Not About Newt

In the CNN debate John King opened up the debate by asking Newt Gingrich about his ex-wife’s claim that he had requested an open marriage. By not allowing it to come up naturally (because you know that in any Republican debate one of the candidates is sure to bring up “character) he gave Newt a platform to rail against the media. This was a mistake in my estimation, but I am not a journalist.

I am also not the person who will launch into a tirade of my own about Gingrich’s personal life (glass house, stones…) While he has made mention of “family values”, as any republican since the days of Reagan has, he has never been one to push that point. He let others lead the charge on Clinton’s Monica moment; he simply took political advantage of it.

This is not to say that Gingrich does not engage in his own brand of hypocrisy. For evidence of that take a look back at his call for prosecution of Barney Frank for his role in legislating the housing market while, at the same time, Newt’s own company was taking money from Freddie Mac.

The amusing news about this is that some right-wing talking heads are saying that the affairs, and request for an open marriage, are evidence of his eligibility for the office of the President of the USA. Really?!? Yes, Rush Limbaugh and others are saying exactly that. And as much as I am truly disdainful of Fox News they are not, so far, leading with that particular tack.

What Rush, and a few others, are saying boils down to one thing: Newt is a “man’s man” whose honesty with his wife is refreshing. This is the same person who said, in the past, that Bill Clinton is a sex addict. I guess if anyone knows about addiction it would be Rush.

This is the type of hypocrisy which I have talked about in the past, and will continue to point out whenever I see it. “Family Values” seems to be a matter of convenience. It only applies to those whom the right wing dislike. When a politician who is on their side falls into a situation where their so-called values should be applied, they either ignore the situation or defend that politician in contradiction of those same “values.”

You are morally bankrupt if you are against them, but if you are on their side, any transgressions are shrugged off. What is your belief based on if it can be bent that easily? If you are a fan of Rush Limbaugh, apparently not much.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: