ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Politics & Political Science

Newt's "Share Me" Proposal Doesn't Matter

Updated on January 19, 2012

I hate to spout off the often overused, "Well, here we go again." But well, here we go again.

ABC News is set to air an interview with Newt Gingrich's second wife who makes the claim that Newt Gingrich asked her, after a 6-year long affair with his now third wife Callista Bisek, to share him with her. According to most pundits and conservative radio talking heads, they're making the claim that this could well be the last straw for Newt's campaign which has no doubt had its fair share of other issues. To my mind, however, this issue happens to be a non-issue—or at least it should be.

Don't misread me. It's deplorable conduct. I can say without any hesitation that it's conduct that I would never condone. Still, I don't think it's anything but glaringly obvious that this entire issue seems to be one that is being brought out and into the open solely for malicious reasons. The issue is being brought out and into the open with clear intent to destroy Newt Gingrich's efforts to win the White House. To my mind the matter really has no bearing on whether or not Newt Gingrich should be in the White House, nor how he will lead us if he were to actually win the nomination and become our next president.

Ask yourself the question, how many presidents in our nation's history have been philanderers? How many of our presidents, who we thought to be respectable and even great presidents, had been philanderers?

Granted, the fact that numerous of our former presidents had trouble keeping their "its" in their pants doesn't make Newt's own infidelities acceptable. I want to make that point abundantly clear. As I said, it is deplorable conduct.

But I do find myself thinking back to the Obama campaign, and about all of the associations he had with people like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers. I find myself thinking about the associations he has at this very moment. Or associations that he has had during his own presidency (Van Jones being one that readily comes to mind). If having associations with hate mongers and terrorists aren't enough to unseat any chance of being elected to be the President of the United States, then why in the hell would this be? Where in the world are our priorities?

The things that should matter never seem to, and you can bet the left will slobber like lions in a meat factory over this whole "share me" thing. Apparently some conservatives will too, however unfortunate I think that happens to be.

The fact of the matter is that we have real issues that we face as a country. We have very real problems that need to be solved. That's where our focus should be. That's what should be important. We need to know what any one of these guys vying for the presidency will do to solve the important issues. What happened between Newt Gingrich and his second wife is between Newt Gingrich and his second wife. And let's not forget that his second wife is only sharing her side to the story. Who knows what went on in their relationship? And why when this sort of thing happens is it always the man's fault anyway?

But I digress.

If I may be frank, I don't give a damn who's been screwing who at this point—I give a damn about the guy who's screwing us all every single day he's in office. Let's let the issues and the on-the-job record of the candidates lead us to decide who should be the nominee, and who should be our next president. This personal crap, to my mind, is moot. It hasn't mattered in the past. And It does not matter in the present. And by the way, I think we can all safely say we have enough of our own skeletons in the closet—how much of that would you think would be relevant to your own job interview?


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 5 years ago from Wisconsin

      Thanks to all who commented. Always an interesting exchange.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 5 years ago from Wisconsin

      Lone Ranger, I agree with you on point. I would only state that what I find myself more concerned with is the seriousness of what one does immorally. I'm not saying that cheating on your spouse isn't high on the list. I AM saying I don't think it necessarily affects one's job performance or abilities. What you have to stack up is what is one's priority? What's the utmost importance to someone like a Newt? Is it being faithful to his wife? Apparently not. But if you asked him about his country, or about national security, you'd get a very different perspective from him on the importance of that, I think.

    • profile image 5 years ago

      Springboard excellent stuff - I add my voice to the praise here! As far as I'm concerned who gives a rats about what people do in their personal life. As you so rightly point out there are more important things we should be focussing on.

    • feenix profile image

      feenix 5 years ago

      Hello, Springboard,

      This is a useful, awesome, interesting and very informative hub.

      However, I must say that Newt's past transgressions are not a "non-issue," they are an issue. A great big issue, in fact.

      And the reason why that is the case is a whole lot of people believe his "past" is an issue, regardless of the fact that many others believe that it should not be an issue.

      Politics is, and has always been, a "blood sport"; therefore, when an individual is running for office, esecially for president, he is going to get attacked by the opposition, even for doing such things in the past as socializing with people who smoked a little dope and breaking some girl's heart way back when he was in college.

      An individual who runs for president should always be "man enough" to 'fess up to his past missteps and mistakes -- and to stand up to harsh criticism and unfounded accusations.

      If he is not "man enough" to do those things, then he is not "man enough" to be The President of the United States of America.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Newt's brilliant, but if the independents don't like him, we'll get Obama for four more years.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 5 years ago from Wisconsin

      James, I tend to agree. There's a lot of what Newt says that resonates with me, and I really find his interaction with the media refreshing. There are so many important things that need to be discussed and focused on, especially considering what we're up against as far as the direction of this country's governence, and the media seems to pick out disparaging things that really don't afford the time needed to get down to the heart of what we really need to do to understand how these guys will lead, and why it's important to understand just exactly how and why the Obama administration's policies simply are in the wrong direction entirely. Always a pleasure to hear from you James.

    • drbj profile image

      drbj and sherry 5 years ago from south Florida

      Jim - I could not agree more with the thoughts you have expressed. Yes, Newt's moral behavior, if true, is important but more important are his plans to restore Anmerica to prosperity and greatness.

      As you pointed out, where were the naysayers when Obama's connections to hate mongers and terrorists were revealed? I rest my case.

    • profile image

      Lone Ranger 5 years ago

      Well written article, but I tend to think that one's character is linked to one's thought-life, which, in turn is linked to behavior. If one suffers from a weak character and immorality lies just beneath the surface, I, for one, do not want to be led by such a person.

      I think one of the many problems we face in this nation is the lack of good leadership. And, the reason we lack good leadership is our leaders are lacking in good character.

      What Newt likes to do in the bedroom is indicative of his overall character and if he doesn't take his marital vows seriously, which he performed before a minister, his bride, many guests, and before Almighty God, how can we expect him to take his oath in office seriously?

      I mean, if he can lie to people he knows and break promises and oaths to those he's closest to, how much easier will it be for him to break his promises to those he doesn't know. Just a thought.

      Go in peace - L.R.

    • James A Watkins profile image

      James A Watkins 5 years ago from Chicago

      Great Hub! I agree with you. I think Newt is absolutely brilliant. I love his proposed solution to the problems with Medicare and Medicaid. He is full of fabulous ideas that contravene "business as usual." I would love to see him get elected and shake things up a bit in DC. I think it would be good for the country and good for you and me.

    • Springboard profile image

      Springboard 6 years ago from Wisconsin

      Pop, hugs always welcome. :) Glad you enjoyed my rant.

      Bail Up, that's always a begging question. Why now? Well, of course we know why now. I mean, I don't mean to make light that character isn't important, and this does erode some of Newt's character. But again, if hanging around and cohorting with terrorists and hate mongers doesn't (and didn't) serve to erode character in the case of Barack Obama, how in the world does this even get weighed in? Weigh in on the record of the candidates, and let them weigh in with a response to anything regarding those records. Weigh in on a tax proposal, or a proposed policy issue, and let the candidates weigh in on why they think what they have in mind is a good idea—and then let the people decide.

      I don't expect every candidate, nor every president to be a saint. But the job we're asking the candidates to do is not to be a husband (about better than 50% of the population screw that one up) but to be the president.

      To my mind when things like this get thrown into the mix it just means the opponents have simply run out of rational arguments against the candidates. This is almost like when an argument ends with a response like, "You're just stupid." When you run out of legitimate arguments you simply start throwing out name calling and nonsensical crap. It's simply easier than admitting that you have nothing else to offer to the conversation.

    • Bail Up ! profile image

      Bail Up ! 6 years ago

      I totally agree with you Springboard. Not that it matters but you have to ask yourself why this ex wife waits for the last minute to tell her story. Not like Newt hasn't been campaigning for awhile now. Obviously she didn't expect him to make it this far. I think people are tired of these mind games and can see it for what it is - vindictiveness.

      "I don't give a damn who's been screwing who at this point—I give a damn about the guy who's screwing us all every single day he's in office" Genius!

    • breakfastpop profile image

      breakfastpop 6 years ago

      Bravo! You make so much sense, that if I was near you I would hug you. What a relief ! Up, useful, interesting and awesome.