For whatever reason, there exists a great deal of mis-information (online) about Newt Gingrich, the Republican Revolution and the Contract with America. Freddie (at Liberadio) posted a not-unflattering report of the Gingrich appearance at Vanderbilt on Monday night (here), and, as I commented over there, Newt is many things--some good and some bad, but he has always been an "idea man" and "visionary."
Though I'm speaking up for Newt in this post and came to the defense of him (his legacy, actually) in an earlier post, I think his past crises in character do undermine his authority/credibility with me and many others. Ironically, though, Newt's personal failings may have helped him from 1994 to now, to be more focused on issues and ideas.
Hello world!
7 years ago
7 comments:
And would you say the same about Bill Clinton's personal failings?
At least Bill and Hillary kept their marriage together and have a mentally and physically healthy daughter.
Newt=three marriages and two (known) acts of adultery, including leaving one wife while she was being treated for breast cancer for his mistress.
You Republicans seem to have a family values problem with your candidates. 8 marriages between 3 candidates:Rudy,John and Newt...all adulterers. They make the Clintons look like a Norman Rockwell painting.
Would I say what about Clinton's failings?
Not that it substantively changes my view of Newt, but he has at least "repented" from those actions. And the saying, "hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue" comes to mind. I seriously question whether it is preferable for a leader to disdain all morals or virtue than to fall short.
But, I think it is dicey to start ranking quality of marriages and "health" of children . . . aren't we Religious Conservatives supposed to be the ones that so readily make judgments?
Hi Ned,
Yes. That's my point. The Republicans went nuts over Clinton lying about Monica, yet the rules don't apply to them.
Personally, I believe someone can be a good President and be morally deficient. Historically, that has been proven.
It wasn't until the total hypocrisy of Newt and the self righteous right did adultery become an issue for being President.
They made their bed...so to speak.
Well, I'm not sure we're understanding each other . . . my point about Newt in this post was that he has always been a visionary, was rarely a partisan "hack" and that one of the reasons may have been his stark awareness that it was in his interest to focus on issues not personal destruction.
And I think you're being sloppy about what rules we're talking about . . . Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury. Certainly, most Conservatives were looking for any reason to demean his Presidency, and Clinton's desire to cover-up his personal failings (and protect himself against a sexual harassment lawsuit, I guess) provided the needed ammunition.
And my point about hypocrisy is that it is preferable to someone ignoring morals or virtue, don't you agree?
And I'm not even sure you can say that Newt was a hypocrite on the issue of infidelity, frankly. If you can demonstrate that he was, I'm interested to see it.
In the end, I do care about the character of someone who is chosen to be the most powerful person on the planet. Being a cad doesn't preclude someone from being a good leader or decision-maker, but it certainly raises legitimate questions about the risk one takes in choosing him/her to be your leader or decision-maker . . . it seems to me.
I think both sides are losing a lot of potentially great leaders because they made a mistake 20 years ago,and know if they run for office, whatever it is, it will become public and could ruin their lives and/or hurt their family.
In no way to I condone adultery, but I don't think a one time mistake many years before his/her election should be out there for all of us.
Regarding Newt, in a deposition, he admitted to adultery. I don't think that makes him any better than Clinton just because he didn't lie about it under oath. The problem I have with Newt is the self righteous indignation while impeaching Clinton.
That all being said, I reiterate that I think we've all gone too far in digging into the personal lives of candidates and we need to get out of the bedroom and focus on the boardroom.
Ned - at one point during the Clinton scandal years, Newt made a statement to the effect that every Republican speech at that time should lead with 'morals' and 'morality'..so, at least at that time, I think he had a major share of the hypocrisy market.
He's subsequently repented, and I'm glad I don't get to/have to judge whether or not he is sincere, but I do think his past has doomed his chances of becoming President.
On the other hand, if I were elected Prez (HA), I'd give him a job. The guy is a thinker and he does have the passion.
Well, in that case, I think you're right . . . but I think too many people are operating under different premises--as I asserted in the post. I guess I'll google what you've said, and I suspect it will be in reference to political strategy as opposed to words coming out of his mouth in anything other than a strategy context. Either way, I guess it is engaging in personality politics even if you're not the one on the front line.
And, I may have missed it somehow, but have you announced the formation of an exploratory committee? Godspeed, John!
Post a Comment