Newt just managed to spin the "open marriage" thing into a positive.

[cgroupman]

Quote from Brass:

Hart, Edwards and Spitzer were flayed politically. They became non-players. What was there left for the media to do? Meanwhile, Gingrich is too dumb to die.

Yeah, I have to agree with some of this too. The democrats were burned pretty bad by the MSM, and, yes, they probably deserved it. If not for what they did, just the fact that they were so damn stupid to engage in kind of stuff in such a way as to get easily caught. I'm not defending any of these guys in any way. And, no it's not better to just not get caught, it's just the stupidity of getting caught doing it in the first place.

BTW, I would never call Gingrich dumb. Many things maybe, but definitely not dumb.


c

 

[Epic]

Quote from Maverick74:

There is a difference. We tend to weight things more heavily in the present then in the past. Those democrats had the scandal going on at that EXACT time. This scandal with Newt is 15 years old.

The media pulled the same stunt on Rand Paul describing an event where he smoked pot in college and kidnapped some sorority girl. That was over 20 years ago! And yet they brought it up night after night after night. Now, had he done that last month, sure, report it, it's newsworthy I guess. That's the difference.

I don't think that is a fair comparison. A single example of stupidity that happened 15-20 years ago is not newsworthy. Everyone does something stupid now and then. But a pattern speaks to the character of a man. This is not the Democrat party, this is the GOP we are talking about. Things like family values really matter to the vast majority of GOP voters. The party is currently pushing for a marriage amendment, and most party officials and voters believe that divorce and having children out of wedlock are the root cause of many of our problems.

The fact is that Newt must be vetted, and moral fiber matters to GOP voters. The Cain train would still be going if that weren't the case. When Ron Paul accuses Newt of serial hypocrisy, he isn't just talking about a single act of indiscretion from 15 years ago, he is referring to pages worth of examples both on policy and in Newt's personal life.

Women voters are quickly becoming the most influential voting block in America. Obama won largely due to support from women. This stuff matters to women whether it happened 15 years ago or not. And there are literally millions of women out there who are just now hearing about this stuff for the first time. Women closely following politics is a relatively recent occurrence. Most of them weren't paying much attention to who the speaker of the house was 20 years ago.

Also, for anyone to suggest that his 2nd ex-wife's claims have no credibility, is simply ludicrous. Does anyone really believe that Newt wouldn't ask his wife to just accept his infidelity?

The GOP is playing with fire if they think they can run a candidate who is viewed unfavorably by women by a 2:1 margin and rising. With those numbers it is literally impossible for Newt to beat Obama. That is just statistical reality.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from Epic:

I don't think that is a fair comparison. A single example of stupidity that happened 15-20 years ago is not newsworthy. Everyone does something stupid now and then. But a pattern speaks to the character of a man. This is not the Democrat party, this is the GOP we are talking about. Things like family values really matter to the vast majority of GOP voters. The party is currently pushing for a marriage amendment, and most party officials and voters believe that divorce and having children out of wedlock are the root cause of many of our problems.

The fact is that Newt must be vetted, and moral fiber matters to GOP voters. The Cain train would still be going if that weren't the case. When Ron Paul accuses Newt of serial hypocrisy, he isn't just talking about a single act of indiscretion from 15 years ago, he is referring to pages worth of examples both on policy and in Newt's personal life.

Women voters are quickly becoming the most influential voting block in America. Obama won largely due to support from women. This stuff matters to women whether it happened 15 years ago or not. And there are literally millions of women out there who are just now hearing about this stuff for the first time. Women closely following politics is a relatively recent occurrence. Most of them weren't paying much attention to who the speaker of the house was 20 years ago.

Also, for anyone to suggest that his 2nd ex-wife's claims have no credibility, is simply ludicrous. Does anyone really believe that Newt wouldn't ask his wife to just accept his infidelity?

The GOP is playing with fire if they think they can run a candidate who is viewed unfavorably by women by a 2:1 margin and rising. With those numbers it is literally impossible for Newt to beat Obama. That is just statistical reality.

Epic, no man. You are not getting this. It is the "candidates" themselves who have to go after Newt's character, not the media. The media is not running against Newt, the other candidates are. The media has an obligation, an oath if you will, to report news that is "accurate, factual and timely". They live and die by this creed. There are plenty of "recent" examples the media can use if they want to accurately go after Newt. Using an ex-wife from 20 years ago is absolutely ludicrous. Max is right. You even said it yourself, there is a "pattern". Well, if there is a pattern, there must be many examples. If there are many examples, use something RECENT! Look, I'm being a semi-hard ass about this because I went to journalism school and I would be thrown out if I pulled that stunt.

 

[Brass]

Quote from cgroupman:

...BTW, I would never call Gingrich dumb. Many things maybe, but definitely not dumb.

I think he's dumb because he's not as smart as he thinks. He underestimates the intgelligence of others and lets his guard down. People who are too clever by half usually stumble over their own shoelaces. Ih he genuinely had some humility, he would be a force to contend with.

 

[Max E.]

Also..... asking Newt about the fact that he got divorced, and whether or not he cheated on his wife is somewhat of a legitimate question......

asking an ex-wife what Newt may or may not have said 15 years ago when he was getting divorced, and then confronting him on what he supposedly said is not legitimate, how the fuck do you prove that?

Quote from Maverick74:

Epic, no man. You are not getting this. It is the "candidates" themselves who have to go after Newt's character, not the media. The media is not running against Newt, the other candidates are. The media has an obligation, an oath if you will, to report news that is "accurate, factual and timely". They live and die by this creed. There are plenty of "recent" examples the media can use if they want to accurately go after Newt. Using an ex-wife from 20 years ago is absolutely ludicrous. Max is right. You even said it yourself, there is a "pattern". Well, if there is a pattern, there must be many examples. If there are many examples, use something RECENT! Look, I'm being a semi-hard ass about this because I went to journalism school and I would be thrown out if I pulled that stunt.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

I think he's dumb because he's not as smart as he thinks. He underestimates the intgelligence of others and lets his guard down...

Newt? Or YOU?

LOL!

 

[Epic]

Quote from Maverick74:

Epic, no man. You are not getting this. It is the "candidates" themselves who have to go after Newt's character, not the media. The media is not running against Newt, the other candidates are. The media has an obligation, an oath if you will, to report news that is "accurate, factual and timely". They live and die by this creed. There are plenty of "recent" examples the media can use if they want to accurately go after Newt. Using an ex-wife from 20 years ago is absolutely ludicrous. Max is right. You even said it yourself, there is a "pattern". Well, if there is a pattern, there must be many examples. If there are many examples, use something RECENT! Look, I'm being a semi-hard ass about this because I went to journalism school and I would be thrown out if I pulled that stunt.

OK, if you simply saying that the media should be verifying facts, that is one thing. I thought you were suggesting that because this stuff happened 15 years ago, it was irrelevant. I'm suggesting that it is a necessary part of vetting him as a candidate. As much as people want to claim that his infidelity is old news, it is only old news to people who were around and following politics that long ago.

I've had numerous people ask me what all this baggage is that everyone talks about with Newt, because that is all that anyone will say. Most people don't want to go out and research, they depend on the news media to tell them. So if we say that the news media is not allowed to report on this topic, then who does. The candidates during the primary are crucified for bringing it up, because they are "making it personal". But the party has an obligation to air all the candidates' dirty laundry before the general. The Democrats won't be crucified for bringing this stuff up. I'm suggesting that this stuff would likely cause the GOP to lose the election because of the women voters. If that is the case, then someone must bring it up, and give those voters a chance to decide.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Maverick74:

No, I'm saying reporting things from 15 to 20 years ago should be not front page headlines or open debates. In journalism school they teach you about the timeliness of news. Things in the present take precedence over things that happened 20 years ago. One of the reasons for this, as you are taught in journalism school, is that old stories from 20 years ago tend to be very unreliable. Facts are usually absent and the stories heavily rely on one person's weak memory of that event. Things that happen recently tend to have the opposite characteristics. They tend to be easy to corroborate and much more reliable.

That's just nonsense. As Epic aptly put it:

Quote from Epic:

...He attacks people for positions they held 15 years ago, suggesting that the proof is in their record, and then when someone tries to hold him to the same standard, he is appalled that they would bring up something that happened 15 years ago, as if he doesn't have a 30 year history to reference...

A man's character in sum is not solely defined by his most recent press conference. He talks about his years and years of experience, but you can only refer to certain events that transpired during those years and not others? And if a presidential contender's ex-wife suddenly has a story she wishes to share, you expect the media to do what? I'm surprised that a trader would be guilty of such recency bias.

 

[Epic]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Also, asking Newt about the fact that he got divorced, and whether he cheated on his wife is somewhat of a legitimate question...... asking an ex-wife what Newt may or may not have said 15 years ago when he was getting divorced, and then confronting him on what he supposedly said is not legitimate, how the fuck do you prove that?

Well, I would argue that just because something is a "he said, she said" situation, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In those cases, the journalist is required to get both sides of the story, perform a background check on all parties involved, and give each party a chance to make their case.

I'm saying that in Newt's case, the benefit of the doubt goes to the ex-wife, because she isn't saying anything that would be out of character for Newt. The first response for most people who are familiar with his history would be, "I can see him doing that."

 

[wjk]

Quote from Brass:

I think he's dumb because he's not as smart as he thinks. He underestimates the intgelligence of others and lets his guard down. People who are too clever by half usually stumble over their own shoelaces. Ih he genuinely had some humility, he would be a force to contend with.

I see you are now looking in the mirror.

You may want to check your spelling again. Payback's a bitch, isn't it?