Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | Capitalism And The Military |
»
|
|
Friday, January 20, 2012
L’Affaire Gingrich
Apparently, Newt Gingrich scored heavily when CNN 's John King attempted to embroil him about ex-wife Marianne's claims of Gingrich's sexual adventurism. The attack was expected; indeed, if King hadn't made it, he'd probably have been in hot water with his employers. But equally to be expected was Gingrich's immediate and fearless riposte, which has indeed played well with Republican-minded voters.
Still, questions remain about Gingrich, who's on his third wife and has admitted to some shameful behavior in the past. Character counts; indeed, it might outweigh any and every policy position a man holds. Nor should Gingrich's recent conversion to Catholicism be held to make his past completely irrelevant. The matter is worthy of some discussion, especially given the possibility of unfavorable reactions from "religious conservatives."
There are several sorts of "religious conservatives." In some sense, I'm one -- at least, I admire marital fidelity and deplore adultery -- but I find that I can't dismiss Gingrich for his past sins of the flesh. They came before his conversion; he says he has repented of them. I believe him, and apparently so does his wife Callista. On the basis of Christ's instruction that we love the sinner even while condemning the sin, I consider him acceptable, tentatively, at least.
Will harder-edged religious conservatives react differently? It's possible; there are many among us to whom censoriousness is natural and forgiveness is alien. America still has its fire-and-brimstone absolutists, who consider sins of the flesh unforgivable and regard those tainted by them as irremediably damned. They vote, too. But whether their reaction would doom a Gingrich candidacy is unclear, especially given the great numbers of Americans who regard open repentance as an unusual and admirable thing in a public figure.
One of the most important aspects of the 2000 presidential campaign was then-Governor George W. Bush's past record as an alcoholic. He admitted to it, said he had repented of it, and had been dry and sober for some decades. The media, of course, refused to let the matter rest there, even attempting to use the young Dubya's troubles with the bottle to besmirch his service in the Texas Air National Guard. America's voters saw things differently.
(An aside: Imagine, only for the sake of an interesting speculation, that Mitt Romney had at some time committed adultery and that it were found out just about now. Can you even conceive of Romney publicly admitting his fault and asking forgiveness?)
To my mind, the real story here is about the media's immediate and gleeful embrace of this tawdry tale coming from a former wife. Have they no skepticism remaining to them? Beyond that, where's the evenhandedness? Was Bill Clinton subjected to this sort of grilling? Weren't his various accusers dismissed as fortune hunters by the media -- until Paula Jones scored against him in a court of law?
Gennifer Flowers had an affair with Clinton of which there was hard evidence -- dismissed by the media. Juanita Broaddrick made an extremely credible accusation of rape against Clinton -- dismissed by the media. Newsweek had a tape of Monica Lewinsky discussing her liaisons with Clinton -- and sat on it for an unknown time, until the story finally broke in the Drudge Report. When the media finally engaged the Lewinsky affair, it was to castigate Linda Tripp for bringing it to light!
Actually, it's not all that new. If the media admires a public figure, it will censor itself about his peccadilloes. Franklin D. Roosevelt's many affairs were protected from public scrutiny, as were those of John F. Kennedy. But the media will leap savagely onto any Republican accused of such sins, whether the accusations are substantiated or not. This obvious partisanry is a large part of the reasons why attentive Americans have been tuning out media political commentary for some time now.
When there are several Republican contenders for the GOP's presidential nod, media partisanry expresses itself in the attempt to damage the most formidable candidates, leaving the most defeasible one to face the Democrats' choice. That was their orientation in 2008, which gave us the ludicrous McCain candidacy. It was also the way of things in 1996, when just about any Republican except noted illeist and "tax collector for the welfare state" Robert Dole could have beaten Bill Clinton. Of course there were other factors involved, but the media's complicity is too clearly embedded in the historical record to be denied. It's most certainly the case now; the media is desperate to see Romney as the nominee, to weaken ObamaCare and the bailouts as strokes against Barack Hussein Obama.
The nomination campaign still has a long course to run. At this point, for his fearlessness before a sustained media assault from several quarters, Newt Gingrich has moved to the front of the pack of contenders. Until now, he hasn't been my first choice -- I've been wary of his flightiness ever since he rose to prominence in the House of Representatives -- but of the candidates that remain, he's looking better and better to me all the time.
Comments
“Aye, there’s the rub.”
For all the praise we grant to democracy, we millions of conservatives often don’t actually get to choose our representatives.
Democracy lets a million people decide to recall a Wisconsin governor, but several million peoples’ voices against illegal immigrants’ “rights” or against the concept of gay marriage somehow don’t actually count much.
We’re at the point where winning an election or winning a ballot measure don’t even matter. In Wisconsin, the democrats just leave the state to deny their popularly elected government, then come back to help lead a “popular” recall.
In California, several legal attempts are made to define marriage, only to be refuted by the elected Attorney General. (Jerry Brown. . . don’t get me started.)
The point is, all this talk about Newt’s vows or Romney’s version of capitalism is so much fluff. It’s literally nonsense tossed out to voters who already know they’ll support the guy who keeps promising them freebies.
There are valid concerns about ANYONE who wants to be president of the most powerful country on earth. But the reality-TV-watching, juvenile people who think they have a right to almost everything are not gonna judge these issues the way that committed conservatives do.
We’ve already lost the larger debate as soon as we mention religion, business-sense or anything that smacks of a realism that denies some people of their free ride.
I figured Obama was toast a few months ago. I now think he’s a shoe-in. All it takes is for MSNBC and the rest of the media to say, “Look what Romney did at Bain!” or, “Look at what Newt’s wife says!”
And no one will look at what Obama has done to this country.
Or at least the 46% of the SEIU, free-loading, statist, socialist part of this country will be joined by enough idiots who think that religion is bad, capitalism is ugly if the media says so, or that somehow being nice trumps being realistic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/20/2012 at 08:52 AMI’m gonna continue with this rant against democracy and hope that Francis will shut me up before I make even more of an idiot of myself.
MSNBC and others are making a huge deal about the million votes that have been collected for the recall initiative of Republican governor Scott Walker.
Walker got 1,128,941 votes. There were 1,030,033 votes cast against him. Is it too much of a surprise if those million+ voters now say they want to recall Walker?
But what really gets me about the current electorate in America is this: It doesn’t matter if you believe we should be fair to union retirees, teachers or other public employees. We CANNOT Afford It.
So why do those 1 million voters want to recall Walker? Because he proposed that union workers have to pay for more of their benefits? Because he pointed out that, unless taxpayers pay MORE, there is NO WAY the state can ever pay its obligations?
Who ARE the people who keep demanding that “somebody else” pays for their “right” to education, health care, retirement and food, clothing, housing and - let’s face it - being alive?
I don’t own a gun and I haven’t stockpiled stuff. But I’m heavily leaning towards the idea that there are socialists and statists in this country that care more for their agenda than they do about personal liberty or the idea of a man or woman being their own free agent.
And I truly believe that THOSE people will see this country devolve into lawlessness and anarchy before they will admit that their goals are wrong and detrimental to society as a whole.
So Walker won. Do we let him work within defined parameters to institute the change or principals for which he was elected? No, we use “democracy” and media and unionism to declare he’s somehow unfair.
We demagogue him. We LET known thugs and self-preservers manipulate our votes to serve their own self-interest.
All in the name of “democracy.”
I guess I’ve had enough of democracy. I’ll take freedom, anytime. Sorry, but F*** you if you want to use me for your purpose.
As Mel Gibson said, in The Patriot, “Why should I prefer 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away to 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/20/2012 at 09:32 AMAside from the obvious bias, one reason the MSM busy themselves with catching a conservative in a scandal, and will blow off the “peccadilloes” of a liberal, is that for a liberal to have a history of misconduct is not “newsworthy.” Why work hard for a “non-story?”
Conservatives are politically vulnerable on issues of character with their own constituents, where liberals are not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/20/2012 at 09:39 AMA. furball, quite good. BUT! Did you see how the crowd reacted to Newt? Standing ovation.
B. Chas, it’s rapidly coming time that We The People made the LSM aware of how we’re feeling.
Posted by cmblake6 on 01/20/2012 at 10:55 AMI’ll never vote for Newt, as he is in bed with Big Pharma. He is a duplicitous and pompous ass that deserves to stay away from DC. The way things are going, looks like I’ll be voting for Obama. At least, I know what he will do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/20/2012 at 10:55 AMPickdog, I rather suspect that you would be voting for Obama anyway. In fact, I’m quite convinced of it. So your opinion is of no import.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 01/20/2012 at 11:19 AMI’ve been awake WAY too long because here I am responding to one of those, “I’ll never vote for <fill in the blank>,” guys.
For several years (10? more?) I’ve been following blogs and websites - conservative and liberal - and I’ve heard that idea: I’ll vote for anybody but xxxxx.
Is X allowed to grow? Can X change his mind? What if Romney came out tomorrow and said, “You know, I spent all night thinking about it and I GET where you guys are coming from; my health plan in Mass. was WRONG.” ?
What if Obama said, “We’re in a bad situation and I’ve been playing the people of America against each other for too long. The problems we face can’t be solved by taxing the rich or by continuing the spending we’ve been doing. As of now, I’m approving the XXL pipeline, drilling in Alaska, approving drilling offshore in the gulf, and promising to reduce Executive federal spending by 20% by January, 2012.” ?
(Yes, fat chance.)
Politicians don’t usually admit mistakes like that. But I just don’t understand someone who says, “I will never vote for X.”
Is X worse than the incumbent? Did X have sex with your wife? Did X promote policies that will guarantee your children will live in poverty and fear? Did X sit on a couch with Nancy Pelosi?
Are you SO certain of your world-view that you KNOW X is so bad that you wouldn’t vote for him or her instead of letting the incumbent slide by with your non-vote?
There are a number of websites where you can answer questions about your views on politics - spending, etc. Go there, and then they will point out which politician most closely matches your views, based on past votes.
It turns out that Gingrich most closely matches me. Does that mean I like him? No. Does that mean I think he can win? No. Does that mean I approve of anything that the MSM is reporting about him? No.
Do I like his politics? I must, because when push has come to shove and he VOTED on or PROPOSED legislation, it was in line with my views.
Is he a jerk? Probably. Is Romney? Well, I look favorably on Mormons, so I wouldn’t call him a jerk, but I’d rather vote for someone else. Hey, I love Much of Ron Paul’s criticism of the FED, but I think he’s misguided about some international stuff. Would I NEVER vote for him?
Yes, I’d vote for Ron Paul in order to defeat Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reed, or any other democrat I can think of.
I am NOT suggesting, “party uber alles.” But I AM saying that everyone has a pig in their closet and just because you find a particular candidate’s particular pig particularly odious doesn’t mean you should give it all up.
I stand by my earlier prediction: Obama gets at least 46% of the popular vote no matter how bad the economy is, or how dire international relations are. If a couple of percent of conservative voters decide to stay home on election day, we WILL get 4 more years.
There is absolutely no Republican politician on the national scene today that I would scorn if favor of Obama.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/20/2012 at 01:23 PMWhat I find chuckle-worthy about this whole sordid mess, is Marianne (who cheated with Newt on Jackie) is shocked and dismayed that her new husband wants to play hanky-panky with someone else.
I’m going to lift a tall cool glass of schadenfreude and toast the woman who got what she deserved.
Posted by Tony on 01/20/2012 at 01:38 PMLet’s see; on the Republican candidate list we now have two big government warmistas (Gingrich and Romney) and a big government nanny who wishes the FedGov to be involved in issues of the bedroom and the preemptive bombing of a country who has not attacked us (Santorum). That leaves…??? A candidate who will cut multiple cabinet level bureaucracies, end a 10+ year “war” being “fought” with insane rules of engagement and the 30+ year trillion dollar war on (some) drugs as well as the rat hole known as foreign aid. It sounds to me like a no brainer but what do I know?
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ on 01/20/2012 at 03:19 PMLook. I don’t like Newt. I still may have to go Ron Paul in the primaries… but he’s better than Santorum, who is too confused where the boundary between religion and government is. And he’s better than Romney, who is more statist than Newt. I don’t say Newt isn’t statist, but he’s significantly less so.
As for the affairs… I’m so tired of this, I really am.
Until the coming of Christ, we will not have a leader who doesn’t reek of shit (excuse my French). At least Newt admitted he did it and seems at least somewhat repentant on the subject. But even so, this relentless dirt digging diverts attention from the important points… what do do about this country’s serious problems. If we could marry Newt’s foreign policy with Ron Paul’s domestic policy, we’d be there.
Wouldn’t that be an idea, a Newt/Ron ticket? Probably won’t ever happen, but I could go with that.
A positive for Ron Paul: Out of the 4 candidates he’s the least smelly.
Posted by Xealot on 01/20/2012 at 06:46 PMMaybe read this Gingrich/Churchill comparison. It probably isn’t what you think.
Posted by ligneus on 01/20/2012 at 11:15 PMThis was a tough one for me in the run-up to the primary. I was honestly on the fence until the last week.
I voted Gingrich, partly because he can handle himself in a fight, and partly because Mitt’s only strength is that he’s widely perceived as squeaky-clean.
Can you imagine the effect of a last-minute sex scandal on Mitt’s election chances? I’m convinced that was what Obama was hoping for - that Mitt get the nod, and the fun of unloading on him at the last minute, to see him go down in flames.
That’s so whether the charge was true or not - his likeability is so weak, that he couldn’t handle any charges - most would say “I thought there was something”.
Since dumping scandals (often from sealed records) is an Obama trademark, expect it.
And, if Newt gets the nomination, expect him to unload a geyser of flame at the accusers - he does have the moxie.
Posted by LindaF on 01/22/2012 at 09:16 AMConcerning Romney’s susceptibility to a scandal-attack, Linda, I’d say the probability of serious damage to him from such an attack is low, because he’s been groomed for high office since his youth, and has known he had to keep himself above reproach. Still, there’s no doubt the Democrats will try it. Like their recourses to accusations of racism, the accusation of personal scandal is one of their most reliable plays; they’re unlikely to discard it.
My problems with Romney are:
—His persistent quest for ever-higher office, now in its twentieth smash year;
—His lack of any principles he’d defend a outrance;
—His unwillingness ever to admit a mistake;
—His complete willingness to tell an audience whatever he thinks will winkle a few more votes for him out of it.I can’t trust a man of that sort with the powers of the presidency. Gingrich, for all his well-recorded past flightiness, has at least been articulating and defending suitably classical-liberal positions and principles. Will he betray them as president? Possibly; his tendency to fall in love with a new idea is also well established. But at least there’s a chance he’ll toe the line—and more than a chance that he’ll defend freedom and limited government fearlessly over the course of the campaign to come.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/22/2012 at 09:53 AMAs Mark Twain said, if voting changed anything it would be illegal. If the destination of the bus doesn’t change, why would changing the driver matter? Why do we vote for the lesser evil and hope for a good outcome? Hope doesn’t change anything, hope reveals powerlessness. Hope is for the helpless, the defeated. There is but one legal strategy remaining. Withhold our vote and withhold our consent. Reclaim our own legitimacy one citizen at a time. Rather than throw our vote away, stay out of national elections. Vote “none of the above”. This is our real civic duty. It’s not as if we’re missing an opportunity, whole generations have learned the fix is in whichever way it goes. (From the next Woodpile Report)
Posted by Ol' Remus on 01/23/2012 at 01:13 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
