Name me one candidate that has never run on some form of a "moral high ground"? If this was some kind of revelation, then fine. It wasn't. We knew about this over 10 years ago. That is fine, the question we can say was fair. But his response was equally as fair.

 

It's a matter of degree.

You can't run on the moral high ground and then not have to answer questions about it. You can't run as a "true conservative" and not have to answer questions about your past when it doesn't fall into the mold.

 

I agree that it’s relevant and the media is obligated to report it or to press candidates on their hypocrisy. But, in this case Gingrich’s affairs were well known and the timing and the bombast that surrounded the way this new revelation was treated smacks of sensationalism. A lot of these stories are better fits for gossip rags and tabloids, not “serious” news outlets. And this stuff probably does discourage all but the least honorable and greasiest people to run for public office. Every cycle candidates promise the world to voters, and rather than challenge them on their policies and views (and, yes, that might actually require taking a stand and dropping the façade of objectivity) we get “blockbuster” reports like these or recycled campaign gossip.

I agree that it’s relevant and the media is obligated to report it or to press candidates on their hypocrisy. But, in this case Gingrich’s affairs were well known and the timing and the bombast that surrounded the way this new revelation was treated smacks of sensationalism. A lot of these stories are better fits for gossip rags and tabloids, not “serious” news outlets. And this stuff probably does discourage all but the least honorable and greasiest people to run for public office. Every cycle candidates promise the world to voters, and rather than challenge them on their policies and views (and, yes, that might actually require taking a stand and dropping the façade of objectivity) we get “blockbuster” reports like these or recycled campaign gossip.

 

Considering that Newt is getting lots of pub over his prepared response to this I'd disagree about it being more for gossip rags and tabloids. He knew it was coming , had a response prepared, and his supporters ate it up. It was , sadly, the highlight of the night for him.

 

Newt loves this. It gets him at the top of the news cycle and gets him support without having to really say much of substance. I'm not criticizing him. It's more of a reflection upon us.

And I concur. If you are going to be in that kind of public star, you sacrifice a lot of your personal life.

 

 

If I ran for public office I would have a whole lot of explaining to do. :lol:

Considering that Newt is getting lots of pub over his prepared response to this I'd disagree about it being more for gossip rags and tabloids. He knew it was coming , had a response prepared, and his supporters ate it up. It was , sadly, the highlight of the night for him.

 

Newt loves this. It gets him at the top of the news cycle and gets him support without having to really say much of substance. I'm not criticizing him. It's more of a reflection upon us.

 

Why does his response to it make it a bigger, more substantive story?

Why does his response to it make it a bigger, more substantive story?

 

Keeps it alive.

Leads off the "talking head" shows.

Gives meat to his supporters against the "lib media."

Keeps it alive.

Leads off the "talking head" shows.

Gives meat to his supporters against the "lib media."

 

I understand his diatribe made a big splash, but as far as it being a legitimate story or a gossipy one I still don't follow you on why his reaction to it affirms one or the other.

I understand his diatribe made a big splash, but as far as it being a legitimate story or a gossipy one I still don't follow you on why his reaction to it affirms one or the other.

 

Many will use it as support for voting for Newt.

Many will use it as support for voting for Newt.

 

He's made his living scolding the moderators and railing against the media this campaign. I don't think it makes this story any less sensational or any more substantive.

He's made his living scolding the moderators and railing against the media this campaign. I don't think it makes this story any less sensational or any more substantive.

 

Cool.

He's made his living scolding the moderators and railing against the media this campaign. I don't think it makes this story any less sensational or any more substantive.

 

Does he give the same response, and in the same manner/tone if it's October instead of January? And it's Obama on stage & not Romney? And it's, say, Arizona instead of South Carolina?

Many will use it as support for voting for Newt.

 

Did you find it ironic that South Carolina is a bastion of conservatism and yet seem quick to forgive and forget multiple acts of adultery, not just for Newt but how soon we forget Gov. Sanford.

Did you find it ironic that South Carolina is a bastion of conservatism and yet seem quick to forgive and forget multiple acts of adultery, not just for Newt but how soon we forget Gov. Sanford.

 

Not really. We're all good at rationalization.

Yep...not Romney.

 

Romney is the darling of the establish because they have run the numbers and found he will get enough middle spectrum voters to win in November. But his not a favorite of most rank and file Repubs. Hence why everyone else was in the lead at one time or another as people looked for an alternative.

 

The best Repub is not running. But he gave a heck of speech in NJ this week.

 

I know you said most rank and file Repubs, but this long time rank and file Repub views Romney as my favorite. In part for the very reason you stated: I think he has the best chance of beating President Obama. Why is that important to me? For certain obvious reasons: 1. I do not like the direction he has moved this country in; and 2. I believe that he has lost his ability to effectively lead Congress or put differently, he does not have the ability to form a large enough coalition of moderate folks in Congress from both sides of the aisle to do what this country needs. No person will be able to lead Congress until he/she can move enough members of Congress off of their extreme positions. I think Romney with his conservative fiscal policies but moderate social policies can pull it off. I can't be certain he'll be able to do so, but I think he has a much, much better chance of doing so than President Obama or any of the other R candidates. As I've oft stated, President Obama is to blame for the elections of 2010 and the resulting mess we have in Congress. People want to blame the voters. The voters only voted what they felt. Who caused them to feel that way?

 

I'll admit it: on some issues, Romney is not conservative enough for me and my libertarian views. But to put it bluntly, my views would not be acceptable to enough Democrats to move any of my views forward in the current Congress. So rather than succumbing to the instant gratification, I want in now and I want it all, mentality almost omnipresent in this country, I'll accept someone as President that can form the coalition in Congress needed to at least start moving the country back to the right. Such certainly would beat what is currently being done out of the WH. Later, hopefully a more conservative Congress can get elected in the future, when the move to the right can be made greater. Having said that, even at my most severe right position, I'm still to the left of the far right Tea Party members and the evangelicals.

Does he give the same response, and in the same manner/tone if it's October instead of January? And it's Obama on stage & not Romney? And it's, say, Arizona instead of South Carolina?

 

For the most part I think he would. From a strategic stance it's a great move when done sparingly or when the question is trivial. Every time he's done it it's worked to his advantage and I think it would even in a general election. Obviously it's a big conservative issue, but it also sort of elevates him above the fray, puts him in control. Though, there is a long list of caveats. The moderators in the presidential debates aren't as easily abused as John King and typically ask substantive questions. Gingrich has also said he wants a different debate format and if he pushes hard for it Obama might have to cave (McCain said similar things and blundered by not pushing for it).