Gingrich Admits Affair During Clinton Impeachment

Update: Michelle looks at the revelation in terms of positives and negatives across the potantial candidates in 08.

Well, if you're going to fess up, I guess doing it in front of a Christian group is better than nothing. I'm thinking Rudy's stock just ticked up a notch. Before the next 18 months is done, we may end up electing a Mormon who actually does practice polygamy, as opposed to Romney. What the hell?

WASHINGTON —  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

Comments

[Zifnab]

And it only took him 9 years to admit what we already knew about. Truly the party of personal responsibility.

[Jeff]

There we go with those sweeping generalizations.

I guess that if we elect another Democrat President he will have an affair and then perjure himself... because you know, if one did, they all do.

Truly the party of dishonesty and lawlessness.

[Dan Riehl]

Truly the party of personal responsibility.

True, I bet at least he had the courtesy to have her dress dry cleaned ... unlike that scum Clinton.

[Hard Right]

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

Que'?

[scarshapedstar]

"I guess that if we elect another Democrat President he will have an affair and then perjure himself... because you know, if one did, they all do."

Yeah, those Democrats, they're all liars. As opposed to Newt, who was fucking around while playing the role of High Marital Inquisitor. Was this before or after he handed his wife the divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer? And then refused to pay a dime of alimony or child support?

Come to think of it, did Newt ever make a dime in the private sector before he went on his "anti-government" crusade? I'm struggling to come up with a single honest moment in his entire life.

[Ken Shepherd]

Yeah, Newt's running.

He needed to get this out of the way as quickly as possible. Plus it allows for him to hammer home that the impeachment was not about sex but about official misconduct by Clinton via his obstruction of justice and perjury. Of course, I suspect Newt will constantly push an "ideas candidate" tack rather than focus on his speakership or the political sagas of the Clintonian 90s.

Will this help Rudy directly or indirectly? Who knows. I suspect it won't do anything to move the ball either way.

[LOL]

rudi still has the pro-life movement and the "faggot" hating movement to appease. I don't envy him in that.

[TheSpartan]

Yeah, Clinton's a scum compared to a guy who dumped his dying wife...ok, sure Dan.

[LOL]

anythign a liberal does = bad

riehl logic

[Jeff]

"rudi still has the pro-life movement and the "faggot" hating movement to appease. I don't envy him in that."

Rudy's obviously doing a pretty good job 25% above McCain , 5.2% above Mrs. Bill Clinton (RCP average), and 9% above Barrack Hussein Obama.

Get ready for another 8 years of Republican Presidency.

[yyy]

I've got news for you, Rudy and McCain are not cut from the same cloth as Bush. If you think a Guiliani or McCain presidency would be marked by the same lies, insanity and incompetance as George Bush's white house you need to check into their records a little more.

But I agree, it appears the Dems are going to yet again commit politcal suicide and nominate Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate, in which case, unless the Republicans nominate another nutter like George Bush, whoever is the R candidate will win.

Even I would vote for McCain instead of Hillary.

[johna]

newt hasn't a chance in hell of winning! His negatives are higher than Hilary's. Dream on NEWT!! AS IF!!!

[NYGirl]

Check it out this article -- an exclusive interview with Newt Gingrich -- on Investor's Daily Edge where he talks about foreign policies, social security, and the 2008 presidential nominees (Hillary, Rudy, etc.).

[NYGirl]

Here's the web address: www.investorsdailyedge.com
---------------------------------------------------
Check it out this article -- an exclusive interview with Newt Gingrich -- on Investor's Daily Edge where he talks about foreign policies, social security, and the 2008 presidential nominees (Hillary, Rudy, etc.).

[Zifnab]

"If you think a Guiliani or McCain presidency would be marked by the same lies, insanity and incompetance as George Bush's white house you need to check into their records a little more."

Which records? McCain's Jekyll & Hyde stance on everything from religion to finance reform to torture? Guiliani's smoozing up to big business? Both of their incessent panderings to the far-right fringes?

These guys don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning much of anything. By the time they're done gutting each other in the primaries, McCain will have formed his Americans for Lieberman party and split the party like a ninja with a meat-cleaver.

[Jeff]

Even I would vote for McCain instead of Hillary.

Why do you think she would lose indefinately? I have reasons... but she's still 20 points up on Obama... but Obama is making ground.

Question: At what point will Hillary just go out and call Obama a crackhead?

[Jeff]

McCain will have formed his Americans for Lieberman party and split the party like a ninja with a meat-cleaver.

I agree, same thing that happened in 1968. I think that Giuliani will still win because Republicans tend to be nicer to each other during the primaries, and aren't willing to destroy the other's chances completely (although McCain is like 400 years old, so he doesn't have much to lose by destroying anyone's chances.)

It's gonna be interesting, but seriously, this is way too early for the Presidential election... it should be STARTING a year for now... alothough many states are mulling over a Feb 5 primary so early elections may become a fact.

[yyy]

Why do you think she would lose indefinately? I have reasons... but she's still 20 points up on Obama... but Obama is making ground.

------------------

Doesn't she have among the highest negative rating of any politician out there, maybe w/the exception of Dubya?

And who is being polled in the 20+ lead on Obama, just Democrats or everyone?

Obama is not going to get the nomination, America is not going to elect some kid who hasn't even served a full term in the Senate AND who is black, no matter how good a speaker he is. It isn't going to happen. He's running to increase his name recognition and national stature. Everyone with a brain, except maybe the far, far left of the D part knows this.

I don't think Hillary is electable unless she's running against someone like Newt Gingrich, someone who is closely affiliated with the crazy side of the R party...evangelical, moralistic war mongering liars...

If she's running against anything close to a centrist Republican she is going to lose. Quite frankly I think if Al Gore ran he would win in a freaking LANDSLIDE no matter who the republicans put up....which is why Dan and his cabal of nutty bloggers are trying so hard to discredit him. But I don't think Gore is going to run, he's decided his legacy to the country and the planet is going to be his crusade to save the environment. Good for him. I find the critisms of Gore to be even worse than the swifboating of John Kerry, the guy is trying to do something that he believes may save the planet from what HE BELIEVES, whether or not you believe it, is going to be a catastrophe.

I hate Hillary. She is a far left liberal pretending to be a centrist, Bill was at least kind of a true centrist. Hillary is to the nanny, do gooder state what George Bush is to the Big Brother, facist police state: it's biggest advocate.

[Jeff]

"And who is being polled in the 20+ lead on Obama, just Democrats or everyone?"

I just checked again, and he is only down 11.6 percent with Democrats.. that is the average of all the major polls.

I was just reading that Democrats don't want Gore because they think he would lose worse than Hillary, because at this point the only platform he has is global warming, he has very bad numbers on foreign policy (worse than Bush) and a little worse than Obama on domestic policy.

http://realclearpolitics.com/

Go to the above site, and you will see polling averages in the box on the right. It's an amazing site.

[yyy]

The Democratic strategy hasn't been too on the mark though, has it? The only thing that got them Congress back was running a lot of conservative Democrats and the Iraq debacle.

I may be proven wrong, but I don't think Hillary is electable, she has high negatives even among women.

Al Gore hasn't said anything about any policy except global warming for several years...I think if he ran, he would win, but like I said, he isn't going to run.

Let's face it, as far as we know, the guy has lived an exemplary life, no DWI's, no coke use, no mistresses that anyone knows about, his daughters are beautiful and intelligent. The worst thing anyone can come up with on Al Gore is the nonsense that Dan posts...he's no good because he cares about global warming and has had the nerve to start a company to promote green investment, oh the horror of it all, AND, he's rich and lives in a big house.

It would be just like the Democrats to run a Hillary/Obama ticket and guarantee a loss.

Hey, if I'm wrong, so be it. As long as the republicans don't run a far right nut job...ya know like Thompson, Dan's new favorite, and the D's run Hillary Clinton it is very unlikely that she would win, especially if there is any forward progress seen on Iraq...If Iraq continues to be a bloodbath into 2008, then it may be that Democrats could run a cartoon character and capture the white house.

[Zifnab]

"Obama is not going to get the nomination, America is not going to elect some kid who hasn't even served a full term in the Senate AND who is black, no matter how good a speaker he is. It isn't going to happen. He's running to increase his name recognition and national stature. Everyone with a brain, except maybe the far, far left of the D part knows this."

Are you kidding? Between his Oprah creds, his JFK appeal, and his rhetorical skill, Obama has the VP all locked up and a very, very real shot at the Presidency. Hillary has a great deal more popular support than people suspect. But when you're locked in the Limbaugh echo-chamber, its just difficult to see. She made money and friends hand-over-fist on her last swing through Austin, Texas. And the right-wing has jumped the shark on "Evil Democrats!" so long ago that the "OMG! Hillary!" is going to work about as well in '08 as "OMG! San Fransisco values!" worked in '06. People will look at the (R) and the (D) and the choice will be clear.

[yyy]

I'm telling you that running a woman and a black man is a recipe for disaster. America is not ready for it.

If you want to live in an idealistic hyperbaric chamber where a woman who has high negatives+a black candidate is going to get them into the white house, go ahead.

I want the white house taken away from the right wing lunatic, religious zealots and that means the Dems have to run someone that is going to appeal to the center.

If the Republicans run Guiliani against Hillary she will lose.

I'm not sure the R's are smart enough NOT to nominate another Bush clone.

And I am by all means not locked in the Rush echo chamber and if you read any of my posts you would know that.

[Jon G]

He's toast. He comes on TV as a pompous know-it-all but even more damaging is the do as I say, not as I do BS. But he did argue, ironically in finest Clintonian style, the meaning of hypocrite. Look it up, he's one. Imagine Hillary as the Democratic nominee and Newt as the Republican. We'd get to relive the whole impeachment epic again, only with new overtones of hypocrisy from Newt. Andthis time he'd be on defense and the Clinton's on offense.

[Jon G]

And Dan's apparently missed this, but there's a little case going on about the Bush Administration possibly trying to turn US Attorney's offices into a political wing of the White House. Now that's a REAL scandal.

[Zifnab]

"Now that's a REAL scandal."

A thousand posts for Al Gore. Not a word for our legal system.

Oh, except that he's eagerly awaiting a Libby pardon.

[ET]

Newt is the most intelligent and educated player in the field. However, as a good middle-of-the-road conservative, I won't support him because he doesn't pass the character test. Pity. Of course, the libs on this site are happy to get behind Billary, a known liar/cheat. Character matters not to the liberal partisan.

[yyy]

I'm a liberal at least compared to the nuts that post here, and I despise Hillary.

I would vote for McCain over Hillary, but since the Republicans no longer really have any middle of the road centrists, or paleo conservatives as I think they are called, I may have to vote for her afterall because I am very skeptical that the nutty right wing of the party faithful are going to nominate McCain or Guiliani.