Fair game?

Last night was the final Republican debate before the South Carolina primary. So obviously Parks and Rec (even though it featured Paul Rudd...) had to go by the wayside. Republicans, you better be damn grateful. Even though I'm not going to vote for you. And I spent most of the debate yelling at you through the TV. So maybe what I meant by "be grateful" is "wonder why this is how I choose to spend my time".

The very first question of the debate was about Newt's open marriage scandal. He really let John King have it in a very entertaining way. At one point, he tells John King "To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine." In the words of Paula Poundstone...he has a very limited imagination.

In all seriousness, though, I really wondered about his point that it was an inappropriate topic for the debate altogether. So here are all of my thoughts about it, in a list, because that's how I like to organize things.

1. I don't think this is going to make any difference to his numbers one way or the other. The scandals of 90's-Newt are well known and well documented. They sort of add to/make his story of fallenness and redemption. People who think he's now a different person are going to add this extra piece of scandal into the mix and probably chalk up its timing to the "lamestream media". People who care about his past, well, is this really such a surprise? I mean, why does it matter if he asked for an open marriage? He was cheating on her either way, right? In some ways, maybe it's better if he was asking for the open marriage. He was kind of having one with or without her, so it seems like the asking was more of a nicety. He wanted to make her an honest woman!

2. I hate that we're incapable of staying away from personal character issues. As I've talked about in previous posts, I think the post-Watergate world sees politics and politicians in a fundamentally different way than the pre-Watergate generations. If I could pick my dream candidates, they would be technocratic robots who just make the most economically sound decisions for the long-term. I don't care if they go to church, cheat/don't cheat on their wives, play ball with their kids, etc, because we've shown repeatedly that none of that matters. And also that people will always lie about that kind of stuff, so why bother to get worked up about it? The morality of Newt Gingrich that I care about is whether or not it's moral for him to want to limit unemployment benefits past 4 weeks. He can have as many women as he would like in the Lincoln bedroom, but is he going to be balancing our economy on the backs of the poor? It looks like he will. That's the morality I care about.

3. But in this one particular case...I think it's maybe fair game? Here's why: (Yes I have subpoints)


A) He led the impeachment trial against Bill Clinton. While he was cheating on his wife. Now I understand that the impeachment was for lying and not for the sexing, but still, Gingrich had the balls to look the American people in the face and with no shame say that the President should be impeached for lying about something about which he was lying. At that very same moment. No, he was not under oath. But still. No shame. I just...I just think that if I were in that situation, I would not cop to my cheating ways at that point, but I would maybe take a backseat on the manslut shaming.


B) He doesn't want to allow gay men and women to get married. Supposedly because he cares about the sanctity of marriage. I think if you're going to put that out there, well, the sanctity of your own marriage gets to be on the table, too. To draw an Obama parallel, he said he went to church regularly, when he clearly didn't. He definitely lied. I don't care. However, if he was proposing legislation that said everyone had to go to church, immediately, I would care. Even apart from the 1st amendment issues. So if Newt takes marriage off the table, I think I would, too.