It was probably ironic that in at least one of the online papers I was reading, the story of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver's separation played literally back to back with the story of Newt and Callista Gingrich's ascension and how it is expected that she will turn the liability of his infidelity, which led to their marriage, into an asset.
In their statement, Arnold and Maria asked for privacy. I have the greatest respect and fondness for both of them. And I am old-fashioned enough — or maybe just consistent enough — to believe that if you keep your personal life personal, it should be treated as just that.
Which raises the Newt and Callista question. Apparently, former Speaker Gingrich was dating — or whatever you want to call it for a family paper — his now third wife, a congressional aide, while as Speaker he was pursuing the impeachment of President Clinton on charges growing out of the president's relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Full disclosure: I also like Newt. I don't agree with him. I wouldn't vote for him. But among the on-air and speech-circuit gladiators, there is no one who is smarter, better prepared or more courteous and considerate. Over the years, I've always been happy to see Newt on my schedule.
And I don't care who he was "dating" or when. If everyone holding elected office in Washington who had "dated" during the last term was suddenly removed from office... You know what I mean. Far as I've been able to tell, such behavior crosses every line, certainly party lines.
If I were married to him, or a close friend or relative were, I'd care plenty.
For me, the only issue is the hypocrisy. How could you seek to impeach the president when you were engaging in the same kind of underlying conduct? Was there no limit to partisanship? My questions have absolutely nothing to do with Callista.
The good news for Newt is that the people who vote in Republican primaries, at least most of them, probably believe the impeachment of Clinton was justified. They won't ask him my questions, at least not the hypocrisy part.
The bad news is that if social issues are anywhere on your agenda, it's hard to have a candidate who doesn't live them or at least look like he lives them. Newt, no matter how charming his wife (and I am sure she is charming), no matter how genuine the love story they built on troubled beginnings (and I have no doubt it is real and strong), has a problem with primary voters who are still holding on to the social agenda.
Maybe it's time for Republicans to let go of that agenda once and for all. Maybe embracing Newt is the way you do that. But I'm not sure they've lost enough times to be at that point.
So there it is: She was a girl in her 20s who reportedly had a six-year affair with a powerful, older married congressman and ended up by his side as he prepares to run for president.
Fairy tale? Or worse than being Mormon? (Sorry, just putting it out on the table). If the personal is political and morality is a big part of your politics, it's a tough one. On the other hand, if you're looking for someone who understands how government works and knows the forces of history, Newt has a lot to recommend him.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
15 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Newt's affair was wrong and immoral but it didn't embarrass the country like having a President panting with an intern on her knees in the White House. That was intolerable!
Comment: #1
Posted by: Early
Wed May 11, 2011 6:15 AM
|
|
|
|
The sneer against the Mormons is simply religious bigotry.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Cowboy Jay
Wed May 11, 2011 7:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Actually, Jay, I think the sneer was directed at the people who are objecting to a a president being Mormon. I was raised in Utah and have a lot of respect for Mormons. I now live in South and find there is a lot of unwarranted religious bigotry directed at them. I just hope that does keep the nation from at least considering two very well qualified candidates/
Comment: #3
Posted by: pkg
Wed May 11, 2011 10:00 AM
|
|
|
|
OOps, on my first post; I meant to say does NOT keep them from voting for two well qualified candidates.
Comment: #4
Posted by: pkg
Wed May 11, 2011 10:21 AM
|
|
|
|
I thought Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury or obstruction of justice, not adultery.
No one is surprised that politicians lie or commit adultery, but lying under oath is (for some) crossing a line which even politicians should not cross.
-- Bob Elkind
Comment: #5
Posted by: bob elkind
Wed May 11, 2011 10:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Susan says she likes Newt, and she might like Arnold too. But she wouldn't vote for either person because they belong to the wrong party. Susan is a partisan Democrat who would support Bill Clinton with or without his pants.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Jere Joiner
Wed May 11, 2011 10:40 AM
|
|
|
|
I agree that Gingrich was wrong and that may be an albatross hanging around his neck. But I believe that John Edwards commiting adultery at the same time his wife was being treated for cancer is abomnable. My wife had breast cancer twice and we grew closer as a result.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Ron Kohl
Wed May 11, 2011 1:30 PM
|
|
|
|
A trite cowardly snarky passive agressive hypocritical snipe by Susan. Still par for the cpourse.
Comment: #8
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed May 11, 2011 2:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Ron Kohl: sorry, if you are going to play the cancer card, remember that Newt told his wife that he wanted a divorce while she was in the hospital after cancer surgery. They are all men without honor.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Jane
Wed May 11, 2011 4:01 PM
|
|
|
|
I knew Newt's parents,,,,good downhome people....His mom chewed tobacco and loved to bet on horses. Newt has a few good ideas but he does not have the character to be a Republican nominee. He has a similarmarriage and womanizer history as Rudy Guiliani and we saw how that played in the last presidential primary. Conservative voters will not stand for this type of behavior. And what would you call his wife, ??? you certainly could not call her the First LADY ? could you? Ditto that woman who married Rudy who was well-known back in her home town of Scranton Wilkes-Barre...Why go with either of these guys when there are so many other candidates who do not have this kind of baggage. John Edwards is also done as any kind of candidate. These guys were thinking with the wrong organ. They can be back-stage advisors but not out front candidates.
Comment: #10
Posted by: robert lipka
Wed May 11, 2011 7:30 PM
|
|
|
|
I agree with Bob Elkind, [as Susan Estrich has to know but conveniently ignores] Bill Clinton was on trial for Lying Under Oath to Federal Officers, and Obstruction of Justice, NOT for getting a BJ from Monica!
Susan Estrich has no moral compass supporting both Bill Clinton and as Ron Khol mentioned John Edwards.
Good for Jeri Joiner to mention that Susan is a partisan Democrat who would support Bill Clinton with or w/o pants.
Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #11
Posted by: Dennis
Thu May 12, 2011 12:31 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Cowboy Jay
I agree!!! And would ask that Susan consider this for just a moment, if I had written the exact same article word for word, yet inserted Jew in place of Mormon. How would she feel, let alone the entire Jewish community.
A a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, I am very disappointed in Susan's judgment today!!
Kelsey
Comment: #12
Posted by: Kelsey Clark
Thu May 12, 2011 4:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Occasionally I agree with one of your positions. But President Clinton was not impeached for "underlying conduct." It wasn't the screwing; he was impeached for aggravated perjury. In most jurisdictions, as you doubtless know, adultery is not a crime, merely a sin. Newt's sin was adultery, not aggravated perjury. I am quite disappointed at the tenor of your description of the President's conduct.
Comment: #13
Posted by: george
Fri May 13, 2011 11:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Susan I just read your piece on Newt and Callista. Let me comment on a few points that failed to get into your editorial. Forget Newt, you obviously can't and want your pound of flesh for his attach of your guy, bill. lower case intentional.
Lest we forget, bill is a duplicious, self centered, egotistical, pile of garbage. bill cheated on his wife, used a minor for personal self satisfaction, conjured an excuse, and lied to America. bill has been and is a role model for young America who "do as he does" bill has everything to do with the "dumbing down" of American values. If bill's behavior is something you condone and aspire to, you deserve each other
Comment: #14
Posted by: bruce
Fri May 13, 2011 2:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Former President Clinton was not going to be impeached for cheating on his wife, but rather for committing perjury when he lied under oath. I'm a Christian, but as a voter I am more concerned that the USA stays a country in which freedom of religion and other rights stay intact. I didn't like Newt's behavior in the past, but rank his stance on the issues as greater than his past behavior. I think moral character is important, and found Obama's denial of knowledge of Rev. Wright's comments, his 20 year long mentor who he socialized with, to be the major turning point in my inability to vote for him. It would have been great if he had just said he knew but disagreed with Wright. That said, I disagree with Newt on his stance on healthcare in which he supports a variation of Obamacare (not sure why we call it that when it was Reid and Pelosi who put the package together with little input from the President). The healthcare law puts a sales tax on all home sales now that homebuyers will be faced with, and still does not fix the problem that when someone loses their job because they cannot go to work they can no longer pay the premiums. The donut hole included people not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. It doesn't help them, but rather states they are required to pay premiums. It doesn't offer a waiver of premium option to allow the premiums to be paid when disabled as can be purchased for life insurance. It doesn't reduce the cost of medicine. The AMA and insurance companies saw $'s headed their way, and backed the measure. However, many doctors will not take Worker's Compensation cases, and many are dropping Medicare patients due to the unethical restrictions the Government places on them. Now comes a new system that will become so costly that ultimately it will drive the country to a single payer system that other countries who have such systems are finding too costly. We will soon all have the same but reduced quality healthcare, except for politicians and the very rich who will likely still have the quality many of us enjoy today because of our free market system that encourages excellence by our doctors. If politicians control our healthcare, they can control the electorate as they do with the fear they instill in seniors with each election round. If Newt Gingrich favors such a system, conservative or not, he will not get my vote. I hope that a new candidate will rise from the mix. Whether they win or not, we need a better choice than the one we were faced with in 2008.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Elaine
Thu May 19, 2011 7:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
