Newt Gingrich’s indecent proposal -The iPINIONS Journal

If these politicians were not lead vocals in a chorus of moral crusaders, I would not give their sexual escapades a moment’s thought. For the unadulterated pleasure of afflicting these hypocrites, however, I don’t even mind being bedfellows with a publicity-seeking hustler like Larry Flynt.

(“DC Madam outs Sen. David Vitter as a faithful ‘John,'” The iPINIONS Journal, July 17, 2007)

The above states the rule that guides my commentaries on sex scandals. I make exceptions, however, when the hypocrisy or arrogance involved is so egregious that it shocks the conscience of even a reprobate like me. Such was the case, for instance, with former Senator John Edwards – who, though not a moral crusader, posed in public as the devoted husband of a cancer-stricken wife while creeping around in private with a mistress he eventually impregnated.

Well, former Speaker Newt Gingrich puts even Edwards to shame in this respect. After all, this is the self-righteous SOB who championed the impeachment of Bill Clinton over his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky while he was carrying on an illicit affair of his own with a Congressional staffer.

Now, like a typical criminal who finds religion, Newt is claiming to have found God and is preaching the virtues of family values – even going so far as to sign a “fidelity pledge” to uphold the sanctity of marriage between a man and (one) woman. But just as the criminal spouts his born-again crap only to ingratiate himself with the parole board, Newt is doing so only to ingratiate himself with “values” voters.

Except that his preening hypocrisy so incensed his second wife Marianne that she came out of her woman-scorned coma after 10 years this week to tell the world just how morally bankrupt and preternaturally unrepentant he really is.

Specifically, in an ABC News interview, which aired just 24 hours before last night’s Republican primary debate in South Carolina, she said that Newt divorced her only because she rejected his post-nuptial proposal to have an open marriage; namely, one between him and her … and his mistress(es).

Even more damning, she said that the only reason he is still with his third wife Callista is that, according to Newt, she does not care how many mistresses he has. (I would add, as long as he maintains that million-dollar revolving credit at Tiffany & Co that caused him so much political embarrassment last summer.)

But far from being shamed or humbled by her efforts to derail his presidential bid, Newt seized the opportunity at the opening of this debate to wax indignant about how “despicable and irresponsible” it was that CNN was defiling a lofty presidential debate by asking him about his tawdry private life.

And, in typical ego-centric fashion, he betrayed no recognition of the glaring hypocrisy inherent in this coming from the Tartuffe who defiled the presidency by making a federal crime out of Bill Clinton’s tawdry private life.

He categorically denied making the indecent proposal; although, I’m not sure why he thought citing the two daughters he had with his first wife Jackie as character references would bolster his credibility. After all, they are probably harboring more resentment against the second wife for stealing Newt away from their mother than the second wife is harboring against the third wife for stealing him away from her. Got that?!

But, if there’s a God, the second wife has Newt on tape betraying his marital vows in this and all manner of ways and is only waiting for the opportune time to release it; i.e., when, if by some devilish design, he becomes the Republican nominee.

There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate… I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them… I found that I felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness.

(Associated Press, March 9, 2011)

This was Newt defying credulity by claiming that his fervent patriotism caused him to cheat, but that he has reconciled his behavior with God, implying that it is now nobody else’s business. Alas, as the son of a preacher man, I know all too well that there’s no limit to the gullibility of the evangelicals to whom Newt was appealing with plainly cynical statements like this and his performance last night. Indeed, his performance was one that must have made even Jimmy Swaggart blush. (And if this allusion escapes you, you’re going to burn in hell.)

The irony is that these self-appointed guardians of Christian values – who comprise the base of the Republican Party – are the only people stupid enough to buy into Newt’s absurd attempt not just to make a virtue of his sins, but to deflect blame onto the media for his commission of them in the first place. Even worse is the way they react to his hackneyed and patently contrived bash-the-media schtick as if he were channeling Jesus Christ rebuking the forces (or sources) of evil. But, frankly, when they start quoting from the Psalms of David to excuse Newt’s behavior you know he’s got them hook, line, and sinker.

(David, of course, was the king of the Jews whose lust for women was so prodigious, promiscuous, and covetous that he had a man shipped to the front of a battle, where he would surely die, just so that he could consummate his seduction of that man’s wife. Their love and admiration for this biblical reprobate – who is as famous for the lyrical way he begged God for forgiveness as he is for the lyrical way he seduced women – explains why so many right-wing Christians now love and admire the silver-tongued Newt.)

His delusions of grandeur are such that he really thinks – even after his litany of scandals forced him to resign as Speaker and leave Washington in disgrace in 1999 – that he can now wrap himself in the flag, claim religious conversion, and return as president of the United States.

(“Gingrich takes hypocrisy and chutzpa to new level,” The iPINIONS Journal, March 10, 2011)

That said, I’m on record dismissing this whole Republican nomination process as nothing more than a farcical sojourn towards the inevitable anointing of Mitt Romney as the nominee, which renders the winners and losers of these media-hyped debates, as well as the winner of Saturday’s South Carolina primary, utterly meaningless.

He may not send a thrill up and down the spine of the Tea Partiers and religious (anti-Mormon) nuts who comprise the base, but there are enough sensible people still in that party who recognize that only one candidate has a prayer against Obama next year, and it’s Mitt.

(And the Republican nominee is…, The iPINIONS Journal, September 9, 2011)

Still, there’s no gainsaying the entertainment these Republican wannabe presidents are providing along the way.

Never mind that the real reason people are tuning in to these debates is just to see Perry stuttering out more gaffes, Cain singing more gibberish, or Newt hurling more rhetorical bombs. Yet Newt is so impressed with his debating skills that he’s promising to hold seven three-hour, Lincoln vs. Douglas-style debates with Obama if he wins the nomination — as if what this country is yearning for is a great debater instead of the great leader Obama is turning out to be.

(“Newt Rising,” The iPINIONS Journal, November 15, 2011)

I just hope that at the end of this process Mitt is so thoroughly discredited that all Obama has to do in the General Election is remind the American people how unworthy his own fellow Republicans think he is to serve as president of the United States.

Meanwhile, to hear Newt boasting not just about bloodying Obama’s nose but about knocking him out, you’d think he were challenging the president to a series of MMA bouts instead of political debates. Never mind that, like all bullies, he will squeal like a pig as soon as Obama begins counter-punching (as Romney demonstrated during one of their debates when he slapped Newt around over his flip-flopping on healthcare mandates). More to the point, though, anyone who believes that Newt can beat Obama in a political debate (or in a MMA bout) is every bit as delusional as Newt.

But it speaks volumes about the state of politics in America today that presidential debates have degenerated into a spectator/gladiator sport. The studio audience should be instructed to be quiet or, better still, there should be no studio audience at all! Actually, apropos of this, I cannot overstate how foreboding it is that the public ignorance to which all politicians shamelessly pander is so celebrated in this country these days….

Finally, for the record, there have not been more than three presidential debates since they became the norm in 1976. In fact, during 3 of the 10 presidential elections that have been held since then, there were only two debates. Therefore, as much as Newt would like to show off his bombastic debating skills against Obama (presuming, as he is, that he’ll be the Republican nominee), there will only be three presidential debates this fall. Thank God!