This ought to bring up some interesting posts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair

There really is something to be said of this era of bringing things done in the dark, into the light.

...and I'm scared. Ahem.

I've love to see a Rudy-Newt ticket in 2008. Six marriages and who knows how many extramarital affairs between them? Then the family values crowd could vote for them in hypocrisy instead of Edwards-Obama with their two intact marriages between them.

Andrew

Oh but Andrew - the GOP **MUST** protect the sanctity of marriage! We ALL know how sacred a union between a man and a woman is!

What a bunch of horse****.

What a couple of jerks. (Both him and Dobson)

I do not like Dobson.

"Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

"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." "

Not rendering judgment on another human being ... ??? HAH! The man who resigned amid scandal four years after steamrolling the GOP into power in Congress, admitting self-guilt for not ONE, but TWO marriages failed because of HIS infidelities, yet he shouldn't be viewed as a hypocrite?

I have two words for Mr. Gingrich:

Pot.
Kettle.
Black.

However, if he were a liberal, none of this would be bothersome.

Nobody likes liars.

However, most of us dislike hypocrites more than liars.

One of the biggest issues with the majority of conservatives today, (not republicans, they made that distinction) is this whole do as I say and not as I do thing going on.

If the leaders were just a bit more honest, a huge percentage of people would not have as big of a problem with them as they currently do. Of course, being that honest would not see them elected either. And that's the rub right there, isn't it?

Mix in the idea that many conservatives are into "teaching somebody a lesson", and you've got some highly flammable traits there just waiting to be exploited.

I'll be honest, I simply can't wait to see them implode one at a time! Seeing that whole mess come down a peg or two is totally gratifiing. (Ignore spelling this morning, I'm working on my coffee ok?)

We've all got issues. We all have those elements of ourselves we would rather deny than improve. Most of us find a happy medium and try hard to do the right things. All of us expect our leaders to work harder at this than we do. And that's the rub too.

Many of these types, currently in leadership positions are not only insulting their own ideology, they are working just as hard at hiding that as they are legislating that same ideology for the rest of us!

They think it's bad. They think it will be better after just one more time. They get their release, thinking it will not happen again, but it does over and over and over. Whatever it happens to be.

Being socially liberal frees one from all of that self shame and denial. The lack of stupid taboos allows people to work through their issues, sort out that which reinforces their own selves from that which is harmful. They get to be who they are and our society is better for that.

So you are largely right Deane. If they were Liberal, some of what we see would not be that bothersome. Some of it would though. It all depends on how they present themselves.

They've more options as liberal people, but they still don't have contradictory ones. Liars, liberal, conservative, or other, are still liars. Same goes for cheats, crooks, pervs, etc...

I hate to say it, but by percentage of leadership members, the almost completely conservative GOP has much higher numbers than do the Democrats and other parties.

Pass the popcorn bowl, everybody enjoys a good purge!

Your party will be better for having done it.

Deane-
What Clinton and Gingrich have in common is they both broke a covenant with their wives. Breaking that kind of trust forever changes a marriage or any other relationship that is important to them. With the Clinton's I think their political aspirations are really what is holding them together.

The fact that Gingrich chose to share this on Dobson's radio program is a pretty safe haven for him. However one of the things Jesus truly admonished the religious leaders of his day were hypocrisy, legalism and pride. This was not some gutsy move for Gingrich to reveal this now but had this come out during Clinton's battle the GOP would have been taking damage control.

It appears that where this situation has gone wrong is in the misunderstanding of what Clinton was impeached for. It wasn't sex in the Oral Office, it was lying to a grand jury. Same as with Scooter Libbey.

When it comes to infidelity, I am assuming this is something liberals never do, at least in reading these posts that would be the appearance.

If you want to get into hypocrisy, try Robert Kennedy Jr., Al Gore, and Babs Streisand scooting around the country in their carbon producing private jets while telling the rest of us we shouldn't be driving SUVs. Missing, since you hate hypocrisy, I guess we can mark you down as someone who hates these three people?

Gingrich is one of the better political minds around. Of course, I realize, liberals would much sooner warm up to some know nothing boob so long as he was for baby killing, free love and was anti-religion. But, that's America. You can like anything you want to (so long as you're liberal).

"I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed..."

I wonder how his ex-wives view that shallow sentiment? He trivializes his own infidelity and makes it sound like a mere piffle. I wonder how the current Mrs. Newt will feel about all of this when it happens (again) to her. And it will.

That is what I "hate". I'm with Chris.

DJ: What exactly is "free love"?
(I think I've missed out on something!)

"I realize, liberals would much sooner warm up to some know nothing boob so long as he was for baby killing, free love and was anti-religion."

To be honest Deane I thought I would get a better discourse out of you. You have proven insightful many times and have caused me to think a little harder, but to cast this off as some "liberal" only kind of thing is disappointing.

Man, I get tired of the word hate being attached to my posts... Stop it, or I'm just gonna start making you look like an ass daily, until either you leave or become totally and completely marginalized. Got it?

If you attach the word hate to my words here, you had better be prepared to support that in a solid and just way. Think really hard before doing that. It's not a trivial thing.

Al Gore is doing nothing wrong right now. That's it, end of story. I'm not up on the issues surrounding the others...

Let's take a short walk to a possible future. In this future, we have evolved energy sources that largely replace fossil fuels, leaving the remaining reserves for material production (plastics), those forms of transport that require those fuels to be viable, and military uses. The rest of us depend on alternatives for the most part. While not completely sustainable, getting here does buy us a significant amount of time to finish the task. This future is doable today, right now, with our current level of understanding.

In this future, his house could be solar, geothermal, etc... The airplane he flies in will still be a fossil fueled device, barring some significant research development. His car will likely be powered by any of an array of viable alternative fuels.

In that future, one Al Gore would still be using a fair amount of energy, would he not? And would it make a difference overall? No. And that's the point of it really. Rather than quibble over who is using what percentage of a rapidly diminishing supply, we really should be focused on other energy means so that we all can do what it is we need to do.

Now back to the present. Those among us, who share the vision of the future I just sketched briefly here, need to get the word out, or it's just not gonna happen. That means leveraging the means and methods we have today in order to do so.

I just don't have a problem with that. I'm not sure any amount of discussion is going to change it either, because it makes good enough sense to be defensible.

Another thought exercise for you.

Let's say the United States decides to conserve like no other. We de-license all the SUV's, limit fuel supplies, etc... Say we cut it in half. Big accomplishment right? We will have extended the life of the global reserves by a significant fraction right?

Wrong.

What will happen is that other nations will consume more because they can. They will compete and leverage the advantage we hand them.

What we need to be doing is using the resources we have right now to work on problems. Part of that effort is getting people to reach some acceptance on the issues we face.

That's global warming, it's sustainable energy and a host of other things that advance us for the longer term. Doing these things takes energy for research and for advocacy. That's just how it is.

I don't like hypocracy. That is a fact. Sadly, I see it everywhere, including myself. So, I work on my own issues and I look for others to work on theirs. At the end of the day, I look at the harm caused and weigh that in my support for others efforts.

Al Gore is causing zero harm, so it's a non-issue. Clinton caused zero harm to anybody but Hilary and that's their issue. The GOP, by leveraging it as they did, essentially paved the way for this mess we are in right now! That's a big harm and I don't support that at all.

Hope that helps you to see the difference. If not, no biggie, but please refrain from attaching hate to my posts here without some rock solid support for it.

>>>"but to cast this off as some "liberal" only kind of thing is disappointing."

Chris, how else can you explain the furor over something Newt Gingrich did, only to realize that all kinds of people do it whether they should or not. The furor arises when it's a conservative. That makes it a liberal thing. It's politics plain and simple.

Missing, the "hate" was a question.

>>>"Al Gore is causing zero harm, so it's a non-issue."

So, this global warming thing is not an issue after all then, if his private jet is doing zero harm? Good. Let's brand Gore an idiot and get on with life and SUVs.

Furor is pretty easily understood. While pointing out the log in Clinton's eye, Gingrich needed to deal with the steam train in his own. You may want to call it politics, but I say both men failed within their marriages. If you're going to tout family values as a political pressure point yet behind everyone's back do what you say you shouldn't be doing...hell yes you're gonna get some furor.

The bigger issue are the wives and family both these men hurt for personal gratification.

>>>"While pointing out the log in Clinton's eye, Gingrich needed to deal with the steam train in his own."

Again, I point out that the Clinton issue was one of lying, not extra-martial sex. The fact of the matter is, he should never even have been asked about it before a grand jury. It's none of their business.

Newt lied to his wife about an affair.

Clinton lied to his wife about an affair.

Newt was not called to testify about his sex life.

Clinton was called to testify about his sex life.

Clinton had to lie under oath.

Newt did not have to lie under oath.

That, is the only difference between these men.

This is not partisan soft-soap. I cannot defend either party, any more than I can defend these men, but c'mon, since when was "MYOB" a "liberal" agenda? I always thought it was an American birthright to be discrete about affairs. Newt abused the system and spent millions and millions of our dollars on this hypocritical witch hunt.

You want irony? Oil companies testified recently before Congress, and did not have to take an oath. Apparently, it is more important to hold our ballplayers accountable for drug use, than to hold petrochemical giants accountable for price fixing, pollution and fraud. The decision to make either group testify under oath was partisan, and both times, Republican.

Oh, wait, how about further irony? How about truly scary irony? Virtually all parties had to take an oath and appear by themselves, smack dab in the middle of the frying pan, when testifying to the 9/11 Commission. Except the two jokers who testified together, behind closed doors, informally, without an oath and off the record. Apparently, they were getting blowjobs that morning and did not want to be caught like Clinton did, right? They wouldn't be covering up anything else, right?

So, when you tell me that "liberals" do this and "conservatives" do that, Deane, it really doesn't help your team. I like you, I respectfully disagree much of the time, but it does not keep me from reading your posts.

You have to understand that this President has done far more damage with the suspension of our Bill of Rights, the torture of prisoners and the abandonment of Americans in peril at home, than a thousand hasty gobbles from a thousand brunette tarts.

The shrub refuses to say anything on the record that might clarify his role in the tragedies that have befallen us, either on 9/11 or after Katrina. He went to war illegally, after lying to the world, and now has the gall to push us in further, perhaps into yet another neighboring country. Thousands and thousands of Americans, at home and abroad, have died because of this administration.

This Congress may press him and others to testify, under oath, about their conduct. If this comes to pass, you are sure gonna wish that all these gentlemen did was get their willies wet. Treason, collaboration with foreign enemies, collusion with terrorists, rampant corruption, insider contracts, financial tampering, and lest we forget, myriad infringements on the rights of our soldiers, the free press and millions of minorities. These things top a veritable "Santa's List" of potential charges against the current administration.

Yes, these things are on the table and could be investigated. There is enough evidence on many counts to not only impeach, but to put them all in the greybar hotel. However, none of it involves anything as tame and silly as extra-marital monkeyshine.

So, I raise a coffee toast to Newt and Bill, two men who fucked the whole country, but thankfully, once in a while, only one of us at a time.

He's ramping up to run for President. I think that's the only reason he's admitting anything.

God. Newt vs. Hilary. Utter mayhem. Get your write-in candidates ready!

Here's one thing that sticks to me:

Newt Gingrich not only cheated on his first wife and told her and left her WHILE SHE WAS ON HER DEATH BED, but he did it AGAIN, while blasting Clinton for his marital infidelities. He pulled the chute on that marriage too.

Was Bill Clinton in the wrong for his extra-curricular activities? In the eyes of most, yes. That said, he took his lumps and worked it out with Hillary, and they are STILL together. He didn't get out when the going got tough like Gingrich did (twice, I might add, and the first time he did it to a dying woman). I personally have more respect for the Clintons and the fact that they worked out their differences and Bill eventually admitted and apologized for his mistake than I do for Newt Gingrich, who once again left his wife for another woman while she was dying.

This isn't about impeachment hearings (which was a giant GOP witch-hunt) or who is more right than the other. It is about two men in a similar situation at the same time and how they handled said situation, and what is coming of that.

Deane- Try to write something here, just once, without using the word "liberals".

This issue here is neither "liberal" or "conservative". It's simply about hypocrisy.

"Newt lied to his wife about an affair.
Clinton lied to his wife about an affair.
Newt was not called to testify about his sex life.
Clinton was called to testify about his sex life.
Clinton had to lie under oath.
Newt did not have to lie under oath.
That, is the only difference between these men."

How is it that others always seem to say things better, you know the way I want to say them. Thanks Littlesongs.

>>>"He's ramping up to run for President. I think that's the only reason he's admitting anything."

Probably very true. I didn't think he had a chance, but with the Dems down to Hillary and Obama, the times they are a changin. These are both general election lighting rods, just as Newt is. Talk about a level playing field.


>>>"Newt abused the system and spent millions and millions of our dollars on this hypocritical witch hunt."

Littlesongs, I don't know that is what so much Newt, but I agree it was totally stupid and uncalled for, just as the Scooter Libbey thing is.


>>>"Deane- Try to write something here, just once, without using the word "liberals".

It sure ain't the conservatives posting these things about Newt et el. How should I refer to the posters who have foundered on Kool-Aid? Guide me.

"Missing, since you hate hypocrisy..." That's a statement. It is an incorrect one as well.

What I think of hypocrisy has more to do with harm than anything else. The more harm involved, the less I'm inclined to like it.

Wrapping that little bit into a question does not make it any less annoying. My earlier comment still stands. Think hard before you attach hate to anything I write here. I will push back hard on the matter.

Re: Liberals.

How about Americans? Seems to me we all share that in common. If you can't work hard enough to frame your point without the labels, you really have not thought things through well enough to be making said point in the first place.

That makes the whole affair a waste of time, which is exactly what a number of people have tried to tell you on this thread.

DJ said>>>>
However, if he were a liberal, none of this would be bothersome.

But if he was a neo-CONer they would just sweep it under the rug......
The whole damn time that Newt was banging on Clinton for Monica he was banging on some chick 23 while his ex-wife was dying of cancer.
I don't know DJ but if that's your kind of hero then you can have him....

Big difference, Clintons affair constituted sexual harrassment, and he lied about it while being questioned about sexual harrasment in a civil case.

Morals don't matter to you neo-CONers I know Nwokie...

Missing- perfectly said. Thanks.

I agree. Doug you have been right on with your recent posts.

I disagree that Libby and Clinton are the same. Bill was investigated for sexual misconduct that at no time breached national security. Scooter was investigated and found guilty of outing a CIA agent in flagrant disregard for national security. Clinton was acting on urges; Libby was acting on orders. Bill committed perjury to save himself; Scooter committed treason to save his boss.

(and a hearty amen to KSKD)

I think Littlesongs, that if you will ask one of your left leaning friends on the forum to examine your statements, you'll find that not one of them is correct.

Littlesongs, Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Get your facts straight.

Yes, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, and you don't see that even the jury would not have believed he acted alone? That means that somebody told him to squeal, now doesn't it? Kinda makes Dick Cheney look guilty as hell, now doesn't it?

Alright Deane, which ones? Why is it that the left side of this board has to do all the research? Is it because they are better at finding information and applying those facts to an opinion? Or is it that "the left" is just some post-9/11 term for critical thinkers?

Littlesongs, I thought you would probably accept that your entire post was wrong if it didn't come from someone on the right side.

You know what Deane? I am willing to accept facts presented on any issue, by any person, so long as they are facts. Since my mind is usually reshaping and processing based on what I know, I am always open to knowing more facts. In the meantime, I do embrace my own hypotheses, that is, until I have more facts to illuminate any given subject. Sometimes, I change my mind, and sometimes, I do not. Of course, I am always open to whatever facts are offered to reinforce, reshape or reconstruct my view. After all, that is why I like to research things in the first place.

>>>"Scooter was investigated and found guilty of outing a CIA agent in flagrant disregard for national security."

This is where you really went wrong. Scooter was found guilty of perjury. To my knowledge, they have never figured out who "outed" Flame, or if anyone even did, or if she was even covert, or if any crime was ever committed.

My last post for the evening.

Just to save some time for our liberal friends, here are a few sources to back up some statements that I made.

Oil company testimony before Congress without swearing an oath:

"November 9, 2005 -- Maybe Republicans in the Senate have learned something from the perjury case against Scooter Libby after all. When oil company executives appeared today before a Senate hearing on energy prices and profits, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens refused to place them under oath."
http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/war_room/2005/11/09/oil/print.html?blog=/pol itics/war_room/2005/11/09/oil/index.html

"We have an American way of life to maintain. Ours is the pursuit of happiness. It's written in the U.S. Constitution. But we don't want to ask hard questions; and we certainly don't want tough answers, even if the answers say we are being ripped off and played for fools. That is why so few of us complained last week when the men of oil -- for they were all men -- were allowed to "testify" before Congress, before our sworn elected officials, without taking an oath!

What kind of "testimony" is that? What kind of "hearing" is that? How is that possibly, remotely in the public's best interest? That wasn't a hearing. It wasn't an investigation. It was a show; and rather than be outraged by the insult to our intelligence, we provided the moral equivalent of applause. Did it not occur to anyone how bad, how hypocritical, how devastatingly worthless was that congressional performance? Need anyone be reminded that this was the same Congress that, several months before the hurricanes, approved $14.5 billion in federal tax credits for the oil industry and other energy businesses? Did anyone bother to ask why anyone in the oil industry should receive any of the $14.5 billion in President Bush's energy plan in the wake of literal windfall third-quarter profits of $32 billion?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101492. html

Bush and Cheney testifying before the 9/11 Commission for less than 3 hours and without taking an oath:

"Bush and Cheney did not testify before the panel -- they were not under oath and there was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room.

The two members of the White House counsel's staff were expected to take notes during the session, and the commission members were also allowed to take handwritten notes.

Bush brushed off a question from a reporter Thursday on whether 9/11 families were entitled to a transcript of the session.

"You asked me that question yesterday," Bush replied. "I got the same answer."

The Oval Office session began at 9:30 a.m. and ended at 12:40 p.m."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/index.html

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (a close friend of Colin Powell) is considered to be the first one to "out" Valerie Plame although he claims it was an accident and, unlike Scooter Libby, was straight with FBI investigators about it from day one. But that's not really the point. The point is that Cheney seems to have had an agenda to retaliate against Joe Wilson and that's why he had Libby talk to the media about Plame. There must be a reason that jurors in the Libby case wondered why no one above Libby was being prosecuted. (The answer is that it's very difficult to prove in a court of law that someone intentionally outed a CIA agent, in violation of a specific law, which is why Fitzgerald has declined to prosecute anyone else.)

Andrew

Background from a former CIA agent and colleague of Valerie Plame:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1007-27.htm

Fitzgerald after the initial indictment in 2005:
"The prosecutor said that at a time when the United States is in dire need of human intelligence abroad to help prevent terrorist attacks, Libby's decision to discuss Plame's identity with reporters should frighten all Americans. "The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us... for the nation's security," he said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102802306_ 2.html

Yes, a breach of national security, like outing a spy in a time of war, is by most accounts, treason.

Andrew, you make a good point, but I do not think it excuses anyone from taking responsibility for this obvious case of childish and dangerous revenge against an ambassador and his wife.

(dons tempoary halo, grins, then tosses it!)

Hate is not a defensible action period. I've got it, you all have it, nobody should embrace it period. When we see it, we should look hard at it and ask, "why?" Then we should work very hard to extinguish it and be better for it.

(Yeah, that's a lotta instances of the word "it", sorry. Somebody work that over, it needs it hehe...)

I think the pervasive use of these arbitrary labels is growing very harmful. The more I think about this, the more I become convinced of the following:

Whoever crafts the label has an agenda. Whoever uses the label then advances that agenda, while at the same time marginalizing their ability to advance their own. This makes anyone, who chooses to express themselves with these arbitrary labels, a tool.

Tools are those things with with we get greater work done, than would otherwise be possible if left to our own devices. Think hard about that and ask yourself if you really want to be a tool and why. I assure you, the really honest and objective answers to those tough questions are not pretty.

In these matters we face, it is not in any of our best interests to act as tools. We, as a people then become marginalized and unable to execute our role in this system of checks and balances. We suffer as a result.

If nothing else, consider this also:

If you cannot express yourself sans labels, you really have not clarified in your own mind just what it is you really believe. This means you've no internal solid ground from which to build your self. This, in turn denies you personal strength and conviction in your deeds and acts. You then are a shadow person, (false person) feeding off the passion and conviction of others, instead of being fueled by your own.

Clarity of mind is essential to the building of solid and respectable character. Without it, we are selfless and live lies told to ourselves first and foremost. This, at its core is simply false and as such should be rejected because living lies is not defensible. Ever.

Sorry to get heavy, but this one point really matters. If we, as a people, were to pound it home hard and unrelenting, we would with one stroke, marginalize the machinery that currently binds us in chaos.

We are literally played off of one another, like fools! The result being the powers that be can present us with false choices we think do us justice. Nothing is further from the truth, but a ton of us don't know it. Why? Because our ability to reason has been hobbled with labels.

Use a label, pay for it in your daily lives. Look around a little. Doesn't the world suck enough yet? How much more does it have to suck before we all actually feel enough pain to actually do something about it?

I remain completely and utterly convinced that nothing, that truely matters, will get done until a significant percentage of us becomes capable of engaging these matters with words whose meaning is shared by all.

Wow. Thanks KSKD, I feel guilty posting after such a great post, so I promise it will be brief.

To return to topic, here are tangents to enjoy with Newt. In addition to his now famous admission of hypocrisy, this past week, Newt Gingrich showed great compassion for his fellow Americans in New Orleans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa90kpaB-xk

Also, in case you missed it, last November, Newt chose an annual celebration of our First Amendment to unveil his plans to completely rewrite it, and KO had the story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j2vCXObqY0

>>>"To return to topic, here are tangents to enjoy with Newt. In addition to his now famous admission of hypocrisy, this past week, Newt Gingrich showed great compassion for his fellow Americans in New Orleans:"

What did he say that was incorrect?

DD's said>>>>
Get your facts straight.

Like you do??

Guilt? Brevity?

Forget it! Sometimes I like to engage in a little advocacy. Either it fits, or it doesn't, I don't care that much. Getting it out there is what matters.

Don't think twice about that kind of stuff.

What hyprocracy, they wern't impeaching Clinton for having an affair, but for lying to a judge under oath, and for violating sexual harrasment laws.

Which sexual harassment laws did Clinton supposedly violate with a consenting adult, Nwokie?

Andrew

I'm waiting for that one!

If your a govt employee, its considered sexual harrasment to have a relationship with a subordinate, doesnt matter if its consensul.


And he lied in a sexual harrasment suit filed by Paula Jones. She was trying to establish a pattern of behavior.

Which law in particular did he violate? Is it the same one Gingrich violated by sleeping with his congressional aide? Never heard of that particular law - I didn't find it with a quick google.

Anyway, you are wrong about why Clinton was impeached. It wasn't for violating a sexual harassment law.

Andrew

Gingrich scares you guys doesn't he.

He scares a LOT of people, Deane. Left and right sides. What's wrong with admitting that? Do you think there is nothing to fear with Gingrich? If given the chance, is he your #1 go-to guy?

Not me. I think he's one of the better minds around. What is it you fear?

He seems like he wants control more than he wants to lead. I do not trust him to make decisions in my best interest. I'm opposed to that. He really knows how to talk conservative though. Not all of it is false - but enough of it seems like I would regret voting for him, had I done so.

>>>"I do not trust him to make decisions in my best interest."

That's a major statement and raises my curiosity as to what those decisions you are thinking of might be.

What is the biggest area of concern you would have? Let's not talk about his 12 wives, etc. I don't plan to marry him.

I find discussing these things with you more interesting than with many as you tend to approach them with an open mind and occasionally change your mind. I don't consider you to be one of the Kool-Aid drinkers.

His base, should he be elected, would be far too faith based than I am willing to endorse in a President. I think it causes more harm than good right now. I want to try somewhere in the middle this next time around. The guy is smart. Not just cunning or sly or a good game player - I mean he has real intelligence. Whomever is elected is going to have a tough enough time just keeping the world from blowing itself up. If his base is comfortable with hastening the return of Jesus, and he either feels the same or feels the need to do things in their interests, I fear that.

It's tough because I actully believe in God and went to Bible College and all that - so I really don't feel like there is too much of a conflict with where I stand.

I also think it would not only be bad for our country as a whole, but the international community would see his election as a declaration of a Holy War. I think the rest of the world, right now, is doing what I am doing: Waiting out the Bush adminstration. KNowing that many of us regret voting for Bush. They actually seem more open minded than many of our own citizens. There is real value is finding common ground with the rest of the world. It works towards things that I feel are important - World Peace - but never at ALL costs.

Bottom line is that I don't see a bright future with someone like Gingrich in office. I see it as another mistake and the rest of the world would see it as " Well, they just haven't learned their lesson." Which is: Go it alone and pay the price. There is common enough causes out there to strengthen not just our appearance, but our actual power. I would much rather be GIVEN that trust than to try and rip it from their hands. Which I feel is what we are doing right now. And Gingrich doesn't exude enough interest in doing that for my taste.

Again, thanks for just asking me. It makes it easier to think. Even if I am mistaken or wrong, at least I THOUGHT about it because someone asked me to. I like that.

Aaaaaaaaand since we are just talking like adults do - Deane, I am not looking for you to drop your right so I can jab you with my left - but what is it that keeps Gingrich from being your go-to, #1 guy? Is it that someone else occupies that spot? Or is it that he, in your opinion, doesn't deserve to be #1?

( I'm asking those questions to give a little direction to how I view it - you certainly don't have to take any of those directions ).

I too think Newt is pretty sharp. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Given what we've seen from dull Residents, having some tools upstairs is not a negative thing.

Frankly, he's likely a better overall pick than the current front runners. He's got plenty of issues, but he's also been a lot more low key and is a talented enough wordsmith to be able to clearly differentiate himself from the current mess right now.

Of course I'm not gonna support him period. That's a party thing, and I've been frank about that. The GOP needs to account for this mess and that's not yet happened. Hope Newt gets just fricking hammered. His party needs the experience.

"I think he's one of the better minds around. What is it you fear?"

I agree that he man is a bright guy.

That said, I've had enough of the last eight years of "faith-based" crap. I've had enough of chickenhawks using shady intelligence to justify their illegal war games. I've had enough with blatent outright hypocrisy.

I want the GOP to take a left turn, one where they recognize the basic rights of ALL human beings, one where they put the "conserve" back in conservative and stop raping and pillaging every stick of timber still standing on the search for that elusive pocket of oil. I want members of the GOP to be held accountable for their shady actions.

Newt Gingrich is a step in the WRONG direction on ALL fronts there. Therefore, he doesn't get my support.

Newt scares me because he is a HYPOCRITE to end all HYPOCRITES.
This bag of **** left his wife when she was DYING of cancer. What kind of self absorbed sack of crap does something like that? Someone YOU want making decisions for the country????
Once a cheater.... (That includes Slick Willy) Always a cheater....
Scares me????
Just the fact that he spent 4 years pushing to find something on Clinton that would stick when he was BANGING a 20 year old..... HYPOCRITE!!!!
DJ....
You would do something like that to your wife??? Your morals suck that bad?
Would I want Slick Willy back in the White House??? NOPE! But I sure as HELL don't want this self centered egotistical adulterer in there either!

Missing and CJ, I was going to continue the discussion with you, but once Trixter starts posting the thread is dead. It might as well be closed.

Only if you are a complete weenie about it.

>>>"Of course I'm not gonna support him period. That's a party thing, and I've been frank about that."

This is a place where we differ. I would quickly support a Democrat if I thought that person was best for the forward movement of the country. It's the good of the country first for me.

>>>"but what is it that keeps Gingrich from being your go-to, #1 guy? Is it that someone else occupies that spot? Or is it that he, in your opinion, doesn't deserve to be #1?"

As stated by several here, Gingrich carries a certain amount of baggage. I don't consider it harmful baggage, but it's there, nevertheless. So do most other candidates this time around. I would, however, be content with Gingrich being #1.

Among the Republicans, I think he would clearly make the best President. Gulliani, while a great Mayor of NY, might be a bit short on the international scene. McCain is withering on the vine. I don't know much about Romney, he seems good, but there's just not enough on the table yet to know.

We cold possibly get an announcement from Hagel on Monday (maybe). I'm from Nebraska. We don't like him here.

Democrat wise, I think Obama may be a rising star, but he really has nothing to run on at this point. He's got a lot of charisma, is charming and handles himself well. I like the way he told Hillary to heel. But leader of the free world might be a stretch at this point.

Hillary might even make a decent President, but we'd know going in she was conniving, treacherous and dishonest. Get past those things and she's fairly smart. And besides, Bill would get Air Force One back.

CJ, the faith based thing doesn't faze me one way or another.

Well the faith based bit is HUGE to me. That whole affair needs to be kept in some sort of check. Dangerous for all involved.

Again, faith is not bad. But when it's being applied the way we see growing right now, it's no good at all. Should be a choice thing, period end of story.

As for the party thing, I'm in a quandry. Good of the country really should come first, but the current incarnation of the GOP is not favorable to that. Without the party seeing some accountability for these last horrible years, I'm not sure we can even get to the good of the country bit where they are concerned.

Having said that, it's not too big of an issue in that I consider many of the Dem front runners better for us than Newt.

Honestly, I would love to see an indie president. Won't happen, but it would prove to be a nice reality check on both major parties.

My ideal pick remains Edwards. I fear he's gonna get lost in the star shuffle though. There is a long time yet --we shall see.

I have great hope for John Edwards's chances in 2008 (for the nomination, anyway). Here's why:

1. He's already run once and been vetted. The skeletons should be out of his closet, especially after running a campaign with the Swift Boat Liars going after your side.

2. He's been through the primary process, has the name recognition, made a lot of connections in key states, and knows how the show works. Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire already know him well. All he has to do is sell himself again. His biggest drawback in 2004 was that that compared to Kerry, he didn't seem to have as much foreign policy experience so soon after 9/11. His experience as VP candidate, having debated Dick Cheney in the 2004 VP debate, helps him seem more so now.

3. Great stump speaker, very likable guy, WITHOUT high negatives. 2004 loss wasn't blamed on him, either; the Kerry campaign's decision not to highlight him then helps him now.

Hillary, Obama, and Edwards all have national name recognition. I think the nominee will be one of them. Bill Richardson has an uphill battle just to get name recognition despite his excellent experience and credentials. And name recognition, not experience, helps raise money.

Hillary of course benefits from her husband's experience and connections greatly. But Hillary's negatives are really high. And candidates with such high negatives usually don't get nominated. People voting against you in a primary is not a good thing. Also, I think there's a sense of "Bush, Clinton, Bush...now a Clinton again? How about someone NEW? Maybe the presidency needs a fresh face."

Obama, like Edwards, is a great speaker, but Obama hasn't been vetted yet. Most Americans haven't heard him speak yet or don't know what he stands for. The more dirt that comes out about him, the more he'll have to go on the defensive. Edwards shouldn't be vulnerable like that. One really bad story about Obama could take the air out of his sails overnight. It's actually pretty bad for him to be peaking right now.

Edwards and Richardson should both be employing the strategy used by Lincoln in 1960 and Warren Harding in 1920: make sure they are everyone's second choice. Let Obama and Hillary neutralize each other, then (probably Edwards) can step in.

Andrew

Missing, you want to waste time on revenge. How about we put you in charge of the firing squad.

Thankfully, most are seeing Edwards as the empty suit he is. Andrew, what is there about these shallow individuals that attracts you. First Gore, now Edwards.

Who said I was attracted to Edwards? I was looking at him from a political point of view. I honestly haven't made up my mind who among the Dems running I would prefer (Gore isn't running but if he was, he'd have my vote over anyone else.)

I guess if you think the issues of poverty and access care in America aren't important - issues that Edwards has championed - then any candidate would be "shallow" to you. But tell us, Deane, why are you attracted to such shallow politicians on the right?

Andrew

>>>"I guess if you think the issues of poverty and access care in America aren't important -"

Who is it that is impoverished? Who are you thinking of?

>>>"But tell us, Deane, why are you attracted to such shallow politicians on the right?"

Which one is that?

...of the front runners, take your pick!

Seriously, it's not a revenge thing. It's simply that we've not had our check, and therefore cannot achieve any balance. That is how this whole affair is supposed to work.

I want to know who you think is the best for the country and why.

DA said>>>>
Missing and CJ, I was going to continue the discussion with you, but once Trixter starts posting the thread is dead. It might as well be closed.

Sounds kinda like when you post.....

It's true sometimes Trixter.

...fear the Newt!

My mind wandered back to this. Know what? I don't actually fear Newt. I fear we've still to deal with too many self-serving and/or ignorant people. Sadly, the numbers of these are high enough to make people like Newt a potential reality.

I totally fear that.

I fear it because it's very tough to fix. Learning is not difficult for the majority of us. Why so much ignorance then? Acceptance is the core problem. It's easy to understand most of the world and how it works. It's tough to realize one has a character flaw, or is weak, squeamish, discriminatory, etc...

It's tough enough to make working hard to feel good about it easier than just addressing it.

Newt is tapping into all of that. He's sharp, make no mistake. I like that part about him. A number of years ago, he outlined how to frame issues. Good students of Orwell know how to play the connotations of words off one another to marginalize others, without actually having a solid basis for said marginalization, other than to validate the issues above. It's a circular thing, and that makes it all a false thing. Again, there are enough people out there wanting to bite on this crap to be viable, so the cycle continues.

That takes brains to leverage. It also takes the ability to compartmentalize ones own self, from the work one does. We all do this. No biggie there. However, our elected leaders are not supposed to be doing this! I suppose that is one of the differentators between Statesmen and ordinary elected people.

All things considered, there remain enough people with serious issues to exploit. We've learned that if the oppertunity to exploit exists, somebody is gonna go for it. ---Enter most of the GOP right now, stage center!

...shallow:

I don't think Edwards is shallow. I do think he is a bit naive, but that's not a bad thing. This race will slap him around a bit. Either he shakes that off or he does not. We shall see.

Edwards isn't naive - let's remember, he has already been through the primarys once. Edwards didn't drop out after New Hampshire in 2004. He and his people made mistakes in 2004 and learned from them. Obama hasn't been through it at all. Hillary has only at her husband's side. I think Edwards has the edge over the other two having endured the primaries once already. I also think Edwards is a lot tougher than he lets on. Don't let the nice southern boy facade fool you.

Andrew

Good. Hope you are right in that, because I like the guy at this point.

>>>"Don't let the nice southern boy facade fool you. "

In many ways.

Gonna support that a little Deane?

I'm curious...

Nothing to support Missing. I think he's an empty suit whos "nice southern boy facade" seduced a lot of juries.

You mean like all the empty suits in the Republican Party?

Andrew

LOL!!!

Ok. You might as well face up to telling me nothing then. Without even one little example detailing why he might be an empty suit, all of this boils down to:

"I don't like him and I think you should reconsider liking him."

So Deane, I don't like FOX because it's not fair and balanced and I think you should reconsider your view on FOX.

See how that works?

Waste of time!

>>>"You mean like all the empty suits in the Republican Party?"

That has all the depth of a Trixter response, not an Andrew response.


>"Without even one little example detailing why he might be an empty suit, all of this boils down to: "

Isn't it a scientific fact that you can't prove a negative.

Like I said. Waste of time.

It's not about proof, so much as it is actually getting something out of your post!

Just hearing you say Edwards is [whatever], does nothing. Hearing why may not convince me, but I'll learn something from the exchange...

In this, Andrew had plenty of depth! Think about it.

Newt sucks Deane, you really need to take a harder look at him!

Now, what happens?

Of course, you ask, "Why?"

Actually, I don't need to hear more. I'm already aware that you believe that anyone who is slightly to the right of center is not worth spit.

Start responding with some substance, Deane, and maybe I'll respond with some substance.

Andrew

Andrew, there are two ways to respond. Briefly like I prefer to do, or lengthy like Missing's does. I'm not suggesting for a minute that both your and Missing lengthy posts don't have considerable substance and thought, I just don't have the patience for reading or writing long posts.

In my opinion, Edwards has no depth or substance, and calling him an empty suit says it all in two words.

That's not just because he's a Democrat, I think Hillary, for instance, is extremely smart and capable. I just don't trust her agenda.

I also think Obama may show great promise in the future. I think he's a little inexperienced to put on the world stage at this point.

DA said>>>
That has all the depth of a Trixter response, not an Andrew response.

Thanks! To have you TRY and belittle me SHOULD be above you.
Guess not.....
Thanks for showing your true colors....

How about briefly, multiple times Deane?