Monday, March 19, 2012
Apparently implicit in your question are the ideas that both divorce and religious conversion are immoral. That's a remarkably archaic view of morality; and one shared by Islamists. Do you apply this standard to others? Or is Newt a special recipient of this sort of judgment? What are your views on drug use, sexual promiscuity, and dancing I wonder?
And you've confused "ethics" with "morality." They're not the same thing, especially when dealing with codified rules of behavior that apply to professionals. Example: Criminal defense lawyers are ethically obligated to do their utmost to keep their clients out of jail, even if they are guilty (for instance, suppressing unlawfully collected evidence). Is that moral, putting someone you know is guilty "back on the street" on what most people would consider a technicality? Surely not. But for the defense counsel's role in society, it's "ethical."
Of the 84 ethics charges against Gingrich, all of 1 (one!) stuck; "using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda." What a horrible sin! That's even worse than repeatedly cheating on your wife, sexually harassing women, pressuring for illegal loans, and getting your law license suspended (Bill Clinton, in case you were wondering about that, too). Or performing barely-legal real estate deals (i.e. disguised bribes) with corrupt influence-peddlers, deliberately allowing foreign donations to your political campaign, and repeatedly lying about legislative intentions and effects while demonizing your political opponents as ignorant hate-filled psychos (come on, you can guess this one).
Moreover, your statement is factually incorrect. Gingrich was re-elected after the ethics investigations were complete, but retired when his caucus turned on him regarding his position as Speaker.
In sum, that's a bad question.
There are other problems contained in the question, also:
1) left his previous elected office due to an ethics investigation
The factual accuracy has already been addressed. An additional problem here is the implication that the existence of an investigation is proof of guilt. Is this really your position?
2) as a man who's on his third wife
So the man having failed too many times to suit you is permanently failed? You cannot accept the possibility of his having achieved a measure of redemption?
3) and his third religion
He's still looking for God--but too many times to be acceptable? In what way, exactly? Is such a man less fit, somehow, than an atheist--who at least is settled in his belief system?
Finally, why do these questions come up now? They're old news.
There was once an exchange in an episode of the TV series M*A*S*H that went something like this:
Hotlips (to Frank): You stole, which is worse than lying!
Frank: Well I happen to think lying is worse than stealing.
Hotlips: And you did both!
Frank: So I ought to know!
Disqualifying people on the political right from making moral judgements based on their personal lives is a favorite tactic of the Left and a pet peeve of mine, especially as the rule does not apply to their side.
One can be a sinner and still recognize moral and ethical shortcomings.
Hang in there and keep pitching Aegon1.
That Gingrich divorced two people doesn't matter as much as that he cheated on both of them. He cheated on his first wife and left her while she had cancer. That's some John Edwards-level shit right there. I've heard from trustworthy people that he left his second wife when she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis too, but I haven't confirmed this fact. If it's true, then he's a lizard.
I think if he wants to argue that America is suffering from a moral decline, he's actually opening the door to questions regarding his own personal morals, if his integrity is so unimpeachable that he can confidently make statements like that.
The Left is perfectly okay with me sinning all over the place as long as I don't break laws when I do it. Because the Left is Godless, like Ann Coulter's book put it. It's people on the Right like Santorum that want to ban "obscene" porn and make judgments about the sex lives of adults. If we then discover Santorum has a terabyte of porn and he regularly has Devil's Threesomes, I think it would be completely legitimate to say he has absolutely no business telling me what I can and can't do if he doesn't conduct himself that way too. We don't take advice from priests we find out are morally bankrupt. If Clinton had engaged in a campaign to wipe out marital infidelity while he was cheating on his wife, I'd feel the same way.
You show me someone on the Left that ran on a campaign of "family" or "traditional values" who then proceeded to violate them, and I promise I will stop judging social conservative politicians's words against their actions. The only one that really comes to mind so far is John Edwards, who is a giant heap of rat feces.
I haven’t bothered to study Newt’s marriages, but have gathered that there’s another side to the story. One wife is a nut job – they were divorced in practice before the affair started. Another wife (maybe the same) tossed him out when his career was down.
Sarah supports Newt but calls him an “imperfect vessel”. Aren’t we all.
I once knew a very successful CEO who encouraged the male executives in his company to cheat on their wives.
"All that sneaking around keeps a man alert," he said.
Meanwhile, look at the popularity of womanizers like John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
Gallup said on 6 Dec 2010: "Of the nine U.S. presidents who have served in the past 50 years, John F. Kennedy continues to earn the highest retrospective job approval rating from Americans, now 85%."
Americans like skirt-chasers.
What exactly is the 'moral decline' that Newt is talking about? I don't see a decline. If anything, I see morality actually on the up in America (e.g. greater civil rights over the last 50 years or the very substantial decline in violence over the last 20 years).
"That Gingrich divorced two people doesn't matter as much as that he cheated on both of them. He cheated on his first wife and left her while she had cancer. That's some John Edwards-level shit right there. I've heard from trustworthy people that he left his second wife when she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis too, but I haven't confirmed this fact. If it's true, then he's a lizard."
A little more time on research might have saved you the time wasted on writing the initial entry and your snide follow up.
You'd get a wide bid/ask between Ron Paul and Obama.
The 10th Amendment has been nearly read out of the Constitution. Once upon a time it underscored the principle that we were supposed to have a limited federal government that was only supposed to do a few important things, hopefully well, and nothing more.
What’s left of the 10th Amendment stops the federal government from ordering the states to do things. But the federal government has learned that it can tax the hell out of a state’s residents, and then use those taxes to bribe the state to do what the federal government wants. Medicare/Medicaid is but one example. This is a long way from original intent.
The 10th Amendment is so far gone that it’s irrelevant to the litigation over ObamaCare. But it should be quite relevant.
Here are some questions asked and answered in 1994