My thoughts on Gingrich response to Open Marriage Debate question

Newt Gingrich had a brilliant political moment in his exchange with John King during the recent South Carolina Republican debate. It may have been the turning point for Newt's come from behind dramatic win in the primary.

The audience gave him a standing ovation. John King offered little defense of his question as should be expected of a good moderator, whose job it is to allow the debaters to freely interact with the questions. Later they exchanged once again after the debate, and Gingrich was far less convincing than his moment during the debate.

His daughter is coming out and defending him, but the open marriage question is not answered even during these interviews, and of course in such a "he said, she said" private issue, how could we ever expect a deciding result?

When I first saw the debate response by Gingrich, I immediately felt that this was Gingrich at his fiery best. He may be the clearest communicator, and perhaps the most intelligent and visionary politician among anyone running for president in either party right now. But, my second (and almost immediate) sense about his response to the open marriage accusation by his second wife has stuck with me longer, and seems to be proving itself out. The exchange did not leave me with a good feeling, and these are the reasons why:

1) The response by Gingrich seemed philosophically dishonest. Even if it is a genuine response to how he feels about the question (which might not have been true if the question was asked of someone else, or of a Democrat) it does not accurately portray the general feelings of the Republican core. From a basic  philosophical consideration of leadership in the Republican party, faithfulness matters, and manifests itself in sexual issues. Something so far outside the societal norms of marriage and sexuality as Open Marriage or polyamory are not things most Republicans would consider acceptable in a leader.

2) The debate point was sure to bring forward discussion in the public arena about Open Marriage and polyamory. Giving it a place in the discussion of everyday news affairs and offering its advocates a grand stage to share their views on the benefits of the lifestyle. Is this something a leader of the Republican Party wants to be known for - being a culture changer for radical liberal sexuality? Somehow I think not, but indeed, almost immediately articles and discussions popped up around the world. The questions on the validity and potential benefits of open marriage are still going, and its proponents have the grandest stage they have perhaps ever had.

I do not see Newt's brilliant political maneuver in the debate as a high point for the Republican Party, and I do not see it as a high point for American culture either. That's my thoughts on Newt's response. What are yours?

Disgrace of an Election Cycle? I think so.

Today's Wall Street Journal Article by Jeffery Scott Shapiro marks my own feelings better than I can describe. From both the left and the right this has been the worst electoral campaign I have seen in my life. With the exception of McCain's acceptance and concession speeches everything has smacked of partisan bickering, and exaggerated fear tactics. Unfortunately most of it has been leveled at Bush. I have been ashamed at times of my own Christian brethren who have joined the rancerous banter of Bush bashing. Should we all be ashamed of ourselves? Read the article here. Could it be that those who behave in this manner are part of the problem in American politics - not part of the answer?

Why I Voted for McCain

I really leaned toward writing in Ben Stein, but decided that I would vote McCain at the end. What I saw in his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, and what I saw last night in the concession speech make me realize that I made the right vote. These are the things I expect in politics:

Boston Legal, Calling People Stupid and The Sickness of Politics in America

I just finished watching Boston Legal. It was not simply television entertainment, but a horrendously biased commercial for Barrack Obama. This is the second experience in the last few days, which has disgusted me about politics, and the human heart.

A couple days ago, I had a discussion with a man who is intelligent, works with people in government positions, and was born in the Netherlands. He said that he can not believe how stupid Americans are. This was based upon Americans choosing Republicans in their electoral choices.

Should Boston Legal be forced to charge Barrack Obama tens of millions of dollars for the commercial time they gave to him?

Should every person who continues to use the tired old argumentum ad hominem of stupidity as the only reason one would vote Republican be called on the carpet for being stupid enough to use that argument? (Republicans occasionally use that argument, but it is normally the Democrats who use it, and it is unfortunately all too common to hear in the Boston area.)

I am sure that politics are sick in every country, but it has reached unbelievable proportions, and this has been the worst Presidential election for people being divided and cruel I have seen in my voting days, which began in 1976.

Both parties declare themselves to be the agents of change. They have both proven that they do not have what it takes to change the politics of the age, because neither of them have run a different kind of campaign. Positive change still seems a long ways off to me.

My Favorite Article about Bailout Plan

Just had to link to this. Now this is thinking that I can identify with. It is kind of harsh sounding, but it makes sense to me. Maybe the first thing that has made sense in all this economic talk yet.

Do you think that bankruptcy may indeed be the answer to the problem instead of being the big fearful monster to avoid?

My Thoughts on Bailout Plan Failure

Barney Frank says that Republicans were offended by Nancy Pelosi's partisan speech about the bailout plan, and so decided to punish the American people. I say, muzzle Barney, please.

In the final tally, 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans voted in support, while 95 Democrats and 133 Republicans voted against it. That is bipartisan rejection! Were 95 Democrats offended by Nancy? No. These are people who really had a problem with the bill.

I love this reporter's notebook view of the moments before the vote. Don't get uppity you anti-Fox News People. This is a great article of those few moments.

The Democratic Congressman from our region, John Tierney voted against the plan. Yeah John! One Democratic Congressman who voted against it, whose name I can not remember said that something this large should take more than 9 days to consider, because the best we could get is a bad plan. I'm with him.