LAist: Somebody Buy Newt Gingrich a Dictionary!

shaun

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:45:43 -0800

"And none of our politicians are moral. NONE!" Except for Barack Obama. :)

tony

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:43:30 -0800

it's amazing how many people forget how Clinton got to the point of having to testify about his "affair". After years of wasted time and millions of dollars of effort in trying to get Both of the Clintons popped for Whitewater, they interviewed hundreds of people trying to get dirt on the president and the first lady, and finally they found out about Monica. Monica had nothing to do with Whitewater but somehow the GOP (of which Newt was a leader, being the Speaker of the House) were able to pretend that Bill Clinton lying about his Private relationship with her was just as important as what they were seeking in trying to prove that the Clintons had done something illegal with Whitewater. At any point Newt could have called an end to the witchhunt, particularly when it had spiraled away from Whitewater and found itself in the pants of the President. But he didn't stop it despite having an affair himself. And that is why Newt is a hypocrite. And a fucking pathetic one at that.

Hammer

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:57:18 -0800

You seem to have missed the entire point. He would have been a hypocrite if he'd pushed for impeachment based simply on the affair, but the point is that Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about the affair. Since Newt didn't lie to Congress about his affair, there's nothing hypocritical about what he did.

DublinOne

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:07:49 -0800

I am not a fan of Newt's...but he is right in saying that the problem with Clinton was not the affair, but the lying about the affair. It's really not hypocrisy until you can prove that Newt spoke out about extra marital affairs in general. Until you report on something that Newt actually lied about, I would consider the above to be slander

Danielito

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:04:12 -0800

I don't think anyone's come up for air yet...or a spell-check, for that matter. This page has been nothing but a load of yelling and hostile contradiction toward anything the other side says. "I know of noone who condones the subrosa activities of Newt Gingrich however after eight years of the Clintonistas and their lying stealing, misappropriation of public funds, bribe taking, and actual complicity in murder, Newts misdeeds somehow don't seem quite so bad. Do they?" -Dean Reames That's the problem right there. Re-read this whole page. It's all a comparison game. We've taken to proclaiming one thing as less of a problem or less evil than another. What's more, Jesus has been tossed into the pit with the people who claim to follow Him. Christians are Orcs, for all intents and purposes, simply trying to do their best to follow the truth of what they know. What Jesus came to tell us was that there is no hierarchy of sin. It all separates us from Him. If that's the case, elevating any person over another is extremely wasteful. Save yourselves the trouble of elevating anyone and get on board with loving everyone, especially those of us who screw up in broad daylight.

Anonymous Lunatic

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:27:07 -0800

Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite dues to his sexual behavior, yes. But relative to his political rhetoric, not about the perjury in the Lewinski matter. Bill Clinton is also, we might note, a hypocrite, so going after Gingrich on that while ignoring Clinton's hypocrisy is being a hypocrite about hypocrisy. What was Clinton's hypocrisy? Well, for just one, let's note that when Bill Clinton came into office, it was not permitted in sexual harassment suits to compel the accused to testify about his sexual history. When the Democratic Congress tried to change the law to allow such compulsion, George H. W. Bush vetoed it. When Clinton replaced him, Clinton signed it. So, but for Clinton's own opinion on the relevance of adultery to sexual harassment prosecutions, Clinton wouldn't have had to testify about his adultery. If he'd left the law as Newt Gingrich and George Bush had wanted it, he'd have never been asked the question in the deposition. So Bill Clinton committed a felony, violated his professional code of conduct as a lawyer, and violated his Constitutionally-mandated oath of office to uphold the laws, all to avoid the consequences of a policy he not only publicly claimed to be the right thing to do, but personally signed into a law that binds all Americans. So, do you still want to condemn Gingrich as a liar and a hypocrite? Go right ahead. But if you were against Clinton being removed from office, we know how much you really care about lying and hypocrisy.

Nathan

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:38:12 -0800

To some extent, we expect our politician to stretch facts - or misrepresent truth - may of us call that lying. What Clinton did to cover his ass, and what Newt did to clean his past is quite predictable. What was unexpected is for James Dobson to buy Newt's stories and provide implied endorsement. Lying under oath is lying. Lying not under oath is also lying. Adultery when caught is adultery. It is also adultery if you are not caught. I think that is a simple concept to understand. Very sad day for the Christian community.

Harry

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:31:06 -0800

Newt Gingrich DID NOT lead the charge against Clinton on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He was strangely silent on the matter, or at least took a very low profile (for anyone who was paying attention back then, and I was).

Edward C Walsh

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:07:41 -0800

With huge fascination, I read comments, above, on this essay. Of course, Gingrtich is a massive hypocrite. T say anything different is to be out of touch with reality. the classic definition of insanity. There are so many who hang their obtusness on a tortured distinction between lying under oath about a sexual liaison and hiding plain old screwing around with a female subordinate. Meanwhile their political-cultural fellow travellers have been, these last 3 days, jumping up and down in unrighteous indignation over an American jury's conviction, on 4 perjury counts of one of their own, claiming that perjury is really not so bad when one of their loyal gang menbers does it in the cause of getting thousands of Americans killed and maimed in a war for trillions in future oil profits. So many hypocritical, not to mention assinine, comments against a essay that was right on the money. Incidentally, perjury on a deposition in a trumpted up civil suit is to perjury in a national security criminal investigation is as a fart is to a nuke. I've conducted more that 200 depositions. In every one one side or the other has told an untruth - it's recognized as a way of stating your case! Ed Walsh, Basking Ridge, NJ

John

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:42:01 -0800

I agree with comment #45. Where was Newt when there was so much lying going on in front of Congress about Iran-Contra? Where was Newt when Bush 41 pardoned Casper Weinberger and 4 others who would most surely have faced prosecution. And where are all those, indignant about Clinton, when Bush 43 says, Oops, I guess I was wrong about all that stuff that got us into the Iraq war and caused us to spend billions. Could there have been a lie in there somewhere? Did some of 43's friends profit from this big "mistake." Let's see who 43 pardons when he leaves.

Larry

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:38:41 -0800

I think Newt is a sincere christian. In fact I think Newt is the a typical American christian. Say one thing and do another! Being mean. Being spitefull.Trying to eliminate my American freedoms.Taking food from hungry babies mouths just so they can give money to large corporations. Killing women and children in the west bank just because they think it will make there Jesus return faster. Yes I think Newt is just like every other illiterate American christian. I hope there is a jesus and I hope he comes back because I think American christians will be terribly disapointed to find out that Jesus is a libral and there all going to hell!

OrdinaryNetizen.com

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:59:35 -0800

Tom - your comment is precious. Equating Clinton to Scooter is like comparing a hang-nail to cancer. You don't have to be a moral relativist to see the HUGE difference between lying about a bj after a trumped up prosecution/witch hunt, and the Scooter (Rove-Cheney) lies in reference to the scortched-Earth campaign to silence any critics of the Bush war. Have some common sense will you.

sc

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:00:14 -0800

The comparison made to Dave G. is asinine. When was the last time you read a story about a 'follower of Jesus' strapping explosives to himself and running into a crowded street (or worse, training the poor and uneducated to do it for them). Which, btw, is just as shocking to most Muslims as it is Christians as it is atheists. Our country was founded be men of strong character and conviction, based on their Christian faith. And they didn't try to take over the world with extremist views or shove it down peoples throats. Unfortunately, for both Muslims and Christians, we've allowed our faiths to be defined by the extremists in our populations. Nobody is calling for men like Dobson to be the leader of the USA. Only to have a voice at the table without ridiculed because his perspectives are influenced by his faith. One might also consider the perspective that even secularism/atheism/science requires a tremendous amount of faith as well.

Dave Gill

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 05:10:53 -0800

The only difference between an Allah loving Osama and Jesus loving Dobson is that they were born at two ends of the world. If someone like Dobson and all those right wing conservatives were in the Middle East I strongly believe we would be living in the same kind of environment like the Iranians.Right wingers be they Muslims or Xtians will not stop till they have you bowing to their "saviour". Weather they do it lovingly or forcefully does not matter as long as they are promised their virgins. Brainwasing is an art form that has been used and still being used by bigoted muslims and christians, their agenda is similar to the catholic church, the servitude of their subjects to their way of thinking even if it has to be foeced. Liberals should never and will never allow this as they VALUE humaneness more than forgiveness, ethics more than morality and have a strong believe in each individuals right to exist without interference from a higher dictatorial religious order. Bigoted Muslims and Christians are aware of their dwindling numbers and are looking for ways to increase their numbers any way "necessary". A hypocrite like Newt is nothing new they exist from Osama to the Pat robertson's of this world, it is simply called islam or christianity. one and the same.

sc

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:59:07 -0800

Jeez... even as a conservative, this a tough one to swallow. So, he's a 'cheater' and Clinton is a 'cheater and a liar'. BOTH are hypocrites (by definition!!!). Yes, yes, they are both passionate, charismatic, skilled politicians. But if they lie to their spouses, they'll surely lie to their country. Personally, I think the 'cost' of their behavior (or at least getting caught) is that you are relegated to the back of the crowd, not propelled to the front. You can still ride the political bus. You just don't get to drive it anymore. We're called not to judge, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use good judgment in selecting our leaders.

Judge

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:56:32 -0800

If Bush ever had to answer under oath, he would perjure himself too. Either that, or he would tell the truth for the first time in his life.

enorma

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:49:35 -0800

For the life of me,even though Newt was a fellow-traveller with conservative christians I don't ever remember he himself claiming to be one.Does anyone remeber him saying that?

Al T.

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:44:14 -0800

We are all hypocrites in need of Gods forgiveness and Love. He who is without sin cast the first stone.

Neal R is for Republic

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:51:49 -0800

I think Newt Gingrich is a good cristian man and his contract on America did nothing but goods too. Also I am very, very pleased to see that so many of my fellow conservative brethrens are getting their news from LAist. Read on, fellow soldiers in the fight against the viciously-biased, islamophilic, feminized, liberal media!

lordalfi

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:23:40 -0800

What I find the least worst part about it is that at least it encourages intelligent (for the most part) discussion. And no chance of silencing everybody.

thabo sefolosha

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:38:16 -0800

This story only proves that SEX and cheating on one's spouse is more a way of life than a criminal offense. I mean, who do you know who has been convicted of adultery, or otherwise similar? Clinton did not commit perjury. He got a blow job. He didn't have sex. If we're gonna bring the bar on perjury to the level of blow jobs, than we may as well stop thinking about sex until we're dead. Y'know, South Park aired the "nigger" word in cartoon on their premiere last night several times. Aren't we all damned to hell anyway? Newt in '08!!!

dean reames

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:54:34 -0800

Speaking of hypocrisy-- had the author of the article used the word liberal in place of the word conservative, I would have had to agree with him! I know of noone who condones the subrosa activities of Newt Gingrich however after eight years of the Clintonistas and their lying stealing, misappropriation of public funds, bribe taking, and actual complicity in murder, Newts misdeeds somehow don't seem quite so bad. Do they?

GB

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:36:22 -0800

THE WHOLE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS HYPOCRACY! THAT'S WHY THEY WILL LOSE THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2008 AND BEYOND..................BY BY NEO-CONS :)

james huffer

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:29:14 -0800

One need only peruse the airwaves of talk radio and listen to the rantings and ravings of hannity insanity and ingram idiocy or the vile diatribes of mark levin and rush limbaugh to understand how the religous right excuses its behavior. the belief is that the end justifies the means and do as i say, not as i do for i am superior to you mere liberal thinking compasionate left leaning mortal. its easy after you get the citzenry to believe in majic bullets and invisable enemies. like the recess bully, the religous run like hell when the caca hits the fan and they never accept responsiblity for their feet of clay.

jmt

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:25:14 -0800

The very first comment sums it up in defence for NG. Clinton Lied = perjury. Clinton was having oral sex in the most sacred room in the white house for all americans- the oval office. To be talking on the phone, simultanously having a staffer give him oral sex, and later having her moisten his cigar is a disgrace to the fine men who serve us well in that same room. It is what he did, where he did it, how vulgarly he did it, and then perjure himself. How in the world can you even compare the tow.

libsrus

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:22:01 -0800

For the record,President Clinton was impeached, which is the same as saying he went to trial,he was aquitted of all charges at his impeachment.No lying,no nothing.

Cassandra

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:20:26 -0800

I am a person who believes in the Bible as the fundamental truth of God. That said, I am so offended by James Dobson and other Christian leaders who are so linked to the Republican Party that they bring shame the name of the Lord. Monica Lewinski's "blow-job" (excuse the language) is not equivalent to a full-blown extra-marital affair. Christian conservatives continue to support Bush and the Republicans in congress despite the lies and the many administrative acts that have hurt the lives of so many Americans. I'm just disgusted.

mclew

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:11:01 -0800

Ever think we could have nipped that terrorism thing in the bud if "our government" had not spent the better half of the previous decade on a witch hunt and more time on national security? That was the period in time when I lost my country.

A. S. Zarathustra

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:09:54 -0800

Newt is a hypocrite and a prevaricating reptile. Christians are also hypocrites, ignoring the inherent flaw with its pacifist garb on one hand and the 'only son of God' dogma on the other. It is indeed fitting that Newt fights for Christian values. It is a 'win-win' situation among losers.

E Nelson

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:08:19 -0800

Newt is indeed an example of a rank sinner. The very kind of sinner for whom Christ provided reconciliation to God. He has confessed his sin, a first step toward forgiveness from God. His next problem is found in this question; "has he yet accepted that Christ redemption and sought forgiveness." If he has, is he still a sinner. Yes. In the final analysis God examines the heart. If finding there true repentence and remorse, Newwt is redeemed. Will Newt sin again. Yes. Hopefully not adultery. Such is the nature of man. One could tell from the outset that Newt had a moral problem when he published an x rated book during those same years. A duplictious act by any standard. It did not surprise me that Newt was engaged in adultery given these facts. Yet, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Emmitt Nelson

Wornoutwith Republicanfanatics

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:57:01 -0800

What happened to "practice what you preach" ?

Conservative Christian

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:48:45 -0800

The Constitution defines the process of impeachment clearly. You can attempt to distort facts, but President Clinton was impeached. He was also 'acquitted' so to speak because the Senate disagreed. However, history will noted that President Clinton was impeached -- indicted for those who continue to defend his crimes.

TruthSeeker

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:20:23 -0800

For the historical revisionists, the House of Representatives formerly charged (in other words, officially accused) Clinton of two offenses, one of which is perjury. The Senate, after a 21-day trial, then voted on whether Clinton was guilty of those alleged crimes. The Republican-controlled Senate acquitted Clinton on both charges. It is immoral to use the word "impeach" to mean that he was found guilty, when in reality, he wasn't.

Kellyn

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:32:23 -0800

Liar Liar pants on fire! The main problem with your little spiel is that while Newt's situation is entirely personal, Clinton's was not. Newt may have been doing the mess around, but his actions were baby shit, comparatively speaking. President Clinton -- who has been accused of rape (Juanita Broderick) and has a long history of predatory conduct -- lied repeatedly under oath and like the bully he is, wagged that big old disgusting finger at America IN AN ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND DENY A FELLOW CITIZEN HER DUE PROCESS. How can you ignore the seriousness of the underlying legal case. Now, Newt didn't bring this lawsuit. Paula Jones did. The Legislature sits this one out. Understand? Am I getting through out there? But I realize in your case it's just a heck of a lot easier to think between the legs and on the nothingness of that little blue dress. The Clintons will tell the truth only if they can't find a lie. Stay tuned for more from Evita! Kellyn Carlsbad CA PS -- Dave Geffen got it right.

Conservative Christian

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:31:09 -0800

A previous post says "you give your word to something, you keep it." I believe that as well. In 1998 our Congress express their "word" to displace Saddam's regime. In 2002, Congress expressed their "word" to authorize the President to remove Saddam by any means. Now many (most) of those in Congress who gave their word are recanting and not "keep[ing] it." Newt's personal life disturbs me greatly. Newt's recent political positions disturb me even more. I do not believe today I could vote for Newt should he decide to run for president in '08. But in truth my decision to vote for any candidate will be guided by the choice presented to me on that first Tuesday in Nov, with all "things" considered. Keeping one's word should be what we all do, everyday. Sadly keeping our word is hard to do.

heather

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:17:01 -0800

"Also, Christians elect him for political expediency. If he does a good job at serving his base, why should they care about his personal morality being at odds with theirs? They lobby their interests, and he serves them; it's a good, rational relationship." Dan, Christians should be very concerned about his morality. The problem is, as a Christian, I am not going to vote for someone based on my being rationally. I am going to vote on 1. the TRUTH being served. 2. The Constitution of the United States being upheld. 'rationally' as a Christian I will NEVER vote for someone who is to my knowledge living an ungodly life, unless face with no other options (which is how it usually is). I don't care what they give me. I don't think you understand the nature of desiring right over wrong, good over evil. It is truly unfortunate that we as a people have settled for voting for the lesser of two evils most of the time. Of course it doesn't help that so many of us continually vote lazily and just vote in the incumbent.

To Tom

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:09:22 -0800

"Wait a minute - isn't that what Scooter Libby was just convicted of? Seems to me all you libs should have been crying that Scooter Libby shouldn't be convicted as he's not the one who divulged Valerie Plame's identity. But then, liberals have never let either logic or facts get in the way of their agenda." Well, I agree that Liby got what he deserved and that he is a scapegoat. But to answer you, Cheney and Rove, and possibly Bush, too, should be indicted and tried/impeached for their part in this. You probably don't agree "but then, conservatives have never let either logic or facts get in the way of their agenda."

Al Polito

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:08:08 -0800

It's not the act of impeaching that makes Newt a hypocrite. It's the act of LYNCHING that he led. If there was no public lynching, no outcry of "moral indignation" and all that (surely you all remember the lynching), there would be no occasion to lie. Gingy never had the occasion to lie under oath, but hmmm... He did break some vows, flagrantly, repeatedly, and I submit, without scruples. Oath? Vow? You give your word to something, you keep it.

heather

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:03:36 -0800

i want to tag onto what I said before and just say, please read the article in the link to the interview with Newt. I think it is more fair to see the other comments quoted, and I also think it is interesting to note that there is not link from CBS to the interview with Newt.

Christian Conservative

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:00:06 -0800

President Kennedy had an affair with Marilyn Monrow. Does his failing change the ideals he espoused? There are things in life larger than ourselves. There is 'right' and a 'wrong' in life, the hard part is living right in the face of the wrong. Sadly, humans are not ready to face and deny our darker nature, but we continue strive to be better than ourselves. "Let those without sin cast the first stone."

heather

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:58:22 -0800

I appreciate the truth being exposed here. Newt is hypocritical in his personal life, by holding someone else to the same morals he 'says' he holds yet not living by them himself. However, he is NOT hypocritical concerning lying under oath. He was never in that position (at least about lying about his family life, as far as we know). These happen to be two completely different incidences that are closely intertwined with each other. All this said, being a hypocrite for not sticking to his morals makes him a hypocrite. I have looked at his political record to see how he voted while in office and found he rarely ever voted at all. i think it was votesmart.org I have conservative values yet I do not believe everyone must abide by them. That is not my call. At the same time I believe our laws should be upheld and morality - to a point - continue to be based on something other than one's feelings, to continue to be based on the Biblical principles our founding fathers had. I will not vote for Newt, even though I like his rhetoric. Obama sounds great as well until you look at his record, he is no Christian, but a wolf in sheep's clothing. As a conservative Christian and I will be voting for Senator Brownback. He votes his conscience, and regularly I might add, which happens to reflect my values quite closely. For those out there that are angry at conservatives just realized that we have all been lied to, we are all hypocrites at some point or another, lets have a little grace for each other. Politicians should have a higher standard for their lives, but yes, they are people too with fallen natures just like you and me. Jesus came to empower us to be able to live the higher standard. And to empower us with the grace for others (and ourselves) when we fail. Forgive Newt. Just don't vote for him.

Dan Nutley

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:55:55 -0800

The point Newt made is true: it was not hypocracy for him to impeach Clinton for the crime of perjury. It's always funny to see non-Christians try to explain how Christains are supposed to act, as the author of this diatribe does. Speaking as a Christian, here is what's true: It is hypocracy to pretend that you are a highly moral person, not like those lowlife adulterers, and to be committing adultery on the sly. It is not hypocracy for an adulterer to say that adultery is sin. Hypocracy means that you are putting on an act. A liar might well say "lying is wrong, and I am ashamed that I sometimes lie," and that is anything but hypocracy.

yo

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:55:37 -0800

Come on guys (and gals)! Clinton was placed in front of a federal judge to ask about his affair because they knew he was going to lie. Any man in his position would have looked for a way to try and get out of admitting he was cheating on his wife. He admits to the affair now, would he have admitted to it back then (while married)? I can guarantee that if Newt would've been placed in the same situation he would've lied to the judge too. Would any man easily admit to cheating on his wife in from of the entire world while still married to the woman, especially if he still wanted to stay married!? I think not!

Dan

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:54:54 -0800

He's a hypocrite, so what? He had a duty to his constituents and nation to uphold the law; he was not on trial. And if that duty was strengthened by partisanship, again, so what? He also has ties to his party and his career. Would you expect him to pass on this opportunity for politically suicidal reasons? Also, Christians elect him for political expediency. If he does a good job at serving his base, why should they care about his personal morality being at odds with theirs? They lobby their interests, and he serves them; it's a good, rational relationship.

NameCallingShowsYourLackOfIntelligence

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:51:10 -0800

The people who say he is not a hypocrite are blinded by their own bias. On the basis that he acted CONTRARY to his stated beliefs and the fact that he portrays his himself on a high moral ground, he IS a hypocrite. This has nothing to do with whether he lied to a jury or whether he slept with Monica. Uhhh Duh!

Phillynets

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:47:16 -0800

Let's get beyond the hyprocrisy for a second. He discussed divorcing his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer. That's called "mean." He divorced his second wife so he could marry a 20 year-old staffer. That's all kind of F-cked-up. Washington D.C. is a pretty "forgiving" city but at some point we have to call foul before he ends up being found with either "a deal girl or a live boy." I'm glad Dobson & Company are into his politics but he might want to let Newt go back to being a lizard without trying to pretend he's something he only wishes he were. As a man who's ex-wife is a lesbian, I've pretty much decided that public office isn't really for me. Newt has iron-clad huevos to pull this kind of crap.

Pilgrim

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:45:27 -0800

Newt represents all conservative Christians? Like Osamma represents all Muslims...

It's are own fault

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:45:04 -0800

We have only ourselves to blame. Who voted these fools to office in the first place? The Bill of Rights appropriate title should have been.."We the Gullible and easily Manipulated"

Christian Conservative

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:44:22 -0800

President Clinton was impeached, never censured. President Clinton was not impeached for his affair, he commited a crime -- perjury. His crime prevented one of his victims from having her charges heard in a court of law. No human is free from weakness. We all carry the burden of 'bad acts' committed because of our weakness. Even though we cannot live up to our ideals does not mean our ideals are wrong. It only means we need to work harder to change our bad behaviors.

Tom

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:44:02 -0800

When are people going to start realizing that Clinton did not get impeached for the affair - he was impeached for committing the FELONY of perjury! He not only perjured himself, he also obstructed justice by attempting to cover it up. Wait a minute - isn't that what Scooter Libby was just convicted of? Seems to me all you libs should have been crying that Scooter Libby shouldn't be convicted as he's not the one who divulged Valerie Plame's identity. But then, liberals have never let either logic or facts get in the way of their agenda.

Matthew Turner

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:44:01 -0800

Newt is a hypocrite for saying one thing and doing another in the meantime. However, all his lying was to his wives, mainly. A federal judge didn't ask him whether or not he was having extramarital affairs, and that's the crux of the Clinton fiasco. He *did* lie, not only to his wife, his friends (many of whom knew anyway), the public (many of whom figured he was anyway), but to a federal judge... under oath... in his capacity as the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military and the Head of Government. There's a big, big difference there. There's no crime in what Newt did, only a huge lack of class. Clinton committed perjury, and no matter how you slice it -- that's criminal. Add to that his position in government and society, and you get a liar and hypocrite of the first order. "It was just about sex" is total b.s., because it wasn't. It was about a crime committed by a sitting President of the United States of America.

pmiller

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:43:16 -0800

Campaigning on restoring morality and family values does not mean being a 2 time cheat. Can you be telling the truth to your spouse, when you are sneaking off to have an affair. Or does you family values just not matter. Read the dictionary. LIAR !!!! HYPOCRITE!!!!

Andrew

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:32:58 -0800

"How can this be hypocrisy. Newt did not lie about his affair." - Shillum should also be on the dictionary list! Shillum misses the point. Besides, how can it be that an adulterer never lies about their affairs. How could he not lie during the affair to his spouse, for example - not possible!

HeyYouDumbass

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:28:57 -0800

How can it be hypocrisy?! HELLO IN THERE! Are you awake, or just illiterate? If you had bothered to read the definition given for the word HYPOCRITE, you'd *know* how it could be hypocricy. You see, the definition of this word ALSO has nothing to do with Monica. God, it's no wonder this fucking country is so goddamned fucked up. Idiot...

zoomabubba

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:28:33 -0800

For the record, President Clinton was impeached for allegedly lying in a civil deposition, not before a federal judge or in the context of a criminal investigation. Further, Clinton did not technically lie. Kenneth Star asked him if he had sex with Lewinisky. Clinton asked Star to define sex, which Star did. Under Star's definition Clinton did not have sex with Lewinsky. While a person may find Clinton's behavior to be evasive or not technically forthwright it DID NOT rise to the level of perjury let alone constitute an offense justifying impeachment.

Trementatis

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:26:49 -0800

Oh tempora, Oh mores!

Kyle G.

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:25:56 -0800

Admitedly, Newt Gingrich never 'lied' about having an affair. He was never asked. But he still campaigned on a stance of high morals and family values. How high are your morals when you leave your wife when she's recovering from cancer? Or when you have an ongoing affair while you try to censure a President for not openly admiting to any indiscresions? It's possible that no politicians are moral, but what does that say about the ones who say they are moral?

Conservative Christian

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:24:12 -0800

What Newt did was wrong, no argument. However, Newt did not deny his affair in testimony under oath in a court of law. Are you perfect? Are free of basic human failings? Had President Clinton admitted his human weakness at the start, he would have needed to purjure himself. Clinton was not guilty of having an affair, he was guilty of lying under oath, and even worse, lying to the people who elected him.

J. Wright-Sedam

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:22:54 -0800

No, Hillary is not the right person for this job. It's not about being a woman, that a great thing. In fact, that is the only great thing she has in her favor. I listened to the vote that gave Mr. Bush the power to act against IRAQ. I was waiting, hoping, even praying that Hillary would make the right choice, the only choice and vote no. She took another path, a calculated, politically motivated path and for that, I will never understand why people believe in her. She is a fraud and so the wrong person to lead us.

josh

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:22:08 -0800

Pulled directly from above: 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings This is what makes him a hypocrite.

Shillum

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:14:45 -0800

President Clinton lied to a federal judge. This was his crime. Monica was not the crime. Newt did not lie to a judge. He was just immoral as Clinton was. How can this be hypocrisy. Newt did not lie about his affair. And none of our politicians are moral. NONE!