy. They have thoroughly disincentivized marriage (while the Secular Left's Clergy tell us of course that making gay marriage a proper institution is how we can redeem our fallen selves - in their scornful eyes). I think this one too blew up in the face of the 1Percent Media.
1
unreconstructed
Truthreallymatters:
That's rich, coming from a John Edwards supporter who, in complete denial of the MSM's bias, dismissed the Rielle Hunter affair and, as proof, actually cited the fact that since the National Enquirer was the only source for the 'rumor' it just couldn't be true.
Oh and btw - what's a "neo-con"? How can someone simultaneously be a neo-con and a libertarian ? Do you even understand the terms you throw out here?
0
yabits
I don't see it that way. Why? Because I regard oaths and vows to be as close to sacred obligations as we can approach in this world. As long as the sexual person remains as true to the vows they have sworn as the asexual person, one can't be said to be better or worse than the other.
Sorry, but oaths and vows in our society are taken in the presence of witnesses. The words mean what they mean, and therefore others do indeed have a very good clue and two legs to stand on. It is a corruption of character and morality to rationalize breaking vows and oaths simply for expediency's sake, or for the sake of satisfying one's carnal desires.
A person who blithely disregards his/her vows to the woman or man they have joined with should not be trusted to uphold an oath to defend the Constitution.
1
unreconstructed
. You mean like JFK?
"Progressive" icon Woodrow Wilson had a mistress before becoming president.
Franklin Roosevelt had an ongoing affair for years.
Clintoon and his bimbo eruptions?
0
The Truth Matters
You TOTALLY forgot the Chevy Volt. I'm so disappointed. It was such a good rant too. Devoid of any fact but GOOD.
-1
SuperLib
The issue is about whether nor not that question should have been asked.
-1
sailwind
In a debate sponsored by The National Enquirer it would fit right in with their motto.
Celebrity gossip, scandals, and the latest from Hollywood. Enquiring minds want to know!
CNN and the Mainstream Media would never lower their journalistic standards to that level.....Oh wait, they did.
-1
Familienprobleme
Yabits, what vow? Is there a vow to keep it in your pants even if your partner ignores your sexual needs?? I don't remember that one.
Maybe you are talking about that bit about being faithful? Well thinking faithful means not to have sex with others is about as elementary a mistake as thinking the word diet means to eat less. That part of the vow predates fad meanings created by the masses out of small minded ignorance.
We can say Bill was faithful because he remains with his wife. Newt left two wives for mistresses. He was faithless not so much for sex out of wedlock, but for leaving his wives for others.
Plus, you are not privy to any understanding between spouses which would negate this vow you imagine. Take a look at Tiger Woods. You might assume his wife had no such agreement because she threw him out. But think a little deeper. Their agreement may have hinged on him not being found out. She may simply have not wanted to play the part of the cuckhold. And some people know their spouses better than you. Some simply don't want to know, so much, that they don't even want to discuss an agreement.
There was a guy named Abraham Maslow who created a thing called the heirarchy of needs. Sexual intimacy is right up there with friends. You should look into it. Basically what you are saying is that people should jettison all their friends too if their partner so wills, and all psychological misery that follows is just and good.
What nonsense. Even if there was an overt sex oath in marriage (and I say there isn't), you cannot compare something like a sex vow with a vow to uphold the Constitution! That is a very childish way to look at it.
May as well make a man vow never to drink anything but water ever again, and then declare him unfit to maintain any oath for drinking lemonade once! Sorry, but sex isn't up there with dedication to country. Not remotely.
The number of great Americans you have simply written off for a childish stroke of logic is simply astounding. And the number of asexual villians you have elevated to trustworthy is as well. You have declared Bill Clinton to be untrustworthy, but GWB, who seems to love war more than women, as worthy!
0
lostrune2
It should be noted that Gingrich's ex-wife was interviewed by ABC News, a conservative-leaning network.
0
sailwind
It should be noted that ABC's Senior Political Correspondent is George Stephanopoulos. You might remember him from the Clinton Administration.
Prior to joining ABC News, he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and later became the White House Communications Director for two years, before being replaced by David Gergen after political fallout from the mid-term election of 1994, in which the Republican party took over the U.S. House and Senate.
I'm sure he's a fair-minded chap now and isn't a registered Democrat anymore.
0
Elbuda Mexicano
Open marriage?? Never heard of that but it does sound a bit strange, I feel sorry for Newt.
1
yabits
"For better or worse...Forsaking all others."
I completely agree. Conservatives castigated Hillary Clinton for not leaving Bill. Their ultimate faithfulness to their marriage, which caused them to work through their problems and stay together, is admirable.
Whether Woods, Gingrich or Clinton, in my view adultery is a sin. (Yes, I believe there are such things as sins.) Twain said that true character consists of the ability to resist temptation. A person whose behavior adheres to a higher standard of morality, in my opinion, provides a better model for others than one whose behavior gives the impression that adultery is perfectly OK.
I am very familiar with, admire, and have been influenced by Maslow's work. Nevertheless, the highest parts of his heirarchy -- the ones above friendship and social intimacy -- are self-esteem and self-actualization. (Needs which can only be supplied from within by healthy individuals.) Maslow emphasized that human dysfunction occurs when any higher-order need is consistently sacrificed for a lower need over time. The work of other people in the field of human mental health and potential, like Karl Menninger, supply much needed "field-work" with hundreds of cases of neurotic and depressed people. Whatever Became of Sin? is a work that provides a lot of relevant case examples to Maslow's observations.
0
The Truth Matters
To call ABC left leaning because they employ moderate Democrat George Stephonopoulos completely ignores the fact that ABC also employs complete right-wing piece of filth (and I apologize to all the filth that I've insulted for the guilt by association) Andrew Breitbart. I'd say Breitbart's complete over-the-top rhetoric more than balances out George's more moderate take on things.
And if you don't think Breitbart is a radical, then you probably thought Ghengis Khan was a liberal too and there's not much I can do for you but offer my condolences and let you know that it was too bad that Reagan let you guys out in the 80s.
0
The Truth Matters
Why is it that you are so fact-free. I dropped Edwards like a I was you running from a gay military recruiter when I found out what he did to Elizabeth. Unlike you, I don't hold water for someone for 8 years and then try to deny it later when the man's failure can no longer be denied. I stand by my convictions and by my mistake. It was a mistake to follow Edwards. I was man enough to admit. Something you know nothing about.
-1
smithinjapan
Serrano: "How much much farther is the U.S. going to fall during Obama's second term?"
Fortunately, you're going to probably be allowed to bow down and admit how wrong you were when Obama is reelected. He'll have had enough time for at least SOME of his legislature to have taken effect -- same way GWB's disasters went into full bloom years after his disastrous aim ended. But I won't expect you to bow down before a camera, but instead pretend how all that is bad is Obama's fault and all Obama's good is thanks to some problematic Republican. :)
Better luck in 2016, my friend. My advice, though, would be to stop blaming others on your own problems (I mean US) and taking the liberties you have to do something about it instead of wishing for miracles (which the GOP promise, but would NEVER deliver... then blame on the Dems!).
0
sailwind
Just for a little Truth, since it does actually matter,
ABC News Clears the air about Andrew Breitbart’s Participation in their Election Night Coverage
“Mr. Breitbart is not an ABC News analyst. He is not an ABC News consultant. He is not, in any way, affiliated with ABC News. He is not being paid by ABC News. He has not been asked to analyze the results of the election for ABC News.”
0
Scrote
So the fat toad Gingrich doesn't like the media investigating his private life? Yet Gingrich and his republican chums, with their hypocritical moralising, were always trying to publicise Clinton's private life. Double standards indeed.
0
Wolfpack
This is a great quote. Liberals waxing indignant about a male politician that has humiliated his wife. How soon they forget about former President Clinton. He humiliated his wife at least a half a dozen times. Perhaps the point is that his infidelities didn't cause his wife pain since they had a defacto open marriage. So the question became, does a politicians personal life have anything to do with their ability to serve in office. Given that Democrats rallied around Clinton's infidelities. Since the National Organization for Woman supported Clinton in the wake of his numerous sex scandals and sex in the work place encounters, you would think that Liberals would be endorsing Gingrich's behavior. A Clinton supporter could legitimately call him a hypocrite, but that's about it.
0
yabits
Read it more carefully: Gingrich abandoned two of his wives. That might be the ultimate humiliation.
No, he didn't; Clinton's conservative opponents humiliated her. Her name was wrung through the mud with right-wing nuts calling her "Shrillary," "Hitlery," and claiming she was a lesbian, that she had an affair with Vince Foster before having him killed off. And on and on...
See? You've just made a statement about their marriage that could be considered humiliating to her.
You mean because they refused to go no farther than strongly criticizing his behavior and didn't grab a torch and pitchfork with the right-wing rabble, they were "supporting" him. Right. There used to be a time when Americans cared enough about the presidency that they would not want a personal, private failing by its current holder to become common knowledge. Not those idiot, scandal-mongering, hypocritical Republicans in the 1990s.
No. You would think that. Nobody who understands what the meaning of the word think is would reason that way.
-1
The Truth Matters
sailwind,
You are right. The piece of filth got himself fired for his antics so he's no longer in their employ. I didn't know that.
0
noriyosan73
This election is not an Olympic event. Newt is right on only one issue: Let's discuss the economy, jobs, and other points. The American taxpayers want answers to these questions, not what he does in a bedroom.
-1
RushO'Hannity
obama knows his playbook. all of us fail in our personal lives in some areas. but an essential attack point of the alinsky strategy is to demand your opposition live up all traditional moral ideals, while obama and left wingers sign off on the same and preach the superiority of their non-judgemental (read:moral relativism) ways.
0
yabits
Wow, if that's the "alinsky strategy," then the conservatives have been playing by that book heavily.
Back to top