The Newt Gingrich reboot
Speaking at the University of Pennsylvania, Newt Gingrich was asked the following:
“You adamantly oppose gay rights … but you’ve also been married three times and admitted to having an affair with your current wife while you were still married to your second,” Isabel Friedman, president of Penn Democrats, said to Gingrich. “As a successful politician who’s considering running for president, who would set the bar for moral conduct and be the voice of the American people, how do you reconcile this hypocritical interpretation of the religious values that you so vigorously defend?” Politico
Mr. Gingrich referred to a “forgiving God,” in his dismissive answer. Wonder if that would be the Catholic God to which he now has allegiance. Wonder if when he’s peddling his pope movie at Catholic schools, any student would ask such a question.
I liked this little bit of his response even better: “I appreciate the delicacy and generosity in the way [your question] was framed. … I hope you feel better about yourself.”
That’s quite a snippy response for one trying to appear presidential, don’t you think?
“You adamantly oppose gay rights … but you’ve also been married three times and admitted to having an affair with your current wife while you were still married to your second,”
Perhaps Gingrich could have been more helpful to the questioner by teaching her the meaning of the term non sequitur.
The part about gay rights is a non-sequitur. The part about him being an outrageous moralist hypocrite seems spot on to me.
Re: the part about being an outrageous moralist hypocrite
He’s hardly the only one. There is plenty of that to go around.
Not to mention needless bitterness and mocking of God, e.g. “the Catholic God.”
But at least he’s not an Israeli.
Actually Bender, that was mocking of Mr. Gingrich and his self-forgivingness in the hands of a forgiving God; sounds more like, Mr. Gingrich has fogiven himself. And on the Israel question: Wouldn’t you count him a supporter of the 51st State? Sure you would.
Although I can’t imagine myself ever voting for Newt Gingrich, I’m not bothered by the dismissive manner in which he responded to the first question of the night, a question that was clearly framed in an embarrassing manner. Yes, I think he’s thin-skinned, but he also knew that at least a good portion of the audience was hostile to his views, and he let it be known that he wasn’t going to be passive. I don’t think his reply was any more offensive than what we’ve heard in the past from numerous Democrats and Republicans testing the waters for higher political office.
Or….perhaps his testiness was in response to his shock that a UPenn student would ask a question that was so obviously a non sequitur. ;)
Newt shows himself to be arrogant, proud and self centered. He should have said that he is sorry for what he did – that he hurt a lot of people…or something like that. Of course God forgives but there are still ripples. Reverting to pious platitudes doesn’t show that he has learned any important lessons.
Newt’s first responsibility should be to protect his wife from the inevitable embarrassment that she is going to be experiencing because of him wanting to be in the public eye and supposedly have the answers that are going to “save” America. He can start by saving the reputation of his wife by not even floating that he is running for president because he knows darn well that this is just the tip of the iceberge. He just flat out is not that important – their is a greater good.
And he’s not going to get the presidential nomination from his party; nor the vp nomination. He’s a poseur and a philanderer…
Often the personal life of a politician is irrelevant to political performance. But in Gingerich’s case it seems that his personal life reveals a stunning lack of empathy with others, and successful politicians need that quality or they can’t understand what people want. He announced to his first wife that he was divorcing her as she lay in a hospital bed being treated for cancer. To me that alone disqualified him as a candidate for office. Brutal.
“And he’s not going to get the presidential nomination from his party; nor the vp nomination. He’s a poseur and a philanderer…”
The same could have been said of Ted Kennedy throughout the 1980s when he sought the nomination. But in addition to poseur and philanderer, Ted Kennedy was guilty of manslaughter. Did he rate the same righteous indignation from you then as Gingrich does now?
Kennedy was not a poseur; he did not run around claiming God had forgiven him. But to put your mind at ease, I never supported his presidential efforts, nor did I ever vote for him. There now, calm down. Righteous indignation?? Please.
“he did not run around claiming God had forgiven him”
And if Gingrich has claimed that, you deny it is true? Gingrich is a convert, if I recall, meaning that even if he was previously baptized, he was required to receive absolution in the Confessional before receiving the Sacraments of Confirmation and Eucharist. So, Gingrich most definitely has been forgiven by God…
“Righteous indignation?? Please.”
…but not by you.
Maybe because I’m a cradle Catholic, I think you’re asking for trouble running around saying God has forgiven you, so now you can run for president.
It’s his temperament more than his theology or even lacak of personal virtues that I believe would even keep his most ardent fans from supporting him for higher office. Even though I disagree with him on this topic and everything else I can think of, he should have thought for 15 seconds and said “I understand that you are questioning my personal behavior and perhaps there may be a context for that. However, what I am addressing in my objection is the way we think of rights in our society which is a complex discussion about which we probably disagree but I do support your right to have asked me such a personal question but also my right to say that I believe it irrelevant to this discussion.” But I still wouldn’t like him much…
1 Timothy 1:16
“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Of these I am the foremost. But for that reason I was mercifully treated, so that in me, as the foremost, Christ Jesus might display all his patience as an example for those who would come to believe in him for everlasting life.”
Look, I am no fan of Gingrich – I doubt he would make an effective President – but it is awful to see him so slandered by Catholics in this post. The man has repented, and public knowledge of his past transgressions AND forgiveness may, like Paul’s, redound to the glory of God.
As for temperament, Gingrich has no thinner a skin than does the hypersensitive Barack Obama, so I don’t see that as necessarily a disqualification for President. Or perhaps they are both equally unqualified.
Newt: “Any of several small, slender, often brightly colored salamanders of the European genus Triturus or the North American genera Notophthalmus and Taricha, living chiefly on land but becoming aquatic during the breeding season.”
I’m not sure, however, if this Newt lives up to the part of becoming aquatic during the breeding season. But, after three wives I guess all things are possible during those special intimate albeit serially marital moments that so foster the sanctity of holy matrimony.
I think we all know that there is a difference between recognizing when one has sinned, repenting, and asking for forgiveness AND denying that a sin is in fact, a sin. According to Christ, that difference makes all the difference.
“Ted Kennedy was guilty of manslaughter. Did he rate the same righteous indignation from you then as Gingrich does now?”
Did you really have to go that far back to find a Democratic party equivalent?
What about John Edwards? His presidential aspiraitons, such as they were, evaporated. And for a matter fo fact, Kenndedy’s neverr ecovered, either. Yeah they both do deserve indignation, righteous or not.
Neither political party has a monopoly on tawdry sex lives and wrecked marriages. What the Republicans do have a monoploy on is a claim that gay marriage will somehow wreck the sanctity of marriage. Conduct by Gingrich and others (such as Edwards and Governor Sandford) shows that they really don’t give a tinker’s dam about the sanctity of marriage and they have singlehandedly done more damage to the isntitution than the thousands of gay couples leading normal lives.
“What the Republicans do have a monoploy on is a claim that gay marriage will somehow wreck the sanctity of marriage.”
Insofar as a “monopoly” would mean such a claim is held by only Republicans, that is a false statement. The Catholic Church also teaches that same-sex marriage will adversely impact the institution of marriage.
It seems One can always count on feigned moral superiority from folks on the left. Why would one’s own past moral failures disqualify someone for conscientiously opposing gay marriage? It has been barely 20 years since nearly anyone could link the words gay and marriage, but I guess none too soon for us flawed types to get over it. The student questioner is getting great support from those who defend their presidential favorites when it’s “only about sex”. With liberals there’s all the compassion in the world for their own kind, but only condescending judgments for those on the right. Mr. Gingrich strikes me as a repentant sinner but certainly not a hypocrite.
“The Catholic Church also teaches that same-sex marriage will adversely impact the institution of marriage.”
Now that you mention it, child sexual abuse and clerical coverups of child sexual abuse does more harm to the institution of marriage than gay marriage. So, I’ll expand my statement: Conduct by most Catholic bishops, Gingrich and others (such as Edwards and Governor Sandford) shows that they really don’t give a tinker’s dam about the sanctity of marriage and they have singlehandedly done more damage to the institution than the thousands of gay couples leading normal lives.
Fixed it, thanks.
“With liberals there’s all the compassion in the world for their own kind, but only condescending judgments for those on the right. Mr. Gingrich strikes me as a repentant sinner but certainly not a hypocrite”
Fertilizer.
I’m not on the left. I oppose sexual misconduct, inside or outside of marriage. Those who have been unfaithful to their spouse or to their clerical vows might consider keeping their opinions on other people’s conduct to themselves until they demostrate some track record of alligning their conduct with their opinions.
Actions speak louder than words. The actions demonstate that “marriage” is not the issue.
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/newt-gingrich-0910?page=all
He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.
He’d just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he’d given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.
The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, “How do you give that speech and do what you’re doing?”
“It doesn’t matter what I do,” he answered. “People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
Words of a repentant sinner.
“So, I’ll expand my statement: Conduct by most Catholic bishops”
“Most”? Such irresponsible hyperbole merely dilutes your argument, such as it is.
You’re right, I should have been more specific. “Over half” would have been more precise than “most.”
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/specialtopics/transfers/General-SNAP-List.htm
Oddly, out of the blue, I received a call from the diocese “litigation investigator” today. I haven’t returned the call. Want to bet what he’s calling about? I’m going to wager they want to talk about a certain priest that presided at my wedding.