GOP race - family values vs infidelity

[ALF]

I just watched the CBC TV news this evening, and was surprised to hear that Newt Gingrich, who has been making a big deal about family values, has been accused by his first wife of wanting an open marriage. Further in the report, they said that he was happy that his current wife doesn't mind if he "steps out" occasionally.
This from a guy who espouses Christian values? As a further head-scratcher, I was astounded to see Rick Perry gloss over this whole issue, talking about "foregiveness."

Hmm. Funny how forgiveness is immediately offered to a like-minded guy to whom he throws his support, yet that same forgiveness is nowhere to be seen whenever the tiniest transgression is detected in an opponent.

Can someone please explain how this apparent double standard can exist, and why it is not a deal-breaker in choosing a candidate? It would seem to me that sincerity and integrity should be important to a party that loves to get all righteous about its values... or am I missing something?

Don't get me wrong - I really don't care, being ineligible to vote in the USA, and therefore not having a dog in this fight. I just want to understand how this kind of doubletalk can be tolerated or ignored by voters. Anyone?

ALF

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There is a belief among certain conservatives who like being practical instead of dogmatic that "hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue". I.E., Gingrich wanted a younger pretty woman in his life, but that was okay as long as he stayed married to his second wife and presented a proper and victorian domestic image to the world.

Which is exactly what a Victorian man in his position in the 19th century could have done when his wife wouldn't have the power to say no and social convention was on his side.

[SCRawl]

Minor nitpick: if it's the story I'm thinking of -- which was on "Hardball" earlier today -- it was his second wife whom he asked for an open marriage.

He's gone the "ask the lord for forgiveness" route, and so he's been able to deflect a great deal of criticism about his infidelities that way. The fact that he asked his wife for permission to step outside the bounds of his marriage probably won't make a difference to most voters, I wouldn't think. Those who really do care are voting for Santorum.

[SirNitram]

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around, SCRawl. Then again, when it comes to Hardball, I avoid at all costs.

But yes. The GOP has a problem with family values. It's not new. Newt was married three times, and has cheated plenty, McCain left his first wife in the hospital, and then of course there's the inevitable hooker and/or homosexual relations. Why is it tolerated? I have no idea. When GOP talking heads natter on about it, it inevitably comes back to Clinton and did you know he got a blowjob. As if Bubba's having sex with an ugly intern was the measuring stick for all things.(Especially funny when you realize JFK was, well. JFK.)

[Simon_Jester]

Because ultimately, it's not about the moral fiber of the politicians. It's about the attitude of a hundred million people who are firmly convinced that their moral fiber is very precious. And that it will be in danger of the liberal homobortionists are allowed to change the laws so that they no longer force people to act the way they should.

They don't really care if their president is corrupt or unfaithful, as long as he doesn't try to lead a revolt against the very concept of "forbidden by the law of God." Which, in their eyes, liberals do.

[Gandalf]

But yes. The GOP has a problem with family values. It's not new. Newt was married three times, and has cheated plenty, McCain left his first wife in the hospital, and then of course there's the inevitable hooker and/or homosexual relations. Why is it tolerated? I have no idea.

Maybe they vote out of fear that the Democrats will be somehow worse?

[SirNitram]

But yes. The GOP has a problem with family values. It's not new. Newt was married three times, and has cheated plenty, McCain left his first wife in the hospital, and then of course there's the inevitable hooker and/or homosexual relations. Why is it tolerated? I have no idea.

Maybe they vote out of fear that the Democrats will be somehow worse?

In the view of the base, it probably is not fear but a blind article of faith.

[SCRawl]

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around, SCRawl. Then again, when it comes to Hardball, I avoid at all costs.

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in 1999 asked his second wife for an “open marriage” or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne, said Thursday.

From here. The interview on "Hardball" -- I only ever listen to the segment they make available for the audio podcast -- mentioned that it was Callista (his current wife) whom he wanted to fool around with. I wonder if he has wife #4 already on deck. He's getting a little long in the tooth for that sort of thing, but modern pharmaceuticals can do amazing things, I'm told.

[Flagg]

I'd have sympathy for the second wife if he hadn't left his first wife for her.

[Darth Fanboy]

I just watched the CBC TV news this evening, and was surprised to hear that Newt Gingrich, who has been making a big deal about family values, has been accused by his first wife of wanting an open marriage.

It's his second wife making that particular accusation.

No his first wife is the one who accuses Newt of divorcing her while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery and being treated for cancer. (Newt says she initiated the divorce.)

That alone right here should be enough for so called "values voters".

[ALF]

I just watched the CBC TV news this evening, and was surprised to hear that Newt Gingrich, who has been making a big deal about family values, has been accused by his first wife of wanting an open marriage.

It's his second wife making that particular accusation.

No his first wife is the one who accuses Newt of divorcing her while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery and being treated for cancer. (Newt says she initiated the divorce.)

That alone right here should be enough for so called "values voters".

Thanks for the correction, dude. Like I said, I didn't pay a lot of attention to the details of which wife was being wronged in which way. Now I'll be in a better position to converse about it.
ALF

[JME2]

Because ultimately, it's not about the moral fiber of the politicians. It's about the attitude of a hundred million people who are firmly convinced that their moral fiber is very precious.

I think this sums up why my great-aunt really supports Newt.

She claims that it's because of his Catholic background -- understandable at first glance given she's old Catholic.

The problem with is, Newt's treatment of his first wife is all too similar to what my father did to my mother (and so, my aunts' sister) when she was dying of cancer.

We've pointed this out -- and yet, she's intentionally overlooking this because of her religious beliefs and that 'he's found God'.

I don't believe it and I think you the nail on the head about why.

[Patrick Degan]

In a nutshell: tribalism.

[Simon_Jester]

No, that's not quite it. It's not just "he's of our tribe," it's "he won't try to forcibly change our world."

The fear of forcible change always motivates conservatives- not just the raving religious fanatics or the antitax near-anarchists, but the people who look at new government programs, scratch their head and go "gee, are we sure this is a good idea?" It's a very human thing, we don't like the idea that our environment can and will be changed by other people without our consent. Especially someone who doesn't know how far the changes are going to go.

To most of us here, Gingrich looks horrible not just because of his personal vices, but because he stands foursquare against almost every change we see as necessary to our society.

For people who were happy with American culture as it was in, say, 1975, Newt Gingrich looks better. Because Gingrich isn't going to try to pass laws that force people to tolerate what would not have been tolerated in 1975 (like gay people). And Gingrich isn't going to try to pass laws that punish what was widely accepted in 1975 (like casual sexual harassment in the workplace, and women getting paid low wages by condescending bosses).

For them, Newt Gingrich is the man you vote for if you want your grandchildren to be products of the same social milieu you grew up in, which is a natural, often frustrated desire. Any other Republican might do (except Ron Paul, who has fairly radical views), and it really doesn't matter whether they are corrupt or cheat on their wives or anything else. Because they're not being elected to be moral, they're being elected to not change anything important.

There are obvious holes in this kind of thinking, I don't approve of it, but I understand it. It's a form of "vote on the issues." Sometimes, I feel that way myself. Sometimes, I don't give a damn how many interns smoke the president's cigar while he's in office, but I do care about his stance on whether women in general can break out into the workplace. Or if he plans to cultivate the kind of conditions I think necessary for America to have a future. And so sometimes, I'll say I can deal with a guy who has extramarital affairs, it beats a guy who will actively shit on my country and try to ruin things with crazy policies.

Why should I be surprised if Republicans apply he same reasoning, but start from different premises?

[Ultonius]

She claims that it's because of his Catholic background -- understandable at first glance given she's old Catholic.

He doesn't really have a Catholic background, though. He formally converted as recently as 2009, and had been a Southern Baptist since graduate school, and was raised Lutheran. You have to hope that he took changing religions more seriously than he seems to have taken changing wives, especially since he did both twice.

[Patrick Degan]

She claims that it's because of his Catholic background -- understandable at first glance given she's old Catholic.

He doesn't really have a Catholic background, though. He formally converted as recently as 2009, and had been a Southern Baptist since graduate school, and was raised Lutheran. You have to hope that he took changing religions more seriously than he seems to have taken changing wives, especially since he did both twice.

More than likely it's down to GIngrich having shot his wad with the Baptists but the Catholics are endlessly forgiving —a church having no problem with kiddie-rapers in the priesthood is likely to be a lot more understanding toward a man who changes wives every few years to be stylish. Plus it gives him those extra pro-life credentials so important to attract the base to his banner.

[JME2]

More than likely it's down to GIngrich having shot his wad with the Baptists but the Catholics are endlessly forgiving —a church having no problem with kiddie-rapers in the priesthood is likely to be a lot more understanding toward a man who changes wives every few years to be stylish. Plus it gives him those extra pro-life credentials so important to attract the base to his banner.

That's probably part of it. Also, as pointed out, he won't try to alter 'their' world.

[Patrick Degan]

Forgot to mention the other all-important factor: Catholics are likely to be much more wealthy donors than the Baptists.