In Impromptus today, I have some debate notes, and more than a few of those notes concern Newt. Of course! Attention must be paid, as an American playwright once wrote. A key question is, will his “past,” to use a handy euphemism, hurt him (electorally)? I’m not really sure. In my column, I say, “When you think about it, betrayal and divorce are as American as apple pie.”
This doesn’t sit well with some people, obviously — but I believe it corresponds to reality. Conservatives are always singing hymns to the Great American People. And they are always decrying the collapse of “family values,” abortion on demand, the vast consumption of porn, litigiousness, political correctness . . .
Well, what people tolerates and embraces these things? Have Papua New Guineans sneaked in here and replaced us Amurricans?
As to whether Gingrich’s “past” should be an issue, it depends on the individual voter. No one can tell a person, “You must vote on these bases, and no others.” In this country, you close the curtain behind you and vote as you wish, for the reasons you wish. Each person will have his priorities. I sometimes quote a Lyle Lovett song: “It may be no big deal to you, but it’s a very big deal to me.”
Years ago, I remarked in the office that I was sorely disappointed to hear about my hero Henry Hyde, the conservative Illinois congressman. (He had a bout of homewrecking.) One of my colleagues mocked me for prudery, or something. I could only say, “We all get to pick what we value: what we admire, what we disdain; what is important to us, what is less so.”
One great question about Newt is probably unanswerable, and it is this: Has he reformed, repented, “put off the old man”? If so, let there be rejoicing throughout the land. Or has he merely retired? You know what I mean? For some men, there comes a time when you simply retire, simply call it quits, and settle on the current mistress. There is the female equivalent too: You slut around for as long as you can, while you can still excite lust in men, and then you stick to old Joe, or whoever the incumbent is.
These are “hard sayings,” to use King James language, but I’m not sure they’re wrong sayings. And if Newt, that maestro, convinces primary voters that the liberal media are out to get him and must be defied, he will score big.
>We all get to pick what we value
Very true, and here's the thing: American women are repulsed by American political leaders who ask their wife for an open marriage. And the ones who aren't are repulsed by all Republicans anyway.
It is over for Newt. And for the record, I think the ex-wife is lying. But it doesn't matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Has he reformed, repented . . . ?" After last night's performance, can there be any doubt?
He deserves our prayers. Not our votes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"For some men, there comes a time when you simply retire, simply call it quits, and settle on the current mistress."
And others, like Nelson Rockefeller, go down swinging (so to speak).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs usual, Jay nails it.
I'm uncomfortable with both the "anything goes" and "divorce is always entirely the fault of the person who first commits adultery" crowds. Marital relationships are unbelievably complex and for an outsider to assign degrees of responsibility for the failure of a marriage shows great arrogance.
However, as far as we know (as of now) Newt has had three relationships in his life, each of them long in duration and showing something resembling commitment for long stretches. This shows a quite different character (IMO) than a Bill Clinton or Tiger Woods treating multiple women as disposable temporary conveniences.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"showing something resembling commitment for long stretches"
Even Professor Gasbag can waddle over that bar. I'll have to try that if the police ever stop me for speeding. Why, officer, my speed showed something resembling the speed limit for long stretches!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNumerous additional infidelities have been reported. Newt just didn't marry those women. One reportedly serviced him in the driveway while his children were nearby.
Could some of these reports be lies? Sure, but Newt gives us scant reason to doubt them.
Most of us here are probably married and are therefore all too aware of the complexity of marriage. I really don't care about whether the women involved were also at fault in some way, though. Newt all by himself has demonstrated gross immorality and hypocrisy. It is hardly "arrogant" for voters to notice. No Newtie vote here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI haven't followed his sexual history in any detail. I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject.
AFAIK, Clinton is the only blatant serial adulterer (the pejorative term) to be elected President in our history, though one perennial candidate, Henry Clay, was well-known as a ladies' man (to use the euphemism).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn F. Kennedy? Don't forget Ronald Reagan's divorce.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEver hear of JFK?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI for one have certainly never believed those sordid lies spread about JFK :-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe thing that perhaps I find most troubling is that we, as a nation, are NOT more bothered by this. It's not the fact that Newt is divorced. It's the fact that there was a time when this type of permissiveness emphasized a lack of moral character--and not in the too recent past. Instead, we are to commend him because he's able to shift the conversation. He's able to "give it to the media" for showcasing this weakness. I didn't know the extent of his infidelity, but I do now and I'm not as comfortable with the idea of him running the country, especially because he does seem to be "retired" more than "repentant."
I read a great comment from someone who basically said: remember a time when to have righteous indignation the indignant had to be righteous? We hear so much about how Newt has repented, and we are all supposed to sit back and nod approvingly of his morals now, but then we are still supposed to be upset about Paul's newsletters, Romney's past stance on abortion and gay rights, etc etc, because they can't change, either? We are quickly quickly becoming a nation of hypocrites. Just because Newt had a good debate or two, we are now supposed to forget the vengeful "sink Romney at all cost" person he morphed into after Iowa--like a spiteful ex, you could say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy exact thoughts and feelings. When this whole primary process started I liked Newt and was aware of he was divorced, but as I have learned more of the details as well as how he has conducted himself during this campaign, I am completely disgusted. What makes me even sadder is listening to and watching conservative commentators make excuses for Newt simply because he is a "great" conservative salesman. He is a terrible roll model and I suspect he has a lot more skeletons in his closet.
"Beware of false profits, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolfs. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?". Matthew 7:15-16
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was surprised Newt didn't blame ABC News for forcing him to cheat on his wife with his employee and get oral sex in the congressional parking lot during work hours. Obviously Newt is blameless, so it must be the media.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Newt were to win, this would be the first time the First Lady would be the adulteress. Usually, the mistress is some obscure person but this would put her front and center. What respect could she garner with everyone knowing her past indiscretions?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you have to be married to commit adultery. Calista in this case would not be an adulteress but she could have been called a sl^t or a wh&&e to be more accurate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love that Newt gets that we have to fight the media as much as we have to fight Obama. This is his appeal; this is what our conservative leaders need to realize. This should be his legacy from this campaign cycle. (Indeed, candidates co-opt from other candidates all the time. I'm surprised others haven't done so vis a vis Newt.)
But his past -- if indeed it is truly his *past* -- is too troubling. What would our posts, our discussion, here look like if Newt had a "D" beside his name?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen. We are nothing more than crass hypocrites if continue to offer excuses for Newt after what we said about Clinton. Someone please tell me when character stopped mattering? I missed the memo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUltimately, it's about politics and power for both sides. What bothers a lot of Americans is how preachy and hypocritical the right is on these issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only hypocrites are the ones who preached before and now give Gingrich a pass.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHardcastle, I don't generally agree with you, but I concede the point. I also think your assessment of a Gingrich versus Obama race above is dead on. I can't for the life of me understand why Gingrich supporters don't see a guy whose life is based on an oversized love of self and the guiding principle that personal integrity and consistency is for lesser beings. If Obama is, as many on this site claim, a narcissist, Gingrich is one many orders of magnitude larger.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse