Gingrich Admits He Was Having An Affair During Clinton Impeachment

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Learning the Meaning of the Word Repentance
Newsweek

March 19, 2007 issue - Is Newt Gingrich laying the groundwork for a run at the White House? It would seem so. Last week Gingrich confessed his marital infidelity on James Dobson's radio show—an obligatory ritual for any sinner seeking the evangelical vote. A decade ago, when Gingrich was Speaker of the House and a central antagonist in the Clinton impeachment hearings, he himself was having an affair with a House aide, Calista Bisek, who later became his third wife. "There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong," Gingrich told Dobson. "But I was still doing them. And I look back on those as periods of weakness, and ... I would deeply urge my children and grandchildren not to follow in my footsteps."

This is perhaps the moment to remember that in the crowded field running toward '08, two out of the three Republican front runners have been divorced. After returning from Vietnam, John McCain couldn't hold his marriage together. And everyone knows about the Rudy-Judi scandal: it was New York City tabloid fodder for months. So does a mea culpa on Christian radio help Gingrich among evangelicals? A little, but not a lot. "It makes him a less damaged candidate," says Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, "but he's still damaged." In a society where divorce touches almost every family, Land believes conservative Christian voters will prefer the example of McCain, a man who fixed his marital mistakes on the second try. "The fact that McCain has that marriage [to Cindy], and it's a committed one and it's of long standing, gives him a real leg up on Gingrich. Gingrich's confession gives him a slight leg up on Giuliani."

Still, political consultants on the right believe Gingrich's radio confession was a smart move. It gets his messy personal life out of the way long before any official announcement of his candidacy. Even if GOP primary voters see it as a transparent tactic, they're likely to embrace its personal nature. "Social conservatives will always be willing to listen to a confession," says Keith Appell, a GOP consultant at CRC Public Relations, a firm that has worked with Gingrich in the past but is currently not allied with any candidate. Appell contrasts Gingrich with Mitt Romney, who has not been notably apologetic about his conversion to a pro-life position. "He has not yet made a connection with the people who have labored for decades in the pro-life movement," says Appell. As for Gingrich himself, he has repeatedly said that he will enter the race later on if he sees an opportunity. And his position on "values"? "I am conservative, and I favor defending traditional marriage between man and wife," he told NEWSWEEK last summer. If a marriage makes a man, Gingrich may still have some explaining to do.

—Lisa Miller, Holly Bailey and Debra Rosenberg
 
I pray Newt runs for president...in fact I might just register Republican so I can vote for him in the primary. A Newt nom nearly guarantees a Democratic president...
 
after the sordid sexual lives of McCain and Rudy become well known -- especially Rudy -- the base is going to be seeking someone else, since sexual purity seems to be a requirement for higher office in teh eyes of some, so best Newt atone now and beg forgiveness.
 
I do not think people care about sex lives of the candidates. Maybe I am naive. I do care about someones integrity and honesty. That is what comes into play with me over the issue of fidelity or infideltity.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
[B
"There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.
[/B]

That's so laughable it's not even funny. He is a complete hypocrite.

As for Clinton, and his escapades, I'll quote former Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who argued "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

Hillary should have dealt with him (or dealt him away). That should have been their private thing, and not viewed as something that would inform Clinton's public policy or threaten the nation.
 
Dreadsox said:
I do not think people care about sex lives of the candidates. Maybe I am naive. I do care about someones integrity and honesty. That is what comes into play with me over the issue of fidelity or infideltity.



what about JFK?

i do take your point though -- but, for me, it's less about integrity and honesty and more about making good judgements, especially when you (Clinton) already have a reputation as a horn dog and everyone is just waiting for you to get caught with you hand up a skirt.

but the basic blueprint -- infidelity as a window on a greater issue -- is the same.
 
I have many reasons why I wouldn't vote for Gingrich.

However, at the top of my list is I don't want a "Newt" for a president . . . or a "Mitt" for that matter.
 
^When I once translated the German term "Molch" into english and learned that it is a "newt", it totally cracked me up :D
 
Irvine511 said:




and that's the distinction Gingrich is making.

one can argue that questions about one's sex life constitute a perjury trap.

what do you think would have happened if Gingrich -- a sitting Congressman -- had been called in to testify about whatever affiars he was or was not having?

i would imagine if newt was called to testify about if he was having an affair or not, he would have lied. and if he was caught lying under oath, charges should have been brought against him and he should have been throw out of office. :shrug:

i am not a newt fan by any stretch...i dislike the man, and i like bubba a heck of a lot more than i like newt.

bubba's wife on the other hand :no:
 
martha said:


:shrug: At least she didn't have sex with Newt.

We do not officially know that do we? The absence of not knowing does not mean we know what we don't know.

Why do I now sound like Rumsfeld and Cheney????
 
coemgen said:
I have many reasons why I wouldn't vote for Gingrich.

However, at the top of my list is I don't want a "Newt" for a president . . . or a "Mitt" for that matter.

Haha, brilliant, I love it. Gotta love yanks and their absurd all-American names....over to you Chuck...:wink:

In Oz, our election will be between a Kevin and a Peter (or maybe a John). How fucking creative are we when it comes to names...

:wink:


Newt's a hypocritical tosser, he'll never ever be Pres now....
 
intedomine said:


Haha, brilliant, I love it. Gotta love yanks and their absurd all-American names....over to you Chuck...:wink:



Bullfrog? That's a funny name. I'd have called it a Chozwozzer!







;)
 
INDY500 said:


He was found in contempt of court by Federal Judge Susan Weber Wright for lying under oath.

He did lose his Arkansas law license for 5 years and he did get ordered to pay a $25,000 fine.

Least we forget.

Not to sound cavalier, but he could have fought that and won, but decided not to. It was a slap on the wrist, and the only reason it happened is because Republican groups fought tooth and nail for it, AFTER Clinton was acquitted in the impeachment trial.

The contempt ruling had to do with the Paula Jones lawsuit, which that same judge threw out. Talk about a non-event.
 
Irvine511 said:





what do you think would have happened if Gingrich -- a sitting Congressman -- had been called in to testify about whatever affiars he was or was not having?

That would have been my question, too. Even though I can't say for sure, I'd be willing to bet every dime I have that he would have lied about it when he was still in congress. Coming clean about it now only prevents him from having to lie about it if he gets elected.
 
Back
Top Bottom