All due respect to everyone here, I have to agree with AK on this. It isn't just about a scorned ex-wife. It is a pattern of Newt demonstrating that he has a complete inability to discern right from wrong as it applies to his own life. The longer he goes on, the better he gets at spinning situations with one liners and weaseling his way out with a silver tongue. It isn't just his ex-wives slinging mud. Pretty much all of his former campaign staff says the same thing. Comments about Newt feeling that the typical social norms and mores don't apply to him. It isn't about this one particular story. It is about his amazing propensity for hypocrisy. He berated Clinton for infidelity while having numerous affairs himself. He is pandering to the religious right as the candidate of strong conservative family values, when nobody in the party could be further from that than he is. He attacks people for positions they held 15 years ago, suggesting that the proof is in their record, and then when someone tries to hold him to the same standard, he is appalled that they would bring up something that happened 15 years ago, as if he doesn't have a 30 year history to reference. I agree that all politicians have less than admirable traits, but even a minor amount of objective research on Newt suggests that in the company of almost all presidential candidates from the last 50 years, he would win the dirt-bag of the year award.
Of course you would. It is a Progressive song. It is the story of an inner city kid who made it, and came back to give back. It is what we are about
Seriously, though. Gingrich's breathtaking hypocrisy aside, isn't it surprising how Hart's, Edwards' and Spitzers' political careers were derailed upon the media's disclosure of their infidelity, while Gingrich gets a standing ovation? Newt will be Newt. But what the hell was the debate audience thinking? And why is he still even standing?
Obama would not have had a prayer if he got the scrutiny that conservative types get, and you know it. If you don't see it, no amount of explanation, web searches, and actual media facts will make a difference because your bias is only matched by that of the MSM. In the case of Edwards, let's talk about the timing of the reporting. Your mirror comment is just laughable. Thanks for the humor.
You dont seem to get why this attempted hit by CNN is ridiculous. There is no doubt in most peoples eyes that Newt is a scumbag, there is all kind of legitimate attacks the left wing media can make on Newt, yet they decided to use the sleaziest most non credible attack possible, and he embarassed them, they could have had all kinds of attacks about his infidelity but they decide to use an ex wife from 15 years ago to come out and say he is a dirtbag. Why not use real information as opposed to he said/shesaid. Why not attack him on his record as speaker, and his record as a lobiest at fannie/freddie, which is much more damning in my eyes. They decided to use an attack that should be reserved for the front page of the national enquirer, and they used it in the republican presidential debate. That is what is why it is funny. I highly doubt you will find a person on here who thinks Newt is an innocent born again christian.
The hard Right is drinking ABO premium vodka. They will have quite the hangover on the second Wednesday in November
I will give you that I would have thought CNN would be smarter. But that is why they had that cat ask the question rather than one of their stars, like Anderson Cooper. Who did NOT know that Newt would play the scorned ex-wife card?