Gingrich had affair during Clinton probe
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/...ingrich_affair

This is an interesting development. I wonder if he would have lied in front of a federal judge (and the national media) if he was asked about cheating on his wife?

I could care less about the whole thing, but I bet 99% of guys would lie in order to try and keep your fling on a side a secret if your wife didn't know about it. Or to prevent the rest of the world from finding out about it.

And, I'm thinking that a lot of our representatives must have mistresses on the side, because they aren't 'doing' much else in DC. ;)

ASU, this has been known for years, but it might be getting new traction because Newt is entertaining a run for the Presidency. I would rather that the private lives of our politicians were not news fodder, but infotainment wins today.

two characters

I am so pleased that you are back. :thumbsup:

Only if it would somehow end up with our current president getting impeached :)

The big thing here is that when he was leading the charge against Clinton, he was doing the exact same thing, and noone seemed to care. That's partisan, that's hypocrasy, that's self righteous bullshit from the members of the Right who were so against Clinton but turned their heads when it was Newt.

And that's irrelevant. What Newt did with Clinton was either wrong or it wasn't, and his personal life has no bearing on that.

Gotta agree with the OP: I could care less, but that would require some effort on my part and I really don't care enough to put in that effort. :)

What?!?

Clinton was crucified because of his personal life. Albeit a sleazy personal life. :rolleyes:

I would argue that what Newt did was wrong, for no other reason than his own personal life has every bearing on it. If your own house is clean, and you express true moral indignation over the President's sexual antics in the White House...then fine. But you don't get to persecute a man for getting a hummer, while you're getting your own knob slobbed.

Newt gets slapped with a rolled up newspaper. Dumbass!

This sounds like other threads I could think of, but I have no problem with Newt being asked about his marital infidelity. It goes to character, etc. I had no problem with Clinton being asked about his infidelity. I just think it went a little too far. Am I thinking of the wrong guy when I think that Newt divorced his wife over the phone or by fax or some craziness like that?

This would be a better argument if there wasn't alleged perjury involved. Or, at least, a more complete argument. But I'd still disagree with it.

Why don't you get to persecute a man for something you're doing?

If it's a good thing to persecute the guy, it's a good thing, regardless of who's doing it. It would, of course, also be good to persecute the persecutor as well.

If it's a bad thing to persecute the guy, then it's a bad thing even if the persecutor has no skeletons whatsoever.

Clinton wasn't put on trial for having sex outside of marriage, it was because of numerous files of sexual harassment, which then turned into purgery. For some reason everyone forgets that part.

Newt may have been cheating, but no one filed sexual harassment on him, so there was no reason to put him under oath.

Meaning there's no justification for a witch hunt this time?

two characters

Perhaps. What about the hypocrisy-ometer, though?

If the Republicans are going to make "morality" one of their party platforms and campaign on it, Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach, says I.

McCain, Guiliani and Gingrich all committed adultery, but that wouldnt prevent me for voting for any of them if I shared their political beliefs on the important issues. (link - warning, left wing source :surprised: )

two characters

Tactics-wise, sure. People often abandon a politician when a certain threshold of visible hypocrisy is reached. It's not only moral, but also shrewd, to keep your closet free of skeletons.

But why should an immoral personal life stop me from voting in a politician who's politically in-line with my moral views? Example: Obama's personal life may be beyond reproach, for all I know, but I'd sooner vote for that heartless divorcer Giuliani. Because he's much more likely to work toward the kind of government I want.

edit: seems like this post is just an echo of others' posts. sorry about that.

Pretty high up there on the stinkometer, but not illegal.

The Clinton impeachment was about a decade ago. Can we please move on?

As a moderate-conservative, morals are absolutely important to me. People in the public eye especially more so. I don't think you get a pass just because you are competent or perceived to be competent at the job.

If that were the case, then we wouldn't care what people do in their own time but as it is, teachers can be fired for doing "adult" activities on THEIR OWN time, and employers now check your Facebook and MySpace to make sure you are not drinking or parting in any pictures.

An unfortunate reality that I've no desire to encourage further. The best man for the job and the man with the better personal life can often be two different people, and I'd take the former over the latter any day.

There is an argument to making those private lives news, and it has to do with national security. Theoretically if the president has a fling, the woman he had it with could blackmail him into all sorts of crap, and with the kind of access he has, that could be dangerous.

This idea is not without precedent - the Soviets used to tempt high-placed US officials with KGB agents who also happened to be very good at seduction.

Excellent point, Shakran. I had forgotten that JFK was dallying with a mobster's girlfriend.