Via the AP: Gingrich on page scandal: Democrats have done far worse
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that Democratic sex scandals have been far worse than the suggestive Internet messages sent to teenage congressional pages by former Rep. Mark Foley.Gingrich said Democrats have wanted to punish their offenders less than the GOP.
“What we don’t have to do is allow our friends on the left to lecture us on morality,” Gingrich said at a party fundraiser in Greenville. “There’s a certain stench of hypocrisy.”
It is just me, but didn’t Gingrich give up the right to talk about the hypocrisy of others on matter of sexual behavior after leading the charge to impeach Clinton over the Lewinsky affair while he himself was having an affair with a younger staffer?
There are just some things where one ought to keep one’s mouth shut.
Further, the issue isn’t about the great Sexual Malfeasance scoreboard–it is about the current problem and how it is being dealt with.
Sphere: Related Content
October 5th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
[...] UPDATE: PoliBlog points out something that I forgot… It is just me, but didn’t Gingrich give up the right to talk about the hypocrisy of others on matter of sexual behavior after leading the charge to impeach Clinton over the Lewinsky affair while he himself was having an affair with a younger staffer? [...]
October 5th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
[...] The hypocrisy is rampant and bi-partisan, and Nick Anderson’s cartoon last night was a brilliantly executed depiction of this aspect. (Ed: link now working.) [...]
October 5th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Apples and Oranges PoliBlog:
4.
It’s now known in the Foley situation that this young person was well past the age of consentient, indeed 17 and would be 18 in a few months, isn’t it just a little “Holier Than Thou” for the Democrats to be talking about “sex.” That’s all Monica was about - right? NO!
No that scandal the President of the United States lied under oath, committing the same crime Scootter Libby was arrested and charged for, not to keep it from his wife because as all know now, she was aware of every thing about Monica and his many other affairs. His purgery was to step around yet another political scandal in his administration.
Foley was outed purely for political reasons, which makes that group of Capital Hill assistants and pages just as slimey as Foley. They timed the outing now because we have elections in a month. They lied about ages, saying the young man was 16, as was widely reported,when in reality almost 18 and would have been 18 when they scheduled a possible meeting, which never took place.
Comments on this blog are subject to the guidelines stated in the Comments Policy.
October 5th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Do we as citizens give up the right to point out wrong doing because we have done wrong ourselves? If my moral compass lapses for a moment and I commit a sin can I never work against sin in the future? If I do something in private that I am against in public I am forever barred from speaking of it?
That seems to be the standard applied to Mr. Gingrinch.
None of us are perfect and each individual wrong we commit shoudl be judged individually. That doiesn’t mean a pattern of abuse should be ignored but let’s apply common sense.
The facts are the Dems are being hypocrites, Foley is sick (in my mind)(but at least he took responsibility and resigned), the house leadership is being judged with 20/20 hindsight.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Steven,
I may have been a little strong with “give up the right”–however, I think it takes some cajones for Gingrich to talk about the hypocrist of the Democrats.
Yes, there are times when one has engaged in a pariticular action that it makes it rather difficult for one to be a voice of moral reason on that topic.
On regards to judging the House leadership, I disagree. This isn’t about 20/20 hindsight–it is about how they have dealt with it since Thursday coupled with how what we are learning about how they dealt with it in previous years.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Let’s put it this way: how would you be reacting if Bill Clinton came out and started lecturing the GOP about sex scandals? Or Ted Kennedy?
I don’t think you’d have the same reaction.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Gingrinch is speaking of politics in this situation not trying to be a moral compass. No one can doubt his experience with the politics and workings of the house.
Perhaps I would feel different if it were Bill Clinton lecturing us about workplace harrasment and preying on younger people but I not sure I would say he couldn’t speak of it.
I believe there are arenas here. One is the moral arena in which Foley is a disgrace. The other is the political arena in which Foley is one of many who have committed such sins and few have been held to account for it properly.
Mixing the two only muddies the water.
October 6th, 2006 at 11:14 am
To be clear: my goal was not that I literally think he has not legal rights to say anything on the subject, but rather that in my estimation he was given up any cedibility on the subject.
Even in terms of pure politics, he is hardly an appropriate person to making the argument that he is making.
The spokesman matters, even when speaking solely in political terms. One isn’t going to hire Terrell Owens to give seminars on humility.
October 6th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
I fully understand your point. Normally it would seem appropriate but I have recently decided to rethink the whole hypocrisy thing.
At first blush hypocrisy such as Gingrinch has comitted seems clearly wrong. The hypocrisy of Foley seems even more wrong. But when we look close can we say that the statements themselves are less valid? Must we look at who is saying them and discount the worth even though the statements themselves are full of truth?
Foley may have been instrumental in passing laws that protect children against people such as himself. His hypocrisy doesn’t diminish the value of that work. It certainly reduces him in the eyes of all.
Gingrinch simply points out that both sides of the aisle have committed these sorts of offenses but Foley’s are being given different treatment than let’s say Studds or Clinton. It’s a fair point that should be discussed on it’s merits alone.
I’m throwing this out to you for discussion not at you like an argument. I appreciate your ideas and read your blog nearly every day so believe me when I say I repsect and look forward to your opinions on this and many other matters.
October 6th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Steve,
It’s just you. Newt didn’t push for impeachment. Apparently, you were too young to remember 1998. Here’s a piece form the Boston Globe:
Congressional Democrats quickly voiced agreement yesterday with House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s suggestion that it might not be “a smart idea” to rush into any impeachment inquiry against President Clinton.
October 6th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
And since I know you’re going to grab a crappy, out-of-context quote from Salon, here’s more from CNN:
Although sources have said Starr’s report to Congress would be limited to the allegations that Clinton had a sexual affair with Lewinsky and encouraged her to lie about it under oath, Gingrich told The Washington Post that “a single human mistake” would not constitute grounds for an inquiry.
“I don’t think the Congress could move forward only on Lewinsky, unless he had such a clear case, such an overpowering case,” Gingrich said. “But I think we would be better served to know the whole story.”
Again, you’re advanced degreed failed to shield you from the onslaught of liberal mind-bending.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Bill,
I am hardly too young to remember 1998.
Newt was the Speaker of the House during the impeachment. To hold him harmless is ridiculous and to claim that that quote somehow absolves him is laughable. While the main fight was actually led by Tom DeLay (remember him?), Newt was the unquestioned leader of the Republicans in the House from 1995 until right after the 1998 election.
The House Judiciary Committee recommended a full impeachment inquiry and the House approved an impeachment investigation in October 1998 when Newt was Speaker. If you know anything about House, you will know that those kinds of things do not happen if the Speaker is in opposition to the process. Especially that Speaker.
So, if one wishes to parse my post to the hilt, I will concede that Newt was not the most visible leader of the process. But to suggest that he was not a key player means that perhaps it is not my age, degree or partisan influences that ought be examined. (Btw, I really don’t see the point of the ad hominem, but such is blogging at times, I suppose).
October 7th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Bill,
A) I am not sure why you would assume: And since I know you’re going to grab a crappy, out-of-context quote from Salon, here’s more from CNN
and (of more importance)
B) The quote in question comes from August of 1998. Clearly, given what I noted above, Newt came to the conclusion pretty quickly that, indeed, the process should move forward.