Here Today... Gone To Hell!

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."

Widely considered a mastermind of the Republican revolution that swept Congress in the 1994 elections, Gingrich remains wildly popular among many conservatives. He has repeatedly placed near the top of Republican presidential polls recently, even though he has not formed a campaign.

Gingrich has said he is waiting to see how the Republican field shapes up before deciding in the fall whether to run.

Reports of extramarital affairs have dogged him for years as a result of two messy divorces, but he has refused to discuss them publicly.

Gingrich, who frequently campaigned on family values issues, divorced his second wife, Marianne, in 2000 after his attorneys acknowledged Gingrich's relationship with his current wife, Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide more than 20 years younger than he is.

His first marriage, to his former high school geometry teacher, Jackie Battley, ended in divorce in 1981. Although Gingrich has said he doesn't remember it, Battley has said Gingrich discussed divorce terms with her while she was recuperating in the hospital from cancer surgery.

Gingrich married Marianne months after the divorce.

"There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them," he said in the interview. "I look back on those as periods of weakness and periods that I'm ... not proud of."

Gingrich's congressional career ended in 1998 when he abruptly resigned from Congress after poor showings from Republicans in elections and after being reprimanded by the House ethics panel over charges that he used tax-exempt funding to advance his political goals.

so did half of Washington...whats the point? Clintons affair didnt make him a bad leader his policies did.....

He's a fawkin' hypocrite, that's the point.

I agree...ever find a politician that wasn't?  haha that is pretty bad though....

I just hope it makes him utterly unelectable to his base.  That might just make my day.

you dont have to worry about that...he has no shot in hell anyway...

He still polls pretty well among conservatives (apparently he was polling pretty well during the Clinton admin too!   :rofl:  sorry, couldn't resist) ...if no big name conservative fills the void, he'd be a natural to wreck havoc on the Republican primary. 

Agreed - what Bill Clinton is to democrats, Gingrich is to conservatives.

Didn't Ali G interview Gingrich?? I'll have to look on youtube, pretty sure it was him.

edit - yup, here it is.  hehe
http://youtube.com/watch?v=skv-wWCvGyw

what a tool!!!!

If anyone needs a human definition of the word "hypocrite" they need look no further than at Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and world class sleaze ball. This man, while leading the GOP fascist wing's moral crusade against Bill Clinton's blow job, was fucking his secretary, twenty years younger than him, while his wife waited at home for his saintly arrival.

His extra-curricula penile activity earned him divorce, and during the divorce trial he admitted in court that he, like Clinton, had a hard time keeping his dick in his pants. One would think that his subsequent loss of office would have been the end of his political career, but like many right wing slimeballs, Newt simply continued his career as a "commentator" on Fux News. Now, following the path of the tearful Jimmy Swaggart and the contrite closet queen Reverend Haggard, Newt is confessing all to top religious fascist James Dobson, in the hopes of capturing the presidential mantle of the GOP fascist wing.

Can you believe this guy's nerve, or what?

Wait wait wait.  Why is this being brought up now?  I can remember the affair when it was going on.  He got a ton of crap for it back then. Seriously.  Why now?

Whatever happened to the principles behind moveon.org's founding?  This is old news to create controversy.  Gingrich doesn't stand a chance and probably won't even run.  It's either Giuliani or McCain for the Repubs and Clinton for the Dems.

Gordon, why is it wrong for Gingrich to have resigned after his affair and remain in politics, but Clinton lied and did not resign.  It just seems when Republicans fuck up they resign while Democrats make excuses and stay in office.

Not sure what this has to do with moveon.org.  I saw this story in regular news sites a few days ago.

Moveon.org was created to "move on" past the personal and private sexual acts of Clinton and to focus on real issues.

Still looking for an answer as to why this is news now.

Because he's confessing to religious conservatives, in the hopes of getting all the skeletons out of his closet...so they'll vote for him.

hes hoping to take the focus off his "real story" about how him n a donkey in mexico .....keekee :o

This is just weird.  Weird that it's a "story" and weird that he's "confessing".  Wasn't it really well known at the time.  It's just really strange to me.

Riiiiiiiight.

Gingrich is scum and should have been shot years  ago.
I respect  the  thread, but he  is such an ass my only feeling is that I hope his  wife  fucked him in divorce proceedings as much as he fucked the American people  with his holier  than thou  shit  for years.
I wish he dies  a slow and painful life.
Suffer, you $%#^&*%$#.

Got a tip for you:  Decaf.

No need for this dumb rhetoric.

Of course, no one mentions that Clinton's mess was over perjury and obstruction of justice.  I don't think too many people cared about his extra-marital affair.  That was the spin that was used to downplay the perjury and obstruction.

I, for one, do think that one's family relationships do reflect, to some extent, on the actual person.  Unfortunately, Gingrich is probably the only person that is considering running that has true conservative principles.

What about Sam Brownback or Duncan Hunter?

I disagree....People definitely cared...Bush got into the white house on saying how he'd bring "respect" back to the white house.  Family values and all of that nonsense were the topic du jour for the repubs.  I'm with you though, the presidents personal life is meaningless to me.  Bush could be a great father and husband and a 100% moral guy, but hes still a horrible president in soooo many ways. 

And lets be honest here, perjury and obstruction? he lied about getting a blow job.  Hardly put the country at risk.   Nobody should have cared.  The entire impeachment was a farce.  Bush's lies and corruption have done a lot more damage than getting a hummer by a chubby intern.

LIke Bill Maher said, apparently there is more to this president thing than not getting blown in the oval office.....

Clinton was the victim of a perjury trap. He lied because he was afraid of his wife. Do you blame him?

Riiiiiight. Grow a set of balls and deal with her.

If you want to be honest, then lets be honest.  You are simply looking at the spin that the left attached to the investigation.  Clinton was not impeached for simply getting a blow job.  He was impeached (correct me if I am wrong) because he lied under oath while he was being questioned in connection with sexual harrassment allegations from a woman.  Should men be permitted lie in such cases?

So was Libby.  That's the funny thing.  He lied for various reasons, one of which was probably to keep it from his wife.  Nonetheless, those lies obstructed an investigation into very serious allegations.

Clinton was an great president! His policies were a lot better than the dumb fuck in dc now

I'm not questioning the charges, but give me a break. IT WAS A BLOW JOB!  You talk about spin?  People were acting like Clinton was the most depraved, evil person alive (by people I mean hyrocrites like Gingrich).  If you want to accuse the left of spinning the story then the right is just as guilty of blowing it way out of proportion.   This wasn't a lie about WMDs, or countries trying to aquire nuclear materials, or illegal sales of weapons.  it was about a married guy getting a hummer from his chubby and willing intern.  Where is the spin in that?  You REALLY think you can compare Libby to Clinton?  Give me a break.  You sound like Stephen Colbert now, but hes just joking, I don't think you are...   :-\

Are you guys fucking kidding me?

Clinton lied about something that was nobody's goddamn business. Hardly worth a second thought, not to mention spending millions upon millions of our tax payer money on.

Libby, on the other hand, lied over an act of treason, that originated from the highest level of our government.

Cheney should be impeached and thrown in jail for what he did. Libby should be his cell mate.

What about the woman that accused him of sexual harrassment? 

Nice extrapolation from the facts.  I am sure that you would view stealing and destroying classified documents the same.  Expecially, when those documents might have provided insight into blunders that were made during the Clinton administration regarding the current war on terrorism.

Maybe Berger can be in there as well.

I agree that the Clinton matter did not deserve the time and money that was expended.  But lets be honest, there was a woman that leveled serious sexual harrassment charges against him.  She wasn't the first.  He obstructed the investigation into those claims by lying about other matters.  I could never understand why the feminist left supported Clinton despite the fact that his lying was directly related to a sexual harrassment suit.  That was the most hypocritical part of anything. 

I am comparing Libby to Clinton based on the context in which you set forth.  You said that Clinton was set up.  There is no question that Libby was also set up.

When did I say CLinton was set up?? All I've said is that a blow job was made out to be a MUCH bigger deal than it should have been.? It almost sounds like you have sympathy for Libby?? Sorry dude, I"m with SLC on this one.? ?a blow job compared to blowing a CIA agents cover are just miles apart in my book.? Not to mention everything else involved in the Libby case with Cheney, Rove and Bush, the climate of "you fuck with us we're going to fuck with you)? how can you even compare the two?

Maybe if there wasn't such a republican outcry over a BJ, the clinton admin would have been able to focus on other things.....like, oh, i don't know, fighting terrorism??  nah, a blow job is MUCH more important right?

What about the person that claims she was sexually harrassed?? Should she care?? Is it ok then to lie under oath in certain circumstances?? I'm sorry, but the President lying under oath and obstructing justice is a big story.? You might not care, but it is an important story.


I will agree with you in that I don't think impeachment was appropriate.?

Of course, you have no evidence of specific lies.? There is no substance to your allegations.? Please show me any evidence of Bush lying which is something other than your partisan speculation?? There simply is not such evidence.? More importantly, you cannot justify one wrong with another wrong.? You should be smart enough to realize that.

He did lie under oath.? That is a felony.? You can downplay it all you want.? A woman accused him of sexual harrassment.? He was questioned about other extramarital relationships.? He lied under oath.? That is perjury - plain and simple.? I am sure if Bush did such a things you would jus brush it aside.

Sure, the right blew it way out of proportion (Pun intended).

You are right it wasn't.? Are you suggesting that Bush has made such lies?? You have no evidence for this.? I hammered down on you guys months ago about this.? You presented zero (0) evidence that Bush made intentional lies about any of these things.

Because people like you state that Clinton was impeached for getting a blow job.? He was impeached for lying about it under oath.

Sorry, confused you with Gordon Gecko above.? He said that Clinton was set up.

Actually, I don't have much sympathy for Libby.? I think they all should go to prison if they are all found guilty such things.

From my understanding, Libby was not found guilty of blowing a CIA agents cover.? He was found guilty of lying during the investigation of such allegations.? Besides, I agree that the two contexts are different.? Wouldn't you also agree that Berger should go to prison for stealing and destroying classified documents?

I don't disagree with you.? However, the Supreme Court permitted Clinton to be sued while he was in office.

If you go back to the Berger thread you'll see my comments on it...despite what you guys like to think I am not blinded by my party affiliation, if a democrat does something bad I want them to pay the price.

As for if bush lied about something and was guilty of perjury/obstruction, I can honestly say if it was over something totally retarded, I would say the democrats were over reacting.  If I'm not mistaken, during Clinton's impeachment trial his popularity was still high and public opinion of republicans dropped.  EVERYBODY knew it was a joke. 

Think about it, Bush probably could be impeached if the Dems did some digging into his administration (yes, i have no "evidence" but I would say its a good bet that if inquiries were done, something bad would be found).  Rather than try to impeach bush, the dems just want to move on.  Go back to Clinton though, the repubs wanted to lynch him and basically crippled his 2nd term over a BJ - you can spin it all you want by saying he lied/perjury/obstruction/whatever, but as the polls said during the time, nobody was buying it.  Instead of being able to make important policy, handle foreign affairs, and hunt down this guy named osama bin laden, clinton was left dealing with defining the word "is" and talking about BJs.  Whoopdy Fucking Doo.

anyways, to get back on topic, gingrich was one of the worst repubs during this whole time period.  again, you can spin it on it being about perjury/obstruction, but at the end of the day it was just about nonsense.  for someone to condemn clinton for disgracing the white house, having no morals/values while they are doing the same damn thing.....its a farce.

I don't care to go back and look.  I will take your word that you condemned him as well.

I think this is a convenient statement.  Especially when you are accusing Bush of making lies with absolutely no evidence.

I appreciate you honestly stating that you have no evidence for the lies.  Believe me, I think Bush has made all of the mistakes in the world, and I think it would be better for this country if he was out of there before his term ends.  However, I think Bush has always been over his head and is more an incompetent than an evil liar.  There is plenty of support for his incompetence.  On the other hand, there is no evidence that he has knowingly lied about the stuff he is accused of doing.

Come on.  Hanna, this is a ridiculous statement.  Democrats are still calling Bush a liar and debating the entry of the war.  As you admitted, there is no evidence of lies, yet the dems state the same all of the time.  First, they never had the House of Representatives.  Thus, they could not impeach him.  Nonetheless, there were plenty of democrates that advocated his impeachment.  Second, as you admitted, there is no evidence of any of the allegations that would be used to impeach him.

I think we are arguing in circles. 

I guess we can agree to disagree on what the impeachment was over.  I am guessing if you actually read the impeachment proceedings, you will hear the words perjury and obstruction of justice far more than Clinton's sexual conduct.  As for the word "is", no one plays those games with words unless they are planning to lie.

Fair enough, but can you agree that Gingrich is a pompous, hyprocritical POS??? 

I have to really ask you though, be honest - do you think if inquiries were made into all of the things Bush has done in the past few years that either Bush and/or members of his admin would be in trouble for lying/stealing/cheating etc...???  The Dems could open up a lot of can of worms, they are choosing not to, bush is still getting to add more troops and function as president.  Clinton was hand cuffed.  Anytime he tried to do something he was accused of wagging the dog.

As for bush being an evil liar vs. incompetent.? I don't think his intentions were "evil" but I do think they knowingly misled the public on 9-11 ties to Iraq.? There were plenty of reports of intelligence data/facts/info being square pegs being banged into circular holes....

I laughed so hard I spit Coke all over my keyboard.

I'm suprised that SLCPUNK is so anti-Gingrich.  Isn't Gingrich good friends with Johnny Rotten?

Food for thought:

Shooting Elephants in a Barrel

Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.
It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame's name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department's Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name, and Fitzgerald knew it.

With no crime to investigate, Fitzgerald pursued a pointless investigation into nothing, getting a lot of White House officials to make statements under oath and hoping some of their recollections would end up conflicting with other witness recollections, so he could charge some Republican with "perjury" and enjoy the fawning media attention.

As a result, Libby is now a convicted felon for having a faulty memory of the person who first told him that Joe Wilson was a delusional boob who lied about his wife sending him to Niger.

This makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican.

Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice, and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.

Meanwhile, conservatives of any importance constantly have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from utterly frivolous criminal prosecutions. Everything is illegal, but only Republicans get prosecuted.

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh was subjected to a three-year criminal investigation for allegedly buying prescription drugs illegally to treat chronic back pain. Despite the witch-hunt, Democrat prosecutor Barry E. Krischer never turned up a crime.

Even if he had, to quote liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz: "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted." Unless they're Republicans.

The vindictive prosecution of Limbaugh finally ended last year with a plea bargain in which Limbaugh did not admit guilt. Gosh, don't you feel safer now? I know I do.

In another prescription drug case with a different result, last year, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Democrat), apparently high as a kite on prescription drugs, crashed a car on Capitol Hill at 3 a.m. That's abuse of prescription drugs plus a DUI offense. Result: no charges whatsoever and one day of press on Fox News Channel.

I suppose one could argue those were different jurisdictions. How about the same jurisdiction?

In 2006, Democrat and major Clinton contributor Jeffrey Epstein was nabbed in Palm Beach in a massive police investigation into his hiring of local underage schoolgirls for sex, which I'm told used to be a violation of some kind of statute in the Palm Beach area.

The police presented Limbaugh prosecutor Krischer with boatloads of evidence, including the videotaped statements of five of Epstein's alleged victims, the procurer of the girls for Epstein and 16 other witnesses.

But the same prosecutor who spent three years maniacally investigating Limbaugh's alleged misuse of back-pain pills refused to bring statutory rape charges against a Clinton contributor. Enraging the police, who had spent months on the investigation, Krischer let Epstein off after a few hours on a single count of solicitation of prostitution. The Clinton supporter walked, and his victims were branded as whores.

The Republican former House Whip Tom DeLay is currently under indictment for a minor campaign-finance violation. Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle had to empanel six grand juries before he could find one to indict DeLay on these pathetic charges ? and this is in Austin, Texas (the Upper West Side with better-looking people).

That final grand jury was so eager to indict DeLay that it indicted him on one charge that was not even a crime ? and which has since been tossed out by the courts.

After winning his primary despite the indictment, DeLay decided to withdraw from the race rather than campaign under a cloud of suspicion, and Republicans lost one of their strongest champions in Congress.

Compare DeLay's case with that of Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson, Democrat. Two years ago, an FBI investigation caught Jefferson on videotape taking $100,000 in bribe money. When the FBI searched Jefferson's house, they found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer. Two people have already pleaded guilty to paying Jefferson the bribe money.

Two years later, Bush's Justice Department still has taken no action against Jefferson. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently put Rep. William Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, engaged in a complicated land swindle, buying a parcel of land for $400,000 and selling it for over $1 million a few years later. (At least it wasn't cattle futures!)

Reid also received more than four times as much money from Jack Abramoff (nearly $70,000) as Tom DeLay ($15,000). DeLay returned the money; Reid refuses to do so. Why should he? He's a Democrat.

Former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger literally received a sentence of community service for stuffing classified national security documents in his pants and then destroying them ? big, fat federal felonies.

But Scooter Libby is facing real prison time for forgetting who told him about some bozo's wife.

Bill Clinton was not even prosecuted for obstruction of justice offenses so egregious that the entire Supreme Court staged a historic boycott of his State of the Union address in 2000.

By contrast, Linda Tripp, whose only mistake was befriending the office hosebag and then declining to perjure herself, spent millions on lawyers to defend a harassment prosecution based on far-fetched interpretations of state wiretapping laws.

Liberal law professors currently warning about the "high price" of pursuing terrorists under the Patriot Act had nothing but bloodlust for Tripp one year after Clinton was impeached (Steven Lubet, "Linda Tripp Deserves to be Prosecuted," New York Times, Aug. 25, 1999).

Criminal prosecution is a surrogate for political warfare, but in this war, Republicans are gutless appeasers.

Bush has got to pardon Libby.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27281

Another Ann Coulter masterpiece, nice find Flagg  : ok:

What does she write that is innacurate? Please do tell me.?


I'm not Flagg.?

And I'm not a democrat.   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

She is a lounge act, a shtick comedian who has grown tiresome. Same thing with Hannity and O'reilly, who as she states "would rather interrupt than engage". The country is growing up. People aren't afraid of "queers" anymore. People don't want the religious nanny state the right thinks should be ruling this country. People are tired of these incredibly pressing issues being lost in some moron shouting "faggot". We are coming to the end of an era.

Gordo, just to be 100% sure, my original post was 100% sarcastic :)

I agree with you about homosexuality becoming accepted eventually.  I think we are 1, maybe 2 generations away from it being a non-factor to the majority of the country the same way civil rights for minorities was eventually pushed out of existence by education, understanding, exposure and most of all in my opinion, a younger generation with their own ideas/thoughts.

I'd be curious if anyone knew the polls on what percentage of young people are in favor of gay marriage compared to older/middle aged people.

there will ALWAYS be religious conservatives with a big voice and lots of money who think the rest of the world should get in line with their agenda though - sucks, but i don't see it changing.

Best I can do:

(http://people-press.org/reports/images/273-5.gif)

Of course, this isn't those in favor of gay marriage...it's those strongly opposed.  But I think the results still reflect the general idea that younger people, under 50 for this poll, are less opposed to it than are those over 50. 

No for the most important question of this thread.

What is it that guys like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have that allows them to have many women!!???

I mean its not like their studs :hihi: :rofl:

Bill Clinton actually has a conscience...women like a man with a conscience :hihi:

They also like men who have power and who are going places.

I can see it now:

"Mr. President, you conscience is SO BIG!"

"Yeah, you wanna touch my conscience?  Go ahead, put my conscience in your mouth.  That's right."

Today's moral: Women love a big conscience; and, a big conscience doesn't prevent you from cheating on your wife.

 :rofl:

Intelligent man, well-spoken, but he has the charisma and appeal of a fucking snail

Clinton has no charisma?

Yea, I saw that and it made me laugh out loud.

Wait, I thought that comment was about Gingrich.

Wasn't clear - No not Clinton - I was referring to Gingrich