RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Newt Gingrich takes his fourth ‘no-adultery pledge’

I would accept the apology but you insist on having a different standard for yourself and fellow conservatives. You bring up Gerry Studds repeatedly for example but never his republican counterpart at the time. (Dan Crane btw) They both had sex with 17 year old pages yet you treat the democrat very differently than the republican. Personally I think what they both did was wrong and both should have been thrown out. Where did I ever post anything to the contrary when it comes to Studds?

As for adultery, it was a sin when Clinton did it and it was also a sin when Newt did it. Perhaps you feel it's unfair that Newt's serial adultery is discussed but I honestly don't understand why other than the usual partisan crap, you never had that problem when it came to Clinton did you?

"Sin"? Why is that word being used in the context of politics. Sin by what standard? No. If a dude wants to cheat on his wife, he's a douchebag. If he wants to cheat on his DYING, CANCER-RIDDEN wife, he's fucking scum. There's the actual, real difference. Any other talk is simply partisan ignorance...

If you read my posts carefully over many years, you'll see that I do hold Republicans and Democrats to the same standard, but criticize the way liberals give greater coverage to Republican scandals, and ralative minimum coverage to Democrat scandals.

Mark Foley vs. Gerry Studds. Republicans in the Foley case demanded his resignation, despite that he only flirted with a 17-year-old page, and by the page's own admission (he came forward and publicly discussed it) Foley didn't have sex with him until he turned 21. Whereas Studds was having sex with and lived with his 17-year-old gay lover.
Foley was forced to resign. And despite his resignation demanded by fellow Republicans in the Capitol, the entire Republican party was demonized for Foley's actions (despite that liberals knew about Foley's flirtations for over a year, and sat on the story to use it as an October Surprise right before the 2006 election.)

In contrast, Studds was never criticized at all by the Democrats, no call for his resignation, no culpability. And Studds LIVED WITH his 17-year-old lover, and was re-elected for multiple terms by his Democrat constituents, until he finally chose not to run for re-election.
A clear double standard.

Likewise, the media this year was reluctant to report about Rep. Anthony Weiner's online sexual conversations and photos, until absolute proof was exposed.
Whereas the media were all too eager to report about Herman Cain on just the allegation of sexual affairs, that to this day has absolutely no proof. I posted an article from the Media Research Center that counted articles on both the Weiner and Cain stories, and in the first 48 hours --with no proof-- there were more stories printed about Herman Cain than there were two weeks later when everything was on the table regarding Anthony Weiner.

John Edwards vs. Rudy Giuliani in 2008

John Edwards vs. John McCain in 2008

In each case, there is a reluctance to report the facts and far less coverage when the offender is a Democrat. And extended lead-story coverage when the offender is a Republican. Even when there is far more evidence against the Democrat.

I don't think you see it but you really do have a big time double standard. I brought up Crane who as a republican in the same year as Studds also had sex with a 17 year old page. You in response take him out of the equation entirely to make your case. However, Crane did go on and win his republican primary after the scandal. So that to me would indicate it wasn't as big a deal back than as it is now. If not, how did Crane manage to win a GOP primary after the scandal?

After the scandal changes were made to the page program to essentially protect the kids from horny old politicians like Studds and Crane. When a page came forward about Foley I think it had become even more unnaceptable than it had been decades ago when it was Studds and Crane.

I know you don't see it but when you constantly bring up Studds and use him as an example all the while keeping mum about Crane, it's a huge double standard.

You just proved my point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Crane





Both were censured. Crane was scorned by Republican voters and lost his re-election bid.

Whereas Gerry Studds was re-elected multiple times by partisan Democrat voters who had no regard for his behavior and just mindlessly hit the voting-booth lever for whoever the "D" was. And then years later held a polar opposite attitude toward Mark Foley, even when Foley only flirted with an under-age page and didn't have sex with him until many years later when the page was 21 years old (by the page's own admission).

Crane won the republican primary after the scandal. Granted he lost the general election but the GOP supported him. Crane only lost the general by 4 points btw.

Likewise Newt a serial adulterer can enjoy such a rise in popularity among republicans and be a serious contender for this nation's highest office. Now how did the democrats make that happen?

That's again hypocritical, that you hold Newt or Giuliani to a standard that you don't hold Democrats to.
I recall the Foley topic 5 or so years ago.

I'd agree that you can criticize Newt for his past affairs. But they are 10-plus years in the past now, and there are no new scandals to raise against him.
That's similar to (in 2004) trawling George W. Bush's Texas National Guard record to manufacture slime against him, and then saying: how dare anyone question Kerry's military record. That 90% who served with him criticized as dishonorable and unworthy of the decorations he was given.
Or how (in 2008) all media but the National Inquirer refused to investigate the easily provable allegations that John Edwards was giving the pump to a documentary film-maker and cheating on his wife, while simultaneously and conversely prematurely sliming John McCain as having an affair with a lobbyist based on absolutely no evidence.


If you were to criticize Gingrich on issues like accepting "consulting" money from Fannie/Freddie, and his silence on the details of that indicating he may have contributed to the foreclosure crisis (because he'd likely eagerly release the details if the details would vindicate him)... or that as speaker he has made a lot of enemies even within the Republican party... or his erroneously endorsing Cap-and-Trade and even doing a commercial with Nancy Pelosi to endorse it, even embracing questionable global warming theory as absolute fact when it's arguably deeply flawed and falsified theory... then I'd be forced to agree with you that Gingrich has these legitimate skeletons in his closet.

And while Gingrich unquestionably did cheat on his past wives, it's arguably partisan and vindictive to bring up when so many Democrats were dismissive about the same charges against Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and other Democrats, for whom the absolute facts of their extramarital affairs --and even sexual assaults-- were considered by these same Demoicrats to be unworthy of discussion.

In regards to your last post WB I think it's totally fair to comment on Newt's lifetime of adultery and question those republican value voters supporting him. You don't place time limits on your comments about democrats if a scandal falls on that party, why would you think it would work the other way?

I think that goes for the rest of the corporate owned media in general. FOX is still the GOP's toady though.

If the media gives proportionate coverage to Democrat infidelity, I agree. But I've already given quantifiable proof that they don't, in the eagerness they report scandals for Gingrich and Herman Cain, vs. scandals of Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner and others, where they have a higher threshold of proof before they will even report a story they would report full blast from the first allegation if it was a Republican.

There's no way to change it, that's just the way it is. Just pointing out the reality.

I couldn't agree more.


And I appreciate your honesty in saying that, M E M.

I've never said that Fox News never reports a biased story. Just that they are no more biased than the other networks. I often quote mainstream/liberal stories when I think they are reporting accurately. But there can be no doubt that --whether the reporter is left-leaning or right-leaning-- on certain stories any given reporter's personal biases will shade the coverage of the story, consciously or unconsciously.

Bernard Goldberg in his 2001 book Bias says that bias either way is dangerous, and that it is sometimes conscious, but more often unconscious when bias occurs, as each reporter sees his own biases as "the center".

What you don't see though is what you consider proof depends on if it's a democrat or a republican. If it was Clinton, it just required a rumor. If it's Cain, than you feel it's outragous that the press mentions that his old company had to pay out money to several woman.

not true.

The rumors about Bill Clinton were not reported until Gennifer Flowers came forward at a press conference to say she had an affair with Bill Clinton for over 10 years.

Later Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick came forward. And even when Paula Jones' account was backed by several others, such as officers who said they monitored the flow of women in and out of Clinton's private hideaway hotel rooms, and the consistency of Clinton's accusers in describing the particulars of their sexual encounters. Even after these disclosures, the liberal media described Paula Jones as trailer trash, the type you'd get "dragging a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park" and similar derision.
Whereas they hang on every with with absolute faith when a woman with a history of sexual allegations and financial problems accuses Herman Cain.

Not an equal standard for Republican and Democrat scandals. Not even close.

Wasn't Broaddrick the one that told the FBI a different story when they questioned her and you've described her as a highly reputable source?

Anyhoo, bringing up all those old names that the media reported on just goes to show Cain recieved the same treatment as Clinton got. You just feel differently because Cain's a republican.

As I quoted the last time we discussed Broaddrick, investigators said said she was intimidated by break-ins into her home, and by an unexplained IRS audit. Based on that intimidation denied her initial charges of rape by Clinton, based on that liberal media reporters scorned her, but investigators believed she was telling the truth.



As did a majority of people polled in a Feb 1999 Fox News/ Opinion Dynamics poll (80% true, 18% possibly true, 20% not true) who saw her interview discussing her rape by Clinton.

She failed a lie detector test, changed her story and also couldn't remember when he allegedly raped her. There's more problems with her story but I think just those probably would make it fair to say you can't call her credible.

Again, see above quote from a Senate investigator, who believes she was telling the truth, but under intimidation then lied because she was afraid, after a break-in to her home, and a sudden unexplained IRS audit.

That's the opinion of the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee who investigated the facts.

Considering we know she changed her story and couldn't remember a date or the month that it supposedly happened I seriously question his opinion.

I have to say: her story is the type that a DA would typically decline to prosecute because of inconsistencies, etc.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................