Confessions of a Former Man Slut
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Newt Gingrich — Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"Hi, my name is Newt and I'm a former man slut. I'm sorry." I guess that is what I'm to take away from this.
Newt Gingrich was interviewed by James Dobson for Focus on the Family and admitted that he has been less than faithful to his wives. In particular, while he was leading the charge against Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky affair, Gingrich admits that he too was having an affair. Of course, there are big differences here -- Gingrich calls it what it was and Clinton has always debated what "is" is.
Still, you can't help reading this and thinking that he is just beginning his efforts to run for President. And he is super smart enough to know that unless he goes through some Oprahesque journey of healing and reconciliation, his super high negatives are going to stay that way. Reaching out to groups like Focus on the Family and other social conservative groups to repent and admit past sins is not only the right thing to do, but the calculatedly smart thing to do too.
No one else is articulating, at his level, a conservative vision for the future (Romney comes closest). Too bad there is a shortage on the GOP side of men who have stayed faithful to their wives. Isn't Romney the only one?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | President Fred Thompson, the Idea vs. the Reality — Comments (11) »
Confessions of a Former Man Slut 41 Comments (0 topical, 41 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
there go ..., well most of us. I spent a year on a US Senate staff and many years at a fairly high level in government, the last few as an appointee. I can tell you from personal experience that remaining faithfully married in jobs like that is one of the hardest things you will ever try to do. I simply can't imagine how you'd deal with it as a power figure in a brothel like DC; that's hunting in a baited field.
Some men do seem to be immune, or they're better than I am at hiding a wandering eye, but for most the temptations are intense. Frankly, a lot of the women who hang about government have the "horizontal career move" down. Once you reach the elected or appointed level, it is simply amazing how attractive your aging, balding, paunchy self becomes. It is said that power is an aphrodisiac; I don't know that most men need an aphrodesiac, proximity works, but powerful men certainly seem to act as an aphrodesiac for some women.
I'm not going to get too judgemental about indiscretions, so long as they were discrete in the sense of not being willfully hurtful towards the spouse, and so long as nobody wags their finger at me and denies it.
In Vino Veritas
first that I'm doing a Kowalski and replying to my own post, and, second, that I got a solicitation call from Newt yesterday and it was like I was having an out-of-body experience as I saw myself rattling off my CC#. I don't know if he can win an election, but he has far and away the most powerful ideas.
In Vino Veritas
Just kidding.
No doubt, power (and feminine flattery) are very seductive. We're all imperfect.
It was just mighty disappointing when, with Congressional leadership (Gingrich and Livingston) that were having a bigger priapism problem than the Perjurer in Chief, there was no moral high ground to be got.
And in the case of Mr. Gingrich, I'll have a tough time forgetting. That's all.
at least at the time.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
or something like that.
In Vino Veritas
But when you've only got one really obvious point of attack, that's where you concentrate your forces. I doubt if in re Newt, the liberal press will be as cosmopolitan in outlook as you are.
I think the only reason they are holding back even now is that he hasn't announced. The articles have no doubt already been written, and are a mere keystroke or two away from being sent to the typesetters. Once he does announce, they'll go to press faster than you can say "Monica Lewinski", and hammer at it clear through to the debates.
And, frankly, I don't think he can overcome it. If you'll recall, I said in my blog on governing that Repubicans have to be Caesar's wife, no excuses. Democrats can do live boys and dead girls and get away with it. If a Republican has been faithfully married to the same woman for many years, he's a whacko religious extremist, if not, he's a philanderer.
In Vino Veritas
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
is well established. Nobody else in Congress could have sold the Contract with America (and thereby took back Congress) as well as he did. He also has the ability to communicate some pretty sophisticated ideas to a fairly broad spectrum of listeners. Typical Newt speeches start out with people being skeptical, and end with them cheering.
And Newt is unquestionably one of the most undeniably intelligent politicians out there. For Republicans looking for some relief from the perpetual pounding our chief exec gets as the perported 'village idiot', this is a pretty attractive asset.
Newt's drawbacks are about 99.9% addressed in this post. These are not minor annoyances when running of the presidency. They can have substantial impact. Anyone who makes the mistake of thinking that any Democratic candidate will be judged by the same measuring stick as his opponent doesn't even begin to understand that state of politics and reportage in today's world. Claiming certain Democrats did worse and still got elected and/or retain popularity (so Newt should be able to overcome this) is looking at the world through rose-colored glasses.
Newt can, perhaps, overcome his public perception as a disloyal husband (being therefore untrustworthy), but it will take concerted effort. Democrats are expected to be scoundrels (which is one big reason why Obama is such a rock star. He's politically 'clean', and Democratic voters are ecstatic that someone from their camp is finally 'that way'). Republicans (and especially thoughtful, dangerous Republicans, that can ONLY be attacked through their personal pecadillos) are not.
Given that Newt hasn't announced yet, starting a program of public reconcilliation and redemption is a pretty smart move. If it becomes clear that it is not going to work, why waste the effort. Pick your best Republican candidate at that time and support him. But if it appears it will work, he's taken 90% of the sting out of the destined to occur attacks before he actually dives in.
Methinks self-effacing, asking for forgiveness before the fact, moves are very smart politics on Newt's part at this point.
Reagan a union leader, Eisenhower the liberator of europe. Really didn't help the thumping they took from the press. If newt does run he will have to bear up under an enormous amount of pressure from the press. Personally an affair is small potatoes, were all fallible.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Yes, Newt got the Contract with America through. He recaptured the House after a half of century of Democrat control.
However, once Clinton over came the shock, he proceeded to run rings around Newt. Newt ended up resigning in disgrace.
To put it another way, Newt Gringich has very little staying power. He has great ideas, and he can get them implemented. But as an executive, he leaves much to be desired.
Newt needs to join the next GOP adminstration as an ideas man. He shouldn't be leading it.
To me, this is a pretty silly argument. I think you'd be hard pressed to find too many other conservatives beyond Reagan and Gingrich who have made real, undeniable progress against the power of the Democrats. The other obvious name that belongs here is Goldwater who got CRUSHED in '64. Newt achieved significant progress against the Democrats and more importantly, he made significant progress in the direction of the GOP (sadly that direction was abandoned by the Republicans during the Bush presidency). Newt, Goldwater, and Reagan all made real progress in their battle against the Democratic tidal wave as well as progress within their own party; and each one was an effective leader. Find a better rational for opposing Gingrich; this one is baseless.
Bill Kristol on this: http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/01/reviews/010401.01kristot.html?_r=1...
in '64 became the tipping point in favor of Reagan in '80. You could make an argument that our current troubles stem from Reagan being so overwhelmingly on target regarding conservative values that it pulled the mass of JFK supporters out of the Democratic party, essentially leaving it to their left wing.
Newt will again appeal to those voters if he can get some traction in overcoming the 'perceived' hypocrasy of going after Clinton while he himself was gadding about, and, more importantly (I think) getting to people to forgive him for divorcing a bed-ridden cancer victim. THAT's the tune that's not going to play well in middle America. Newt is many things, but nowhere among them will you find 'sympathetic character' listed. If he can get ovet that particular wall, I think the rest may well fall in line. Tall wall to climb, though.
I never understood why Newt took the fall for Dole's failed leadership in the Senate. Newt executed on all of his promises, and where they failed was in the Senate which was never willing to embrace his leadeship. Maybe he realized the press was gearing up to slap him upside the head over his affair, so he got out of the way before they could throw the gernade. Maybe he decided he needed to get back in touch with real people again before he ran for President. Either way, he has more than sufficient staying power if he WANTS to.
Newt knew in the 90s that the lynch mob that was clearly about to go after him no-holds-barred would be a distraction from the conservative movement's agenda--might even completely derail it--so he got out of the way. He willingly sacrificed himself so that others could continue what he started, unimpaired by the circus that was gearing up around him. Unfortunately, without him, the movement lost traction, momentum, and focus and slowly but surely devolved into what we have now--big government RINOs running the party again. I think he's genuinely sorry about what happened and has come to realize that if he wants it done right, he's literally going to have to do it himself. That's the only reason he would go up against the kind of uphill climb he's facing to make a run for the White House. It won't be fun for him at all, but he apparently thinks it's worth the public excoriation to at least try to get his ideas to the forefront of the debate once again.
I continue to believe that if conservatives will just stop chanting "He's unelectable" long enough to listen to Newt again, they'd unhesitatingly jump on the Newt bandwagon. Newt is the embodiment of the conservative movement right now. I, too, find his personal indiscretions to be distasteful, but I find his message and leadership to be inspiring enough to move past it. Simply put, Newt's vision for the future of the United States most closely matches mine--not just out of the field of possible candidates, but perhaps of anyone I've heard or read in recent years. Yeah, he's that good. Not much else would make me turn a blind eye to his philandering past.
The problem with this kind of baggage is it only hurts Republicans, never Democrats.
Just look at Mark Foley, the man sent dirty emails to a page, versus Gerry Studds who openly had an affair with a page that was a minor. Despite being an actual pedophile, Studds was reelected and nobody cared.
The Republicans, however, probably lost 10 House seats in 2006 over Mark Foley sending dirty emails.
The Democrats can never be accused of being hippocrites because they have no values to begin with.
Newt's baggage doesn't bother me, I only care about his policy goals, but it will turn off a lot of women voters, especially the little nugget about him leaving his wife because she wasn't pretty enough to be a First Lady.
If it wasn't for Newt's personal baggage, I would support him in a heartbeat, but he has enough to put any Democrat in the White House.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The reason that the double standard hurts us more is that we demand our people live up to standards. If we didn't actually demand good behavior all the press coverage in the world wouldn't matter.
What we need to do is find a way to demand good behavior from the dems.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Republicans run, and win, elections on family values. Democrats don't. We make an issue of it, so therefore we are more accountable. You can't have it both ways...
Democrats campaign on tearing down family values. Thus, having them is really more of a liability for a Democrat then an asset. LOL
"The Democrats can never be accused of being hippocrites because they have no values to begin with".
It makes what ever they say much easier to understand.
Erick is right that Newt happens to benefit from the fact that good politics and doing what he ought to do are the same thing in this case. I'm glad he's clearing the air. It makes me feel less guilty for liking the guy!
Is unelectable.
Which is sad becuase he is what the dhimmies only wish they could be:
Very very smart and wise.
But then if they were, they would not dhimmies, would they?
I have been a RedState reader for a long time. I am professional Republican, having worked on the Hill (though recently displaced thanks to the election results.) I am primarily a Republican for free-market principles. I am an independent-minded Republican, and make no apologies for it.
I have never posted to RedState, and never really felt the urge. That said, I was stunned upon reading this post and the comments, so much so that I felt I had to post. Being that I want to see a Republican elected in 2008 (I, of course, like Guiliani), I think it might be helpful to add a perspective that doesn't seem to be present here. Here it is:
Gingrinch can not survive this hypocricy. Independent voters thinks ALL pols are liars (even the Rs) and I see no way any of the independents I know will buy this lame bit of hair-spliting. "Sure, I was having an affair too, doing exactly what we were so mad at Clinton for doing, but it's different because...." Spare me. Only what we call in campaigning "Hard Rs" will buy that (that's how I think most Red State readers would be classified.)
I think Gingrich missed an opportunity to repair himself here by not uttering these three four words: "I am a hypocrite." It was the only honest thing to say. In this case, the "it's about perjury" line barely gets off the ground, and will be nothing more than a lead ballon if Bush pardons Libby.
Honestly, I thought that Gingrich was someone I could support, because he does appear to have some good ideas. I don't know that he can win the big game now, though. Something to think about, slam me if it makes you feel all better inside....
However, he is not a hypocrite. If you thought that the case against Clinton was about sex instead of perjury, you must have a brain injury. I agree, however, that many a simplteon thought it was about sex, however. That we have a "professional Republican" who is a brain-injured simpleton, though, I guess explains a LOT about what's been going on up there for the past few year, though, huh?
How many "simpleton" votes are you prepared to throw away in 2008? Too bad the "simpleton" votes count just as much as those of the RedState readers who are smarter than everyone else.
Fact is, "impression is reality" and the overwhelming "impression" of the Clinton impeachment is that it was about sex. Maybe not on this board, but in the real world (especially areas outside the South), most independents think it was about sex. The echo-chamber effect never ceases to amaze me. I want to win in '08, maybe I'm the only one.
as to the perception of Newt that's out there now. You're probably right about the unelectable part too. Certainly if the election were held today. But there is still a bit of wiggle room there. The good thing about a two-year election cycle, is it provides a lot of room for people to either hang or redeem themselves. Newt will know by October if he has been able to cross this bridge successfully. If not, he doesn't run. Simple. But if he's made substantial progress, maybe this won't be as big an issue as it now seems.
As to comments by others here that he is a great idea man but lacks the skills to govern, I'm still open on that issue. Clinton did a number on him, no doubt. But one would hope that Newt learned from that. Comebacks after getting smashed are not unheard of in politics.
I'm keeping an open mind at this point.
While I did say "stick a fork in him," I would acknowlege that he's not beyond a political comeback. I think it's a longshot, but Clinton certainly did.
It's not just the fact that Gingrich did this while Republicans were pushing the impeachment. He could easily survive that, just say he was doing other things. It's that he did this while basically leading the charge on the impeachment. That's his big problem, and why this article feeds into the impression that he's a hypocrite.
Gringrich was always clear that the issue was complex, but was not about sex. The root cause was always the Clinton willingness to slander anybody they felt like slandering. Usually they get away with it becasue the people they slander are "public figures" or "celebritities" against whom the courts provide an inexplicable exception to the slander exception to the First Ammendment. In that particular incident, the Man-Slut-In-Chief, who was only a governor at the time, slander a private individual who believed she suffered public humiliation as a result. Unfortunately for her, by the time the slander was made public, the statute of limitations had run out, so instead she sought protection under the expansive sexual harrassment standard liberals/stalinists usually advocate against greedy corporations and Republicans. As part of that case she was entitled to gather information that established a pattern of behavior to prove she had been harassed. One of the people she sought to depose may have been subject to an attempt to suborn perjury. When the case went to trial the President did commit purjury, and admitted as much in order to receive a lenient sentence. The issues were always legal, and never about the sex. But as it has taken me at least a paragraph to delineate the short version, and isn't really all that titlating as I've described it, the press mischaracterized it as being about sex. That way they could play up the salacious angle and boost their ratings, as well as make an argument that their fictional shows were only imitating reality when they got more salacious.
Do I like that he ran around on his second, cancer sick wife while he was Speaker and charging hard against Clinton? No I don't. Would I prefer someone with his ideas who didn't have the baggage? Of course I would. But there is no point in pining for something that doesn't exist, and I'd vote for him over any of the candidates currently on the field.
They did a very nice job of making it about sex, thus something dismissable.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...is if during the entire impechment episode, Gingrich made no, and I mean absolutely zero, quotes to the press about Bill Clinton being bad for cheating on his wife.
I haven't done a lexis search, but I can't believe there's not at lease one quote from Gingrich in the press about BC during all of this. There's probably a whole slew of them.
What will we hear from the hair-splitters now? It's not hypocricy because Clinton was President and Gingrich was merely Speaker of the House. That's a winning line, sure to convert all the doubters!
Not only that, Gingrich's first wife says he discussed divorce proceedings while she was in the hospital for cancer, and Gingrich's reply is that he doesn't remember. That's as good as admitting it. You could win with 0% of the women's vote in 1808, but not in 2008. It's over for him.
From what I remember, he consistantly stuck to the line that it was about perjury, not about sex. In fact, the GOP was trying to keep the storyline from being about sex.
The media made it about sex to make it look like a witch hunt. Of course, I wouldn't expect a squishy Republican to understand that.
CNN has already run stories calling him a hypocrite.
I'm a former man-slut too!
Yes,ladies and germs once upon a time I too would sleep with any warm body of the opposite gender.
Admittedly hops,barley and water clear played a definite role in whom I would wake up with in the morning and the closer to closing time the choices were less choice.
Like the man said;the only thing worse than having to chew your arm off so as not to wake her as you got out of bed was finding a chewed off arm under your head when you woke up the next day.
Sixteen years and counting since I swore off old John Barleycorn,and sixteen years of no regrets or chewed off arms under my head!
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
And I think that the Propiscuous People's Anti-Defamation Society (Knee-PADS) should be outraged that you would use such bigoted language that is clearly offensive to promiscuous people. Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation? If there is any justice, the press release asking that you never be let in the halls of CPAC ever again is being drafted as we speak.
:-P
Aside from the fact that Gingrich has been even WORSE than Giuliani in his marriages, Newt is also one of the least charismatic politicians I have ever seen. He was a university professor. And when he walks into a room- he still seems like a university professor!!
Not to mention he is about 50 pounds fatter now than he was as the Speaker. And if you don't think physical attractiveness plays a part in elections- say hello to President Dole when he ran against Clinton...
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Because the Newt Gingrich who is the former Speaker of the House is an extremely charismatic, gregarious, and engaging individual. He's at least as, if not more charasmatic than anyone in the current GOP field, anyway.
He does need to lose weight, though.
Too true. But it's also too bad that there are so many in the GOP who care about such things. Indeed, too bad there's a segment of the GOP that obsesses over the sexual proclivities and pecadillos of others--a lot of talent gets wasted that way.
Seems to hot topic this morning. When it comes to die-hard conservatism, he's hard to beat considering our other choices at the moment.
Everyone's focusing on his affair, but to vote for the only ones who are squeaky clean in that dept. would compromise my conservative principles on other more important positions.
This voter wants a hardcore, conservative leader. I'm sick of pandering. I'm sick of watching my elected leaders bend over backwards to liberals in fruitless efforts to appease them. So far, only Newt seems to fit the bill.
Show me a conservative with a backbone and I'll think about it.
As far as I know, Brownback has been faithful.
In fact, while I was leaning towards Romney as my first choice, I had been keeping an eye on Brownback to be the dark horse. Which is why I've often tried to keep the peace between Brownback and Romney supporters.
Then Brownback went and opposed the surge.
I am so incredibly frustrated that every time I start to think a candidate is worth serious consideration he does something that forces me to look elsewhere.
The only exception is Romney, who I can't get super-excited about, but at least I feel he's B+ material.
I guess I should get back on the topic of Gingrich.
This issue is really what makes me hesitant to vote for Gingrich (in a primary). On the political issues he's an A student- it's just his personal behavior- I worry it will lead to self created political destruction. Furthermore, I think we should never fall into the liberal trap of underestimating the power of example- and particularly the importance of the President as a moral exemplar.
I think it's a good thing that Gingrich is addressing it. He has to if he wants to run for President. I think this is a sign that he is really thinking about it.
I am becoming concerned though that the field is so divided that a Newt candidacy won't be able to stop Rudy, and will just ensure McCain and Romney lose. It think Gingrich would be better served by playing kingmaker. Followed by either a cabinet position- or maybe even a VP spot.
That's a thought. This rehabilitation could be a step towards making Gingrich a viable Presidential candidate- but it also would make him more attractive as a VP.
I actually think that a Newt candidacy is the only one that has a realistic shot at stopping Giuliani. Obviously anything can happen between now and the primary, but the only way to defeat Giuliani is by beating him from the right and I don't think Romney or McCain have the credentials or ability to unite the conservatives of the party. I would also point out that so far Romney and McCain haven't needed any help in losing (in the polls) to Giulani. Without Newt in the race, polls show most of his support would transfer to Giuliani. Clearly if Newt runs he'll have a tall task, but I truly believe that he is the only (potential) candidate who has a realistic chance at beating Giuliani because he's the only candidate who has the ability to speak for the entire conservative wing of the party.
It's possible to be too smart for the room. That might be Newt's problem. To understand Newt takes a certain level of political and historical knowledge and sophistication that the average guy on the street doesn't have. Newt's ideas are not the old familiar ones, and you need some foundation to understand what's new. If Newt's able to simplify and distill what he's saying, he'll be great, but I've never heard him take that approach. Always the professor.
Way down at the other end of the scale, we have Kindergarten teacher, Al Gore. And yet, it's amazing how well that did work in 2000.