Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what about Teddy and his womanizing? Didn't he keep getting re-elected? As for John Edwards, again, it appears he broke the law, it isn't his affair that is in question, it is his using campaign money to pay his mistress...You just can't see the difference,"""
No, YOU refuse to see that affair ended his politcal career...sorry you didn't know anything about it at the time
""""" but of course, regardless of what you have said on this thread about Newt you would never support a Republican period I don't think. Well other than maybe one that was a Republican in name only or a libertarian hiding behind the Republican label.
Nita
And how about George Washington's womanizing and Benjamin Franklin's and and Roosevelt's and Thomas Jefferson's...:rolle yes:
W H A T about Ted kennedy's womanizing???
....why bring it up if you don't think it's a bad thing?????????
YOU approve of womanizing with your defense of Newt.....pointing fingers is NOT a defense...
You are off topic (because you have no defense) so these posts may not last long but
You can't call Hillary a doormat...she had her own agenda, followed it and has done quite a bit better than Callgirlista.....
I don't need defense!! Oh mighty Queen, are you the one to decide who's off topic. When what you posted could say the same, about someone on the left.
Yeah, all Hillary showed us was who wore the pants in her house!! Adultery is Adultery, no matter, which side. She excepted an open marriage, Bill just wasn't suppose to get caught!!
The thing is, Newt might actually win this thing and end up as the Republican nominee. If you examine his character traits, you find that he has a history of cheating on his wives (plural), establishing a political double standard, influence peddling, and pandering to whomever can further the Newt Gingrich brand, irregardless of which party or organization they represent.
On the other hand he is autocratic, judgemental and most of all is excellent at projecting anger. This fits the agenda of the republican primary voter to a tee. The conservative republican voter base is fired up and angry. Angry at the government, angry at the entitlements, angry at the financial mess the country is in and angry at any one person or organization that would take anything more away from them and give it to somebody else. Newt has tapped into that anger perfectly. Newt has no solutions on the table. Mitt is a reasoned, well respected business manager with a proven track record but is colorless and lacks personal fire. Newt is nothing but a blustering firebrand. Exactly what the republican base wants right now. If elected, Mitt would govern the country as he has managed the business ventures before. In a measured, reasonable and logical manner. Newt would find enemies behind every corner, engage in cronyism of the worst sort and blame all the problems of his administration on "those people", whoever "they" may be. It's the way he rolls and the way he always rolls now and in the past.
Unfortunately, this is what the base wants. Anger, passion and a man who can go toe to toe with all the percieved evils and injustices they invision. They really don't care about solutions, they just want a good knock down brawl and some bloody noses in the process. The thinking is, once we destroy the existing structure, we'll come up with solutions later. Newt is the embodyment of this train of thought, just as 1930 Germany was the petri dish and gave rise to another autocratic, judgemental, tear the system down, firebrand.
God help us all if he ever gets elected.
I was thinking the same thing and maybe that's what bothers me most about Newt Gingrich. He has a LOT of personality traits in common with said German leader.
Both seemed to be looking out for the best interests of the people. Both were arrogant to the extreme and used a lot of bullying in their politics. All they said they wanted was to make their country strong again. Both are excellent at working a crowd and hitting the one liners. Both get standing ovations for sick and twisted reasons.
And how about George Washington's womanizing and Benjamin Franklin's and and Roosevelt's and Thomas Jefferson's...:rolle yes:
W H A T about Ted kennedy's womanizing???
....why bring it up if you don't think it's a bad thing?????????
YOU approve of womanizing with your defense of Newt.....pointing fingers is NOT a defense...
you are still not answering how it is other can do this, but not Newt?I brought up Ted for one reason: people (liberals) seem to think it was ok for him, even being responsible for a young woman's life, but the liberals don't think it is ok for Newt. I have said over and over, I do not approve of adultery, never have, never will, but I also do not vote based on what happens in someone's bedroom.
Read what you just said: first you mention I must think it is bad or I wouldn't bring up Ted Kennedy and then you say, I must think it is ok or I wouldn't defend Newt? Man talking out of both sides of your mouth wouldn't you say. Again, it doesn't make much difference because if Newt was a pure as the driven snow you wouldn't vote for him, so why are you continueing this argument? I know I am through with it..
I don't need defense!! Oh mighty Queen, are you the one to decide who's off topic. When what you posted could say the same, about someone on the left.
Yeah, all Hillary showed us was who wore the pants in her house!! Adultery is Adultery, no matter, which side. She excepted an open marriage, Bill just wasn't suppose to get caught!!
"wore the pants"...???? My how quaintly sexist....right from the 19th century...
So you approve of the Clintons as you approve of Newtsie...OK.
you are still not answering how it is other can do this, but not Newt?"""
Why do Repugs think it's OK for Newt to do this but not Democrats?
"""I brought up Ted for one reason: people (liberals) seem to think it was ok for him, even being responsible for a young woman's life, but the liberals don't think it is ok for Newt. I have said over and over, I do not approve of adultery, never have, never will, but I also do not vote based on what happens in someone's bedroom. """
The why are you bringing up others besides the man in the TOPIC?????
""Read what you just said: first you mention I must think it is bad or I wouldn't bring up Ted Kennedy and then you say, I must think it is ok or I wouldn't defend Newt? Man talking out of both sides of your mouth wouldn't you say. Again, it doesn't make much difference because if Newt was a pure as the driven snow you wouldn't vote for him, so why are you continueing this argument? I know I am through with it..
First you say what Newt did is OK then you bring up others as if it were wrong...Man talking out of both sides of your mouth I would say.
If any Kennedy was pure as the driven snow you wouldn't vote for them so why are you continuing this argument?
Why does Gingrich's history of adultery even matter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02
Why does it even matter if Gingrich has been married several times and has cheated on his wife. That has nothing to do with how he will lead the country! Every person in this world has a past and everybody has done things that are shameful and that they regret. Cut Gingrich a break!
I'll be glad to explain it to you.
The Newtster isn't running for a congressional seat where he'll be one of 535 votes in coming to a decision on a course of action.
He wants to be (in the words of our last GOP "leader") The Decider.
His one vote then equals all 535 of those in congress.
The man has repeatedly shown that his judgement is p*ss poor. He thinks he's George Washington, Napolean, Julius Caesar and Jefferson Davis all rolled into one. In other words, he lets his tiger ego overpower his canary-bird intellect when it comes to serious issues.
But he does put on a good display of phony outrage and his talk does sound smart to dumb people. I can see his appeal to the GOP primary crowd.
The thing is, Newt might actually win this thing and end up as the Republican nominee. If you examine his character traits, you find that he has a history of cheating on his wives (plural), establishing a political double standard, influence peddling, and pandering to whomever can further the Newt Gingrich brand, irregardless of which party or organization they represent.
On the other hand he is autocratic, judgemental and most of all is excellent at projecting anger. This fits the agenda of the republican primary voter to a tee. The conservative republican voter base is fired up and angry. Angry at the government, angry at the entitlements, angry at the financial mess the country is in and angry at any one person or organization that would take anything more away from them and give it to somebody else. Newt has tapped into that anger perfectly. Newt has no solutions on the table. Mitt is a reasoned, well respected business manager with a proven track record but is colorless and lacks personal fire. Newt is nothing but a blustering firebrand. Exactly what the republican base wants right now. If elected, Mitt would govern the country as he has managed the business ventures before. In a measured, reasonable and logical manner. Newt would find enemies behind every corner, engage in cronyism of the worst sort and blame all the problems of his administration on "those people", whoever "they" may be. It's the way he rolls and the way he always rolls now and in the past.
Unfortunately, this is what the base wants. Anger, passion and a man who can go toe to toe with all the perceived evils and injustices they in vision. They really don't care about solutions, they just want a good knock down brawl and some bloody noses in the process. The thinking is, once we destroy the existing structure, we'll come up with solutions later. Newt is the embodiment of this train of thought, just as 1930 Germany was the petri dish and gave rise to another autocratic, judgmental, tear the system down, firebrand.
The thing is, Newt might actually win this thing and end up as the Republican nominee. If you examine his character traits, you find that he has a history of cheating on his wives (plural), establishing a political double standard, influence peddling, and pandering to whomever can further the Newt Gingrich brand, irregardless of which party or organization they represent.
On the other hand he is autocratic, judgemental and most of all is excellent at projecting anger. This fits the agenda of the republican primary voter to a tee. The conservative republican voter base is fired up and angry. Angry at the government, angry at the entitlements, angry at the financial mess the country is in and angry at any one person or organization that would take anything more away from them and give it to somebody else. Newt has tapped into that anger perfectly. Newt has no solutions on the table. Mitt is a reasoned, well respected business manager with a proven track record but is colorless and lacks personal fire. Newt is nothing but a blustering firebrand. Exactly what the republican base wants right now. If elected, Mitt would govern the country as he has managed the business ventures before. In a measured, reasonable and logical manner. Newt would find enemies behind every corner, engage in cronyism of the worst sort and blame all the problems of his administration on "those people", whoever "they" may be. It's the way he rolls and the way he always rolls now and in the past.
Unfortunately, this is what the base wants. Anger, passion and a man who can go toe to toe with all the percieved evils and injustices they invision. They really don't care about solutions, they just want a good knock down brawl and some bloody noses in the process. The thinking is, once we destroy the existing structure, we'll come up with solutions later. Newt is the embodyment of this train of thought, just as 1930 Germany was the petri dish and gave rise to another autocratic, judgemental, tear the system down, firebrand.
God help us all if he ever gets elected.
I just love this post. Wonderfully said!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why does Gingrich's history of adultery even matter?
