Brain Droppings: On Newt

In fairness, I thought the Newt Gingrich's response to CNN's John King's question about his alleged infidelity (as claimed in an ABC Interview with Gingrich's former wife) to open last night's GOP Candidates Debate was nothing short of brilliant. He seized the initiative immediately and, in a sense, captured the so-called moral high ground instantly. Before eventually denying the charge, he assailed the legitimacy of the very question and the validity of opening a Presidential debate with THAT particular question. And, in a strong sense, he was RIGHT! In addition, by attacking the question instead of retreating from it, he exhibited an extremely strong, self-assured presence that surely highlighted his debating acumen. It's obvious, in that sense at least, should he be put in that position against President Obama, he would prove a worthy adversary. It was a sure example of why Gingrich, despite his obvious flaws, has wrestled at least the momentum if not the actual lead, from front-runner (barely) Mitt Romney. Gingrich provides a fiery alternative to the white bread/no crust Romney. He sure has made it interesting.

Now, also in fairness and before you go thinking that I'm jumping on the Newt For President Band Wagon, let me say few things (just for a change)! The question that King asked, in and of itself, NEEDED to be asked. I just disagreed with the timing of the question. It should not have been asked first. But, it is newsworthy because it provides a window with which to look into a candidates over-all character. The news became "viral" because people wanted to know how he would respond to what amounted to serious questions about his moral fiber. And, let's face it, this is what the Republicans (and Gingrich) WANT. They continually barrage us with rhetoric concerning so-called Family Values (previously discussed and generally dismissed!) and Moral Issues. Well, in this case, despite his strong response to the question, Gingrich appears to be, once again, the hypocrite. There is too much "smoke" that surrounds him not to be a "fire" somewhere.

I see an ironic twist here. The man who has been one of the self-proclaimed leaders of the Social Conservative Movement, appears to be guilty of one its most egregious sins: infidelity. The entire panel last night danced around the issue, citing the need for Christian redemption, blah, blah, blah, blah. What it really comes down to is a flawed philosophy of do as I say but not as I do. You know, in the end, they can say it as well as it can be said, as Gingrich often does, but the ultimate question remains the same: does it ring true. I think that the answer is obvious.