Gingrich Admits to Extramarital Affair

It's news to me and it's tiring that the group that claim the moral high ground have the same problems keeping their pants on as the ones they love to target. My guess is that the GOP put it out to try to take the edge off Rudy's issues with wife three as his mistress with wife two. No one puts anything on the "news" unless there's an end game in mind.

Approximately the same reason we got to hear about unpaid parking tickets.

I didn't think the Clinton issue was a national matter. If a leader is doing a good job professionally, then he/she is a good leader. Personal life is personal. That said, I am NO Newt fan, but if he is going to get on a moral high horse, which Clinton didn't, he should be careful that his dirty laundry doesn't make him a hypocrite. But it did. He is a hypocrite. Let's move on to more pressing matters (not parking tickets).

KyleN,

Do you really think that unpaid parking tickets by a student and adultry by the Speaker of the House are even close to the same?

If so you must have drunk the Kool aid pretty deeply. If it were a Republican and parking tickets and a Democrat and adultry are you sure you would feel the same way?

Isnt Newt still a leading candidate for the GOP nomination? Only a fool would believe that unpaid parking tickets as a student and adultry while Speaker of the House are even remotely equivalent.

I didn't think the Clinton issue was a national matter. If a leader is doing a good job professionally, then he/she is a good leader. Personal life is personal.

The problem isn't that he had an affair except for the finger pointing that surrounds that sort of thing (from both sides) - the problem is that he went into a court of law and lied about it.

Isnt Newt still a leading candidate for the GOP nomination?

No. He currently isn't even running.

He currently isn't even running.

Are you sure? He sure has spent time in primary hotspots like New Hampshire and Iowa - just a coincidence?

Who is running officially?

McCain isnt technically running yet either unless you count is semi-announcment on Letterman.

In polls of Republicans Newt Gingrich has consistently been third behind Guilani and McCain.

he lied about something that was not subject to a criminal investigation... that is not perjury.

Are you sure? He sure has spent time in primary hotspots like New Hampshire and Iowa - just a coincidence?

All I can give you is his own statements:

In remarks that were critical of both parties' recent performance, Gingrich told a luncheon group of scholars and reporters at the Brookings Institution that he will make a decision in the fall of 2007 about running.

"If at that point there's still a vacuum . . . then we'll probably do something," Gingrich said, adding that his policy pronouncements have more weight if he is seen as a potential presidential candidate. "If you're interested in defining the idea context and the political context for the next generation of Americans, which I am, the most effective way to do that is to be seen as potentially available."

So at this point is he running? No. Will he run? Maybe. Either way I suspect he intends to be a force in shaping the agenda.

Who is running officially?

Candidates who have filed with the FEC for the Republican Party:

* Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas (Campaign Site) * Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York (Exploratory Committee)[13] * Representative Duncan Hunter of California (Campaign Site) * Senator John McCain of Arizona (Exploratory Committee) * Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (Campaign Site)

In polls of Republicans Newt Gingrich has consistently been third behind Guilani and McCain.

Polls are even more irrelevant now than they during a standard election cycle.

he lied about something that was not subject to a criminal investigation... that is not perjury.

He lied during the sexual harassment case brought against him by Paula Jones.

Although I am not a lawyer I am sure you cannot lie under oath regardless of the question. The judge may dismiss the question, you might even be able to refuse to answer the question - but I do not believe there is a situation where you can legally lie under oath.

That was a civil case, and he was punished for his misleading statements by loss of his license to practice law.

as to perjury:

Explination of Perjury

Note the fact that it must be a material matter.

So, it would appear from those defending Newt here, that lying is ok as long as you don't do it in court.

Isn't relative morality something conservatives love to bash the liberals with? To top off Newt's hypocrisy, this is his third marriage, and the second time he's cheated on his wife at the time.

This is the ultimate in moralistic relativity, akin to the typical historical revisionism so prevalent in the current administration.

Yeah, boy. Those are the kind of people I want leading my country. NOT!

Yep.

I'm still trying to figure out how they rationalize:

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

and especially:

Proverbs 6:16-19 says, "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

The passage from Proverbs describes the Bush administration to a tee.

Isn't that old testament stuff? I mean, really, we all know the new testament totally supersedes and makes irrelevant the old testament.. Doesn't it? I mean, we can wear clothes of mixed material now too - and that, once, was an abomination.

Or maybe I've got it wrong and we can use bits and pieces but not all of it as you see fit - else the punishment for some of those abominations could be pretty severe if I remember correctly.

I think Jews would beg to differ with you, finalcut.

Ok, then let's go to the new testament:

Matthew 5
31 "It has been said, `Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

The point to take away here is about adultery, not divorce. I believe there are many unfortunate, but valid reasons for permitting divorce, but I know of none for committing adultery. And, contrary to the situation in this verse, Newt is the unfaithful one, not his wife.

I find it equally hypocritical of many conservatives to be willing to condone adultery, about which Jesus did have something to say, and their condemnation of homosexuality, on which Jesus was silent.

I'm not trying to start an argument about the Bible, just using the book most conservatives use to selectively support their hypocritical positions.

"I'm not trying to start an argument about the Bible, just using the book most conservatives use to selectively support their hypocritical positions."

Not to mention selectively "pluck" out scriptures out of context that were written a long time ago and make them "fit" for today's culture.

Funny, not much of a mention of Homosexuality (if any) in the new testament but yet Necons RUN to the old testament to point out how much God hates them. What I remember most about the New Testament is that "love" is said a bunch...but I certainly don't see much love coming from the Neocon party (or Liberals for that matter).

Agreed.

You remember what Al Franken said about the Bible:

If you cut out all the passages in the Bible where Jesus talks about the poor, about helping out the least among us, you'd have the perfect container to smuggle Rush Limbaugh's drugs in.

I hadn't actually heard that, but it's classic Al (soon to be Senator) Franken.

I was kind of hoping it would be obvious I was being facetious.

Sthig: Considering the Bible was brought into play in the discussion of a politician courting conservative Christians I really didn't think the Jewish perspective had much bearing, particularly considering I as just making fun of conservative Christians. It's OK to be anti-conservative-Christian but it is absolutely Taboo to say anything anti-Semite so I'm always careful to separate the two by ignoring the Jews in my bad jokes.

Sthig: In your second comment you are much closer in agreement with my comment. It's the partial and selective quoting of the Bible that kills me. Either Jesus took care of all the stuff in the old testament and we can eat pork now (and pretty much ignore all the rules previously set forth, as some Christians have tried to get me to believe) OR we have to listen to both parts (but only when it is in support of our arguments) as others have led me to believe. Well, unless you're a Quaker; it strikes me they still follow the old testament (I'm not sure about the New however). But, somehow, I doubt we have any Quakers online participating in this conversations.

CuriousG: good new testament quote - I'm sure there are even more that directly discuss adultry - but of course, if you just accept Jesus into your heart it really doesn't matter what kind of an ass you were before that - all is forgiven; so long as you can convince folks you really are repentant (regardless if you really are).

nicely put. thanks

FC, sorry I missed the intent of your tone. And, I'll consider your additional comments as being in the same vane (and quite on target).

(When will we be able to add the appropriate inflections to our typing!?)

yes I need to put a disclaimer at the beginning of posts where I mean to imply a tongue-in-cheek attitude.

one day someone will invent something on the internets to convey emotion.

Being a geek, I'm hoping for something along the lines of the infamous Smell-O-Vision.

CuriousG,

shut yo mouf! Don't you know hackers would make that thing smell like poop all the time.

Did he commit perjury? That was the basis of the Clinton problem.

That was not the problem. Committing perjury over something that is a personal affair and not a crime in of itself really isn't perjury. There was no basis for the GOP to be asking those questions.

It's not hypocricy, it's a blatant attempt to rewrite history. Gingrich hung back during the Lewinsky assault, because his own serial infidelities were too well known. Now he's trying to bill himself as one of the righteous warriors who brought down the Great Beast.

Plus, he gets extra points with the Christians for this, because there's nothing better than a reformed sinner...not that he's reformed, of course.

Comsen:

So you oppose a Libby pardon for the exact same offense?

Committing perjury over something that is a personal affair and not a crime in of itself really isn't perjury.

Lying under oath is perjury, whether or not he should have been there is irrelevant.

No its not irrelevant. The question was of a highly personal nature intended to setup Clinton for the perjury charge. If I asked you under oath if you masturbated in front of a large audience, you may be inclined to think it is none of your business and state that you don't, when in fact you do. Does this qualify under the general definition of perjury, yes, is it our business to know that, no.

The neo-cons setup Clinton purposely. To relate lying about an extramarital affair to the rape that Bush is performing on this country is ridiculous. Bush and his cronies are raping this country of billions of dollars, and you have the nerve to compare the two?

Bush and his cronies are raping this country of billions of dollars, and you have the nerve to compare the two?

Where did this come from? I did not compare the two. I never even mentioned Bush. Do not put words in my mouth.

There was no basis for the GOP to be asking those questions.

If I asked you under oath if you masturbated in front of a large audience, you may be inclined to think it is none of your business and state that you don't, when in fact you do. Does this qualify under the general definition of perjury, yes, is it our business to know that, no.

If this is true, he wouldn't even have had to answer them.

inhalant, he was a husband caught cheating. Bottom line, he was hoping to keep it under wraps. That does not make him a criminal. If that was criminal we would have quite a few people in our prison system right now.

As to Bush, he is lying everyday when is trying to explain why we went to war, and why we continue to be at war. The difference is that he has not been asked to "testify" yet.

I consider an illegal war to be a billion times worse than lying about an extra marital affair, don't you?

inhalant, he was a husband caught cheating. Bottom line, he was hoping to keep it under wraps. That does not make him a criminal. If that was criminal we would have quite a few people in our prison system right now.

As to Bush, he is lying everyday when is trying to explain why we went to war, and why we continue to be at war. The difference is that he has not been asked to "testify" yet.

I consider an illegal war to be a billion times worse than lying about an extra marital affair, don't you?

You are the only person here making this about Bush. I am not here to defend or attack Bush because this is not about him.

I am not here to defend Gingrich.

If the line of questioning was not relevant to the matter, I do not see why he would have even had to answer it. I am merely defending the notion that, regardless of why he was there, Clinton was under oath and he lied and that does not say much of the man who was leader of my country.

I am making no comparison of Clinton to Bush. Of adultery to Iraq. I think a discussion of whether or not adultery is worse than an illegal war is a bit off topic here.

Questions about his affair were unwarranted, period. The public forum which they were brought up in constituted a criminal act on the part of the GOP. It was a witch hunt pure and simple, just like white water which came to nothing.

And it was extremely hypocritical for the GOP leadership (Newt) to asking those questions when he himself was engaging in the same action.

whether or not he should have been asked the question he did have a duty to be honest in his reply - regardless of how embarassing it would have been. In the end the truth came out anyway so then he was known as both a philander and a liar. Had Clinton just been up front in the first place that particular episode may have gone by much more smootly.

OR

Had he been honest the GoP may have tried to pursue other issues such as fraternization (I don't know how well that applies to the President; but the action does raise some ethical questions at a minimum).

However,
Gingrich really is a prick about this. Lying about cheating is no worse to me than cheating in the first place. At some point Newt made a solemn vow to his wife - which, why not legally, is just as binding, in my mind, as an oath in the courts. He promised to be faithful when he married her and did not do it. I don't see how he could be any more trustworthy than Clinton (not that I expected him to be any more trustworthy).

he may not be a crook - but he is certainly a liar. If he will betray his wife's trust I don't see why he wouldn't betray ours as well.

Character does matter. Sadly, all we get in office are Characters with little actual Character.

So... Comsen, WHen Ken Star asked him "is your name William Jefferson Clinton" as he took the grand jury stand, and CLinton decided to say "no" he shoudl have been impeached?

The fact is, Star had no reason to ask the question in teh first place. It was meant to get Clinton to lie so that the Republicans could make a big deal out of it.

Just so everyone knows... no prosecutor has ever arrested and charged a person og lying to the grand jury over lying about having an affair unless it is material to the case.

Actually, as I recall it, they asked Clinton if he had had sex with Monica and he said "no." What he had had from Monica was a blow job, and he said later that he guessed it was splitting hairs, but he did not think of that as really having sex with anyone. There was no answer that Clinton could have given to that question that would have avoided the press having a field day; it was a carefully calculated questions, somewhat along the lines of "Have you quite beating your wife yet?" His best response would have been, "None of your business what I do in my sex life."

In my opinion, no political official should ever be brought before a grand jury to talk about his or her sex life. It is completely irrelevant to how the official is performing the job that official was elected to do. Political creditials should be completely divorced from both the sex life and the religious activities of a candidate in the minds of the electorate, if we can ever have a chance of electing the best person for any particular job (or keeping that person in the job when he or she is performing well).

I completely agree. You can't be in two places at once. Gingrich attacked Clinton based on the perception he and his party were occuppying the moral high ground while in reality they were wallowing in a pit of corruption and immoral behavior. That is Hypocrisy with a capital "H". Let us not forget that this is an individual who had his loving wife served divorce papers while she was in a hospital bed battling cancer ("She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife.") Are character and integrity important qualities in a President? Maybe the contest is really about electing the smarmiest, best lying hypcorite we can find. In that case Mr. Gingrich should win hands down. Look at what happened the last time around.

How stupid of us Democrats. Morality is not the problem, venality is not the problem, treachery is not the problem, wrongdoing of any sort is not the problem so long as you don't deny doing it under oath! Let that be a lesson to you young whippersnappers over there in the Congress. It's OK to sleep with pages; it's just not OK to lie under oath about it. It's OK to cheat on your wife and let on that you didn't, couldn't, wouldn't; it's just not OK to cheat on your wife and let on that you didn't, couldn't, wouldn't while under oath. It's OK to lie about another country's attempt to get nuclear weapons so you can provoke an illegal war; it's just not OK to lie under oath about it. It's OK to lie about who disclosed the name of a CIA operative; it's just not OK to lie under oath about it, at least until the pardon comes through. D'oh!

After all, a person's word is his bond, but if he doesn't give his word under oath @!$%# 'em, they can't prosecute.

So if a Republican says of course he loves his mother, next time, swear him in first!

Cassandra, I agree with you mostly, but point out that there may be instances where a politician's sex life is germane to his public life. If Clinton had been accused of giving huge government contracts to Ms. Lewinsky in exchange for that blow job, it would indeed have been proper to investigate the sexual relationship. As we all know, however, no such thing was ever alleged.

In point of fact, the question was "Is there a sexual relationship between you and Monica Lewinsky?" which led to the quip, "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," a quip that completely confounded the mouthbreathers. Since "is" is then present tense of "to be," the answer "No" was not perjury.

I'm being harrassed to leave the house, so I cna't dig up the documentation right now.

Remember also that Newtie did not consider oral sex as having sex just like Clinton. So at least they were on the same page when it came to their definition of "having sex."

Yes, and obviously no one wanted him except Rosalyn! Sorry, I could not resist.

The GOP and Gingrich are all a bunch of hypocrites. Flaunting their righteousness while fooling around on the side. Don't forget one of the meanest, nastiest men in the GOP Bob Barr who was doing the same thing as Gingrich at the time.

Gingrich is just trying to defuse the situation before it hits the fan again and it will hit the fan. Perhaps if they had not laid claim to being the moral majority then it would not be such a big thing, but noooo they had to go and impeach Clinton even though the public wanted censure.

Can we get Lindsey Graham next?

As if perjury is a bigger offense than adultery....

Funny!

Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. Perjury has to be in relation to an underlying crime. Adultery and sexual harassment was no crime. That's why his indictment (impeachment by the lower house) did not result in conviction. He was so to speak acquitted.

Now we all know that the real issue was gotcha politics, trying to skin Slick Willie, the guys Republicans lived to hate. That's what's so hideous about this. The guy who lead the charge was actively doing the same.

It's not just toad-bellied hypocrisy, it's also moral bankruptcy, viciousness, willingness to subject the system to strain for personal gain and sheer abuse of power.

What Gingrich did is far worse!

Adultery and sexual harassment was no crime.

Really?

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, which violates federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That is the first sentence of my workplace's Sexual Harassment policy.

Are you kidding me? The Paula Jones case was in civil court covered by civil law. He wasn't facing a criminal trial.

He was acquitted of the perjury charge. You can't deny that.

"It's good to be da King"

M

Remember our president was receiving his spiritual guidance from a minister that condoned the use of meth and sex with a male prostitute.

Who was miraculously declared heterosexual after a few weeks of intense therapy. Now here comes Newt confessing what everybody knew so he can be forgiven by the moral majority. These moral elitists need to stay out of politics because they have become the enablers for the very type of people they are supposed to abhor.

The hypocrisy of the Republican party and the Christian right seems to be limitless

They should all be branded with a big scarlet H on their foreheads. Yes, just look at the '08 candidates God has blessed them with!

Politics.

The art of gracefully sidestepping any aforementioned guarantees.

Well, telling white lies has always seemed to me to be better than telling unnecessary truths that will hurt someone else. Absolute truth-telling in every situation can be morally worse than lying occasionally, in my opinion.

Also, I know most politicians are hypocritical when they set out their platform, but it is also true that nobody can anticipate what will happen in the future that will make it impossible to fulfill a platform promise. In such cases, an open explanation to the people should suffice. It is also the case that unless Congress backs the President, for example, s/he can't change the law; all he or she could ever do is propose laws. Similarly, a Senator or Representative can introduce legislation and campaign for it, but they cannot guarantee the rest of the Senate or House will go along with them and pass the law. To call a man a liar when he has done the best he can to promote the policies he announced in a platform but failed is rather unfair.

You raise a valid point here. As a conservative, believe me when I say that I get tired of the delighted shrieks of hypocricy from the left whenever a Republican fails to live up to the party's ideals.

To me, these claims are missing the larger point. Conservatives have little faith in politicians and less in government as a whole. When the power-hungry opportunists chosen to champion our beliefs fail, are we surprised? Not a bit. Does that render our belief in and hope for values invalid? Not in the slightest.

The point is that much of America still believes in these values.As long as this is the case, ambitious men will feign morality to get our votes, and we will comply, for lack of a better option.

I agree with you that self righteous hypocrites are the most presumptuous. But my implicit point is that hypocrisy is an equal opportunity quality that has plagued all power brokers throughout recorded history, which includes, but is not limited to, the neo-constipated. As a result, those familiar with history do not find hypocrisy among politicians to be newsworthy. Rather, the aforementioned view hypocrisy as part of the politician's job description.

But we are all hypocrites. We ignore the deficiencies of our own hope that someone will rise to power and implement a part of our moral ideals in their policy. Such hope is so unrealistic that it becomes a point of hypocrisy in our own lives as we paint ourselves up as clown-like apologists for an impossible dream.

Part and parcel with our bankrupt support of our partisan fantasy protagonist comes the demonization of 'the other.' If the neo-cons would just go away, we say to ourselves, everything will be all right. Things will get better. Of course this is not true, but merely a more palatable insanity, which, incidentally, paves the way for the next body of hypocrites.

The reality of American politics is that the citizenry have less power than ever to change their destiny. Their vote can cause dramatic change within a confined power sharing agreement between two narrowly different parties. When you vote someone out of power, you vote them into corporate boardrooms and think tanks where they privately influence policy through money and ideology instead of through the public constitutional channels. While this happens, all of us insane harlequins sing "Ding dong the witch is dead," when in fact the witch is merely practicing his same dark art while out of the public scrutiny.

By pointing out the hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich, we are merely stalling instead of recognizing our own hypocrisy.

It's just as well, though. Because if we were so humble, any subsequent idea of Revolution (citizens taking power away from runaway government) would have to be quashed by the fact that while we can carry arms, the government has Tanks.

Sincerely,

Donald Rumsfeld

The thieves and liars want you to believe that there is no alternative to them, so you will vote them in, and fool that you are, you comply. And so, you have a party led by thieves and liars.

To me, these claims are missing the larger point. Conservatives have little faith in politicians and less in government as a whole. When the power-hungry opportunists chosen to champion our beliefs fail, are we surprised? Not a bit. Does that render our belief in and hope for values invalid? Not in the slightest.

The point is that much of America still believes in these values.As long as this is the case, ambitious men will feign morality to get our votes, and we will comply, for lack of a better option.

You have a point there. But there are two Americas, and the other part does not want the Republican Party and dirty politicians telling them how to morally lead their lives. So if Republican America held on to those strictures it's not a problem till it imposes it on others.

Daniel,

(There is no sarcasm in this statement I'm about to make, okay?)

Are you serious? Neocons and Conservatives are different? I've been blasted with Neocons for so long I didn't know there was any difference concerning the Repbulican (or Conservative) party. I'm interested in hearing about this (Neocons vs Republicans). Could you elaborate more on what's the difference?

A conservative is the guy who saves colorful stamps because they remind him of the people who sent him the letters.

A neocon is the guy who not only abhors the stamps but wants to abolish the post office because it's a bunch of wasteful government employees getting paid to do something everybody wants: deliver the mail. Things were much better before the post office, the neocon thinks, when if you needed to tell your aunt in Pittsburgh something you got on your horse rode the 2,000 miles and told her.

A conservative cherishes the flag because it reminds him of how the country grew and flourished.

A neocon wields the flag because it reminds him how the country can dominate and destroy others.

A conservative loves tradition because comfort with the familiar makes him feel good.

A neocon imposes tradition because change scares the hell out of him.

I made it up myself, Daniel. Would have written more but I had to pee.

Hmm...I could handle being around REAL Conservatives then, neocons give me a head ache.

So to cartoonize this:

Conservative: Hank Hill (from King of the Hill)

NeoCon: Larry the Cable Guy? (GIT R DUN!)

Now, Daniel ... I could see where a person could miss the short reference in paragraph #8. The article pretty much implicates Naughty Newty again, as he married Marianne (his 2nd wife) just months after his divorce from his "former high school geometry teacher", wife #1. Whewwww....

Jeezzz, it really is hard to keep track of all this without taking indepth notes ..........

Gingrich, who frequently campaigned on family values issues, divorced his second wife, Marianne, in 2000 after his attorneys acknowledged Gingrich's relationship with his current wife, Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide more than 20 years younger than he is.

His first marriage, to his former high school geometry teacher, Jackie Battley, ended in divorce in 1981. Although Gingrich has said he doesn't remember it, Battley has said Gingrich discussed divorce terms with her while she was recuperating in the hospital from cancer surgery.

Gingrich married Marianne months after the divorce.

You are such a sweetie pie, Daniel! Can I help "brighten" your day?

Naught Newty needs to remember a couple of old Chinese proverbs:

1. Man who live in glass house should change clothes in basement.

2. Man who fish in other man's well often catch crabs.

Newt had a habit of getting blow jobs from female members of his staff. There are a couple of documented cases. His new wife was an idiot to marry him, or else she didn't care.

Yes, as I recall Newt even said he didn't consider oral sex to be sex.

Interview the woman he performs oral sex on, and I bet you she won't consider it sex either.

http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm#adultery

Thanks for finding that, Jimmy. When I mentioned Newt's views on oral sex in another thread several months ago I was accused of making it up. I remembered reading about it in the early '90s but it never got the traction of the Lewinsky story.

Apparently Newt lives by that Bible verse

"eatin's not cheatin'"

(I apologize for the crass statement)

I have a dry sense of humor and the headline has since been changed, so my little joke has been lost to the void now.

But, he must remember to pay all of his 17 year old parking ticket fines. OR ELSE!!!!

Absolutely. Someone who didn't pay his 17 year old parking tickets can't be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button or with anyone's daughter.

Memo to Democrats in Congress: If Newt Gingrich declares he is running for president, start up impeachment proceedings against him immediately. Nevermind that he isn't elected yet. Save time and get it ready in case he wins; you know he'll not let you down.