Replies

Adultery is adultery no matter how hard you want to diminish it. A trip down memory lane here on FR, circa 1996-7, would reveal thousands and thousands (perhaps millions) of indignant posts all connecting the character defect (sin actually) with a diminished capacity to lead. Now, of course, the shoe fits a different foot.

I fully grasp that we're on the brink. My relief with the Mittens trouncing last night has not relieved, in any way, my conviction that we're lost without the firm principles of Judeo-Christian morality, the Constitution and the right people to carry them forward. I am equally convinced that Newt isn't suitable.

Pragmatism has been a political watchword for me for 35 years. I have dutifully pulled the lever, carried water and served the ‘R’ party wherever directed. GWB changed that for me after seven years of steadily compromising away all gains made by grassroots conservatives (citizen patriots) and expanding the magnitude of our problems. Debt load, education bill (Ted's actually - per GWB), the astronomical farm bill, TARP, the Iraq fiasco (duh, Iran was/is the problem). I could go on...

A decade earlier, Newt made his headlines on the backs of groundswell conservatism, not the other way around. If you'll recall, this nation was experiencing a genuine grassroots political earthquake on the issues of socialized medical care, abortion and radical gun control. Average people got up on their hind legs and started doing something. When that freshman class got to DC, the establishment promptly shuffled them into safe obscurity. There was never any heroic confection served by the Dole/Newt team that inspired the masses - they were simply looking to find a leader that mirrored their ideals.

I'm simply done with electing the devil I know.

The time will come when words and principle will matter. Our system is drenched with whores willing to say and do anything to get and retain power. Trusting the nation to compromising careerists has taken us to this point as surely as pulling the lever for Obama because, in the end, it is only the principles that matter.

Flame away - I couldn't care less.

My $0.02.

“I’m simply done with electing the devil I know.”

So you’re done with voting until Jesus is on the ballot? Here’s a clue, he’s never been on the ballot.

Even the Great Reagan was divorced. Quit your bitchin and do your duty and vote.

Here’s another clue, words and principle have always mattered.

A trip down memory lane here on FR, circa 1996-7, would reveal thousands and thousands (perhaps millions) of indignant posts all connecting the character defect (sin actually) with a diminished capacity to lead. Now, of course, the shoe fits a different foot.

There is a great difference in degree. First, Clinton had a long history of womanizing, which he would not admit too. This made him vulnerable to blackmail. This was a very reasonable concern, considering the fact that he lied under oath to cover it up. Secondly, his womanizing was ongoing. Third, he was plausibly accused of rape.

Newt's first marriage began as a relationship between a teacher and a sixteen-year-old boy (Newt). Catholics could consider this marriage null, because of a lack of consent. The failure of his second marriage does not appear to be excusable. But even here, the marriage would be null, because this wife was previously married, and not free to remarry. Still, this doesn't justify his initial relationship with Callista.

Newt and Clinton's behavior patterns are significantly different, but I don't expect Newt's opponents to analyze his behavior objectively.

"A trip down memory lane here on FR, circa 1996-7, would reveal thousands and thousands (perhaps millions) of indignant posts all connecting the character defect (sin actually) with a diminished capacity to lead. Now, of course, the shoe fits a different foot."

I disagree. If there was evidence that Newt was screwing everything he could find a la Clinton, I wouldn't vote for him unless there was no alternative - which is close to where we are at now anyways.

If there was evidence, Mitt & the Establishment would have already revealed it. A man who has a religious conversion in his 60s usually takes it pretty serious. A man in his late 60s tends to think about what legacy he can leave behind more than how many holes he can stick his pecker in.

20 years ago, I wouldn't have voted for Newt for dogcatcher. But this isn't 1992. Newt isn't in his 40s. And I don't believe the values Newt practiced in the 80s are the values he carries now.