Code: The media after getting a black eye in So.Carolina will now turn it up a notch to show the voters in Fla all his flaws, You mean there are more??? If they fire all their weapons now, what crap are they going to throw at him if he gets the nomination?
Surely given the breath and depth of Newts career and his many foibles, surely you don't doubt the ability of the media to recycle things from his past as if they were new things the public needs to know about Newt? But as I said Newt is only a microphone away from saying something arrogant or condescending that will bite him in the ass. I have no doubt that Newt is smart and knows the in's and out's of the govt better than most if not all politicians out there. I think Newt's biggest failing will come with independent (poliitically) women who will not like all of his history of adultery and the such even though he's said he's sorry and said he's reformed and not that man any more.
Gip, while I see trying to debate you as me bringing a knife to a gunfight, I'll try to answer your questions. :wink: Re: his personal life. It doesn't bother me from a moral standpoint, simply because I tend not to judge the conduct of others lest I be judged. However, The word most often associated in the media with his personal life, whether deserved or not, is infidelity. We all know that in politics, perception can be reality for some. If he is perceived as having been guilty of infidelity, he can't be considered presidential material. Regarding FDR, Kennedy, and Clinton, I believe you're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not familiar with the FDR story. Kennedy's alleged issues did not become public until after he had died. Clinton's issues occurred while in office. In the latter two instances, they were not issues during the nomination or election cycles. If they had been, history certainly might have been different. Re: his qualifications: Does this mean that all former speakers of the House are qualified to be president? I think we can agree that the answer is no. Another issue associated with his time in Congress is the ethics scandal that forced him to resign his position. I don't recall the specifics, so I can't comment. However, again the public perception here is an issue for him. I guess what makes him unattractive to me is his style and his lack of so-called broad appeal. Yes, "they" (whoever "they" were) said that Reagan was not qualified to be president, but Reagan had a natural charm and a pleasant manner to go along with his knowlege of government and his qualifications as the former governor of CA. Reagan reached across the political spectrum to draw in the moderate vote. Newt's style is perceived (there's that word again) as brusque and at times downright surly. Like it or not, perceived charm and warmth, coupled with broad appeal to the moderate element of the party are more desirable qualifications for a presidential candidate. Obama created a persona with broad appeal, and it got him elected. Only after he took office did he reveal his true liberal self under the protection of a democratic-controlled Congress, thus abandoning the moderate voters who had helped him get elected. While South Carolina's historic penchant for conservative candidates who are not Mormon favored Gingrich, it's yet to be proven that he has a broad enough appeal to Republican voters to be able to garner enough support to beat Romney. I don't recall who BG's Repubican opponents were in 1964, but he won the nomination and got blown away by LBJ...........LBJ! Not exactly an icon among U.S. presidents. Maybe Newt can win the nomination. If he does, more power to him, but I believe that a Newt-Obama presidential race would favor Obama by a large margin. I could be dead wrong. Time will tell. I sense from the discussions on this board that the conservative element of the Republican Party tends to think that its way is the only way and that compromise is a dirty word. This thinking is exactly the same as the liberal element of the Democratic Party. We saw where this got the country when the Dems controlled Congress. IMO the reality of successful governance is the ability to know when to compromise in order to implement as much of your desired aganda as possible, knowing that it might not be possible to get 100% of what you want.
One nit Sid, on the eve of the NH primary in 1992, rumors surfaced about Clinton having an affair with I think Paula Jones. At the time 60 minutes accorded Clinton a whole program to say it wasn't true, that yes he and Hillary had had problems like many married couples but that this alleged affair never happened. Hillary of course was there to support her man. That interview and it's deferential treatment of Clinton saved his bacon. Contrast that to the dogged pursuit of GWB over 8 years to prove that he shirked his duty as a reservist in the USAFR during the Viet Nam war. The were so dogged that eventually the whole news deptartment accepted known forged documents and ran with is as breaking news!!! The President has lied about his service! Took down Dan Rather and most of the CBS news dept when they finally had to admit what they had done.
Good points, Terry. I was completely turned off by the media's attacks on GWB, including the CBS fiasco regarding his military service. As far as Clinton, I had forgotten about the timing of the Paula Jones issue and the united front shown by the Clintons. None of what I said above involves my opinion of the media, which by the way I share with you and my other conservatives friends. It involves the public perception of events and issues. Yes, that perception may to some degree be fed by the media, no question. In the case of the Clinton-Paula Jones issue, it arose early in the primary season, and there was not sufficient factual information available for the public to make an informed judgement. Couple that with Clinton's outward charm, the media's deferential treatment, and the public's displeasure with GB I's reversal of his "no new taxes".........advantage Clinton. In Newt's case, his issues occurred before-the-fact, historically speaking, with sufficient factual information available to those voters who choose to be informed and make their own judgements. I concur with the belief that the interview with his ex-wife clearly was an attempt to sabotage him, and I detest it for that reason. Frankly, I'm glad it failed. I hate "gotcha" journalism. I'm only sorry I did not watch the ensuing debate and Newt's putdown of the ABC panel member.
Perhaps our founding fathers really knew what they were doing when they limited the right to vote to land owning men. Apparently today Thomas Jefferson couldn't be elected.
Way more than deserved after the vitriolic GOP led witch hunt and impeachment proceedings during Clinton's second term.
:?: So let me get this straight.....since Clinton engaged in adultery and sexual hijinks in the Oval Office and subsequently perjured himself Bush deserved the biased treatment he got from the press? Really?
Perjury and obstruction of justice. The latter by the way is what got Nixon impeached. But if a Dem does it....well it's just an excuse to go after the next Republican president.
He did? He "did not have sex with that woman".....Hijinks? Maybe....yes definitely I guess... Should have made him wear a scarlet A you think? Hilary has obviously forgiven him a long time ago but hey.....the GOP wanted to drag him through the mud and they succeeded mightily.....with help of course from scurrilous characters.. The Dems side of it is you sucker punch my little brother I'm coming after your m-effin ass....and they did.
Gip, didn't Nixon choose to resign and spare the nation the trauma of the bringing of impeachment proceedings to the House floor?
He chose to resign because Republicans would have done what was right not what was best for the party. Compare that with the democrats who turned a blind eye to Clinton's felonies. Nixon resigned because he had no real choice.
Here is an article from 1984 on Newt, pretty interesting reading. The article was intended to be a negative on Newt as you can see by the editors note that focuses only on Newt now well known problems with his personal life. But there is a lot in there about a young Newt from a political side that is very interesting about who he was back then and how it hasn't really changed all that much. There is a part early in the article about his confrontation with Tip O'Neil that is really classic Newt. Newt from 1984
Sid A belated reply to your post about infidelity and presidents. First of all Clinton's infidelity was well known before the election. Does the name Jennifer Flowers rings a bell? I could write about Kay Summersby and Eisenhower, or Sally Henning and Jefferson. Garfield was unfaithful. I could go on. All I can say is if infidelity disqualifies someone from the presidency redo Mt. Rushmore.