They are trying to attack Newt for leading the charge to prosecute Clinton for perjury and obstruction based on the fact that he also had an affair. The proper course would be to attack Newt for claiming he supports traditional family values after engaging in immoral conduct. One is just another weak attempt at defending the indefensible. The other is definite case of hypocrisy. Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of all these people who have claimed for years we had no business worrying about Clinton's personal affairs who now can't wait to do the exact same thing regarding Newt.
2007-03-09 07:50:46 · 10 answers · asked by Bryan 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Okay, let's be clear here. I am not supporting Newt in the least. I think he is an extreme hypocrite. My point is that if you want to label him as such it should be done for the correct reasons. Yes those who support Clinton and attack Newt are hypocrites no matter how you slice it. One standard for all, not separate standards for those you like. I will say the same of anyone who attacks Clinton for his affairs, but tries to defend Newt. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy period.
2007-03-09 08:08:27 · update #1
Ever heard the term "two wrongs don't make a right"? Does the bashing ever stop between conservatives & libs? And which is more important wasting time a guy who is human and makes a mistake (just like Bill Clinton) or solving the real problems that face the US? I wish we could go back to the old days where even the mass media kept most private matters of politicans private (such as JFKs private life). Nobody wins anything or makes anything better by attacking a persons private life (unless it is something criminal). If people inside the beltway paid as much attention solving the countries problems as they do on personal issues America would be a much better place.
2007-03-09 08:00:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Does it really matter if we miss the hypocrisy on lying or affairs; as long as we get him for his foolishness. So we attack at the wrong point, he deserves an attack somewhere.
And as far as the hypocrisy of those who are attacking him now when they defended Clinton; its not so much hypocrisy as an attempt to give him a dose of his own medicine. While I certainly suspect that even if Gingrich had not gone after Clinton and this showed up he would be attacked, the fact that he did go after Clinton allows them to justify the attack.
You cannot really call them hypocrites for going after Newt Gingrich, they are just applying the same moral code to him that Gingrich applied to Clinton.
And as you yourself pointed out, Newt also likes to pretend he is for family values; and he usually did this by pretending the Democrats had none. While this is true, one can point out that Newt has none also. He is just being held to the same moral code he expected of everyone else, he is being held to justice. Let it go.
2007-03-09 08:01:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since when is Newt running for President as mentioned by someone here? he's about as done as done can be politically.
And St Bill, who were you yesterday before opening this brand new account?
Bashing Newt is getting you nowhere my friends.....Bryan isn't defending him, & I haven't seen anyone else who is either come to think of it.
I have seen about two dozen identical posts about him being a hypocrite, won't get any argument there either.
Meanwhile, as you claim to support the Democratic party I have supported you have nothing worth offering to further our cause as Democrats.......
Please go start a new party of your own so you can destroy it w your wasted breath & effort. Unless your ultimate goal is sending the Dems to another Presidential defeat in 08 , then keep it up.... , you are well on your way !!
God bless ya!!
2007-03-09 08:48:31 · answer #3 · answered by SantaBud 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Though Clinton was impeached for perury, he was testifying to questions related to his extramarital affairs and the person who lead the charge against Clinton under the guise of a moral leader was Newt Gingrich. He is a hippocrit because he lied about being a moral leader and cheated on his first and second wives and lied about it and kept it hidden for 10 years.
2007-03-09 08:00:55 · answer #4 · answered by Christopher L 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Newt supports family values?
Sure. That's why he dumped Wife #1 when she got too old and unattractive. That's why he slapped divorce papers on her when she was in a hospital bed with cancer. That's why he was a Deadbeat Dad who refused to pay child support, which forced them to beg from the local church. I guess that's where the Faith based Initiative came from.
2007-03-09 07:57:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
" FascFite" has it right. I am a conservative, but Newt is a self righteous, two faced windbag and has no business being considered for President. He is a joke.
2007-03-09 08:01:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL!! i be responsive to, iknow! that replaced into hilarious! i admire how excited they have been to study the bible!! like 3 liittle little ones!! ha! oh properly! a minimum of tthey have become some goodness in that living house!
2016-10-17 23:34:32 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, of course, you're not surprised they would, are you? Do they ever get the point of these things?
2007-03-09 07:55:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
okay, very slowly..Clinton was Impeached for perjury, not adultery..got it yet?
2007-03-09 07:54:52 · answer #9 · answered by kapute2 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only a blind conservative would say something like that!
2007-03-09 07:56:54 · answer #10 · answered by F.U. BUDDY 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋