3/10/07

Huffington reports that the wingnut hypocrisy thickens: Falwell Knew Of Gingrich Affair Before Clinton Impeachment

gingrichfallwell96.jpg
We find it trite and obvious to report that the putative holders of our moral compasses are nothing more than champions of hypocrisy.

Huffington thinks it's worth the mention. Yawn.

Falwell Knew Of Gingrich Affair Before Clinton Impeachment

Associated Press | Posted March 9, 2007 08:19 PM

In an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson that aired Friday, Gingrich admitted to the affair in 1998. In 2000, he divorced his second wife, Marianne, after his attorneys acknowledged his relationship with Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide now his wife.

"He has admitted his moral shortcomings to me, as well, in private conversations," Falwell wrote in a weekly newsletter sent Friday to members of the Moral Majority Coalition and The Liberty Alliance. "And he has also told me that he has, in recent years, come to grips with his personal failures and sought God's forgiveness."

9 comments:

Bryce said...

Falwell: " in recent years, come to grips with his personal failures and sought God's forgiveness."

Gingrich: "There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them," Gingrich said during the interview. "I look back on those as periods of weakness and periods that I'm not only not proud of, but I would deeply urge my children and grandchildren not to follow in my footsteps."

If one of your congregants told you, their rabbi, of his past indiscretions and sins and hypocrisy, and his remorse over what he'd done, would you still consider him a hypocrite?

((Only if he's a Republican. Har har.))

Bryce(2) said...

"We find it trite and obvious to report that the putative holders of our moral compasses are nothing more than champions of hypocrisy."

We find it trite and obvious that Tzvee forgot to include the word "sometimes" before the word "nothing".

Tzvee said...

when it is us it's "personal failures" but when it is them it's impeachable offenses - that is the point, no?

Tal Benschar said...

Why, did Gingrich lie under oath about his affair?

It's the perjury that was impeachable, not the adultery.

Tzvee said...

but the impeachment failed didn't it? so i guess it wasn't merited to begin with was it?

and we are talking about moral and religious hypocrisy, not about dirty politics

Tal Benschar said...

but the impeachment failed didn't it? so i guess it wasn't merited to begin with was it?

The House voted for impeachment -- which is the equivalent of an indictment. On the trial, half the senate voted for impeachment, half did not. On virtually straight partisan lines. So the failure to convict hardly says anything about the merits of the charge; it says alot more about how many Senators permitted their partisan allegiance to override their Oath to uphold the Constitution. (Not to mention that Clinton was sanctioned by the federal court for lying and was punished by the local bar association. That indicates some merit to the charge of perjury.)

and we are talking about moral and religious hypocrisy, not about dirty politics

You brought up the impeachment.

Did Falwell point to Newt Gingrich as a paragon of virtue? I think not.

Both Clinton and Gingrich engaged in a despicable moral act -- adultery. Except that Clinton never sought to repent, lied about it under oath, lied to the American people on national television, and to this day treats the charge with obfuscation and misdirection.

Gingrich, from what little I can tell, has tried to repent, at least a bit. True, that does not make him a paragon of virtue, by a long shot. But there is nothing hypocritical about believing that Clinton should have been impeached even if one was aware that Gingrich commited similar sins and sought to repent from them.

Bryce said...

Tal,

It appears that repentence doesn't matter so much to Tzvee. Gingrich cheated, and is thus forever a hypocrite.

Tzvee said...

Do I need to point to the obvious? Consider the timing of Newt's "repentance" - right before he will be announcing his run for the presidency. And consider the venue of his "confession" on a national wingnut radio show. These circumstances ought to be enough to make a lock step conservative discount the sincerity of his teshuvah. Come on - he's full of crap.

Bryce said...

Well, I guess you did have to point to the obvious. Although the venue at which he confessed is of little import, the timing is noteworthy, and suspicious. Your new argument is compelling.