“Situation Ethics”

Truth is known by God and the rest of us seek it.”

Newt Gingrich, the day after he asked his sick wife for a divorce

__________________

Likely lying in his marriage bed, next to his extra-marital lover, Newt Gingrich would phone his wife of many years, Marianne, and tell her he loved her.

How sweet.

And how sweet too is the right-wing’s reaction to Marianne Gingrich’s charge that her husband was not just a cheater, but a hypocrite, who the day after he asked her for a divorce, spoke before the Republican Women Leaders Forum about “The Demise of American Culture.”  “How could he ask me for a divorce on Monday and within 48 hours give a speech on family values and talk about how people treat people? she asked.

In that speech on American culture, Gingrich blamed liberals for the Columbine shooting. Later he would blame liberals and Democrats for the tragedy at Virginia Tech and for Susan Smith drowning her two children. One of the reasons he gave was that liberals “created a situation ethics.”

Hmm.

On Thursday night, when CNN’s John King opened the GOP debate with a question about Marianne Gingrich’s charge that her husband asked her “to enter into an open marriage,” Gingrich, indignantly, turned on King:

I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that…

Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine…

I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate… The story is false…I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

For that, the white Christian crowd gave him a standing ovation.

There are those of us out here in the non-Republican world who don’t understand that reaction. We don’t understand how a man who promotes the religion of Jesus can stand on a stage, as he runs for the highest office in our land, and instead of saying to the world that he was wrong so long ago, that he made a grave mistake, that he is sorry, could instead turn and attack the press, and essentially call his wronged wife a liar in front of the world.

We also don’t understand how a crowd full of Christians can raucously applaud a man who not only made a fool of his wife, but made a fool of them by mocking them with his lifestyle.  Even if, in their estimation, he deserves forgiveness, did he deserve an ovation?

Sarah Palin, who has made a fine living off the pious sentiments of folks on the right, said that the “dumbarse” media’s featuring of “a disgruntled ex” would cause Newt’s campaign “to soar even more.” You see, in Sarah Palin’s mind Marianne Gingrich is nothing more than a disgruntled ex, nothing more than an obstacle in Newt Gingrich’s way. She is not worthy of Jesus-loving Sarah Palin’s sympathy, of God-fearing Sarah Palin’s compassion.

Rush Limbaugh, as close to a national leader as the GOP has, hid his thoughts behind a “a good friend” of his, who allegedly sent him a note that read:

So Newt wanted an open marriage.  BFD.  At least he asked his wife for permission instead of cheating on her.  That’s a mark of character, in my book.  Newt’s a victim.  We all are.  Ours is the horniest generation.  We were soldiers in the sex revolution.  We were tempted by everything from Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice to Plato’s Retreat, Deep Throat to no-fault divorce.  Many of us paid the ultimate price, AIDS, abortion, or alimony for the cultural marching orders we got.  Hell, for all I know we should be getting disability from the government….Newt’s slogan ought to [be], “Hell, yes, I wanted it.”

Newt’s a victim.” Astonishingly, a bit later Limbaugh himself came close to blaming the real victim:

I think, of what we’ve seen so far from the Marianne Gingrich stuff, the thing I didn’t know… that Newt had asked for an open marriage…Most of the other stuff, I did know. I also know that Marianne Gingrich… I’ve been places shortly after Newt was made Speaker with Mary, social weekends and so forth, and she was never comfortable with the public eye — and that bothered him. He thought it limited his future.

She didn’t like the media, she didn’t like the focus on her life, so she just wasn’t comfortable with the public eye — and I know that he said, “Well, you knew what you were marrying.” So there’s two sides to all this..

It “bothered” Newt that his second wife “was never comfortable with the public eye.” So gingerly does Rush Limbaugh tiptoe around justifying Newt’s betrayal, his stunning lack of faithfulness. Gingrich twice divorced women who were sick and demanded of at least one of them that they share him with other women or else, and for this Limbaugh and Palin and the crowd of Christians in Charleston essentially celebrated him, affirming if not his infidelity, his indignation.

Look, if Newt Gingrich didn’t frequently stand in the streets and beat his Christian chest in righteous anger, if he didn’t haughtily shout from every housetop how morally corruptive is the liberal spirit, if he didn’t wave his flag of conservative morality in the face of Americans, then what he did or didn’t do, said or didn’t say, to his ex-wives would be between them.

But he does hawk his moral wares in the public square and he has indicted liberalism for nearly all the ills of society.  But no liberal urged him to cheat on his first wife or forced him to lie about the nature of that divorce. No liberal joined him in bed with his lover and current wife Callista. No liberal put a gun to his head and forced him to phone his second wife, with Callista by his side, and tell her he loved her. No liberal tempted him to make a mockery of his faith.

The redemption of a human being is a beautiful thing in any context, religious or secular. Redemption is the solid core of Christianity, the summum bonum of Christian teaching, the raison d’être of the Incarnation. After Gingrich’s denial, Marianne Gingrich has reaffirmed her story and said her former husband never told her he was sorry. It seems to me, if the idea of Christian redemption means anything, if it is to maintain any respect in a civilized society, it ought to require of a man who seeks it to at least admit his crimes to the one he wronged and repent.

And those who say they believe in the religion of Jesus, but who have lately placed their faith in the Republican Party, ought to at least have the decency to sit quietly while a man on a stage who wants to be president refuses to humbly admit his sin and plead for mercy.

34 Comments

  1. Even as a callow youth I tended toward being serious. I trusted adults on most things, at least my parents, teachers, and ministers. I always felt they had a reservoir of certitude about the meaning of life and that if I persevered, then I would someday discover it myself. On my long journey from youth to old age however I found that qualities like faithfulness, love and basic morality tend to be products not so much of the intellect but more like instinct. Character is a complex thing, doubtless part genetic and part from the complex amalgam of life’s experiences. So when a person’s true character is revealed, as in this post, I count it a revelation of something unlikely to be changed, as by repentance. I am not saying true repentance is impossible, I’m saying it is very rare. I have been on business trips with Baptists.

    Excellent post.

    Like

      • Jim,

        You probably are familiar with Steven Pinker, but your comment reminded me of his work. Here is an excerpt from a piece he put in the New York Times Magazine a few years ago (I think you will much appreciate the article,”The Moral Instinct,” but it is rather lengthy for this day and age):

        …our heads can be turned by an aura of sanctity, distracting us from a more objective reckoning of the actions that make people suffer or flourish. It seems we may all be vulnerable to moral illusions the ethical equivalent of the bending lines that trick the eye on cereal boxes and in psychology textbooks. Illusions are a favorite tool of perception scientists for exposing the workings of the five senses, and of philosophers for shaking people out of the naïve belief that our minds give us a transparent window onto the world (since if our eyes can be fooled by an illusion, why should we trust them at other times?). Today, a new field is using illusions to unmask a sixth sense, the moral sense. Moral intuitions are being drawn out of people in the lab, on Web sites and in brain scanners, and are being explained with tools from game theory, neuroscience and evolutionary biology.

      Duane

      Like

      • RDG,

        At least Newt was thinking inclusively when suggesting that the marital bed could be expanded to include whomever he was cheating with at the time. Newt’s moral quandary would be if he was engaged in extramarital relations with an undocumented Mexican.

        Like

      • I don’t recall reading Steven Pinker before, Duane. The NYT Magazine article is a dense, cogent compendium on morality, clearly the product of much deep thought and study. I am saving it for re-reading. And you are right, I find his thinking very similar to my own. I am in your debt for showing me this. Thanks.

        Like

        • Pinker is, indeed, a deep thinker. His books are fascinating, if difficult. But worth the read. We are learning more about the workings of the brain every day, even though it makes a lot of traditionalists uncomfortable.

          Duane

          Like

  2. ansonburlingame

     /  January 20, 2012

    Duane,

    Have you ever been through a divorce? It is BRUTAL and a devastating process for BOTH parties, unless both parties simply DGAS anymore (Don’t give a…..). Then it is simply a money fight.

    Now what does that have to do with governing America?

    You know as well as me that the interview was purposefully airred by ABC, written in the WP and then sent around the world on TV and blogs galore. Why. Simple political “gottcha” is the only reason.

    And the play that “gottcha” game in a Presidential debate two days before a big election is the worst kind of “gottcha”. What happened in the Gingrich divorce is NO OF ANYONE”S BUSINESS today. It was between the two of them and the courts. It has NOTHING to do with being able to govern.

    And now you try to “sermonize” on forgiveness. OMG!!!

    Had you read this blog on THAT stage last night you would have been booed off the stage as the commentator almost was himself after Newt let him have it for being trivial and playing “gottcha” on a very personal matter.

    But then all those SC folks are simply dumb, Christian rednecks according to your analysis, right.

    Anson

    Like

  3. ansonburlingame

     /  January 20, 2012

    To all,

    Jim got his comment in before I did, thus I respond to him as well.

    You want to talk about CHARACTER as displayed in a private marriage and how it affects one’s ability to govern?

    Go no farther than JFK, a womanizing “scoundrel” of huge proportions and we all KNOW it today. He was “carrying on” in the White House itself, multiple times. He makes Clinton and HIS MORALS look like a saint. But he was a pretty good President as well according to many people, me included.

    I would also add that the most disgusting comments during this exchange, in my view, came from the Sactimonious Santorum. He just loves to stand up and tell everyone how “lily white (not racially)” he is and how he is the only “true conservative” up there. The more I listen to that “little twerp” the more disgusted I become. He may have all the “Christian Character” in the world, but a future President, well not with MY vote.

    But if true CHARACTER is the guiding principle for such an election, I would suggest you look closely at Mitt Romney. He has a depth of conviction and strength that is very private to him and he will NEVER trumpet such on any stage. But I SEE IT in his demeanor and strength when he fires back at the “little twerp” who should be wearing a white collar and a black coat in those debates.

    I am almost at the point to say, publicly, that if Santorum gains the nomination, which he never will in my view, I might well be forced to “hold my nose” and vote for Obama.

    Anson

    Like

    • @ Anson,

      Although I have not been through a divorce I am aware of course that many splits spawn long-lasting hatred. As I mentioned, the timing of Maryanne Gingrich’s accusation seems suspiciously like intentional retribution. However, if the circumstances were as she described, I can understand her actions and her on-camera testimony was convincing to me. That kind of callous rejection would be brutal.

      My opinion of JFK is that he was a flawed person, intelligent and capable yes, but one whose own ambition and hubris made him vulnerable to error. The prime example of that was his approval of the CIA’s plan for the Bay of Pigs invasion. He is not one I would have picked for an example here because he was President for less than 3 years. As for moral character, it may not matter to you, but it does to me. I want a President who tells me the truth, not one who patronizes his constituency – I for one can take it.

      JFK hid his cheating from the public and from his family. One could speculate that the ability to dissemble is necessary to being a politician, but there are examples of some who did not. Four that come to mind were Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln.

      I can’t agree about Romney’s character, simply because in everything I have read about him he comes across as a stick figure, a man who has assumed the serious task of managing his own image. To me he is about as real as Ward Cleaver, and who knows what the real Romney is like? The few peeks we have had behind the curtain haven’t impressed me – the $10,000 bet and his obvious discomfort about releasing his tax returns and his many inconsistencies on policies. However, if it’s any consolation, I agree with you about Santorum. Pious preaching turns me off as much as it does you. Gingrich got it right when he labeled it “sanctimonious baloney”. I’ve got to give him that – Gingrich is fast on his feet in verbal jousting.

      Like

      • ansonburlingame

         /  January 21, 2012

        Jim,

        I have no objection if you choose to vote based on character instead of policy considerations. You are seemingly a good and kind man and I can understand why you would choose leaders with such characteristics.

        But you said above, “not one who patronizes his constituency” To me that is one of greatest failures in the Obama Presidency as that is ALL that he has done, patronize unions, the “poor”, etc and attack all things related to wealth, legally earned through hard work and intelligence, success on the part of individuals as well as and most important, policies that ignore incentives to get others to achieve on their own.

        I don’t call that bad character, just terrible policies and thus my vote against him, I hope without holding my nose.

        Finally, the “little twerp” as I now call Santorum is history after tonight I hope and even “pray”. But Newt is far more that simply fast on his feet in verbal jousting. He has ideas that NEED to be vigorously debated, without all the side show of character, etc.

        If he and Obama ever get the chance for a few Lincoln/douglas debates, they could indeed be historical debates showing the strengths and weakness of the fault lines in our society today and the best ways to fix them.

        I would pay money to watch such debates, but Romney will hold his own, I am sure. Remember my comments on what I see as Romney’s great inner strength, gained through his religion, not his CULT!!!

        Anson

        Like

  4. I wonder if the SC attendees at the Republican “debate” would have given a standing ovation to a Democrat if he/she had said the same thing that Gingrich did? Hell, no. These hypocrites would have booed the person off the stage, Limbaugh would have called for the person to resign in shame, and FOX Noise would have spent a month on the issue.

    Gingrich is no different than John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, Elliott Spitzer, or the Republican Senator Larry Craig, whose sin was being accused of being gay. If he had cheated on his wife with another woman, I am sure the good Republicans of South Carolina and throughout the nation would have forgiven him as they did diaper-boy David Vitter. Instead, Edwards, Weiner, and Spitzer were Democrats, and Craig was accused of being gay, so they were vilified throughout the evangelical Christian community and the media while Vitter and, apparently, Gingrich are forgiven.

    This is the definition of hypocrisy, and the evangelical Christian community is swimming in it.

    Like

    • Jim,

      Evangelicals will be swimming in hypocrisy for two reasons this election year: if they vote for Romney they will be endorsing Mormonism as a genuine Christian religion (something I was taught by evangelicals was a “cult” and I was taught that the American president must be a Christian); and if they vote for Newt, they will be telling us that moral hypocrisy on a cosmic scale is okay by them, as long as the offender is a Republican.

      Because of their close association with the GOP, they have worked themselves into quite a dilemma.

      Duane

      Like

      • ansonburlingame

         /  January 21, 2012

        But if the vote AGAINST Obama, they will be doing a great service to America for policy reasons and not all this other “stuff”.

        Remember, Duane “It is the policy,….., not the ……!

        AB

        Like

  5. ansonburlingame

     /  January 20, 2012

    So now the Democrats choose to take the “moral high ground” is that it? Are you kidding me. Their zippers go up and down just like those worn by GOPers, Christians, atheists, Catholics, you name it and you know it.

    Are we going to debate who screwed who and when they did it to elect a president. Ok, everyone, unzip and let’s do some detailed “perker checks” before each debate.

    I again refer to JFK just for starters. Who. was the guy in the reflection pool with a stripper a few years ago, ok maybe a decade or so ago?

    ALL men and women have character flaws in their personal lives, all of them. Need we sneak around and find all the ex-wives with a chip on their shoulders to sort them all out?

    Americans elected Bill Clinto despite the Gennifer Flowers scandle. And if the GOP in fact decides to nominate Gingrich he will stand tall on policy issues of all sorts. And my fond hope is to be able to watch him take on President Obama in multiple debates, THAT will be a series of debates for ALL to watch for sure.

    Same with Romney. Sure the President will make his points but so will those guys as well. And one or the other will ultimately win because about 10%-20% of those voting will decide the winner.

    You already know for whom you will vote regardless of who wins the GOP nomination. So frankly your views don’t count, AT ALL. All you will do is pile on as much garbage as possible, about $1 Billion worth of garbage. I just hope those 10-20% swing voters have enough sense to tell garbage from real substance in who can best govern our nation in the next four years.

    Maybe the next famous political slogan should be “It’s policy, stupid, not peckers.”

    I hope this comment meets “new standards”? “I’m not Sure, Are You?”

    Anson

    Like

  6. Jane Reaction

     /  January 20, 2012

    Newt sure got this part right. As he said, it is “harder to attract decent people to run for public office.” The SOB is a poster child for indecency.

    Like

    • When Newt played that card the other night, I thought how unbelievably audacious of him, after what he did to Bill Clinton and what he has said about other Democrats and liberals over the years. He is also the poster child for cosmos-size hypocrisy. And that is the point about his two divorces and his request to share himself with other women, not the morality of those particular actions.

      Duane

      Like

      • ansonburlingame

         /  January 21, 2012

        Do I hear or read the old evangelical Duane coming out of the closet??? I thought you did not do that any longer.

        AB

        Like

  7. Newt’s redemption seems to be special brand. Not only has he seen the light, he’s discovered justification for his sins and releived himself of any moral responsibility. See, Duane, that’s why he’s now free to preach ethical behavior to others.

    Like

    • Moe,

      If you listen closely to Newt, the reason he gives for his reformation is simple: He’s become too old to fool around (“I’m a grandfather…”)

      Duane

      Like

      • ansonburlingame

         /  January 21, 2012

        And therefore, Duane?

        I miss your point, again. Sounds like a good idea to prevent more stained dresses around the White House!

        AB

        Like

      • I’ve been picking htat up too. Like it’s a credential. Pretty thin.

        Like

  8. Amazing…..
    All this righteous indignation from the same bunch that drug Bill Clinton through the mud and then tried to remove him. The republicans made such a spectacle then that every grade-school kid in America knew what a BJ was. But oh my, it’s an outrage when Newt’s hypocrisy is on display.
    We don’t even need a stained dress or public hearings for Newt’s disgrace; it’s already public record.
    The whole GOP primary has been a race to see who can be the biggest hypocritical jerk, and he’ll be the winner.

    Obama has lead a much more disciplined and moral life, yet he’s portrayed by Newt and the GOP as an Islamic foreigner who hates America and is purposely destroying our country.

    These neocons are truly a despicable bunch of lying twits. Their supporters are either halfwitted, misguided, or being dishonest for selfish purposes.

    Like

    • Newt’s national approval rating is so low because most people know what you are saying here. He has no chance of becoming president and everyone but those hard-core tea-party types in the South knows it.

      Duane

      Like

      • ansonburlingame

         /  January 21, 2012

        I am waiting with anticipation (at about 4 PM Sat) to hear the results in SC.

        I only pray the “little twerp” gets creamed and we can get down to a two man and an idiot race for the GOP nomination. And IF that happens it could go all the way to the convention which I would love to see and hear.

        Sure does keep the flys off the watermelon!

        Anson

        Like

  9. ansonburlingame

     /  January 21, 2012

    No Sekan,

    The GOP primaries are all about who best can bet President Obama in the general election. It is really as simple as that.

    And you know as well as I do that Clinton was impeached NOT for unethical behavior with Monica. He was impeached for ILLEGAL behavior, at least alleged, in his sworn testimony related to the Flowers investigation by a court of law.

    Show me allegations of perjury that can be upheld against a GOP candidate and your point would be sound. But I doubt you will even find a stained dress to put on the internet.

    But then you Dems could blame Gingrich for causing the Clinton impeachment because you think GINGRICH alone caused the government shutdown. Thus Clinton had little to do for a few days and took some time off to “relax” in the White House with Monica, right.

    But forget Clinton. While you guys moralize i still want to hear how you justify what JFK did WHILE he was President, at least morally.

    Frankly, I could care less what JFK did with women. It was the policy, ,,,,, Not the…… that counts.

    Anson

    Like

    • Anson,

      I’m not going to spend much time on this, but you, as usual, have missed the point entirely. Nobody is moralizing about Newt. What we are doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Supreme Moralizer himself. If Newt had kept quiet all these years about other people’s morality, if he hadn’t blamed Democrats for every moral ill under the American sun, then he would get a pass on his individual behavior. But, no, Newt has been on his moral soapbox, he played Inquisitor to Bill Clinton, and he deserves every bit of what he is getting now—and will get, should he miraculously pull off an upset of Romney (which he won’t, by the way).

      Again, it’s not about Newt’s sexual morality or behavior, it is about his phoniness, Anson. It is stomach-turning.

      Duane

      Like

  10. ansonburlingame

     /  January 21, 2012

    Great,

    I will assume no more Newt was bad to his ex wife blogs and we can focus on phoniness. Not I suggest phoniness in terms of his personal life, but phoniness in his policies articulated for today and tomorrow based on the world as it is today.

    Great debate in my view and I will join whole heartedly in such. Even bring up Global warming if you like which will not be a deciding factor in the general election, in my view.

    If we the people and the candidates get it right, this coming election will be about the economy and defense issues. Of course by economy, I mean debt, deficit, budget, unemployment and taxation issues as well as of course entitlements.

    Show me Newt’s or Romney’s policy views that you deem to be phony and we can have a great exchange.

    It is the petty stuff that I object to like emphasizing the chip on an ex wife’s shoulder. Mine certainly has one. But we need not bring that into the debate over the election, unless of course Janes Reaction cares to comment on such!!!

    Anson

    Like

  11. ansonburlingame

     /  January 21, 2012

    Jim,

    I apologize for not adding this to my recent return comment to you above. But I add it hear if you can “untangle” the string.

    Bay of Pigs, Kennedy and hubris. Good discussion.

    We all agree the Bay of Pigs was a terrible decision by JFK. But I can understand why he made it and it has nothing to do with hubris of a personal sort, in my view.

    Curtis LeMay was the “old warrior” on the throne of the JCS and he demanded the Bay of Pigs invasion. In replay it is almost like Goering telling Hitler that England will be gone from the skies in a couple of weeks. Military hubris, eptiomized by Curtis LeMay and a very young President trying to get his feet on the ground.

    No it was not all Lemay, for sure, but it would have taken extraordinary, even perhaps impossible character to tell Lemay and that whole intelligence and defense infrastructure to “stuff it”. Not in 1961. That would have been unheard of at the time and you can be sure that Lemay and many others would have been all over JFK.

    I instead look at the Cuban Missile Crisis as the real test of JFK and his character. No president before or since has stared a nuclear exchange right in the face like he did in that situation. Good, actually great for him. Just how many Presidents or potential ones would have imposed the naval blockade that JFK did.

    I don’t care how many women he “had” in the White House. That is a mark in history for others to consider.

    Anson

    Like

  12. Newt has just won SC – pretty decisively too. The GOP establishment and the big money are having real panic attacks now. No matter who’s the candidate now, Newt may have lost 2012 for them. And not just the White House, down ticket as well. Go Newt!!!

    Like

  13. ansonburlingame

     /  January 22, 2012

    Moe,

    You have a legitimate point above. As I have been writing for months now, the real GOP decision in the primaries is to decide on someone closer to the center of gravity of American national politics or someone further to the right of that center of gravity.

    Just consider if you will had ONLY Romney and Gingrich been in the race since last June. All those Cain, Bachmann, Perry and Santorumn votes would have gone to ……?

    Forget Paul as so far outside the mainstream of either party today as being a 20% “fringe catcher”. If Paul drops out (as eventually he will be forced to do) who knows where all those votes will go. I have no idea.

    So as I have recently written, The GOP is now down to two men and an idiot in the real race. I have no idea what the “little twerp” will do now. But the longer he stays in the more votes he takes away from the “best” conservative candidate to beat Romney, at least.

    I believe the GOP is NOW in a real two man battle and I have no idea who will win it. Considering the mood of the GOP, if anyone can really test such a mood, my guess is now that Gingrich will win.

    Whether that spells doom in the general election for the GOP is anyone’s guess for now, up ticket or down ticket or all tickets.

    But if Americans listen to the general election debates, Obama vs either Newt or Mitt, they will be monumental in expressing the current political divide in our country. And if Americans listen to those debates with an open mind, not one already having made a decision for DEM or GOP, then there will be MUCH to learn for all of us, in my view.

    There is much of real substance to consider, politically, today, Moe. I just hope all of us can get to the substance, particularly on the full range of economic and defense issues. We hopefully will get away for al the “fringe” issues, personal behavior in private being an important one to ignore as I have tried of late to show why.

    I restate again, “It is the policy, …., not the,,,,” that should matter in the general election.

    Anson

    Like

    • [We hopefully will get away for al the “fringe” issues]

      anson, I dont’ think that will happen until we end our very flawed primary system. Primary voters are a very small percentage of the electorate and are the most partisan and issue oriented. They are certainly ‘the base’, and often are actually the ‘fringe’. Candidates play to that. So that the one who survives all that pandering to become the nominee are NOT representative of their own party. Those elected by the Tea Party movement provide a perfect example.

      That said, it will be Romney. Gingrich is as unpopular as ever in all national polls. 26% approval; 60% disapproval. Same numbers as August of last year.

      Like

      • ansonburlingame

         /  January 23, 2012

        A very valid point, Moe, and one of the reasons why the “big money” in the GOP is supporting Romney.

        I only hope that the GOP makes its decision on the BEST IDEAS for our future governing policies, not the money to make 30 second sound bites in advertising.

        A thought to consider. BANN ALL political advertising!! Do it for everyone, no TV, newspaper, radio paid advertising for a political candidate or party. Hmmm, if NO ONE can speak for either side with “money” does that violate the 1st Amendment? Of course EVERYONE can still speak and write, they just can’t pay for the “platform” to do so. They have to simply bring their own soapbox to Spiva Park!!

        Anson

        Like

  14. ansonburlingame

     /  January 22, 2012

    Moe and others again,

    At this point I make a concession. President Obama, based on all that I know about him, has greater moral character, personally, and more empathy than does Newt Gingrich.

    I do NOT conceed that point between the President and Mitt Romney.

    But for this voter, I say, so what. I want a LEADER that can turn this country to a better path and THAT is where I will cast my vote.

    Anson

    Like

%d bloggers like this: