Wait...Did I Just Agree with Newt?

Today we have a new guest blog by PH/OO regular firewoman:


I know. You're reading this saying, "I thought she had more sense than that." Or "I thought she was too much a pinko commie feminazi leftist for that." Imagine my own surprise.


I have been avoiding the Republican debates for a number of reasons. First, I'm not a Republican so I'm not going to invest a lot of time into watching a bunch of people I'm highly unlikely to vote for spar with their talking points not really saying much of anything. The three candidates that I might have an interest in did not get any respect anyway (Buddy Roemer and John Huntsman) or will not (Ron Paul), so why bother. I'll just wait until they decide which one it is, and then pay attention. Second, I have Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Saturday Night Live, Morning Joe, and Stephanie Miller to keep me updated on the more humorous or eye-rolling happenings at said debates.


Secondly, what little I have seen has resembled more of a pep rally than a debate. Once upon a time you weren't supposed to cheer, boo, or do anything when in the audience of a presidential debates. Maybe this is just for the Presidential debates, but it gives the whole thing the air of civility, class, and respect that such an occasion deserves. Hearing people cheer for depriving sick people of medical care so they die, or the number of people executed kind of puts me off. (And from the 'pro-life party, no less. But I digress.)



So I was listening to Morning Joe today, waiting for Stephen Colbert's appearance, when I heard the opening question by John King of CNN to Newt Gingrich in Thursday night's debate, asking him if he'd care to comment on the ABC Nightline appearance of his ex-wife, where she claimed Rep. Gingrich had asked her if she would consent to an open marriage. There were many things about his response to that opening question that have been rattling around in my head since then.


Rep. Gingrich opened with, "I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that."


And you know what? He's right. The news media has focused more on infotainment rather actual content that might be beneficial to voters, and rather than getting better because full time all-news networks, it's actually gotten worse. And it's worse on all three news channels. FOX and MSNBC pander to the right and the left, respectively, while CNN latches on to anyone that happens to be flipping by with flashy graphics, and constant reaching out to Facebook and Twitter. Even when one candidate ventures into allegedly hostile territory, they seldom get the grilling they deserve. Take Chuck Todd's interview of Rep. Gingrich where he drops the line about Planned Parenthood providing the most abortions in the US (which is so easily demonstrated to be false, I'm not even going to bother here), or whether Citizens United plays into the negative ad campaigns. Rep. Gingrich disagreed, saying the negative ads being run by 'someone' were just a bunch of millionaires who have gotten together to run negative ads. Both of those, Mr. Todd just lets it all go, no questioning, no challenging.


However, salacious details about a man's sex life? We will go RIGHT after that. Because that's going to keep my property values from falling, stop my retirement accounts losing money, and helping all my friends find jobs. And in many cases, it's our own fault. The long standing journalistic maxim of "if it bleeds, it leads" does refer to the public (i.e. us) and also the need to increase revenue from advertising so we can have news channels that we will watch, but only if the dirty little secrets get aired in public. They do it because we watch.


It comes a shock to no one probably that I am no prude. People want to have open marriages, okay. What two, three, or four consenting adults decide to do with their spare time and who they do it with doesn't concern me really. As long as I'm afforded the same courtesy, and I can still afford groceries and don't have to worry about some guy blowing up the next plane I get on, knock yourselves out.


But, let's move on. Rep. Gingrich, after the ridiculous standing ovation dies down, continues. "Every person in here, knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife, and make it two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign, is as close to despicable, as anything I can imagine."


Um, wait. For someone who has run in the past and is (up until about this point) using sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman only as one of his key platforms, Rep. Gingrich has a funny definition of the word despicable. As one of the many people in Washington leading the charge against President Clinton over his affair and subsequent lying about the affair with Monica Lewinsky, and if memory serves, right ABOUT the same time he was also having an affair (never mind the part about asking Mrs. Gingrich the Second for special favors), there's another word that springs to mind: hypocritical.


(I would also call having an affair with Mistress 1 while Wife 1 was fighting cancer, then divorcing Wife 1.0, translating Mistress 1.0 into Wife 2.0, then having an affair with Mistress 2.0/Wife 3.0 while Wife 2.0 gets diagnosed with MS despicable. But that's just me.)


At the time, I recall stating the same thing I stated above. I didn't care who Clinton was fucking. But Rep. Gingrich certainly did. He thought that this "personal pain" that the Clintons were going through at the time was the perfect tool to discredit a political adversary. Now that the tables are turned, suddenly using "painful things" as political tools is despicable.


Well, he can not have it both ways. He can not question a rival's values, morality, and ethics by revealing private issues into the spotlight of an ever-hungry media machine when it serves his purpose, and then cry fowl when his own sword is turned against you. John King lobbed him a softball, allowing him respond to the allegation with a little bit of class, (something ABC apparently did not do) and had he stopped after the first quote, we all could have probably moved on. But since he continued, those of us who don't forget fairly recent history have no choice but to step up and cry foul.


So to recap. I don't care who Gingrich fucked, and he is right that personal issues such as these have no place in a debate that is supposed to be focused on issues that concern us all. Who Gingrich fucked doesn't effect me in the least. But he has no right to feel victimized here. He should maybe focus on that Bible he claims to have read and Galatians 6: 7-9. He should have plenty of light coming in through the glass house.