Former House speaker Newt Gingrich fought back against charges of hypocrisy this morning on Fox News Sunday. Host Chris Wallace asked Gingrich whether he was hurling stones from a “glass house” in 1998, when he was “leading the charge” to oust President Clinton from office for lying about an affair, all while Gingrich was having his own.
“Look, obviously it’s complex,” Gingrich responded, a tad coolly. “Obviously I wasn’t doing things to be proud of.” Still, he said, “the question I raised was simple: should a president of the United States be above the law?”
Gingrich acknowledged that his past would be an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign, should he decide to run. “We’ll find out six months or a year from now whether people are forgiving and whether they put in context events that are 10 and 15 years old,” he said.
“People have to measure, at 67, have I matured? Am I a person that they can trust and rely on as a leader? Discipline is part of it,” he continued. “I think that’s a legitimate question. And I expect the American people will, in the end, be remarkably fair.”
“I don’t think I’m perfect. I’ve admitted that I’ve had problems,” Gingrich concluded. “I’ve admitted that I’ve sought forgiveness, but I also think that over time, if you look at my total record, I’m a pretty effective leader.”
(h/t James Hohmann)
Newt's biggest problem, I think, is that he has no base or constituency to whom he particularly appeals. He is too much of a Washington insider to satisfy Tea Partiers, and too much of a bomb thrower to satisfy more moderate Republicans. He's too aggressive to be statesmanlike and too slippery to win the kind of points Ron Paul wins for saying hard truths. He's not really a social conservative, fiscal conservative, or national security conservative.
It's just hard for me to see who will vote for this guy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I'm not a fan of Newt (for president), I'm disappointed to see Chris Wallace engage in this kind of questioning, unless of course Wallace has some information that Gingrich also lied under oath and obstructed justice. I think he probably doesn't.
I'm surprised that a guy as bright and experienced as Chris Wallace still doesn't understand that Clinton's impeachment wasn't about s*x or lying about s*x. It was about breaking the law, period.
PS - The NRO objectionable language filter does not allow you to properly spell the word "s*x". Is NRO being managed by the Amish now?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne of the key components of redemption and contrition is seeking the forgiveness of those one has wronged. It's not enough to say, "I have sinned," or to ask God for forgiveness -- not if the sin has hurt other people.
I would be a lot more sympathetic to Gingrich's statements of contrition if he spoke directly about how he hurt both his ex-wives and how he has begged their forgiveness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought he only cheated because he loved America so much. Why should he apologize for loving his country???
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo parse: "... put into context events that are 10 to 15 years old" and " ... at 67, have I matured?".
I take a general view that if maturity is possible, it will certainly happen well before one turns 52.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGive it up, Newt. You're not going to be elected President in 2012, or any other year. Your time is long gone, if it ever was.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor the millionth time -- Clinton was not impeached for having an affair, he was impeached for LYING ABOUT IT UNDER OATH. And rightly so, he was obstructing justice for Paula Jones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt's also been out of politics for a strikingly long time. Imagine how strange it would be if Al Gore ran for president today. Now keep in mind that Gore held office for several years after Newt left. John Kerry almost won the presidency six years after Newt last held elective office, and it would seem absurd for him to pursue the office now. John Edwards has seen his career on the national stage rise and fall, all within the time Newt has been safely in his Fox News chair. Here's where some of our major political figures were when Newt was last held any government position, in 1998:
Barack Obama -- Illinois state senate
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHillary Clinton -- First Lady
Mitt Romney -- Bain Capital
Sarah Palin -- mayor of Wasilla (first term)
Mike Huckabee -- governor of Arkansas (first term)
Haley Barbour -- Washington lobbyist
George W. Bush -- governor of Texas
Dick Cheney -- CEO of Halliburton
For me, Newt's time has come and gone. There others out there I'd vote for before Newt. I really hope he doesn't run. He strikes me as one afflicted with politician's disease. Not that he's alone by any means -- but it's much more obvious with him. I think he's in it for himself more than anything else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt is brilliant and correct that forgiveness is important; this is good for him to know. But this is not about Newt and the dilemma we Americans face is choosing a leader and not a demigod for president. Even so, we look for the one who will grow into the office as Reagan, Jefferson, etc. I am concerned that Newt is dealing with his ego problem like an alcoholic and is not quite able to resist the siren call of the office. In a pinch, after years of the pressure, will he revert to kind? We should not put him in that situation, but ask him to help the elected one. We are not overrun with good candidates, but there are many others to chose before we have to go back to his well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat Scott Wilson said. Slick wasn't impeached for cheating on his wife; he was impeached for cheating on the justice system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe password is "Diedre Scozzafava".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott Wilson, perjury was the charge underlying the impeachment; however, Clinton may have violated s*xual harassment laws as well, even apart from committing perjury; furthermore, "high crimes and misdemeanors" for purposes of impeachment may well have been understood at the time of the framing to encompass conduct short of statutory crimes. I could argue all that with you, but the point is that regardless of his lies, Clinton defiled the office. Newt escaped detection at the time, so he may not have committed perjury while pursuing Clinton, but he was nevertheless the very essence of hypocrite. Obviously, moreover, he must have lied to multiple people in the course of his romance with his young employee, even if he wasn't given the opportunity to lie under oath.
Some people like to insist that the Clinton affair was "about" lies and not "about" s*x. I disagree. It was assuredly about both.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst Newt says he loved and worked so hard for his country that it caused his infidelities. Should his 3rd wife be worried now that he running for President which requires more heavy lifting than Speaker of the House?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKen Starr spent 50 million looking for dirt on Clinton after finding nothing on Whitewater. I doubt it would have taken more than a few hours of private detective work to uncover Newt's filth. No matter how he spins, he is a hypocrite and once in a while the "party of family values" holds one of their own up to those values. Hopefully, he will slink off back under his rock and find the grace to ask his ex-wives for their forgiveness before venturing out again.
Well, his adultery speaks to his character, as does his testiness whenever he gets a question he doesn't like. Either of those would be troublesome in isolation. Together, it's a bit much, at least for me.
As for the filter, I'm beginning to think that it was designed by a committee comprised of Kathryn Jean Lopez, the Church Lady, and Judge Robert Bork.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOkay, I'm a fan of Newt. I think he has some great ideas. If he winds up as the nominee, he's got my vote. However, his defense is pretty dumb.
“People have to measure, at 67, have I matured?"
So does that mean he was immature at 52 and 57? Is being immature an excuse for adultery now? Goodness, my husband is 32. Does that mean I have to be on guard for the next 35 years?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm glad to know that, at 67, he's matured--though I suspect what he really means is that his sax* drive has slowed down a bit. I guess this means lucky Callista won't have to worry about getting dumped for the newer, younger model when he's 75.
I originally had an e in sax rather than an a, but NRO lists that word as objectionable content. Who designed this program, the seventeenth-century Puritans?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Hardcastle - "Obviously, moreover, he must have lied to multiple people..."
If we start impeaching or expelling politicians because they lie, DC is going to become a much less crowded place. If we start impeaching or expelling politicians because they've had an affair while in office, DC would be a ghost town.
Gingrich lied, Clinton lied, they all lie. Clinton's lies (as they relate to this particular incident) however, had a specific criminal implication to them. He perjured himself Gingrich wasn't "under oath" and that makes, legally speaking, all the difference in the world, just ask Scooter Libby.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, we're not talking about impeaching Gingrich, are we?
We're talking about whether he was a hypocrite and about whether we are inclined to vote for such people. He is, and I'm not so inclined.
(Besides, as I said, Clinton was guilty of much more than lying and may have been pursued for those matters had he not perjured himself.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt talks so much that it's nearly impossible to figure out what he really thinks about anything. He sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi. By historical standards 67 is old to run for President. We can do better in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse