Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newt Gingrich: Iím not a hypocrite
Politico ^

Posted on 03/27/2011 8:56:41 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

Newt Gingrich: I’m not a hypocrite - POLITICO Live: Newt Gingrich: I’m not a hypocrite March 27, 2011

Newt Gingrich: I’m not a hypocrite

Pressed on “Fox News Sunday” about his adulterous past, Newt Gingrich said it was not hypocritical for him to impeach Bill Clinton while he cheated on his own wife because he never lied under oath.

“I don’t know what you would have had me do,” he said, getting a little testy, “because…the president of the United States [was] committing perjury. Remember, he’s a lawyer! This was not some accidental thing. And I thought the outcome was about right.”

The all-but-official candidate for the Republican presidential nomination granted that his own extramarital affairs will be an issue in the coming campaign, but he sounded hopeful that voters will, if they don’t forgive or forget, at least look the other way.

“We’ll find out six months or a year from now whether people are forgiving and whether they put in context events that are 10 and 15 years old,” Gingrich said.

The former House speaker from Georgia said it didn’t bother him that he was throwing rocks at Clinton as president while living in his own metaphorical glass house. He said he would have resigned his leadership post if he didn’t think he could go after Clinton for breaking the law.

“It’s not about personal behavior, and it’s not about what he did in the Oval Office,” Gingrich said of his failed 1998 effort to destroy Clinton. “You can condemn that. You can say it’s totally inappropriate. It was about a much deeper and more profound thing: Does the president of the United States have to obey the law?

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: rino
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: Sub-Driver

The Predator SHOULD have been ousted for selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions. Actually, he should have been executed. Only a Republican would have been tossed out for perjury. Bob


21 posted on 03/27/2011 9:09:14 AM PDT by alstewartfan ("I don't wanna think. Just leave me here to drink, wrapped up in the warmth of New York City." Al S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

He’s right but still whore bait IMO.


22 posted on 03/27/2011 9:10:00 AM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Gingrich didn't learn his lesson from ‘08 yet, then steps out and poses with Pelosi on a couch pushing his “Green” traitor tendencies, but still thinks all he has to do is talk these issues away to become our candidate.

There in lies the problem.......He is still talking, which has always been his undoing.

23 posted on 03/27/2011 9:10:46 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (Patriotic by Proxy! (Cause I'm a nutcase and it's someone Else's' fault!....))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Obama would LUUUUUUV to run against Newt. With his past, Gingrich should be a spokesmodel for Bag N’ Baggage.
24 posted on 03/27/2011 9:11:02 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Newfy

No they won’t because Newt is a Republican. If he was a Democrat, e.g. Bill Clinton, it would never be brought up unless by a Republican opponent.

I am more than grateful that they bring this up with Republican candidates. I could care less what they bring up or don’t bring up for Democratic candidates as I don’t vote for them. I vote for the Republican candidates and I want someone who is pro-life and pro-marriage, but not just talk but someone who takes their marriage vows seriously....he clearly does not and I hope the media is all over him on this forever. He volunteered to run for President not the media. Blame him. Also the media did not cause him to cheat NUMEROUS times on his many wives.


25 posted on 03/27/2011 9:11:49 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Gingrich is the quintessential politician. He can take any side of any issue. He has a train load of baggage and many more problems:



==

Another of his patriotic duties for the good of the country, no doubt. [/s]
26 posted on 03/27/2011 9:12:35 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mortal19440

Bingo!

He is guilty of the same kind of moral relativism that nearly all liberals practice, where the “ends justify the means”. In his case, getting a little on the side while his wife was sick justifies breaking his wedding vows, yet he’s got the audacity to put himself on a higher moral plane than Clinton.

Stand down MSM, DUmp and KOS - this one is ours and we’ll take care of him. Newt will not win a single primary, and if we need your help we’ll ask for it.

The worst part is, he’s not that good at lying, cheating or being an elitist and we have better RINOs if that’s what we wan - weak men who at least don’t suck up to Pelosi to promote crap-science.


27 posted on 03/27/2011 9:13:27 AM PDT by bigbob (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OrioleFan

Be that as it may, he’s still the smartest politician on the public scene IMO and certainly a huge improvement over what’s in the WH now and Clarissa would be a much better First Lady than michelle-ma-belle who’s having a high-heeled grand time on the taxpayers dime (along with her mother).


28 posted on 03/27/2011 9:13:39 AM PDT by Newfy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

If I remember correctly the one article that didn’t pass was lying under oath. Graham voted against it in committee.

As for Newt running, he’s NOT running for president. He’s simply trying to raise his speaking fees.


29 posted on 03/27/2011 9:14:20 AM PDT by Terry Mross (Those Who Worship Him will all bow down and say "Yes, we can!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Forget about Gingrich, what is clear is that the left has been able to successfully paint the Clinton impeachment as a moral issue about adultery, when nothing could be further from the truth. It was about the chief law enforcement officer of the country willfully breaking the law - and breaking it to satisfy his own personal political self-interests.

The left would have people believe that it's OK for Clinton to violate the law to meet his political ends, but it wasn't OK for Nixon to do the same. Instead, the Clinton impeachment becomes a footnote in the ongoing culture wars. It's pathetic.

30 posted on 03/27/2011 9:15:34 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Sorry, Mr. Contract With America. You had your shot.

31 posted on 03/27/2011 9:16:54 AM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
"If I remember correctly the one article that didn’t pass was lying under oath."

I believe that there were two perjury charges. One passed the House resolution, the other did not - could be wrong. I think there were two articles of perjury all together - again, could be wrong.

32 posted on 03/27/2011 9:18:41 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Fool me once...
33 posted on 03/27/2011 9:19:16 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inspectorette

“Maybe at 67, the old zipper doesn’t bulge the way it used to, hence he’s “matured”.”

I betcha he buys Viagra by the 55 gallon drum.

Dirty old men make me gag.


34 posted on 03/27/2011 9:19:26 AM PDT by bimboeruption (Clinging to my Bible and my HK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
I meant to say - "...two articles of impeachment all together". Not perjury. Sorry.
35 posted on 03/27/2011 9:19:48 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mortal19440
Not being judgmental, but didn’t Newt take an Oath when he married number 1 and 2?

Yes, yes, yes. But that was just an oath before God to be faithful to his wife.

If he becomes President, he will only have to take an oath before God to defend and protect The Constitution of The United States of America....to the best of his ability.

You see? So there's an "out" there.

36 posted on 03/27/2011 9:21:06 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
I do not care whether or not the term hypocrite applies or not. He is trash.
37 posted on 03/27/2011 9:21:31 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Good grief, Newt, Clinton raped a woman. Isn’t that enough to figure out what a scum criminal he is?


38 posted on 03/27/2011 9:25:06 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
He's right - Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. It wasn't about sex or unfaithfulness.

That STILL doesn't mean we should consider Newt for a presidential candidate. If he's not faithful on “little” things like his marriage vows, why the heck should we trust on big things like the oath of office?

Go home, Newt, shut up and stop embarrassing us.

39 posted on 03/27/2011 9:25:10 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Heading, with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Does the president of the United States have to obey the law?

Forget it, Newt. You should know by now that 100% of all the people involved in enforcing the law are a bunch of little Jesuses.

40 posted on 03/27/2011 9:25:32 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson