Friday, January 20, 2012

On Newt, Fidelity and Judgment


When republican governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, was embroiled in a scandal relating to his highly publicized affair a friend of mine was annoyed because apparently some talk show hosts were calling for his resignation.  He was of the opinion that republicans should stick together and not “eat their own,” and he thought a strong resume on fiscal conservatism was the higher priority.  I tended to agree but that misses the point.  The question was this:  what gives anyone the right to presume to tell other voters what qualities should be important to them in a candidate?  In a time when some are voting because they like someone’s toothy smile or cool sunglasses, it’s not my place to say whether or not infidelity should be a deal-breaker for someone else.

That’s why when Newt Gingrich was once asked about his past indiscretions and whether or not it was a legitimate issue in the campaign his answer was exactly right.  He said it was a fair issue to bring up and that whether or not this disqualified him for POTUS was a choice for voters to make (I’m paraphrasing, of course).  Then he expressed regret over his past mistakes and stated that he had asked God for forgiveness.

Let’s contrast that with what we saw from Bill Clinton who first went to great lengths to cover up his infidelities and smear and denounce his accusers, and then dismissed his behavior as a “personal issue” that was no one’s business but his (remember the wagging finger?).  As I opined back then, Clinton’s attempt to deprive voters of important information about his character and then to issue proclamations about what should or should not be relevant to voters smacked of the worst kind of imperialism.  The notion that citizens have no business making judgments about the behavior of a man with the power to impact all of their lives, well that’s all part of the terrific Clinton legacy.  The true test of a liberal is to see if he will sacrifice the ideals of a nation to advance his own interests.

But back to Newt.  In light of the damning accusations recently launched by his ex-wife I’d like to relate a personal story that might give people pause for thought. 

We moved to a new state when my son was starting first grade.  I was concerned about him adjusting to the move but he soon made friends with a boy in school and so we became friends with his family.  Life-long residents there, they sort of adopted us.  The dad coached the boys’ T-ball team, we had barbecues and took the kids on outings to the beach, etc.  As we got to know them, however, it eventually became apparent that there were serious problems in their marriage, and the more time we spent with them the more clear the reasons became.  The wife, who was otherwise great to be with, seem to take pleasure in making the husband miserable.  She belittled him, picked fights in public, undermined his authority as a parent, literally spent them into bankruptcy and had gained about 100 pounds during their 12-year marriage, among many other things.  Reluctant to separate my son from his best friend, we endured many an uncomfortable time in their presence because of her tendency to openly express her anger or disappointment in him.  He, on the other hand, would do what he could to ignore or placate her to keep peace in public.  Five years later or so the husband finally decided to call it quits, and with her “good riddance” he moved out.

About a month or so later I was with the wife at a school function when she informed me that the husband was “having an affair.”  She knows this from having hacked into his cell phone messages, and she feels wounded and betrayed.  I was in disbelief.  She sincerely believed herself to be a victim.  Later, at the monthly Bunco get together, she informed a sympathetic crowd of women that her husband had left her and was cheating on her.  Since they heard only her version of things, she had everyone’s immediate sympathy.  This experience is always in the back of my mind when someone professes to be the injured party in a marriage gone bad. 

The point of this post is not to defend or excuse anything Gingrich may have done or to suggest that people don’t have the right to judge a candidate on his morals.  It is simply to say that things are not always as they may seem.  The fact that Gingrich’s daughters appear to be defending him suggests to me that there is much more to the story than we know, but each of us is entitled to draw our own conclusions.

25 comments:

  1. The only problem, CW, is that perception is everything and it is difficult for all us humanoids to make evaluations outside the context of our own POV. Me included.

    And indeed, once in office Clinton was accountable to the Citizenry for all his actions. And yet today he is hailed as a great Demo on multiple levels by the MSM et al.

    Your post is spot-on and it is my hope that many will read and absorb the lesson you share. Thanx.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Mrs. AL.

      I really don’t know how “accountable” Clinton became during his presidency because he continued to use the “it’s a personal issue” to justify being untruthful to the nation about his behaviors, past and current, and democrats let him get away with it for the most part.

      Yes, perception is everything. I guess the moral to the story is: be very careful in how you live your life. You never know if you might want to run for office some day. :)

      Delete
    2. No problem for me in regard to how I live my life relative to running for office. I am what some would call a "dud" in many ways.

      Delete
  2. Yes, there is always two sides to a story and I am sure Newt's wife has an axe to grind. Newt is no angel and has plenty of personal baggage (like Clinton), but as you said it is up to the voters to decide if he is qualified for Potus. I am still not convinced that Newt is electable, he still polls way behind Obama.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great point, Patrick. The question of electability cannot be ignored.

      Delete
  3. CW,
    Good post and good insight. To me, Newt's ex-wife needs attention. Why drag that whole affair into the media after all these years.

    Newt most certainly is a skirt chaser from what we have been told over the years. That said, he's been happily married for 14 years and has repented for his past misdeeds.

    I except that since none of us can see into his heart. We are electing a president this November, not the pope.

    As I stated in a previous comment, not one of our founding fathers would have passed the litmus tests that we now force on our GOP candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Hardnox.

      I will at least give credit to Gingrich for not suggesting it’s none of our business.

      Delete
  4. Interesting essay and comments. But I give the awars to MrsAL: perception IS everything in politics, and a professional politician -- as Gingrich is -- should know that and live his life accordingly, not do all the things he's done then "apologize" and make excuses.

    I don't find a comparison to Clinton persuasive. Just because the other side does it doesn't justify it on our side. Two wrongs don't make a right.

    There are a ton of other problems with Gingrich in my estimation, as I've written elsewhere, but his personal baggage is not only pretty inexcuseable, but pragmatically speaking, it's a HUGE cudgel and handicap to him as the GOP's nominee should he win it. The other side will simply beat him to death with it.

    Maybe the kind of political junkies -- people like us -- who are very active and involved are willing to overlook stuff like this. The general population -- Joe and Jane Sixpack who finally tune into politics a couple of weeks before they have to vote -- is going to much less inclined to ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Brian – thanks for your comment. Let me first respond by addressing this statement:

      >>”I don't find a comparison to Clinton persuasive. Just because the other side does it doesn't justify it on our side. Two wrongs don't make a right.”

      I guess I need to rethink my style of writing if that’s what you got from what I said – that I was justifying Gingrich’s behavior or that two wrongs make a right.

      The point of the Clinton comparison was to highlight the difference in attitude. Both men engaged in some misdeeds; but whereas Gingrich acknowledges the right of the public to be aware of what he did and to make their own judgments about his worthiness for public office, Clinton tried to interfere with the public’s right to know about his behavior and then tried to say that it was none of our business. I see that as a fundamental difference. Gingrich, by expressing remorse for his behavior and not trying to make people feel wrong or bad for judging him, put the country before himself. Clinton put himself before the interests of the country.

      As for the “other problems” with Gingrich, this post was not meant to be an endorsement of Gingrich. My point was to say that each of us is entitled to decide for ourselves what is important to us in a candidate, and to remind readers that there is often far more to a story than meets the eye. Those truths apply equally to ALL of the candidates, not just Gingrich. And what I try to do here, as often as I can, is look at the broader picture.

      Finally, I’d be interested in knowing which candidate you believe is without problems.

      Delete
  5. Common Sense II -

    What I find appalling is that there are 312,884,000 people in the United States of America (give or take a few). In that conservatives have in recent history made up 40% of the electorate that means that there are about 125,153,600 conservatives. Cut that in half for those that are too young or too old to serve and that leaves a pool of 62,576,800 Americans who conceivably could run for President. Sixty-two and a half million candidates and Newt Gingrich is the best we can do? Amazing.

    I guess it doesn't matter to me yet - on March 6th we Virginians get to pick between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. There's a no brainer if there ever was one.

    I guess we'll see soon whether South Carolina will push Newt closer to seizing the brass ring.

    With Rick Perry out of the running - I've transferred my allegiance to Rick Santorum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi CS –

      It is amazing that the right individual seems so hard to find. Do you think maybe they have the good sense to hide?

      As I explained to Brian, this post wasn’t necessarily meant to be a solicitation for Gingrich but to get people thinking about some philosophical things that were ruminating in my mind because of the whole infidelity thing.

      I’m very torn in this race because of what I see to be major problems with each candidate. I was nearly set on Santorum but – as I explained in my last post – I was deeply disturbed by his proposals for Social Security and his apparent inability or refusal to see the connection between those ideas and the ideas of Marxism. I also think his proposal to tax manufacturing at a different rate than other businesses amounts to picking winners and losers. So that left me leaning towards Gingrich but he has problems as well, so....

      Sigh.

      Delete
    2. CW,

      I think that the problem is that one had to be a Boy Scout his entire life to qualify to run. I don't think that any of us want left-wing lunatics rummaging around in our past to find out about some incident, abandoned former lover, or drunken antic. I think that's too bad as I would prefer a man who has lived large, survived his youthful indiscretions, and prospered to someone who lived a sheltered and boring life.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps it should give us a better appreciation for how rare a man George Washington was (that’s assuming we know the whole story on him!).

      The dilemma we have, of course, is that we don’t get to choose candidates from the public at large but instead we’re limited to those who are brave enough – foolish enough – rich enough – etc., to run. We’re not likely to get someone who’s perfect according to that method. All of us will have to be clear on what our priorities are.

      Delete
  6. Susan Estrich -- she of the gravelly voice and mouthpiece commentor for all things and people leftist -- opined yesterday about "Gingrich's outrageous hypocrisy". He, she said, called for Bill Clinton's impeachment and pushed for said because of the then-President's dalliances, all while, as we now know, Gingrich was doing the same thing at the same time.

    It is standard leftist fare to obfuscate for the dumb masses (Say aloud a coupla times)and Estrich did it beautifully. The call by Gingrich, et al, for impeachment was NOT because of the Clinton picadilos, but rather because he lied . . . under oath and as result was found in contempt of court and disbarred.

    Gingrich, as clearly said by CW, was both then and now forthright and honest. That said, he has regularly along with Bill Clinton lied about having balanced the budget and, indeed, created a surplus. See http://thedrpete.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/another-question-newt-wont-like/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey there, drpete.

      You’re absolutely right. Estrich is part of the vast left-wing conspiracy to fool liberals into believing that Clinton was impeached for having sex, and to make sure that’s how the story gets told in the history books.

      I still like the idea of submitting a question to one of these debate forums and asking Gingrich why his claims on balancing the budget don’t jive with your research. If you formulate the question, I’ll send it in.

      Delete
    2. Mr. Gingrich, you have in these debates said that, while Speaker, the federal budget was balanced and even generated surpluses. In FY 1998, 1999, and 2,000 PUBLIC debt, indeed, decreased by almost $56 billion, almost $98 billion, and almost $231 billion respectively.
      During those same fiscal years, on the other hand, INTRA-government borrowing INCREASED by almost $169 billion, almost $228 billion, and almost $249 billion. Let me help here and do the arithmetic. TOTAL federal debt increased by $261 billion.

      These figures are from the U.S. Treasury. Looking at a larger timeframe, according to the Treasury, national debt September 29, 1995, the beginning of FY 2005 the national debt stood at $4.973982 trillion. At the beginning of FY 1996 it stood at $5.224810 trillion. FY 1997 started at $5.413146 trillion. FY 1998 at $5.526193 trillion. FY 1999 at $5.656270 trillion. FY 2000 at $5.674178 trillion. That’s an increase, Mr. Speaker, of $981.44 billion, just a hair under a trillion dollars. Please explain how that’s a surplus. Would you please explain, Mr. Speaker, YOUR earlier assertions?

      Delete
    3. You're on, drpete! I'll send it in.

      Delete
  7. The contrast you draw between Gingrich and Clinton is even more pointed when we consider the approach of the msm. Although Gingrich has been very candid about his marriage problems, the msm keeps the issue alive. Yet with Clinton, after this 60 minutes interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF9LJw20bSc) during which the Clinton's finessed the questions, the msm dropped the issue. (Its amusing to see in this interview Mrs. Clinton referring to Jennifer Flowers as "this woman" while recalling Mr. Clinton later referring to Monica Lewinsky as "that woman."

    ReplyDelete
  8. As to your observation that "things are not always as they seem," Marianne Gingrich is not quite the victim that she let's on to be. She became Newt's second wife after engaging in an affair with him while he was still married to his first. I have not watched the interview; I wonder if she was asked about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for those comments, V.L., and thanks for coming by.

      Wow – that video clip was amazing! I had almost forgotten what a con man Clinton was, although no one could have been fooled by that interview. It was almost laughable, and it really goes to show how little the question of marital fidelity mattered to the liberals who supported Clinton. We’ll see if they change their tune now. And you’re absolutely right about the MSM and their different approach to Clinton vs. Gingrich.

      Didn’t know that about Marianne Gingrich, but there is simply something about her that strikes me as dishonest.

      Delete
  9. Well said. Perhaps this is why God warns us that "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." (Prov 18:17 [NKJV])

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you, Interface. Yes...just perhaps.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Waitin' for a new post, CW. I check in every day ...

    ReplyDelete