Oh… the hypocrisy:
WASHINGTON – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.
Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton’s infidelity.
No — of course not. Why, it really has no bearing whatsoever… as long as you’re willing to skate right past the question Clinton was being asked.
“The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge,” the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton’s 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. “I drew a line in my mind that said, ‘Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept … perjury in your highest officials.”
That ability to compartmentalize and draw mental lines is a handy technique for someone considering a run for the presidency, eh? He must have quite a number of air-tight rooms in there by now:
Reports of extramarital affairs have dogged him for years as a result of two messy divorces, but he has refused to discuss them publicly.
Gingrich, who frequently campaigned on family values issues, divorced his second wife, Marianne, in 2000 after his attorneys acknowledged Gingrich’s relationship with his current wife, Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide more than 20 years younger than he is.
His first marriage, to his former high school geometry teacher, Jackie Battley, ended in divorce in 1981. Although Gingrich has said he doesn’t remember it, Battley has said Gingrich discussed divorce terms with her while she was recuperating in the hospital from cancer surgery.
Bah. I’d forgotten all about that last little tidbit. No doubt, evidence of emotional toughness — another important qualification. [/snark]
Clinton’s impeachment will always stand in my memory as the smarmiest pursuit of partisan ends possible. The repulsive sanctimonious high-ground taken by the Republicans exposed the incredibly petty nature of our national politics, and the lengths to which people will go to attack the opposition — and Newt Gingrich was the howling standard-bearer in the bloody battle.
Evidently, he checked his battle-flag at the door at the end of the workday, along with his own respect for marital fidelity.
Am I the only one getting a mental image of Newt snorting and chuckling throughout the proceedings because nobody was asking him any of those problematic questions? But of course, given his obvious disdain for his wives and his vows, he’d doubtless have stepped right up to the plate and told the truth….
*snort*
* * * * *
Dr. Steven Taylor — a blogger I greatly admire — notes that Gingrich is no doubt clearing the decks in preparation for a run at the White House. He also writes:
And while I understand that the impeachment process aimed at President Clinton was itself about perjury and so forth, the underlying context was that of an extramarital affair. For Gingrich to see no hypocrisy in this over all situation is to be engaging in self-delusion and serious rationalization.
Obviously, I agree with him. Just as obviously (as he notes in his updates), others do not.
Interesting… that in many circles Clinton was given a pass because “no underlying crime had been committed” when he perjured himself, while ‘Scooter’ Libby was in fact convicted of the same offense (perjury), even though it turns out no underlying crime was committed.
No, I am not making excuses for Newt’s behavior. In fact, I consider this pretty much the end of his road to the White House, as far as this voter is concerned. Not because he had affair(s), but because he conveniently ‘forgot’ to mention this highly relevant fact during the time in question. Sadly, that failure undoes much of the good that (IMHO) he did by bringing the whole notion of running on an actual platform, with planks consisting of those actions that would be taken in the event they were successful, to the American people. Too bad the Dems couldn’t have learned that lesson.
However, it also must be remembered that Clinton perjured himself in front of a judge in a case where he was the defendant, and he used the office of the Presidency to give credence to his lie. So, in fact there is a bit of a difference between Clinton and Newt.
~EdT.
This topic is too much fun! As much as I disliked Clinton I never felt as though there was any basis behind the whole Republican/Ken Starr persecution agenda. Yes, he lied. But the question should never had been asked, would never have been asked if Republicans had possessed any sense of fair play.
Now for Newt Gingrich – whose Contract with America was the most honest, direct platform since, well, who knows? Forever? – to be exposed as an utter hypocrite is hilarious.
It’s also dangerously close to being vindication for the Clinton’s many sins, of which lying about Bill’s sexual foibles were the least.
tsk! tsk! always the righter(wing =) have an excuse. the bible belt crowd are always espousing the for better or worse mantra. but do they practice it? evidntly not!!!!!!