I despise Newt Gingrich. There are a lot of reasons. His not so subtle dog whistles to racial bias. His ego and grandiosity. His support for torture. His stand on abortion rights even in the case of rape and incest.
But what is really getting to me right now is the breathtaking hypocrisy. First, I have no problem with the concept of an open marriage. If two consenting adults think that’s a good idea — hey, more power to ’em.
It’s the fact that while Newt was boffing Callista he was also prosecuting Bill Clinton for getting a blow job. I think Clinton’s behavior was disgusting. Please don’t get a blow job in the Oval Office. Get the blow job somewhere else, anywhere else. And while we’re on the subject, couldn’t you have gotten a blow job from Julia Roberts or some other gorgeous Hollywood actress? At least Kennedy went with Marilyn. Monica Lewinsky? Really? And finally, Bill, you are a really smart guy and a lawyer. Don’t lie at a deposition. Admit the sex and take the hit. It would have been a three day news story.
But I digress. We’ve got Gingrich mouthing off about the sanctity of marriage while trying to deny that institution to gay and lesbian couples. And there’s Callista standing at his side, and all I’m thinking about is whether that helmet of blond hair got messed up while he was boffing her in the backseat of his car in the parking structure at the capital? And then I remember that he led an impeachment against Clinton for a blow job.
I don’t think the affairs disqualify Gringrich from the White House. It’s not a news flash that powerful men also seem to have powerful appetites and take advantage of their power. (See Clinton and an intern, not cool), but don’t tell me how much more moral you are than the (apparently) picture perfect family in the White House.
What disqualifies Newt are his stands on the issues. And his hypocrisy.
There is a strong vein of “this is something only the privileged get to do” in the entire Right’s attitude toward matters sexual. They want laws that ordinary citizens have to follow, which would segregate out all manner of indulgence for them as perks for “being righteous.”
There also seems to be a kind of “stop me before I do that again” plea, like an alcoholic calling his sponsor in desperation as he confronts a shot of whiskey.
Of course, what Newt and the others might say about Clinton is that they prosecuted for lying, not a blow job. But we all know better. Don’t we?
Interesting take on the open marriage idea. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Possibly because I have a number of friends who have open marriages. And I don’t think a lie about an affair in a deposition rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor.
I kind of liked the point over at Volokh Conspiracy that one of the gospels has Jesus saying that if a man divorces his wife, and marries another woman, he is committing adultery with his new wife. In other words, Newt is [i]still[/i] committing adultery with Callista. Now, I don’t personally believe that, or care particularly, but it doesn’t impress me to see him ignoring the explicit statement of the man he worships as God when it’s convenient for him to do so, while using him to justify his position on same-sex marriage. Doesn’t he even read the gospels, or does he just read them with his brain turned off?
Agree with all of the above. However, I’m a lot more frightened by his claiming that as President, if he didn’t like a Supreme Court decision, he would just ignore it. I’d like to know how he can square this contravention of the separation of powers with the general Republican trend of treading the Constitution like Holy Writ.