Friday, March 09, 2007
|
|
Newt's Confession to Dr. Dobson
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
10:24 AM
|
|
The second half of Newt Gingrich's interview with Dr. Dobson is up today. You can listen to it here.
While Newt spent the first half of the show talking about terrorism, the interview is garnering lots of attention because it also includes an admission of an affair (during the same time he was going after Bill Clinton for the Lewinski scandal). As the AP reports:
"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."
Newt's admission may imply he is, in fact, preparing for a Presidential run. Smart politics demands that you get negative information behind you. And because he is the one coming forward to tell the story, he can frame it in the least unfavorable light. He also gets to pick the time and venue. A good rule in politics is: When in doubt, you bring it out. It sounds to me like he is seriously considering a run ...
|
|
Sorry about that. To finish...
"But when it's a conservative, [I] don't really care what he or she does." ?? Please don't try to put words in my mouth. Your generalizations don't fit anybody that I know of, JoJo. |
|
Thanks for explaining that you don't care who sleeps with whom, but you, JoJo, are the one who stated that Newt is sleeping around so much. To quote you, "...or Newt wouldn't be [present tense] sleeping around so much." I'm sorry if you seem to be a walking/ talking contradiction to your own post about people and their private lives. Or am I mistaken -- I didn't know Newt was doing that until you filled us in on this latest about his "private life." Or are you just mailiciously gossipping with this latest tidbit?
And why the hasty generalizations about conservatives? The "rules [I] have personally established for the country"?? "But when it's a conservative, [I] don't really care what he or she does"they do"?? |
|
I don't really care who sleeps with whom..I never did, even when the Clinton endured the conservative pile on in his second term. I feel that private life should be private; the best leaders are not always the best-intentioned leaders.
What I mean by hypocrisy (thanks for the spelling) is that lefties like me don't relly care what consenting adults do in private, they care when conservatives float up to the surface and condemn people like Clinton, Kennedy, et. al., and then later defend anybody on the conservative side who does anything they like.
I felt sorry for Ted Haggard, and defended him personally - I would attack all the sanctimonious conservatives who bang their fists on the table when issues concerning gay culture come up, or who use these blogs to quote bible verses ad nauseum when the subject is gay marriage.
Liberals wouldn't make a fuss about Newt or anybody else if conservatives didn't spend so much time sanctimoniously dictating the moral direction, or their idea of it, to the entire country. Newt is the poster boy for this. What I was saying is that it has become apparent that the sanctimoniousness and finger-pointing at the more sidelined elements of our society stops when it involves anybody who might have enough power to actually get elected.
You can spend all day making lists of liberals who bend the rules you have personallly established for the country, but when it's a conservative you don't really care what he or she does.
Liberals are not attacking Newt, or Giuliani. or anybody else's private life, they are saying you can't have it both ways. They are attacking your double standard.
|
|
|
That sentence should read, "The list is long." |
|
JoJo, I think the word you were after is HYPOCRISY -- spell check. OR, it's in the dictionary right next to the pictue of Ted Kennedy and some other heroes of yours.
You know, JoJo you and some of the other wooly-brained lefties on this page can't seem to get it through your noggins that it's you guys who are so in love with your perverts. You keep electing them every time. The listlong. At least when they show up on the Republican side of the aisle they generally do the right thing and resign.
JoJo, you mention "Newt... sleeping around so much." Hey, if you've got some new facts, bring 'em forward. I think you've got a real active imagination -- or [mystery music swells] maybe some secret desires... Have you done some zipper checks lately or what brought on this new accusation against Newt? JoJo? |
|
|
Let's face it - these serial adulterers you guys love so much when they're on the right could be selling kiddy porn on the local corner and you would be excusing them, particularly if they claimed to be religious and conservative. More so if you thought they could get elected. |
|
When you said, "Your protests about the values of others just show you to be a moralistic busybody" it made me wonder which liberal post you copied.
Who talks about the values of others more than conservatives? Who, then, deserves the title of "moralistic busybody?"
Listen, the reason people eat up these stories is not about the sex, everybody likes sex (except conservatives apparently, who think it's so awful and dirty it should be saved for marriage) it's about the hypocrasy - HYPOCRASY!
As for the person who said they are glad that Dobson forgave Gingrich -- Huh? Who is Dobson to forgive anybody? I thought you all were about universal deities? When was Dobson admitted to the holy trinity?
As I said before, Conservative women must be either desparate or just not very fussy or Newt wouldn't be sleeping around so much. |
|
Do we really want to spend time having candidates speak of their personal history? What if someone devorced 30 years ago? Are we going to have reporters dredge up folks personal lives and humiliate people who are not even in politics?
Newt, we're not going to wait forever for you to ride in on a white horse. If you want it, let us know. Even you'll be shocked at how many folks appreciate all you've done for Amnerica. |
|
If Clinton and or Obama wins in '08, and The Daily Show fails to go after them, the show is toast. They succeed by going after the folks in power in a funny way, like all good comedians.
The 1/2 Hour News hour is no threat to The Daily Show. It is on Fox News Channel on a Sunday night, and in that capacity, I enjoy the show. I also enjoy how the mere existence of this little show inspires such contempt from some of those posting here. Why? Really, it's not that big a threat. |
|
I'm glad to hear of "Newt the Poot's" repentace and stuff, we're all sinners saved by grace right? But since I want a Republican to actually WIN the next election, I hope he keeps his hat as far away from the ring as possible.
Newt is smart and all that stuff, but he is the guy who went after the mysteriously (to conservatives) popular former President Clinton. Add to that the insurmountable double-standard applied to Republican politicians, and Newt will simply not do very well in the general election. Forget that Newt never lied under oath as Clinton did. It doesn't matter. Since he is a Republican, what he did is much worse. Just look at the Libby thing. A possible lengthly prison term looms for Libby because of a foggy memory, while Berger gets a wrist-slap for actual theft.
Besides, Newt is more useful using his intellect to pull stings behind the scenes. Republicans need to consider strong candidates who can actually win. The double standards are unfair, but our party is better, so we should expect (and try to live up to) a higher standard anyway. We just have to try a lot harder than the other side. |
|
you really do take the cake.
you have already admitted in previous posts that some of your conclusions come from your "impressions" of how reality works. impressions are not a valid in a logical argument.
you also have admitted you think there is a vast left wing conspiracy at work in this country.
now you drag out all the old lame conspiracy theories about bill clinton even though a 4 year criminal investigation found that all the "clear violation of laws" you cite were not true.
your arguments are not logical sir, they are the ramblings of a conspiracy nut and that is all.
you act as though the rest of us are stupid and only you know the truth.
the rest of us know you do not think rationally or logically so sell your arrogance and delusion of superiority somewhere else. |
|
According to the conservative values, a person like Newt Gingrich, and Giuliani can't rum for office, they have to much sex to confess, they represent the hypocrisy of family values. Amen
|
|
You should perhaps study logic before you accuse others of violating it. I suspect it's just a word to you, not a discipline. And it's the wrong word, too, since what I offered was not a logical syllogism, but simply an assessment of human motives.
"So if I don't believe in YOUR social conservative values, it's because I'm guilty of some aberrant behavior, or that I believe some aberrant behavior is acceptable. "
That's not what I said, not even close. It's not the disagreement, but rather the sense you have of being intruded upon by the disagreement, that I'm using as the basis of my assessment. In your mind, I disagree with you -- not even with you specifically, just with the point of view you espouse -- therefore I'm "telling you how to live." No, pal, I'm not telling you how to live; I'm expressing an opinion about public morals. But you're really touchy about certain opinions, and I'm drawing conclusions from the sensitivity.
But you'll never admit to a distinction between what I said and what you heard, will you?
I didn't think so. Guys like you never do, and it's not because you're not capable. The same ordinary human defensiveness that makes you perceive intrusiveness where none is intended, makes you perceive an unfair characterization where none has been made.
"The wicked flee where none pursue..." |
|
You're kidding with that logic, right?
So despite the fact that social conservatives are trying to interject their values into everyone else's life, it's the other people who are wrong because they are all guilty.
Now that is rich.
So if I don't believe in YOUR social conservative values, it's because I'm guilty of some aberrant behavior, or that I believe some aberrant behavior is acceptable.
How about the fact that perhaps I don't believe in YOUR values?
I'm not gay, but I have no problem accepting others being gay. So by your definition I'm somehow guilty of something because I accept gays. Hmm. How about Dick Cheney? Is he guilty too? |
|
{Sigh} Ok, class, listen carefully this time, because you've been told before but clearly didn't learn the lesson.
Bill Clinton was not under investigation because of ADULTERY. There is no federal law against adultery, nor is there any DC statute against it. Therefore, there is no irony when an adulterer is found to have been involved with the investigation.
Bill Clinton was under investigation because of clear, obvious, and egregious violations of law that occurred in his White House tenure, and also during his tenure in the Arkansas State House. Investigative files containing highly protected private information were found in the White House where they had no business being; that's a violation of law. Millions of dollars flowed from foreign governments into Democrat political campaigns; that's a clear violation of law. Witnesses in lawsuits were offered bribes and threatened in order to pervert their testimony; that's a clear violation of law. Bribes were exchanged; that's a clear violation of law. And back in Arkansas, a bank was defrauded and went under, losing the life savings of many investors; that was a clear violation of law.
Adultery is not a small thing; but the Clinton investigations were not about adultery.
Get it? |
|
"More importantly, many profess to be SOCIAL conservatives. In other words a bunch of people telling the rest of the world how to live."
You give yourself away badly with sentences like this one.
Social conservatives always seem particularly nosey and bossy to those whose own behavior would be considered unseemly if social conservatism were the order of the day. That's human nature. But that doesn't occur because social conservatives are unusually prone to intrusion; not at all. Rather, it occurs because the guilty always see fingers pointed their way, even when there are none.
|
|
"You people wonder why the Fox "political satire" show failed badly, while The Daily Show just gets better and better?"
I wasn't wondering at all, but since you brought it up...
...it's because our side is pretty serious but basically nice, and your side is a bunch of vicious hyenas hungry for meat.
The simple fact that you refer to the Daily Show as something funny proves it. |
|
"Does anybody actually think Bill Clinton is behaving himself these days?"
based on what you and i know about newt's past, why is he excused?
maybe ted haggard can be forgiven next...
but yes, shame on hillary for forgiving bill.
hooray for dobbson to forgive newt!
this will play like gangbustrs for the republicans in 2008!
l |
|
Wonderful personal attack. Typical.
I come here to get opposing views. Some of which are interesting and some of which are laughable.
My hatreds and arrogance. Judging others.
Hmm.
I thought that I was only commenting on the typical comments that I see at this site.
Most of the folks here profess to be conservatives. More importantly, many profess to be SOCIAL conservatives. In other words a bunch of people telling the rest of the world how to live.
I am only making observations on those remarks and those pontifications.
On a personal level, I could give a rat's patoot about anyone's married life, etc. My wife and I have been happily married 39 years this year. At the same time both of our fathers had been married 3 times. Affairs while they were married. I could care less.
At the same time, I'm not running around condemning others for their marital escapades.
Judging others. Try looking in a mirror. |
|
Who could possibly be desperate enough to sleep with Newt Gingrich?
I'm curious about these people (Giuliani, for example) who seem to go through women like Baseball cards...what's their secret? |
|
|
dogjudge, your hatred and arrogance does not make you anyone's judge of character. your protests about the failings of other people just shows you to be a shallow busybody , and that you think that other's are concerned about your moral judgments about them demonstrates your own narcissism. That leaves you being the true hypocrite. |
|
Justifying that whatever Newt did is okay for this reason or for that reason. That would be acceptable if you left it at that.
But none of you appear to be able to do that.
You instantly start with how bad Bill Clinton was/is. You've even got past his lying part and simply condemn him for the affair with Monica.
Yep, typical Christian hypocrites (No, I'm not saying all Christians are hypocrites.)
I always love you folks. Go to church on Sunday and tell everyone how holy you all are. Then you go back to your normal Monday through Saturday when you lie, cheat, and commit adultery. (There's got to be a country and western song there somewhere.)
And you wonder why your kid's can't understand your values. |
|
Hey WILL, BONNIE and some of you others, I don't hear anybody here -- least of all James Dobson --excusing Newt's infidelity. Newt is confessing personal failure with respect to his moral code. Apparently, he believes the confession should be as open and public as the transgression, and why not?
Here lies a vast difference between Newt and Clinton. Bill Clinton seems to espouse no code for sexual conduct, unless it would be, "If it feels good, do it." Does anybody actually think Bill Clinton is behaving himself these days?
If one has truly offended the multitudes, then to the multitudes he should come clean. If that's what Newt is doing, I applaud it, and will now wait and see. I hope his contrition is real, just as I hoped that President Clinton's was.
But Bill Clinton, on the other hand, seems to have no sexual moral code. Does anybody here actually think Clinton is behaving himself these days?
You can believe there has been true change when behavior really does change, and by all accounts, Newt is a changed man.
Laugh all you want to, DSMITH, about finding God in prison, etc. Remember Chuck Colson? Totally changed person when he came out of prison, and nobody's doubting it after these many years. Oh, and by the way, DSMITH, this is not an election year. Check your calendar. |
|
|
what is this another one of "nasty newt" wily moments? he is no more contrite than any other "gobbler" as far as i am concerned. how convenient that the self-righeous, smooth talking dobson is so willing to forgive newt, he and falwell of course, but when clinton and jackson asked to be forgiven and were forgiven by their spouses, they were both villified by these hippocrits. please give me a break. what is it just right wingers are forgiven for their transgressions? how convenient just so you can be elected. maybe the electorate and constituents will see right through their little charade. what an insult of one's "intel". newt's probably somewhere laughing his head off at this one (no pun intended). i'm sure he'll start another class at some college somewhere on how to get over on anyone, just by saying i've found God. |
|
the stunning moral hypocrisy of the republican party could not be more evident than this example.
i would praise newt's courage had it come say, oh...about 8 years ago while the party of family values was impeachiing a president for no underlying crime
but newt was too busy saving the nation from an adulterer. |
|
has found God and prayer like inmates do when they go to prison or before parole board. Why should we not believe Newt? Is it bad to use God and prayer for selfish purposes in an election year? Is it bad to evolve your thinking on gay-rights or abortion in a election year?
Remember people - its important to get your guy in the White House. Being "principled" will only get you a CNN or Fox News contributor job. |
|
[Lydia on March 9, 2007 4:33 PM in
Earth to Synthesizer]"That is the point of this blog post."
I don't understand.
"Did you want to hysterically announce the end of WW2 today as well?"
No.
On the Dobson program, Gingrich said something like the U.S. is
in a war with radical Islam, IIRC.
Speaking of world wars:
Barzun, Jacques. 1941. _Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage_
(Boston: Little, Brown and Company), 420pp., in the chapter "The Uses
of
Darwinism," 100-102, 106, 109. On 100-101:
No one who has not waded through some sizeable
part of the literature of the period 1870-1914 has any
conception of the extent to which it is one long call for blood,
nor of the variety of parties, classes, nations, and races whose
blood was separately and contradictorily clamored for
by the enlightened [sic] citizens of the ancient
civilization of Europe. .... No wonder Bismark had a
hard time reining in the impetuosity of his officers, fed
as they were on Treitschke, Haeckel, Ratzenhofer,
Gumplowicz, Ammon, and other "Social Darwinists."
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1991. _Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in
Natural History_ (New York: W.W. Norton & Company), 540pp. On 421-2,
428:
First, he [William Jennings Bryan] learned that the
martial view of Darwinism had been invoked by most
German intellectuals and military leaders as a
justification for war and future domination. .... But
when he [Bryan] said that Darwinism had been widely
protrayed [sic] as a defense of war, domination, and
domestic exploitation, he was right.
1987 Hsu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
Van Valen denies that Darwin espoused social
Darwinism. I disagree, but I shall not quibble over
the issue. The fact remains that Darwinism has a
social origin. As a recent student of Darwinism has
pointed out, "the extrapolation from Darwinism to
either humanity or society are not separable from
Darwin's own views, nor are they chronologically
subsequent. They are integral" (Young, 1985).
Darwin did not fool all of his contemporaries. I cite
Frederick Engels in my Reply to Schoch's Comment
(above) that the whole Darwinist teaching of the
struggle for existence is but a "conjurer's trick."
Arguments on the basis of the social philosophy of
his time were the basis for Darwin's interpretation of
the history of life, and his theory was then
transferred back to provide the scientific basis in
support of social Darwinism as the eternal law of
human society. "The puerility of this procedure is so
obvious," Engels wrote in 1875, "that not a word
need be said about it."
I wish Engels had dwelt more on the "puerility of this
procedure," so as to show the true color of "the
argument of noise and sneers with which
(Darwinists) tried to put down... everyone... who did
not subscribe to the infallibility of the God Darwin
and his prophet Huxley," as Tristram said in 1860.
Darwin has made mistakes, and his mistakes have
brought misery to humanity. Facing the bias and
obstinacy of Darwinists, I feel almost tempted to join
my colleague, Paul Feyerabend (1975, p. 7), who
proposed to lead "three cheers to the
fundamentalists in California who succeeded in
having a dogmatic formulation of the theory of
evolution removed from the textbooks and an
account of Genesis included."
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
is Darwin, or Hitler, today's most-famous Darwinist?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1138681336.761356.170100%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Darwin: "the New Zealander... compares his future fate with that of the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Hitler & Darwin URLs
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7bb70dd31802664e?hl=en&
|
|
|
Good work! While you guys are busy responding to the myriad transgressions of your party by whining "Clinton did it," Hillary is measuring for new drapes in the oval office. Then you'll have 4-8 more years of Clinton material to whine about. |
|
|
|
|
Never heard of that Fox show youre referring to so I never wondered why. Would you like to characterize infidelity differently?? Is there a soothsayer defintion worth hearing? I have always known what infidelity is. Do you need clarification? |
|
"Come to grips with the infidelity thing" -- more pure comedy gold from the family values party!
You people wonder why the Fox "political satire" show failed badly, while The Daily Show just gets better and better? Simple: its because your side provide such incredible material. |
|
|
Is this like Brittany shaving her head or Paris not wearing panties. Newt is trying to get attention? I think even a public figure should keep some things private. I don't want to know! |
|
You must be good at writing prose, because I can almost picture those vains bulging on your neck as you break the keyboard typing youR vehement.
Notice how I really didnt buy his admonition as sincere? Until I hear it that way I would not vote for him either because it shows lack of judgement on his part. Now I like everything else about the man. And compared to the rest of RINO's in the pack, Newt's shortcomings are far and few between.
So, my guess is that you do a lot of repentent talks with your own wife after shooting from the hip like you apparently do? NOTHING PERSONAL! |
|
|
This country needs his experience, intellect and innovation. He still sounds like he needs to come to grips with the infidelity thing. The shame is for democrats, since they have been saying "its only sex" for so long when it came to their guru Clinton...their powder is soaking wet on this issue. In fact, one would think that this admonition to human frailty might even endear him to some on the left. |
|
|
|