Vows are vows; and they can be as easily broken w/o an 'affair'.
Would offer that without children to impact; a family to consider - and should we count the 'silent' ways; marriage vows can be broken within a marriage sans divorce - that it is perhaps the 'wiser' at this point; to take a higher road per making judgments about Newt's decisions and perhaps his wife's/or wives as well and as the case may be.
Whatever. . .
I believe I understand where you are coming from. While I do understand some of the premises you touched on, at the end of the day I am left thinking that there comes a certain point in the quest for defense, that taking anything from the past into account becomes an infraction of sorts, or is otherwise forbidden.
Don’t hold infidelity against him. Why King David did that.
Don’t hold infidelity against him, because there are many ways to be unfaithful.
Don’t worry about his prior statements on global warming, a lot of people did that.
Don’t worry about his statements on illegal aliens. He’s not the only one making those either.
At some point I have to ask, is there anything at all we can hold a candidate accountable for?
I’m sure you didn’t mean this, but it seems that’s very close to where you are headed with Newt. That can’t be right.
Why vote for Newt vs Obama, if we can’t hold people accountable? If our rules for our guy are so broad so as to prevent holding him accountable for anything, how can we justify holding anyone accountable?
At the end of the day, either things are wrong or they are right. At the end of the day, either there are grounds for measuring who is good and who is not, or everyone is good and nobody is bad.