Here's the deal: for the most part I find the spouses of the candidates to be off limits. If they are lobbyists for the insurance industry while their Senator husband is threatening to filibuster reform, that's an exception.
We're likely to see a lot of Newt Gingrich in the next few years, folks.
I email regularly with a group of bloggers and we were talking about "separated at birth" stories... Ben Nelson with Deputy Dawg, for instance. Anywho I suggested that the latest Mrs. Newt Gingrich looks even more Barbie-esque than even Jeri (Mrs. Fred) Thompson.
The first question anyone had though, was...
"is she the one who was his staffer and was giving Newt blow jobs when he was married to someone else, at exactly the time he was leading the charge to impeach Clinton for exactly the same thing?"
Yes she is.
Is that off limits or not? I mean, I think it would be in very poor taste and out of bounds to photoshop her as a plastic blow up doll with a perfectly round mouth, you know what I mean?
Not to mention unnecessary.
Is what she's personally doing (not doing doing) having a direct effect on the public discourse, or contributing to the general flimflammery?
ReplyDeleteMy general rule if that doesn't apply is 'No spouses...No kids'. YMMV.
;>)
I don't want to be out there defending Newt, but Clinton was sort of impeached for lying about getting a blow job, which is a crime, rather than just getting a blowjob, which is not really a crime anywhere in the US anymore.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, I think it is totally appropriate to hammer Newt for his family values hypocrisy.
Lying under oath. Does her video series on how totally awesome Christians the founding fathers were, count?
ReplyDeleteIt will during Blog Against Theocracy.
Rich thanks for that. Gingrich has a history of hypocrisy, trying to make political hay out of the House Banking Scandal in 92 when he himself had bounced a dozen checks.
Really, the guy has no business being in polite society, period, but that doesn't stop him from having a standing invite at Meet the Fricking Press.
So, you didn't photoshop in that "sheen" on her face? Geez, I guess Newt's still blowing wads on this one's face....
ReplyDeleteNah, family is totally in bounds! These fucktards would use it on anyone else, so why should it not be used against them? So, Newt, about this former employee who you were banging while married to your second wife...how does she feel about government funded birth control? Nice lips....
I think once you have left a rotting pile of hypocrisy in your wake anything and everything is in bounds.
ReplyDeleteFIRE AT WILL.
Don't forget, she's Catholic, and Newtie converted for her, and since Catholics don't ever, ever divorce (ever), this is it for him. This is the new Newt. Why, I bet he wouldn't even cheat on her if she neglected her wifely duties by spending all her time in the hospital getting cancer treatments.
ReplyDeleteI say that anything that might have been off-limits is completely on with this one.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least they need a joke about getting the blues from the rhythm method, but I don't know how one would go about photoshopping that...
ReplyDelete-Doug in Oakland
Newt is accountable for his hypocrisy as a "Family Values Republican". He'll never run again. He floats the idea that maybe he will because that keeps him in the news and on the TV shows. He's smart enough to realize that if he ever ran against someone like Romney in a primary, Romney will pounce on Newt's lack of Family Values like flies on shit.
ReplyDeleteChris Rock nailed it when he said that a man is only as faithful as his options.
ReplyDeleteAt every new revelation of tawdry infidelity there are (at least) two women. In every case at least one of the women knew the man was an unfaithful piece of hypocritical primordial ooze. In many (most?) cases BOTH women knew the nature of the man in the middle.
I don't think it aids the feminist cause to paint these women, who deliberately worked a deliberate plan to achieve their status, as the innocent victims of LOVE.
They blew and bedded a married man.
Glossing over this character flaw doesn't alter it. Why shouldn't the "character" questions apply?
Who ruled it off limits when the adulterers subsequently marry?
I agree with all the naysayers, especially Rehctaw.
ReplyDeleteRich Gibson has obviously just entered the fray and should read the history of Clinton's "Impeachment" fracas before commenting further.
Clinton was chased for years on fake issues before Kenny Starr found out about Lewinsky through Jonah Goldberg's slutMother's machinations (excuse my continued anger about this episode in American history, please).
To find enough Rethugs (after Gingrich's Contract on America?) to have a show trial which they knew they wouldn't ever get enough votes to convict when they started was the logical culmination of the thugs involved, almost every one of which was already corrupted thoroughly or having some sexual hijinks of their own throughout.
Look them up. Even the ones like Steve Buyer (nice name, huh?) had been bought and paid for just for this opportunity.
Oh, and lying under oath? Study the transcripts, folks. You may find something more than the MSM reported. I watched it and read them. You will be surprised at how minor that lie sounds in context.
And no family man, however conflicted, would have said anything else.
Off limits?
Ha!
S
Off limits? Pshawww...It has puzzled me since the beginning why this story was never 'blown' up in the media. Why should Gingrich be protected?
ReplyDeleteNext question: Did he step down back then because of the million dollar offer made by Larry Flynt to anyone who could find 'dirt' on an elected official during the Clinton flaying?
Newt's duplicitous-ness is hypocrisy at it's finest.
Ethical, smethical...do her. This is war!
ReplyDeleteAs an Episcopal priest, I say Go For it!
ReplyDeleteBG -
ReplyDeleteI'm generally hands off the families, until they start spouting off family values crap. And then the gloves come off.
And you know Newt will.
Regards,
Tengrain