Pond Scum Rises to the Surface

As primarily a Republican in my general political philosophy, I feel disenfranchised by an electoral system that dismisses potential presidential candidates 5 months before my state’s primary elections! No matter how long the list of candidates vying for my vote, the last person I would consider is Newt Gingrich because his past is also his present when it comes to both his politics and his personal life. However, if one believes today’s media hyperbole, Gingrich is the Republican candidate for President in November 2012, the only candidate who can beat Obama, say some political pundits. Really? He’s been there, done that, and had to step down for ethical considerations, so why elevate his status again? Some men cannot handle power, and Gingrich is a living, breathing example of a man for whom absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Sure, everyone has past misdeeds, but Gingrich was a political legend who acted with impunity regardless of how egregious his conduct, and he brings with him today a past that shapes his present. When asked about his sexual misconduct, he could have been forthcoming: it is important to know how honest any candidate is, and Newt side-stepped honesty by turning on the commentator who asked the question. The bottom line is, Newt, did you, while actively engaged in a sexual affair with the woman who presently serves as your wife, ask your legal wife at that time to give her permission for you to continue with your extra-marital affair by suggesting she agree to an open marriage? Wasn’t it enough that your wife repeatedly turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to what you were already doing without her permission?

It is a fair question and it speaks to the basic integrity of the man behind the series of affairs, as well as the question of wanting his wife’s permission to do what he was already doing – keeping her in his control by suggesting that she approve his actions. His pattern and practice of disloyalty to his wives is important because a man who cheats in his marriage cheats in other aspects of his life, as evidenced by his actions during the 1990s, which Gingrich probably also does not want to revisit, featuring a 1990 ethics investigation that led to the first congressional reprimand of a House speaker.

According to many sources and summarized by www.washington post.com, Members of the ethics committee may have been divided and partisan in their political ideology, but the group decided almost unanimously that Gingrich had violated ethics standards. The same goes for Congress, which voted overwhelmingly to reprimand the former speaker.

Gingrich’s history with ethics investigations — both his own and that of Wright — serve as proof that those who live by the sword die by the sword. He has little room to complain about Democrats having brought charges against him, nor does he have any basis to suggest the panel made a partisan decision to reprimand him.

In fact, the only thing provably (sic) “partisan” in Gingrich’s case was the former speaker’s college course. The ethics committee used that exact word to describe it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs /fact-checker/post/newt-gingrich-tries-to-re-write-history-of-his-ethics-scandal-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/14/ gIQA4AOcwO_blog.html).

In January, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida hold primaries; by the time the first month of the presidential primaries closes, the determination of the Republican Party’s official candidate will be determined by … the media’s bias and coverage of the candidates’ personal and political lives. As one pundit puts it, “The truth is that about three quarters of the Republican voters really don't like Mitt Romney. They see him as a slick phony who doesn't have any core principles at all, let alone conservative ones. But the problem is that all the other candidates are deeply flawed” (www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012).

Whose truth is that? The truth of the South Carolina voters who surprisingly thrust Gingrich into front-runner status after the media put him onto the front page of every media outlet in the nation? I’m going to guess that three-quarters of the Republican voters have not made a choice because only 3 states have conducted primaries, which leaves 47 states left to determine who the Republican candidate will be! Going into Florida, the last January primary, the media has determined that Gingrich is the front-runner because his misdeeds are a better front page story than Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs, Rick Santorum’s youthful inexperience, and Ron Paul’s advanced age, as these and other potential nominees continue a steady climb toward the Republican Convention.

The media has far too much influence on the people’s choice of candidates, using front page coverage either to hype or disparage a candidate with the media version of “the truth.” Making Gingrich the Republican darling because he refuses to respond to legitimate questions about his personal and political ethics is reprehensible, especially when it encourages the candidate not to respond honestly. Gingrich says that his second wife’s allegations are a lie, but when Newt doesn’t like the accusations, he denies them, twisting the truth to better fit what he wants people to know about him:

Gingrich earns four Pinocchios for suggesting the ethics committee acted in partisan fashion, and for trying to rewrite history by pretending he succumbed to Democratic attacks when he actually acknowledged wrong doing. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/).

Newt Gingrich is a dishonest man in both his personal and his public life and is not a candidate I will support, but that may be a moot point because any candidate I may consider in the June Presidential primary may not be on the ballot by the first of February! It is time for a nationwide primary to determine who the people want on the ballot, not who some voters in some states determine get a state’s electoral votes months before other voters are allowed to voice an opinion. The media outlets won’t have nearly the power to make or break a candidate week-by-week, state-by-state, primary-by-primary, depending on which way the political winds blow on any given day, if we all go to the primary polls on the same day.