As long as Republicans are claiming to be the morally superior party with blessings from a deity, then everything in their personal lives is fair game. Newt started this crap when he led Congress after Bill Clinton.

Hey, coming from the party that claimed they were God's own Party - touting Family Values and Morality - you're damned right a candidate's personal integrity is going to come into the limelight. When it comes to Newt Gingrinch - oh yeah honey - you better believe we will never, EVER let you forget your hypocrisy.

Be gone!

Wasn't it Newt Gingrich who wrote the book on dirty politics, and defined the most negative and derogatory terms to use when referring to (insert negative term here) Democrats? Wasn't it Newt Gingrich who condemed President Clinton while secretly carrying on his own extra-marital affairs?

Well, Newt....payback is a BIT_H. Welcome to the world of politics that you created!

If this were a Democrat candidate the rabid right-wing hypocrites would be salivating and ripping into the candidate with abandon.

Republicans will lie, cheat and steal to get what they want while cloaking themselves in patriotism and family values. It's so disgusting.

I agree that Republicans should be open to strong scrutiny where their private lives are concerned. They're the ones who claimed these issues were relevant when it benefited them; they should not be permitted to cry foul when they fail to live up to the "moral" standards they try to impose on Democrats. No, these issues should not affect politics. They're not measures of job performance or competence. But if the Republicans insist on making hay from candidates' private lives, then yes - of course they should be subject to the same or greater scrutiny.

Yes. No brainner. The rethugli-cons constantly throw it in our faces that THEY are the "Family Values" party. Yet, for too many times THEY are the immoral party. And yes the Dems have their fair share of immorality.

Here's a guy who, supposedly, wanted an open marriage so he could keep sleeping with an aide. Yet, at the same time, he was Mr High and Mighty in his pursuit of President Clinton. I don't care who the Dems run, even if it was Hillary, Newt WILL NOT get my vote. The man is a liar and a hypocrite.

Sandy (post 1.4)--AMEN

Yeh, but the problem is that Newt hounded Clinton and tried to get him out of office due to his immoral and wicked acts, all the while he was doing the same doggone thing!

This is a tough call; If the media had properly vetted our current president we would not be in the progressive nightmare we're in. I agree with Newt; the media is bias and hypocritical.

On the other hand, any man who has children, is in a 6 year long adulterous relationship, and proceeds to subject his children and his wife to that same woman by marrying her, and now wants us to trust his character and integrity while leading this country, is delusional. He may seek and receive forgiveness from those he damaged but I don't want him and his home-wrecking wife as my president.

I guess I hope that the South Carolina crowd was clapping about his attack on the bias media, and not acting as if his character is not a valid topic.

It's not just if the candidate acts morally, it is if they act hypocritically. The GOP has teamed with the Religious Right/Family Values groups to condemn Gay Marriage, etc. This is pure hypocrisy by Newt if he was engaging in what those groups would also consider a non-traditional (open) marriage. Most Democrats don't claim to be promoting "family values" (Gays have just as much right to marriage and a family as straights, so that's a total misnomer!), so their indiscretions do NOT amount to hypocrisy! Newt is nothing but an unethical liar, a complete hypocrit and a pompous jerk.

BTW: Obama appears to be the true Family Values man. I haven't heard a whiff of unfaithfulness or anything about his private life.

Bill Clinton was the President of the United States of America and he perjured himself while under oath. That is a felony. BIG DIFFERENCE libbies. He also was accused, and I believe rightly accused, of raping a woman, Juanita Broaddrick, when he was Attorney General of Arkansas. I will never understand how anyone can compare the biggest womanizer and rapist with anyone else. Bill Clinton should be a registered sex crimminal.

As far as Newt goes, he should know that everything is fair game today.

With Gingrich, Republican hypocrisy at its best. Prime example of lies, deceit and how do I get to the brains of dumb people with creating a diversion. He is the father of why this country is divided. If you are morally wrong, how do you call yourself a Christian and try to pitch your political poison to innocent Evangelicals

What goes around comes around, Mr. (ex)Speaker. :-)

Newtie's values are way worse than Clinton's. Wife gets cancer divorce her! Wife gets M.S. divorce her! Find any woman who will have sex with old fat middle age guy. With this mans morals or lack thereof he would be figuring out how to ship every non millionaire out of the country and I am an Atheist and his beliefs and values are just to wrong for me.

Tod, what alternate universe were you in during the 2008 election cycle? Not properly vetted? We were continually slammed with everyone Obama had contact with in his entire life.

We're not in a progressive nightmare, we're in a regressive nightmare caused by the unwillingness of the Republicans to work with our President in any way.

Hypocrisy on both sides wreaks.

This country is hopelessly polarized.

Clinton did it in the WHITE HOUSE in the oral office.

Are you freaking kidding me?

Newton did it with a LOBBYIST who worked for him in CONGRESS. FOR YEARS.

Mark, BJ, JT, etc, are all spot on. "What goes around comes around!" I guess when he wanted Bill Clinton's sexuality plastered all over the front pages of America and in the Congressional record, it was OK, but when the tables are turned to see how disgusting his own private life has been, its all a "bias" and "unfair!" Well Newter....YOU wrote the book on this kind of sordid politics, enjoy sleeping in the bed(s) you made bro.............hypocrite does not even come close to describing this two faced chump...

Tod - Not vetted???? Were you sleeping during the 2008 election? No one has ever been vetted as totally as Obama!

So, now you'd have the American people tell the President who he/she can have around them? Well then, my vote would have been that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc., should have been nowhere near the White House when Bush was President. For that matter, Bush would not have been anywhere near the White House.

If only the looney right winger thinking had some point to it! But then, it NEVER does - and that would actually assume they can think which we all know is a stretch!

I agree with you, pretty much everything is fair game.

So here's the next pertinent question: why do you people who are supposedly for the "little man" or the "middle-class" raise so much hell with rich Republicans but ignore the fact that every single member of the DNC is a 1percenter? That hypocrisy sword cuts both ways. When it was revealed that many Democrats (and Republicans) use insider trading legally to make boatloads of cash, they got a pass. Immelt uses loopholes to not pay taxes (as GE) and gets a pass. What gives? Is it only ok to be a hypocrite if you're a Democrat? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should give Newt or anyone else a pass, but you guys are, if there's a (D) beside the name. Again, what gives? You guys have never once complained about the cronyism unless it comes from the Republican side, and Republicans making money is the exact opposite of hypocrisy, but Democrats robbing the tax payer to pad the accounts of their big bundlers is at least as hypocritical as a Republican having an affair. (And hurts far more people because it hurts every tax payer)

I agree that the past is important. We are talking about a person to be president. We need everything, including college records.

This is a pretty good history on the sexual foibles of the "Big Fig" Newton Gingrich, (or is it the "Small, Aquatic Salamander Newt Gingrich....hmmmm?). So the choices are:

1. A tasty, chewy, doughy cookie with a sickly sweet, gummy center, or
2. a slimy, squirmy, lungless mud crawler?

Hard to say, it's a toss up....enjoy the article, it's a scortcher!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/gingrich_profile_featuring_ex-wife_begets_question.php

GOP Tea ReTards conservative values are their Tiffany accounts for their call girls !!!

This isn't about gays but since you brought it up, can you explain why everytime the people vote on gay marriage it is always voted AGAINST?

Prop 8 Referendum passed Yes: 52.24% / No 47.76%.

Passed by 4.48% of California Voters. By your reasoning, we should still have segregation. Bigotry is not a family value.

It is a choice that every politician makes. They can either be "moralists" or not. If they choose to be the guardians of the public morals, they they have also made the choice about revealing their personal adherence to those same standards. Right or wrong, most Presidents in my lifetime have had issues in their private life. If their performance as President was sufficient, the public was always willing to forgive transgressions as long as the President chose to keep them discrete.

FDR --- had a long time mistress (Lucy Mercer) who was his wife's social secretary. He was very discrete. Most people who knew of it justified it by claiming that Eleanor was a lesbian.

Truman --- not only didn't screw around, but actually had his mother-in-law living with him in the White House and telling his wife daily that he would never amount to anything.

Eisenhower --- had a long time mistress (Kate Sommersby) who was his driver during WWII and was set up in an apartment in sight of the White House. He was very discrete. This was also justified by some by claims that Mamie was lesbian.

Kennedy --- Did everything that had female sex organs from prostitutes to movie stars and all stops in between. His most notorious was as a young Navy intelligence officer, he was borking a Nazi spy. The longest term mistress was Judith Exner. Not very discrete, but somehow pulled it off by sheer charisma, I suppose.

Johnson --- several mistresses over the years, notably Maryanne Brown and Alice Glass. Pretty discrete.

Nixon --- had several affairs, the most notorious with an alledged Communist spy that he met in Hong Kong. Very discrete and very few details have ever been known even though rumors have abounded. I think it was simply an issue that the public could not put "Nixon" and "sex" into the same sentence.

Ford --- several affairs, though none known as President. Most people seemed to rationalize it a reaction to his wife's alcoholism.

Carter --- apparently a straight arrow who is devoted to his wife. Not even any juicy rumors.

Clinton --- several affairs. Noted horn dog from peuberty onwards. Not particularly discrete to the point that he almost seemed to want to be caught.

GHW Bush --- I have never heard much about anything regarding affairs, so presumably he was a straight arrow. Again, not even good rumors.

GW Bush --- several alledged affairs while Governor and there were notorious rumors about a serious affair with Condaleeza Rice. Somehow I doubt most of it since he was married to a woman who was responsible for the death of an ex high school boyfriend who was dating someone else. Somehow, I can't see W crossing someone like that.

Obama --- again a straight arrow and apparently dedicated family man. If there were even rumors I am sure the GOP would have made sure that everyone knew about them.

Presidents have had a long and checkered history of sexual misdeeds, starting with Jefferson and Sally Hemings. We seem to want leaders that are basically testosterone-poisoned aggressive and confident, but then we expect them to be chaste. I am not sure that this is possible, given human nature.

Personally, I leave the choice to the politicians. I do not, for example, believe that the Eisenhower Presidency was damaged in any way by his having a mistress. But then he did not set himself up as a moral authority. Gingrich, is a whore of a different color. He led the charge for Clinton's impeachment in the House while married to a woman with whom he had had an adulterous relationship and not only having a mistress (Callista) and even cheating on the mnistress and trying to get Callista a no-show high-paying job with the Dept of Agriculture. Eisenhower confined himself to one mistress and was extremely discrete while Gingrich was actually committing felonies related to his sexual activity while loudly proclaiming his support for "family values." Gingrich made the choice to expose his sex life by the simple act of setting him up as a moral authiority.

Dumb question. Someone want to tell me why we should police whether people care about candidate's private lives or not? If it matters to you, great, if not great. Please, this poll is jus to get readers.

Some of our greatest presidents have been skirt chasers. I personally don't care up to a point. What Clinton did wasn't wrong except for two things. One, it should NEVER NEVER NEVER happened in the working parts of the White House. In the private residence I don't care. Away from the White House. I don't care. The second thing wrong about it was more stupid than wrong. It was stupid to give his enemys the chance to pin him down and emasculate his presidency oversome head from a fat chick with daddy issues. It may have caused us to miss the best shot we had at getting Bin Lauden before 911. That is as much the Republicans fault as his. If not more. Mostly it is just a distraction and part of the smoke screen meant to deceive the people. Monicagate wasn't about morals. It was a attempt to grab power. I am more concerned that you do the job you were sent to Washington to do. That job is not getting yourself even richer and chasing tail. It sure isn't about doing your best Gregory Hines imitation in a men's room stall while voting anti gay laws either. You were elected to political office not accepted into a frat-house. Now if you as a candidate pass yourself off as a moral compass and tout "family values" you better do more than just talk the talk. You have to walk the walk. I personally sick of people like Newt and Larry Craig that take hypocrisy to absurd levels. I have also had enough of the American Taliban trying to pass religious laws. The separation of church law and government law is the foundation stone of our way of life. Mr. Gingrich you didn't cheat on two wives (maybe three) because you were working so hard for the American people as you have publicly claimed. You did it because your a philandering @sshole that I would not let walk my dog.

My issue is the hypocrisy. Gingrich has pounded the pulpit of family values for so long. Yet, his own behaviour has shown the opposite. To me it shows a fundemental character problem. I often see public figures who take a 'holier than thou attitude' on a specific moral or ethical issue are often found to have the exact moral 'failings' that they harp on. In other words, politicians who condemn homosexuality all too often are caught in homosexual relationships. as Shakespeare put it, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I think that the psychological principle is called, Transference.

None of us are perfect. And, I don't really expect that of our leaders. But, I do expect to see a track record of basic integrity in their private lives as a proxy for how they'll behave in their future leadership roles. That said, I do believe that people can redeem themselves. For that I look at how they deal with their pasts and how I see them in their current lives. All of this is relevent.

Anybody who voted "Yes" to the question of privacy issues is a hypocrite! Shame on you American people to be so closed minded and puritanically stupid.

How about Kennedy and Clinton? You sure loved them to death and for them it was OK to screw around in the Oval Office and in front of America.

You make me sick!

skeptical

PROP 8 was for banning same sex marriage. The left leaning state of California voted to not allow same sex marriage. And we would still have segregation if it wasn't for the Republicans pushing for the Equal Rights Amendment. What exactly is your point?

What a limtedly lame list of choices the Lame Stream Media at large chose to offer for a possible reponse to their loaded question.

I would say YES, personal life is fair game, when it relates to ones ability to function in a given position.

For example,... if a Canidate is a heroin addict, I would think, yes, this type of behavior could result in poor mental decisions while governing..... HOWEVER, if a candidate has fallen out-of-love with his spouse once or twice (but not 7 or 8 times, ala Elizabeth Taylor) during the past 70 years, I see no relavence to the matter..... especially since this candidate (Newt Gingrich) not only wed once when fresh out of highschool, but because he was also able to control and keep his personal weaknesses (as some may choose to see them, either out of hate for a political affiliation or their own regligeous beliefs) out of the office. He did not lie to a grand jury and corrupt himself before the American public and he was in control enough of his emotions to keep his weaknesses out of the work place This can not be said for Billy "The Womanizer" Clinton, who had countless affairs, countless accusser, more so than Herman Cain.

This nasty label the media is trying to spin is just another example of how corrupt the Lame Stream Media at large are. Even Fox News, but at least there exist 1 news agency to counter the bias of a dozen others.

and "Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc.," are brilliant men who love this country, the fact that you have bought the media blather about their"evil" ways only points to your inability to think for yourself.

Tod, it is hard to believe ANYBODY believes that anymore. It shows just how far right you are. Especially since Obama is governing more like a moderate republican than a moderate democrat. "Obama's radical agenda"? Nothing but nonsense.

Tod - I totally think for myself. The only "America" that Dick Cheney loved/loves is his oil buddies and Haliburton - both of which pay him. Your inability to even muster a half-way competent reply speaks for itself. Obama's "associations" (inane category to say the least) were vetted much more than McCain's or Palin's. And, past president's "associations" (again inane) have never been vetted. Totally ridiculous accusation but I don't expect any better from you.

dmu2cc - I'm trying to figure out how you think you can just make things up and no one will call you on it? Clinton was no draft dodger and Carter never gave him a "pardon" for anything. Stupidest thing I've read all day. Bush, however, was a deserter whose family bought him out of trouble. Yet his father still likes Clinton better than his own son!

lib50

You just showed how far left you are. Obama is not even close to a moderate. He is as far left as a person can be except when he needs to change his stripes for votes. The Bush administration was far more interested in the good of ALL Americans than this administration would even think of being.

SeekingSanity - you better keep seeking.

Carter did pardon quite a few people who violated the Military Selective Service Act. Bill Clinton was amoung them.

Who told you Bush was a deserter? Dan Rather?

JH-479998

The Equal Rights Amendment was to grant woman equal rights in the workplace. The Conservatives fought it tooth and nail and it never passed. The Civil Rights Act was pushed through a reticent Congress by LBJ (a Dem) while conservatives fought it tooth and nail. Segregation was a hot button issue in the 1960's, and the right did everything they could to keep black people as downtrodden as they could. Fortuneately LBJ was a powerful president and as you may know now, minorities now have rights equal to the majority. How can you support the GOP or anything when you have such a limited grasp of history?

We are all moral agents, I am not yours and you are not mine. GOPeers should stop with this nonsense, divorce the evangelicals and quit being moral agents. No man or woman is another person's moral agent. End of story.

JH-479998 - Only to the far right is Obama left. The Bush administration was interested in advancing his agenda of killing Saddam Hussein and helping his oil buddies and that was it. He didn't give a damn about All Americans - Obama clearly cares about this country and all of it's citizens.

Intellect - you clearly have intellect and could not be more on target! Thank you!

I did not take the poll because it did not have a ? I could answer....I say only republican party moralist candidates should have their private lives investigated since they are the ones that want Big Government and the Church to run our private lives. If we pry hard enough into only Republican's private lives (which is our right to do), then they will never be elected. I'm not joking. I'm this partisan. I hate the Republican party and everything it stands for. Screw off Southern Evangelical hypocrites!

I think Newt's personal life matters because of his role in Clinton's impeachment. Newt and the GOP went to unending lengths in the name of Whitewater, only to identify a blue dress. Newt was on TV every single day screaming about it and all the while he was cheating on his wife with Calista. Just freaking amazing.

But do I want Newt to the GOP nominee? Absolutely. If he thinks that question was bad, just wait.

When a candidate is running for President of the United States Of American and will have the power to order nuclear warfare then, your damn right, I want to know EVERYTHING possible about this man or woman who aspires to the highest and most powerful office in the WORLD. Not only do I want to know his moral character I also want to know, if possible, his mental and emotional soundness! Again, we should demand to know EVERYTHING possible!

Newt is nothing more than sleazy a$$ scum. He can say he changed his ways but he has to show it in his personal life, the way he acts and conducts himself dealing with others. His tongue is as sharp as ever. I've seen nothing that makes me think he has changed.

Gingrich is little more than a scumbag who happens to have a good haircut.

@dmu2cc,

Clinton was NOT a "draft dodger" as you state. He did absolutely nothing illegal and was never pardoned by Carter. It is simply a lie. The proper accusation is that he was a draft avoider (which is not illegal.) He actually spent most of his student days as 1-A but was never called up. The issue was a great deal more around wanting to take advantage of the opportunity to be a Rhodes Scholar studiying at Oxford than any issue with cowardice or even disagreement with the war. Some things just don't wait and everyone isn't a Ted Williams. Here is a link to one of hundreds of debunkers:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp

Telling a lie often enough or shouting it loud enough never makes a lie into a truth and this one was debunked long ago.

Gingrich on the other hand married his first wife, seven years older than he was, because he DID commit a felony by getting his first wife to help him file for false student deferrments. That was a felony that stood as a possble charge until Carter did his blanket pardon. He told a number of people that he only married his first wife so she could never testify against him in court.

Hey Tod;

What mess are we in? I mean what mess are we in that was caused by the President?

It was a fair question, but Gingrich's response was uncalled for. All he had to say was that he didn't think it was pertinent to respond to and say he denies the allegation. But instead, he chose the opportunity to stage an attack against the media that was supplying him with the opportunity to speak. In very typical fashion, Gingrich struck back at the accusation with a more brutal attack and accusations of his own on Mr. King and the media. The man is a bully and a very skilled one at that.

If I were John King, I would have suggested that if Gingrich was so appalled and thought it was so out of line for the format, he should probably leave right then because the debate was not going to be about throwing them softball questions they could hit out of the park. As for the relevance of his personal life, I think that is up to the voter to decide. And we obviously all have different ideas as to the significance. But the fact that one party campaigns so vehemently on "social" and "moral" issues, means the topic is 100% legitimate.

In my own view, I believe almost everyone is guilty of some indiscretion in their private lives. It may or may not be something like an affair, but maybe just something simple where we did something we knew was wrong because we didn't think it through very well.

The occasional and random mistake is human nature. But these things need to be put in context. When someone seems to display a pattern of serial indiscretion, I think it is considerably more significant than one or even several unconnected dumb things. Gingrich has a track record of a lot of inappropriate indiscretions. The man has a very inflated opinion of himself and seems to think he is somehow above reproach. Santorum did a good job of describing Newt's problems when he called him out for being grandiose. It was one of the most profound statements Santorum has made in all the debates.

What Gingrich demonstrated was his uncanny ability to lie, cheat, manipulate and bully to get his way and maintain a dominant position. He even brags that these skills, (although he doesn't enumerate them as such), are what can get him elected. And the crowd of raving lunatics loved it!

This entire issue of privcate morality comes up with every election period. Nothing has changed in a hundred years, and I seriuosly doubt anything ever will.

That being said, here's an interesting thought about politicians' private morals....

In WW2, there was a world leader of a powerful militarized nation. This leader drank large quantities of scotch, smoked cigars constantly, and was known to have extra-marital affairs while in office. His name was Winston Churchill.

There was another world leader at the same time who was straight-edge, did not drink or smoke or engage in any other drugs. He was faithful to his one and only wife, and was for all purposes a very lawful person.

THAT was Hitler, my friends.

So, while it IS fair game to call out politicians who's personal lives conflict with their public agenda, I think it is far more important to focus on the practical concerns of their ability to govern appropriately. I do not begrudge any person for their human frailties, as we ALL have them to some degree. But it cannot directly conflict with their position or public service if it is to be disregarded by their constituents.

Wow, sorry about the typos up there! I didn't bother to proof it before I hit the button......

Anybody who voted "Yes" to the question of privacy issues is a hypocrite! Shame on you American people to be so closed minded and puritanically stupid.

Not necessarily -- it may be the "best choice". Personally, I feel that many personal choices make a difference if you want to lead this country. However, fidelity not so much as hypocrisy or honesty.

You see, what makes Gingrich so bad is the hypocrisy. As the "leader" of the "moral, conservative" party .. he should live by what he preaches. He doesn't.

Before you start screaming about my "liberalism", I also believe that Clinton should have been impeached. Not for the affair (that was Hiliary's problem). No, he should have been impeached for lying.

So, it's not necessarily the deed -- no one is perfect -- but the other actions surrounding the deed that make the man (or woman) and what is important about whether or not to vote for them.

Ronacrone

I stand corrected. I did mean the Civil Rights Act. But if you think it was pushed through by democrats you really need to study history. The Republicans were the ones who were responsible for getting that done. Do remember a man named Robert Byrd? How about Al Gore Sr.? Robert KKK Byrd is famous for his filibuster of the Civil Rights Act. LBJ was a reluctant vote for the Act. He only supported it because his dead predecessor, John F. Kennedy, did support it. I hope you are not a registered voter with your limited grasp of history.

This is a tough call; If the media had properly vetted our current president we would not be in the progressive nightmare we're in. I agree with Newt; the media is bias and hypocritical.

Really? I think that Obama has been far more conservative than anyone expected. He has done no more (in most cases less) than he said he would do.

I see the usual mud slinging is going on instead of having a rational reaction.

I am a conservative that would NEVER VOTE FOR NEWT. He is a serial cheater much like Clinton was. I guess it takes one to know one because there is definitely not any love lost between the two of them. The difference is that Bill is easy to like and forgive, while Newt doesn't have personality going for him. But they are both cut from the same cloth. BTW, this conservative voted for Bill. I made a mistake.

If a candidate made a personal bad choice ONCE, I think I can look past that as long as that person made amends to those he/she hurt. So the personal issue is between the two parties, with the voters being on the outside, but we can vote on how the issue was resolved.

Newt hasn't spoken to this woman since they divorced. That is really sad. I can't imagine being married to anybody especially as long as they were married, and not checking on them from time to time. Newt is the one that broke up that marriage and it was his duty to repair the relationship. This is what the journey in life is all about.

Conservatives like me believe in forgiveness. We want to be able to forgive, but it shouldn't be dished out without consequences because it diminishes the true gesture. That is what liberal do not understand about conservatives. They think that if you believe one thing and fail, then you are a hypocrite. I believe you are a hypocrite if you are secretly doing the exact same thing while bashing another for that behavior. Newt is very guilty on this issue. He is a major hypocrite. If however, you fail to stay error free so so speak, and you honestly admit and take the punishment and ask for forgiveness, it should be given then. That is what rational conservatives believe. The word "forgiveness" is in the dictionary to be used and understood.

If SC chooses Newt knowing what they know now, they have made a huge moral mistake not including a very poor political choice. I don't have to be in "love" with who I elect, but I have to respect them and at least feel they generally represent what I believe. So I am not so rigid not to vote for those on each side of the aisle which I have done throughout my life.

..or as that GOP couple [that were interviewed on network right after the announcement was made about Newt] said [loose, but accurate quote] "We don't care about it! What happens at home, has nothing to do with what one does at the office". I didn't make that up, and it was reported on MSNBC last night, with Brian Williams. In all fairness, though......that was just one couple speaking out, and not the entire GOP!

It does not matter whether the candidate for public office is a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, their 'private lives' are a general indicator of their value system. So if you continually beat your dog, your spouse, your children, your neighbor's children, or get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, whatever; of course, those behaviors are relevant. Some folks may crave public office but when their personal life stinks to high heaven the ordinary guy or gal in the street will often opt for a 'cleaner' candidate. Newt's value system seems to be that everything is OK so long as he can deny it, or cough-up some feeble excuse - such as, "I was gesturing to explain something and suddenly I found her panties in my hand.'

Whether one candidate is 'dirtier' than another is irrelevant. As for redemption, Newt is just one candid photograph away from the next scandal - who has he been boning on the side over the past four months?

Personal issues become even more important when candidates try to dictate morality to everyone else while hiding their own misdeeds. A zebra doesn't change it's stripes no matter how much whitewash it uses. Newt is right there preaching morality to others when his own stinks.

It is NOT a dumb question; it is a completely pertinent and relevant question. However, everything must be taken within reason. Newt has given his explanation for habitual adulteries and said that he makes amends. I tend to want to see some "fruit from the tree" on this course before I believe him, so I naturally have distrust when he says that he won't do it again; prove it first, douche-bag.

On the other hand, Newt and other Republicans relished the fact that Ken Starr quit looking for wrong-doing by Clinton on the Whitewater issue and, then, proceeded to investigate his most intimate lifestyle for fun and politics.

Looks like more political hypocrisy. When we can search the opposition's bedrooms for little innuendo, that is just fine....but, stay out of my bedroom? BULLFEATHERS!!! Leave the double standard somewhere else (BTW, holding double standards is a state of negative character.)

grumpy_jon - and dear Ken Starr also had a little honey on the side!

Newt is another Republican fool.

It seems that by and large, the Republicans are far more covert than the Democrats when it come to this kind of crap. But...overt or covert...it's all fair game.

Look at all the crap they tried to make an issue with about President Obama's birth, and religion, and anything else the nasty Republicans could scrounge up and try to make an issue to discredit him with the morons and racists in this country!! They are disgusting.

Listen to Justice Roberts swearing President Obama into office? Not only does he screw up the oath, he sounds like he is questing the president on his belief in a God!

What I'm finding interesting is the lack of moderator action on this thread. I have seen 'conservatives' suspended for days, even weeks, for far less inflammatory comments than what is above. Go figure.

Just a passing thought here...if many of you are able to scrape away your apparent stomach-turning hatred for another human being named Newt Gingrich...and by that I mean that it's my stomach that's turning from reading so many hate-filled posts on this site...

What if Mr. Gingrich's ex-wife is a little off her rocker and what she said is not really true ? Do any of you folks know the lady personally ?? Or is it that because she "said" something that injures Mr. Gingrich, her words are automatically to be considered 100% accurate and true ???

I'd bet that more than half of those who wrote these hate-filled posts would have to go back into the main article just to be able to recall the former Mrs. Gingrich's first name...yet you apply instant credibility to anything she said just because you detest her ex-husband so viciously.

You know what people who do that are called ? They are called compassionate, holier-than-thou, fair-minded Democrats !

Congratulations !!!

JH - and we all hope you are not a registered voter with your tendency to post lie after lie after lie. Carter never pardoned Clinton because Clinton did not violate the Military Selective Service Act. And, I'll match my sanity against yours any day and come out WAY on top!

JH - one more thing - if you think posting your lies is smart please remember that it is soooooo easy to get to Snopes to disprove everything you lie about - such as Clinton being pardoned by Carter! Surely you can read?????

Who do you think runs snopes? They are not fair and balanced.

Tony 268769: Now wait a minute there: Are you implying that the former Mrs. Gingrich is "off her rocker" with no evidence to back it up? And anyway, can't prove the negative "She's not off her rocker." So we'll let that pass.

OK, lets say she never said word one about her relationship with Newt. On the record, undeniable fact is that he divorced his dying first wife and the mother of his children in order to marry #2, with whom he was having an affair while married to the dying wife #1, then had an affair with wife # 3 while still married to wife #2. Soooo, to my mind, Newt is already in a severe moral deficit right from the get-go.

Do I think this matters or disqualifies him from public office? Yes. It's a matter of trust. Having an affair is sneaking around. Sneakiness equals untrustworthyness.

This is even before I get to the hypocrisy issue. I don't hate Newt, but I wouldn't want to have him for dinner, although Obama will have him for lunch if he's the Republican candidate in 2012. Newt may be a sneaky bully and an historian, but he's no match for Obama in the integrity or the brains departments.

Obama 2012

TO: Tod-2791955 who wrote:

"... If the media had properly vetted our current president we would not be in the progressive nightmare we're in. I agree with Newt; the media is bias and hypocritical..."

The "media" does not vet our Democratic candidates, and it was Sarah "The Bimbo" Palin that wasn't vetted by the Republicans. She was picked up "overnight" by McCain in a "fit of anxiety" and showed up with a pregnant teenage daughter, which is to say that McCain had no idea what kind of "baggage" Sarah might be carrying.

What will we call Calista is Newt cons his way into the presidency? The First "Homewrecker"? The First "Mistresss"?The First "Gold Digging Tramp"?

I cant really picture the Newt and Calista as swingers, I think the only reason she agreed to let the Newter screw around with other women is because she knows he wont be able to find any other women to screw around with.

the republican party is a discrace to christian values .. the leaders of the Evangelical right never do the work of god ... they are to busy doing the work of the wealthy ... I dont believe Jesus lived in a Mansion with servents ... with a penthouse apartment in NY and a summer home in the hamptons .. the sad part is the fools on the christian right believe what they are told

Jim, Jesus lived in the middle east.

Sandy, Missouri

If this were a Democrat candidate the rabid right-wing hypocrites would be salivating and ripping into the candidate with abandon.

Republicans will lie, cheat and steal to get what they want while cloaking themselves in patriotism and family values. It's so disgusting.

But how do you feel about the rabid left-wing hypocrits doing it?

Democrats will lie, cheat and steal to get what they want while cloaking themselves in patriotism and handouts, yes it is disgusting, thats one thing Newt got right, politics is a cesspool.

At least Newt didn't knock a woman up and tried to hide it by having someone else claim to be the dad while his wife was on her death bed. Everyone loved John Edwards and thought " thats too bad" when his scandal came out. Well, first it was heavy denial, then cover up, and finally he gave up and told the truth. If you want the private life of one candidate in the open, then ALL candidates are open game. You can't be picky in my opinion, its all or nothing. That is the only fair way to do it. This can go on anything besides affairs if you really want to go deeper.

Madeline...

If Newt Gingrich "divorced his dying first wife" as you stated...how is it that she is still alive...a couple decades later ??? And you ask about "evidence" ??? Were you there, beside her 'deathbed' when she got the heave-ho ???

There could be a hundred reasons why this angry "ex wife" gave an interview a few days before Saturday's primary...but without knowing anything about her or the marriage she had, is everybody supposed to hang 'truth' on any statement she makes ???

And anyone can hate or love or not even care about Newt Gingrich for any reason they may choose...but do not let your political hatred or any other motivation let yourself be in denial that the man is a stunning force in ANY debate situation.

Go back and watch the 2008 Democrat debates...Hillary Clinton manhandled Mr. Obama...he simply had enough media pixie dust puffing up around him that the debates did not matter. Ms. Clinton could have taken out a hammer and mashed his skull in and he still would have ended up being elected president.

Seeking Sanity...

Answer a question please...after George Bush "deserted" from the military, which you stated, where did he go to learn how to fly a fighter jet ??? Did he sneak back onto the military base he had "deserted" from and learn how to fly a 500 mph jet all by himself ???

It was a long time ago...he could not have Googled a fighter jet instruction manual back then...Google wasn't around at the time, yet the man knew how to pilot a jet. How'd that happen ?

Keep 'seeking'.

Mitt Romney's and Ron Paul's private lives should be off limits. Neither have presented themselves as righteous moralists.

Gingrich'$ and Sanotorum's private lives should be scrutinized with a microscope and tweezers. Measuring others by their self-righteous yardstick means we need to see if they measure up, too. Preachers must be moral leaders by example, not by words alone.

What I would like to have seen Gingrich do, or at least be asked about, is whether an apology would be in order for going after the Clintons for the Lewinski affair in the late 90's while having an affair at the same time. If a person's private life is supposed to be out of bounds, then Gingrich should not have gone after Clinton. Yes, there are some key differences, but Newt should have to explain the two, or admit that he was a total hypocrite at the time and apologize to the Clinton family.

"Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc.," are brilliant men who love this country

LOL!! Oh, stop, my sides!!!!!

"Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc.," are brilliant men who love this country

AAAAhhhahahahahahahaaaa!!!!!

colormepurple - Me thinks someone has screwed

If you're going to use an archaic term, it's "methinks" and not "me thinks"; otherwise, the term is "I think". Just thought you'd like to know for future reference...

Tony

"If Newt Gingrich "divorced his dying first wife" as you stated...how is it that she is still alive...a couple decades later ??? And you ask about "evidence" ??? Were you there, beside her 'deathbed' when she got the heave-ho ???"

That's his second wife giving the interview not his first wife. Old Newty is to fast for you and you just don't care to read the entire story before you spew your uninformed crap......Sheeeesh!!

That's his second wife giving the interview not his first wife. Old Newty is to fast for you and you just don't care to read the entire story before you spew your uninformed crap......Sheeeesh!!

With proper medication, suffering a lot of pain from medication which pushes your body as close to death as possible - without killing you, plus heroic efforts on the part of medical staff (including the strength of the patient -- augmented by the prayers and support of your family, relatives and friends), cancer can be pushed into submission.

Even Doctors are the first to advocate that family support, a good support system ... increase the chances of recovery. Its the will-to-live, which enhance the chances of recovery.

Newt did his part, by giving her a really strong desire to live... and one day expose him for who he really is. I'm guessing she was too P.Oed to die... and let him Win! Now tha'ts he true American spirit in action.

You can't kill me, I refuse to die!! - You go girl.

I would also like to hear an apology from Newt to his peers and colleagues in Congress for his over the top leadership or lack there of. Newt did a lot of damage while Speaker with his ridiculous top down economics that still plague or economic system to this day. Look at the state of our economy and anyone with an ounce of logic could deduce what caused this huge problem not to mention the wars we have entered into that were not a direct threat to our country, religious morality being force fed to the general public and of course the hypocrites who espouse the trash.

I would be almost anything Newt will not admit his short comings because in his mind he had none. Not even the fact he used the system to avoid being drafted for military service during the Viet Nam war. We have a true patriot in Newt. LOL! Oh I mean a true hypocrite and a probable felon had it not been for a blanket forgiveness by a President of no concern in today's world.

A bad Democrat is even better than a good Republican!!

jm...

Your point ? His "dying" first wife is still alive, so she mustn't have been "dying" in much of a rush.

Where did I state his first wife was the one giving last week's interview ? And you instruct me to "read the entire story...before "spewing" my "uninformed crap", while you "spewed" yours without reading my entire 4 sentences.

Exactly. I don't really care about a politician's personal life or what they do consensually behind closed doors, UNLESS they persecute others for the same thing. That makes them hypocrites and liars, and unworthy of being in any position of power.

#2.1 That describes Newt.

Democrats are not held to a higher standard. I give you the examples of Clinton (Bill that is) and any Kennedy. And yall worship them.

WORSHIP? Clinton was brought up on impeachment charges and there's only one Kennedy in the Presidency and that was before his affairs were widely known. No wonder you're befuddled.

I don't give a rat's ass about somebody's personal life UNLESS they are running on a "family values" platform like every republican or a scumbags who trash their families so they get their rocks off with their bimbos.

Democrats are not held to a higher standard.

That's because they're not out there lecturing us on family values, while cheating on their sick wives with their next wives-to-be. I was astounded to read that Gingrinch had delivered a speech blaming the lack of school prayer for a decline in the morals of teenagers the day after he told his second wife that he wanted an open marriage.

So, Barry, fidelty is more important for you than competence or any other qualification for president? You are not deep if you select only on that one item.

If Newt would win the presidency .. how could anyone call his wife the first LADY .. maybe they will have to call her the first Slut

dadjim,Did you have sex with her, did you watch her have sex with anyone? Where did you get such sensitive, private information? Would you be up to calling Michelle the first ho'? Same thing man.

There must be a special place in hell for crooked Cops, disgraced Priests and corrupt politicians... there has to be!!, 'cause they seem to prosper here on Earth?

Newt has more lives, has been given more chances for redemption in the GOPper than can be discerned by pure logic or random chance ... unless, there is divine intervention. At least that's how he acts.

Conservatives are obsessed and have talked about their family and moral values for 30 years !!! WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE DOING IN POLITICS ??? Morons like them should never be in politics because this is not what politics are about !!!

Politics are about social changes, politics are about what can be done for the well being of the country and its people!

@!$%# your stupid family values ! it is a waste of our time !

Public service announcement: When it comes to crap sandwiches - Newt takes his straight, No bread!

... when Osborne started talking to former Gingrich staffers and his ex-wife Jackie, he got some explosive material on Gingrich's alleged hypocrisy and moral failings, and the magazine rushed the story to publication before the 1984 election.

Here's how Mother Jones recounted Newt's hospital visit with Jackie, who was her husband's former high school math teacher:

Jackie had undergone surgery for cancer of the uterus during the 1978 campaign, a fact Gingrich was not loath to use in conversations or speeches that year. After the separation in 1980, she had to be operated on again, to remove another tumor While she was still in the hospital, according to Howell, "Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad, and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of out of it, and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it.

The source was Lee Howell, a former Gingrich campaign press secretary who had been the editor of the student newspaper at West Georgia College, where Gingrich was a history professor. As Osborne told me this week: "Most Gingrich staff people felt burned by the time they left. Howell was one of those people. But I also got [the story] from Jackie."

Interestingly, the hospital bed visit was hardly the most salacious detail in the piece — though some of the other material was based on anonymous sources:

One former aide describes approaching a car with Gingrich's daughters in hand, only to find the candidate with a woman, her head buried in his lap. The aide quickly turned and led the girls away. Another former friend maintains that Gingrich repeatedly made sexual advances to her when her husband was out of town. On one occasion, he visited under the guise of comforting her after the death of a relative, and instead tried to seduce her. In certain circles in the mid-1970s, Gingrich was developing a reputation as a ladies' man.

A few months later, after the Mother Jones piece had been sent around en masse by Gingrich's political enemies — and placed in the Congressional Record by giddy Democrats — he told the Washington Post: "I am not going to argue every point of that story, but I will say that it painted a picture of me that is essentially untrue."

That same Post profile quoted Jackie herself giving a slightly different version of the story (one that doesn't mention any legal pad):

"He can say that we had been talking about [a divorce] for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise," says Jackie Gingrich, in a telephone interview from Carrollton. "He's a great wordsmith … He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery … To say I gave up a lot for the marriage is the understatement of the year."

Asked if, in fact, he handled the divorce as insensitively as portrayed, Gingrich responded: "All I can say is when you've been talking about divorce for 11 years and you've gone to a marriage counselor, and the other person doesn't want the divorce, I'm not sure there is any sensitive way to handle it."

Asked about the hospital story, Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler told me: "He was taking his two daughters to see their mother in the hospital. When they were at the hospital they got in an argument. That is the extent of what happened." Asked about any yellow legal pad or discussion of divorce terms, Tyler said: "That didn't happen. It was unfortunate and regrettable that he got in an argument."

After the Mother Jones piece, every big Gingrich profile touched on the hospital encounter with Jackie.

In 1992, Gingrich, then House minority whip, faced a challenge from Tony Center, a Democratic attorney. Center ran a brutal ad against Gingrich saying that the congressman "delivered divorce papers to his wife the day after her cancer operation." It went on: "the same Newt Gingrich who used taxpayer money for his limo had to be ordered by the court to pay for kids' heat and electricity. No more perks. No more lies. No more Newt."

IF this ain't true - Then Newt should haul then into court, sue them for Millions of Dollars ... defamation of character and being unapologetic liars. That'll make them keep quiet!

Darn right!

If he can use it against other people then he makes it a relevant topic of discussion.

I'm pretty sure Clinton got impeached for perjuring himself in front of a grand jury, and not for getting a blow job. If you or I were found guilty of perjury, a prison sentence would be in order. But apparently the government is immune from its own laws.

What really gets on me is those morons that keep talking about their moral and family values ??? What does this has to do with politics ????? NOTHING !!! moral and familiy values are PERSONNAL !!!! Also these conservatives sound just like muslims and talibans trying to impose their personnal views on all of us.

Also it is time that americans learn the meaning of moral values which are honnesty, courage, generosity, integrity and compassion ! These are moral values ! Gay issues, abortion and others have nothing to do with moral values, they are SOCIAL ISSUES !

I am amazed at the ignorance, and the stupidity of a large majority of americans!

It is social topics and problems that these morons should talk about because social issues impact everybody's lives ! America has grave social issues ! poverty rates and crime rates are high, education is poor, infrastructures are crumbling, the environment is polluted, ground water is polluted, food supplies are unsafe because of all the pesticides, hormones and antibiotic that people swallow everyday and are slowly poisonned ! THESE, PEOPLE are the topics and the important things to talk about, not those stupid moral values !!!

If people would practice the ethics the Greeks left to society we would be better off. The tenets of the Proximity of Care and Corollary of Care are two that will never harm or allow that person to take advantage of or harm another human being.

The person in the position that sees harm will do what is needed to prevent such harm and of course do no harm. Many in the medical and professional field have lost their practice of these values. The business community are never informed of or could ever practice these tenets and of course you do not teach them as much as they must be a part of who you are. We know firsthand that politicians and lobbyists have never heard of them.

Damn, there goes a lot of pretty good presidents, Paul. Clinton stayed with Hilarous only because of politics, while banging everything except the keyhole in the door. How many wives would stay with a husband was caught getting a bj and admitting it? With power, a lot of people accept gold diggers' favors. That doesn't make it right, but it happens.

Why do you hate preachers?:-) Is that your main activity?

Or Dwight Eisenhower or as you put it - who knows how many more.

And the same journalistic tactics should be used for all candidates, not just one party over the other.

1) Gingrich will not be the nominee. If he is and there is no Independent or other viable non-Dem candidate I will not vote.

2) "Family Values" hasn't been the Republican's focus (o.k. besides Santorum who hasn't a prayer in 2012) since the early 1990s. If Gingrich yaps even once about family values he deserves every bit of tongue lashing and bad press he gets.

Jason -Women will not vote for Newt. I don't care what generation you are, women don't like cheaters, esp the ones who leave "sick" wives and marry trophy wives for a better shot at lucrative contracts and money.

Sally, you're wrong. Women do vote for cheaters, and chronic ones at that. I give you Bill Clinton as an example. They put him in office twice knowing his history. Then the Dems and the media skewered the 21 year old girl he made submit to him.

Sally, I get what you mean, however his present Clairol wife (ex-mistress) is NO TROPHY!!! I get ill thinking of these two in bed together. Both of them are pretty disgusting in more ways than I can count!

JG - she's looks alarmingly like McCain's wife. Both similar in sooooo many ways!

somebefuddledperson - the 21 year old he played with skewered herself. She cheated with her professor before Clinton and told everyone she was going to Washington to get Clinton. She was no angel.

Jason - where have you been living? Family Values is still the GOP mantra as they try to dictate who can marry who; that women have no rights; etc. Nothing changes with that group!

Keep on seeking sanity. You are blaming Monica for Bill Clinton's problems? All I can say is.....WOW! Could we blame Callista for Gingrich's problems also? I didn't think so.

@Dasvet wasn't Callista a part of it? she's a devout catholic and committed adultry with newt for 6 years so I would just like to say ...WOW! also. The shameless Newt and Cuniligus Callista is simply too funny for words. Someone bought up John Edwards and his very wrong deeds and they are right what he did was wrong...But he atleast has the good sense to leave. He's not running anymore for any office that I am aware of, Least of all POTUS. And he sure as heck isn't blaming the media for the dirt he did.

fordays, Edwards lost, he didn't make that decision for himself, he was forced out. As for Marianne Gingrich, didn't she run with Newt while he was still married to his first wife. Also, from the pictures of Marianne, she has all the symptoms of an alcoholic or drug user. She has no corroborating proof of her charges, so why do we take her spiel as the gospel and run with it? As for Callista, she does appear a little strange. If the poster I was referencing to can blame Monica for Clinton's problems, freeing Clinton of blame, then why not blame Callista for Newt's problems. Hypocrisy is the point. Seems that a lot of people share some blame, but treat a dem, the same as you would a republican, it isn't happening in Newt's case. Is that not reasonable?

Just a word about JFK and his affairs. The republicans love to point this out, in justification, with the logic being, if you supported JFK, then you support Newt Gingrich. What entirely different matters! In the first place, that was then, this is now. Then females were subjected to all sorts of misbehavior that would not be tolerated now. Some even still believed it was OK -- perhaps necessary -- so slap your wife around. Are you arguing, then, that we should return to the double standards and gender discrimination of the 50s? Then too, JFK's affairs were not general public knowledge at the time we voted for him. Had they been, I doubt he would have been elected, especially since he was a Catholic. Remember-- at that time, many, many people would not vote for him because he was a Catholic. Add adulterer to that, and he'd have been a goner. Maybe it's "not fair" to Newt that he was born in an age where secrets are not easily kept, (especially if you are a serial adulterer) but tough luck! -- now we know, and we have every right to judge every aspect of a man before making him president. Also, Kennedy remained married -- perhaps that is more a tribute to Jackie than to him -- but in a distorted patriarchal 1960s kind of way, he was loyal to her. What's worse about Newt is his disloyalty. He never gets divorced until he has his next wife lined up. He's been married about 30 years with about 30 days in between of being single.

Also, I don't remember Kennedy ever preaching about morality, which is where the double standard is. Newt was cheating on his wife while at the same time chastising Clinton for the same thing. To me, this is normally a private matter, until the candidate him/herself brings it up by being hypocritical about it.

Dasvet.

Why don't you do a bit of background checking on Marianne Gingrich. She has MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS.

@Davset I see your point my Bad...Thank you for replying with a relevant post and being cordial about it. I must confess and speak for myself, I didn't find what Mr Clinton was such a big deal when he was caught. But did take a much larger issue with Newt. Simply because he was calling out Clinton on something he himself was very guilty of. Thank you for being civil to me though I was less than. Have a good day.

Thanks fordays. Sometimes, not often, we can agree, civilly, if not politically. In a better world, the media would report, not campaign for one side or the other.

Excuse me, in my last paragraph it should have read HOT HEAD. And in my first paragraph the last sentence should have read......I think we'd have to ALL end up calling her Third Lady.

JG - I'm pretty sure nothing with the term "Lady" would apply to her!

"Callista doesn't care what I do."

...as long as I open a revolving account at Tiffany's and pay for the botox, that is...

Clinton, Kennedy and a lot of others were serial adulterers. That has been established as historical fact. Add to the list LB Johnson and even Dwight D Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt. It appears to be a common thread in our leaders. I'd say their big egos contribute to their moral stupidity.

And let us not forget Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson in the list of In-Famous Adulterers, among others.

Let us not forget J. Edgar Hoover too. The moral soul of the American people and probably the biggest hypocrite and blackmailer in American history all the while immune from racism, blackmail, which by the way is a felony with the action of immediate dismissal for federal employees and a closet gay who held this against others. A man's man indeed and we still name buildings for this hypocrite and total paranoid mommy's boy. IMHO.