Gingrich had affair during Clinton probe - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 03-08-2007, 08:24 PM

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.

Elphaba · 03-08-2007, 08:35 PM

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.

politicophile · 03-08-2007, 09:46 PM

two characters

Elphaba · 03-08-2007, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Here's an article from 1999 that says essentially the same thing.

It's unfortunate that Newt violated his marriage vows, but it is equally (if not more) unfortunate that his sexual escapades are reported by the media as though they were relevant to his qualifications for President. Do we really want to rehash the spirit of the Clinton impeachment? Partisanship at its very worst, I say.

I am so pleased that you are back.

Rekna · 03-08-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Do we really want to rehash the spirit of the Clinton impeachment?

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

pan6467 · 03-08-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Here's an article from 1999 that says essentially the same thing.

It's unfortunate that Newt violated his marriage vows, but it is equally (if not more) unfortunate that his sexual escapades are reported by the media as though they were relevant to his qualifications for President. Do we really want to rehash the spirit of the Clinton impeachment? Partisanship at its very worst, I say.

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.

FoolThemAll · 03-09-2007, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

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.

Bill O'Rights · 03-09-2007, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

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

What?!?

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

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!

pig · 03-09-2007, 06:20 AM

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?

FoolThemAll · 03-09-2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

What?!?

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

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 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.

Seaver · 03-09-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

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.

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.

Kadath · 03-09-2007, 06:47 AM

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

politicophile · 03-09-2007, 08:35 AM

two characters

ratbastid · 03-09-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Seaver's clarification is important, though: Newt's behavior was rather less objectionable than Clinton's, albeit still with a ranking on the sleaze-ometer.

Perhaps. What about the hypocrisy-ometer, though?

Kadath · 03-09-2007, 08:50 AM

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.

dc_dux · 03-09-2007, 08:53 AM

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

)

politicophile · 03-09-2007, 09:06 AM

two characters

FoolThemAll · 03-09-2007, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

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.

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.

Seaver · 03-09-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Perhaps. What about the hypocrisy-ometer, though?

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

kutulu · 03-09-2007, 12:47 PM

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

jorgelito · 03-09-2007, 12:57 PM

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.

FoolThemAll · 03-09-2007, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

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.

shakran · 03-09-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

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.

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.

Elphaba · 03-10-2007, 10:56 AM

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

03-08-2007, 08:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	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.

03-08-2007, 08:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

03-08-2007, 09:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	two characters __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Last edited by politicophile; 02-09-2008 at 08:25 PM..

03-09-2007, 06:20 AM	#9 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	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? __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

03-09-2007, 06:47 AM	#12 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Meaning there's no justification for a witch hunt this time? __________________ it's quiet in here

03-09-2007, 08:35 AM	#13 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	two characters __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Last edited by politicophile; 02-09-2008 at 08:25 PM..

03-09-2007, 08:50 AM	#15 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	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. __________________ it's quiet in here

03-09-2007, 08:53 AM	#16 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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 ) __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-09-2007 at 09:04 AM..

03-09-2007, 09:06 AM	#17 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	two characters __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Last edited by politicophile; 02-09-2008 at 08:25 PM..

03-09-2007, 12:47 PM	#20 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	The Clinton impeachment was about a decade ago. Can we please move on?

03-09-2007, 12:57 PM	#21 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	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. Last edited by jorgelito; 03-09-2007 at 12:57 PM.. Reason: grammar

03-10-2007, 10:56 AM	#24 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Excellent point, Shakran. I had forgotten that JFK was dallying with a mobster's girlfriend. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007