THE GINGRICH SAGA: BITTERNESS AND RAGE
January 23, 2012
There are three things about Newt Gingrich which are personal to me. The first is back in 1976 when he ran unsuccessfully for Congress. An English professor of mine actively campaigned for him and took me to a rather large picnic at which I met the future Speaker.
The second dates from the spring of 1996, when, then Speaker Gingrich invited a few pastors up to Washington to have lunch with him in the Congressional Dining Hall. He gave the twenty or so who attended a replica gavel which he uses as Speaker, complete with an engraved signature. It sits in my office and has recently become quite a conversation piece.
The third thing that brought me into proximity with Newt was a think-tank meeting of conservatives at a gathering of the American Solutions Institute in 2009. The topic was on American Exceptionalism and I had the privelege of sitting next to him. After the meeting he gave me twenty or so minutes of his time during which we talked about the direction of the country under the, then, new Obama Administration.
In all three events, I detected a deep thinker. I also deduced he was conflicted.
Over the past few years we have come to see Newt as a philanderer, bitter, confrontational, wishy-washy and very unpredictible. Welcome to politics and the world of Washington.
Laying aside the probability that Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod offered Newt's former wife a pile of money to go public with as much dirt as she could muster (what a minute: didn't he do the same thing with five other women in the Herman Cain episode?), I do think he has real big personal issues.
As a Christian, I will neither defend nor excuse Newt’s past adultery. That said, after watching his ex-wife Marianne go off on him on ABC, as a man, I now get why he supposedly wanted an “open marriage.” Holy crikey. That chick is scary! Hell hath no fury like a furry woman. That’s one angry, gangrenous ex-Gingrich chica right there, folks. Let’s see … what do we have here? Lonely and bitter? Table for one? (Oops! Sorry for getting carried away.) That's OK; she made lots of money for giving that interview!
Now, before I get my inbox stuffed with hate mail labeling me insensitive, calling Newt a cad, and painting Marianne as a damsel in distress, let me state up front that … I know … he was … and oh, please.
Someone help me here. When did Marianne start giving a crap about Gingrich committing adultery? She didn’t mind his “open marriage” policy when she was doing the fig Newton with him while he was married to his first wife, Jackie.
Yep, this is the same Marianne who was spooning Newt while his wife was in the hospital. Oh, I forgot. I’ve transgressed. I cannot blame Marianne for her adultery. Only guys, especially conservative guys, are the villains in an adulterous affair. Women, according to the "lame scream media" and the loons on the Left, are helpless victims who are not responsible for their wanton ways. Hallelujah. Ain’t that convenient?
Now, Newt, according to his own admission, was a scallywag. But also according to his own admission, he has repented. Is it baloney? I don’t know. All I know is that when people verbally repent we’re supposed to forgive them. I believe that’s what Jesus said. True we can't judge what's in the heart, but his actions will prove whether or not he is truly repentant.
It looked as if lots of South Carolinians were ready to forgive Gingrich judging from the standing ovation they gave him after he horsewhipped John King when he brought up Newt’s past peccadilloes. It really looks that way from the results of the primaries Saturday and this morning's release of polls Florida showing him up 26 points and Romney loosing ground by more than 15.
Oh, and by the way, I believe according to Christ that if you look at a woman lustfully you’ve committed adultery in your heart in His holy estimation. In other words, we’re all guilty, and Jesus is the only one ever to navigate that tightrope successfully. As Dennis Miller once said, “He that hath an empty hand, let him throw the first stone.”
Boy, the Left is grasping at straws, aren’t they? They think they have breaking news about Newt’s randy ways. Uh, hello. This stuff has been out there and dealt with now for over twelve years. Twelve years!
You ask why are liberals still trying to dig up already dug up dirt? Because the left always live in the conservative's past. They always go back and truly believe that it is OK to dig up dirt on a conservative candidate's great-great-great- grandfather if only to prove just how bad he is.
But that’s just it: divert, divert, divert—talk about Newt 12 years ago rather than about what Obama has been doing for the last 12 months! Deflect, deflect, deflect--talk about Mitt Romney's father's inability to bring American Motors to a permanent status among the big three and his push to keep it from being unionized (That evil SOB). Distract, distract,distract--talk about Rick Santorum's grandfather's ties with Mussolini (he's tainted by black hearted fascists).
If only Gingrich were a Democrat! If he were, and we found out he just had a chunky female volunteer hide under his desk while Speaker ofthe House he’d be hailed as a rock star and defended for his bold ways. Instead, he's a Republican who chose to go after a rock star who did have a chunky female volunteer under the desk confusing cigars to body parts and then lying about it. (In case you are wondering, Gingrich went after Bill Clinton, not because of the cigars and Monica' Lewinsky's seating arragement, but for his lying under oath about it).
My final assessment of this puritanical witch-hunt against Gingrich instigated by the anti-puritanical Left is this: I’m concerned more about how Obama’s policies have radically screwed this nation than who Newt slept with two decades ago.
As a pastor, counselor and Bible expositor (I write these articles as a hobby), let me be one of the first to remind my readers that we are not electing a pastor to lead a church. We will be electing a president. If it comes down to a choice between Gingrich and Obama, it then becomes a choice over who could bring this country back from the brink of destruction or who can finally put the last nail in the coffin and bury this nation once and for all.
We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.