Skip to main content

I have not been able to come to Dkos on a daily basis, no matter how much I want to. A new position at my company has me isolated in a no-internet, no-phone, no nothing-that's-digital area for much of the day. If someone has already done a diary like this, feel free to let me know.

I just find it amazing that the Rethuglicans are, once again, about to nominate an adulterer for the nomination. I want to ask opinions of this community on two things:

1) What this means for Gay Americans and 2) will Callista Gingrich get mauled in the next few months?  

To begin with, I know a large percentage of Kossacks do not care a whit about a candidates personal life, (and also many of you are not Christian)but humor me: When I speak here, I'm speaking in the terms of the GOP and their fundamentalist followers.

When it comes to adultery, the rules are quite clear: both parties, no matter which one is married, are both sinners in the eyes of God. (Of course, to expand on that, ALL sex that is not in the bounds of marriage is a no-no in the Bible)

The GOP -- the party of FAMILY VALUES, the only party that honors God, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit -- is seemingly, for the second presidential election in a row, going to nominate, not only a man who admittedly committed adultery BUT also the woman who he committed it with.

John McCain admittedly had a host of physical and mental problems after returning from captivity in Vietnam and his marriage was falling apart. He fell in with the 18-years younger-daughter of a rich beer magnate and then divorced his wife.

Now, a lot of that got swept under the rug in 2008 and maybe deservedly so: this is the early 70s when this happened, McCain was not in office at this time, and was not in the best of mental shape when he came back from Vietnam having suffered horrors most of us can't even imagine. Plus, McCain was never a Bible-thumper or moralist prig like some of his GOP colleagues. So this is not something that was harped on too much by other primary opponents, except in passing.

So OK, fine. But soft, let us turn our attention to one Newton Leroy Gingrich:

He  cheated on Wife #1 with Wife #2. He cheated on Wife #2 with current Wife #3, and he was doing it while Speaker of the House and therefore leading the charge on Bill Clinton's Impeachment Trial. This is not ancient history. This is 13 years ago. Military Derferment-Blessed Newt Gingrich's excuse?  The long, long hours he was putting in and the passion he felt for his country led him to it.

Now of course, we have to couple this with the GOP's rabid, rabid, anti-gay stance which encompasses zero-tolerance on gay marriage. Their stance on this is largely Bible-based, but, because we happen to have a little thing called Freedom of Religion in this country, they have had to resort that nebulous "The Sancticity of Marriage" deal.

My ultimate point is that if Newt Gingrich is nominated, you can compound that with McCain's nomination and the conservatives will have basically poured gasoline on TSOM. They will have NO moral high ground to stand on as far as that issue is concerned.
(Oh look at this!Newt has just signed on the No-Adultery Pledge. For the FOURTH time. He's lucky that one is not under Grover Norquist's jurisdiction.)

Oh, don't get me wrong, they'll still play the Gods, Guns and Gays card, (hey, gotta have something to distract from the fact that --at heart -- you're the party of the Rich) but it'll be a blunted attack. Sure there's such a thing as forgiveness, and heaven knows Democratic male politicians are no saints, but I just don't see how you nominate adulterers two elections in a row and maintain your self-righteousness. (1) I believe that this is something that should be pounded on by us if Newt is indeed the nominee.

When I say we should pound on that, I mean we as in activists and bloggers especially in any shouting matches you get into with any Conservatives friends you may have.  In absolutely no way do I advocate Barack Obama doing what Mitt Romney is doing, i.e., using his stable marriage in an ad campaign. We really DON'T care about marriages and such; there's far too many pressing policy issues to get into that. Newt's policy positions are so fucking scary it's not like Plouffe and co. need to get into the personal stuff.

But those of you reading this? Knock yerselves out. Every chance you get, you should make this point: three out of the last three Democratic nominees were men with stable marriages. Two out of the last three Republican nominees were serial adulterers. And the third was George W. Bush, which, let's be honest, is much, much worse.

And I want to talk about Callista Gingrich. She is going to be a target if Newt gets the nomination, and that's somewhat regrettable. Take this passage from Powerwall today:

Callista's Prissy Style Problem

Mrs. Gingrich's grooming is distractingly impeccable. In an era of relaxed dress codes and wash-and-go hair, her style is painstakingly starched from head to toe. If she were to slouch, she just might crack

Personally, I think that's uncalled for(2), but that's reality. We are now fully in the internet age, and every woman in the public eye is subject to the barbs of bloggers and "the make a comment" blank space.

For years, there was a been a distinct mold to First Ladies: Pat Nixon, Rosalyn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush. Hair imported from the Eisenhower era, impeccable societal manners, sensible, but non-overwhelming in both their makeup, clothing and opinions.
Jackie Kennedy, Hilary Clinton and Michele Obama were groundbreakers for their time, but again, Republicans are different. They want good little Stepford Wives.

Did Callista Gingrich ever think that Newt's presidential aspirations would ever get to this point? Did Newt? Maybe, maybe not, but if it happens she's in for major scrutiny. For starters, as stated, she has been "the other woman". (Expect to see lots of bloggers assign less-polite, street-slang upon her like "jump-off" and "First Side Chick").

Secondly, she's 22 years younger than Newt. Ouch! Kids, that's a generation. That's OK if you're Mick Jagger or Rod Stewart, but when you're seeking the highest office in this country it's a tad...unseemly. (3)

And then there's the whole Tiffany's thing, which will weigh around her neck far more than any pearl necklace.

Now they say that we don't vote for running mates, and we don't vote for wives. But STILL, both of those people are important to a presidential campaign. Just like one has to visualize this person as the President of the United States of America, you have to be able to visualize his/her running mate as the same. And there's also a visualization of the first lady.

Can anyone -- visualize Callista Gingrich in that role? What about Republican women? Any woman who's been cheated on  (by a husband, boyfriend, whatever) would instantly get their dander up whenever they see her on TV or at the RNC convention. But not just that -- what about any woman who's ever been passed over for a promotion while someone younger and prettier moved ahead at their job? What about the average woman who watches anorexic bottle-blondes dominate on magazine covers and TV shows?

I cannot fathom how they will look at Callista Gingrich and say, "yes, I feel comfortable voting for him and her." I could be wrong. Anyone with a differing opinion is welcome to chime in.

All in all, I'm optimistic about a Newt candidacy; His chances of beating Barack Obama are slim, but beyond that, it also gives us a chance to tar and feather the moralists in the GOP more than usual in suport of civil rights for all. It's an opportunity that we should not waste.

PS: I realize that this Diary has mentioned Newt Gingrich and sex in the same paragraph several times. I deeply apologize for that.

(1) - HAHAHAHA! Did I just say out loud that I wonder how the GOP maintains it's self-righteousness?!?! HAHAHAHA!

(2) -Of course, comparatively worse has been said about Hilary Clinton over the years to be sure.

(3) - Then again, so much about Newt Gingrich is unseemly...


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Why are GOP candidates so crazy? They're guaranteed 169 Electoral Votes no matter what. That's why.

    by Jank2112 on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:16:48 PM PST

  •  Biblical sex (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a gilas girl, rja
    ALL sex that is not in the bounds of marriage is a no-no in the Bible

    Not always -  after God created Adam and Eve, he told them to be fruitful and multiply, and did not bother with a marriage ceremony.

    Scientific Materialism debunked here

    by wilderness voice on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:25:33 PM PST

  •  I see no reason to go after Callista (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, a gilas girl

    Newticles presents a target-rich envirnment, and there is no indication Callista seeks the influence of say, a Nancy Reagan.  

    Scientific Materialism debunked here

    by wilderness voice on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:27:55 PM PST

    •  Nancy started as a bit on the side too, of course (3+ / 0-)

      Am I right, or am I right? - The Singing Detective

      by Clem Yeobright on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:42:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  LOL! n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Scientific Materialism debunked here

        by wilderness voice on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:51:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That is true. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        Of course, we're talking about St. Reagan there so...

        Why are GOP candidates so crazy? They're guaranteed 169 Electoral Votes no matter what. That's why.

        by Jank2112 on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 08:03:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No she didn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        Jane left Reagan. He didn't start up with Nancy until he was on his own. Apparently Jane left Reagan because he wasn't home enough, but it wasn't because he was banging Nancy or anyone else.

        Hush! Hush! see how the Child is sleeping; Hush! Hush! see how he smiles in dreams!

        by Zornorph on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 09:48:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He was still married (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wilderness voice

          I was at the Reagan Library last month and there is a whole room dedicated to their first date, as related by Nancy, in which she neglects to mention that his divorce was not final at that time. The library is also very fuzzy about the children: since Jane Wyman is not mentioned, RR's first two children might have sprung from his forehead for all you'll learn there, and you have to do the math yourself (after you get home) to realize that Patty was well on the way when Ron bit the bullet (bought the cow?) with Nancy.

          To be fair: Reagan did not run back and forth between beds, nor did Bob Dole (Dole moved into the basement of the house he shared with his wife when he started banging Libby). Newt is special in that regard!  LOL

          Am I right, or am I right? - The Singing Detective

          by Clem Yeobright on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 10:09:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I agree.. (0+ / 0-)

      ...its' just that like I was saying, there's no shortage of nasty venom out there. We shouldn't get personal, but it's still a good idea to point out the failings of Newt every chance possible.

      Why are GOP candidates so crazy? They're guaranteed 169 Electoral Votes no matter what. That's why.

      by Jank2112 on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 08:04:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I read that article (0+ / 0-)

    and feel that Callista's hotness will only yield him more starbursty votes!

  •  Did it hurt Libby Dole? (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe Callista will go on to be a Senator from a state she doesn't even live in too ...

    The Rs have been through this and think it's fine.

    Hell, Queen Nancy was dating Ron while he was still married to Jane Wyman, you know.

    Am I right, or am I right? - The Singing Detective

    by Clem Yeobright on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:40:34 PM PST

  •  About that moral high ground bit... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    milkbone, myrealname

    The GOP believes any ground they stand upon is always, by default the moral high ground.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:01:35 PM PST

    •  True, but (0+ / 0-)

      if they nominate Newt, they're going to be living in the echo chamber even moreso than they do now.

      Teh Republican Party will ever more resemble that group of Star Wars fans who believe that the prequels are just as good as the first trilogy.

      Why are GOP candidates so crazy? They're guaranteed 169 Electoral Votes no matter what. That's why.

      by Jank2112 on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 08:09:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I thinks she's creepy-scary. First Lady? Hell, no (0+ / 0-)

    The article goes on:

    Her many style tics—stacked one atop the other—read as code for narcissism, self-indulgence, and brittle self-absorption. Hollywood has taught us this code. So have Madison Avenue and Seventh Avenue.

    A perfect match for the Newt, though.

    #Occupy, exposing the US police state to the world.

    by OleHippieChick on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:59:43 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site