Sex In The DC

Newt Gingrich has an ex-wife problem.  She has accused him of wanting an open marriage. He says it's false.  CNN thought it was such a big deal that they opened  presidential debate with a question about it.  Newt blew them out of the water to a standing ovation.  My question is, what were they all applauding?

Could some divorced people in the crowd have been empathizing with Newt's rusty ball and chain?  Might some of them been open minded republicans who favor same sex marriage and think that on balance Newt's problems are very tame?  Might there have been some folks who looked over at their spouses and wanted to show their support for Newt's bold idea?  Might some in the audience liked the fact that Newt was the kind of guy who, unlike Clinton, at least had the manners to ask first?

Who knows?  Odds are the audience stood up for Newt because he stood up to the media, but that conclusion ignores the fact that all of the people in that audience have the right to private thoughts, private lives and personal choices.  How many conservatives would stand and applaud if any of their private thoughts were called upon for public approval?

I'm not here to advocate for a public policy favoring open marriages.  But I am here to advocate for defending at least one place on earth where people have the freedom to choose the private life they want, to live it as they see fit according to their own faith, their own morality and the covenants they reach within their own relationships.

I happen to live in a community where the Baptist church is quite influential.  As you know, the Baptist church strongly opposes the consumption of alcohol.  Would it be fair, in an effort to slice out of the support base for a candidate, to ask his ex-wife if he ever drank?

Some faith groups refuse to take an oath, but will "affirm" that their testimony is true or that they will faithfully uphold the office they assume.  At what level should a person's preference in such things be dissected in a public debate?

You might say to me "Well, infidelity is a disqualification for all people."  No it's not.  With the divorce rate in this country at around 50% for first marriages and 65% for second marriages there are a lot of people out there who might have "fooled around" themselves.  Now of course among cuckolded husbands and women "done wrong" a strong aversion to open marriage would probably have had them sitting out the standing ovation, but infidelity is hardly rare.

What is really at work here is exactly what Gingrich said.  For the sake of sensationalism the media trotted out a gasp inducing story designed to derail Gingrich's candidacy but in the process accomplishes something far worse.  The politics of personal destruction is the reason good people, with solid ideas, who might become great leaders in difficult times, refuse to run for office.

I hate to keep beating this same tune out on my keyboard, over and over, but we need to wake up to the fact that we are not going to elect someone to sainthood.  When we choose a president, we hire someone to do a specific job.  We are not electing role models, that job belongs to parents.

There are plenty of reasons you might find to disqualify Newt from receiving your vote.  But when a disgruntled ex-spouse vomits up tales of private conversations we all get splattered.

Newt handled it very well.  The blame lies with the main stream media. 

Oh, and in case you missed it, or one who believes in guilt by accusation, he denied it too.  

 

Comments

[Carol Fell]

Well said Marcus--I believe people do mature and what was done in your past can look pretty selfish and stupid as you mature ---Being able to admit to it and make the changes is admirable.

[K Elaine]

Clinton payback.