Not to Worry. Gingrich’s Affairs Are in the National Interest.

Some folks are wringing their hands over the possibility of philanderer, Newt Gingich, being the Republican nominee.  A commentator on Fox News has put these concerns to rest.  The dumping of wives for new ones will make Newt a stronger President.

Dr. Keith Albow is a psychiatrist on Fox.  He basis’ his conclusions on the need for a President to deliver bad news.  Gingrich told two wives he no longer loved them.  Dr. Albow says this means he has the wherewithall to deliver bad news to Congress and the  public.

Albow goes on the point out Gingrich was able to persuade three women to pledge their lives to him.  This means he will be able to persuade the public to do things his way.  Such is positive evidence he is the kind of person needed as President.

Why did Albow stop here when he was on such a roll?  He could have pointed out how good times were under the philandering, President Clinton.  We payed off the national debt and the economy was strong.  He could also have noted things were not so good under the straight arrow, President Bush.

Now, I don’t happen to agree with Dr. Albow that Ginrich’s cheating on women will make him a better President.  I do think, however, the religious right has done us all a disfavor by making Presidential politics is a referendom on religious dogma.

Making religion the center piece for selecting a Republican candidate brought forward weak candidates and left us with Newt.

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Not to Worry. Gingrich’s Affairs Are in the National Interest.

  1. Bob says:

    It did not leave you a bad candidate Jon, because you are a liberal and will vote for war monger Obama, or other war monger and religious left winger.

    And there is a third category that must be mentioned, Libertarian freedom and peace candidate Ron Paul.

    And why isn’t it ever mentioned that there are other kinds of relationships besides gays and heterosexuals. There’s threesomes, or eightsies.
    Where four couples for example all live in the same house and all marry each other. All equal husbands and wives. What about them, hunh?
    Oops, I forgot, that’s Mitt’s territory.

    • Bob says:

      I loathe it that I come off as disrespectful to you Jon when point out voting liberalism and republicanism voting versus libertarian. That is not my intent. Sorry for that.
      But I feel the left is every bit as bad as the right, and sometimes even worse. So in the future, if I can I will try to word it more respectful if I can.
      Because you deserve respect Jon.
      This is a fun blog.
      And if Newt got into office, OMG, I shudder at the thought. The wars, and everything else. But so does Obama make me equally shudder.

  2. entech says:

    He could have also pointed out that such a man was prone to making bad or perhaps rash and emotional decisions, maybe even based on selfish lust. Don’t vote have no rights, just a generic comment.

  3. Michael Ross says:

    Herman Cain was run out of the primaries because of his philandering. Newt zoomed to the top. Ron Paul has been faithful to the same wife for 54 years and he is “unelectable”. I sware! This country is finished.

    • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

      Ron Paul isn’t unelectable because of events in his personal life. He’s unelectable because his vision for a radically smaller federal government isn’t actually consistent with the views of a vast majority of Americans.

      For the life of me I can’t understand what “values voters” have against Mitt Romney. Perhaps he’s insufficiently pro-life, but that’s not what you hear people talking about. I think the more likely answer is that Newt has been far more effective at connecting with their anger.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        seaofstories 2:48 “I think the more likely answer is that Newt has been far more effective at connecting with their anger.”

        Great observation!! That has to be it. When he exploded at the “news media”, his numbers went straight up. Getting mad at the moderator was a successful metephor for being mad at everything.

        When I was a Mayor, I was on TV here all the time. It was facinating to do interviews, appear at meetings and such, then, go home and watch the “product” of all that, the little impression that came through the box. Newt exploded through the box that night. For anyone like him, however, the problem is there are many nights ahead.

        • Michael Ross says:

          Newt is forceful, confident and a philanderer. Bill Clinton was forceful, confident and a philanderer. Under Clinton we had the longest period of sustained economic growth and the greatest stock bull market in history. Newt will give us 8 years of boom times just like Clinton. That, I believe is the reasoning behind Newt’s rise. Americans are voting their pocketbooks like they always do.

        • Henry says:

          Jon: “For anyone like him, however, the problem is there are many nights ahead.”

          Good point. There is indeed a risk with Newt. However, I’ll accept those risks.

          Ott: “For the life of me I can’t understand what “values voters” have against Mitt Romney.”

          The “values voters” are being pragmatic. The last time they supported a moderate presidential candidate, they got an obambulater instead who attacked their values.

    • Bob says:

      I will vote Ron Paul no matter what. Because I don’t think it matters whether the left or the right gets in, both lead down the same path for Americans, the loss of freedoms, financial security, and war mongering.

  4. Bob says:

    Unfortunaely, its the media who picks the president.
    Yet with the internet, that is changing. I think Ron Paul’s ideas of freedom from the government and anti-war mongering are very attractive to many, and I also think people are seeing how wasteful monetarily the government is and that also appeals to freedom/libertarian minded people.
    Newt will hopefully do something over the top and Paul can move it.

  5. Bob says:

    The core of libertarianism is respect for the life, liberty, and property rights of each individual. This means that no one may initiate force against another, as that violates those natural rights. While many claim adherence to this principle, only libertarians apply the non-aggression axiom to the state.” – Ron Paul, medical doctor, U.S. Congressman, and 2008 Republican Primary candidate for president.

    “We want government to largely leave us alone, protect our personal security, but then to butt-out, leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don’t hurt anybody else.” – John Stossel, Host of “Stossel” on Fox Financial News Network, and author of Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity

    “Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government – on all issues at all times… A libertarian is someone who thinks you should be free to live your life as you want to live it, not as [the President of the United States] thinks you should – who believes you should raise your children by your values, not those of some far-off bureaucrat who’s using your child as a pawn to create some brave new world – who thinks that, because you’re the one who gets up every day and goes to work, you should be free to keep every dollar you earn, to spend it, save it, give it away as you think best.”– Harry Browne (1933-2006),1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate and author of Liberty A-Z: 872 Libertarian Soundbites You Can Use Right Now!

    This is for non-Americans and Americans alike who are left/right government people.

  6. Bob says:

    “Small government: one that stays out of people’s wallets and out of their bedrooms.” – Jeffrey Miron, Harvard Professor and author of Libertarianism from A to Z

    • grandma says:

      I wonder what would have happened to my grandfather, when he had to go into a nursing home (at age 90), at a time his two surviving children were retired and living on savings and Social Security, and his grandchildren were raising their own families with no money to spare. Fortunately, the State of Minnesota paid his nursing home care: we weren’t thrilled to have that charity, but we could not have kept him alive without it. He worked hard his entire life, but never had the opportunities to go to college. He told me once that he saved as much as he could, but he never thought he’d live as long as he did (until age 95). Now, many folks say volunteers and churches should pay for our older folks: how many churches do you know of that could spare an extra $6000 a month or more for just one parishioner out of many? I thought not….. Either we care for our fellow citizens or we care for nobody. I’m more than willing to pay taxes to help those of us who need assistance.

  7. Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

    You know what I like best about Ron Paul?

    He’s a pro-life christian but he hardly ever talks about his faith. He’s been a Republican for a long time and I’ve got friends who know their Republican presidential politics and some of them had no idea about Ron Paul’s personal religious convictions, because as far as he’s concerned, they’re personal, not political.

    • Bob says:

      That is true Seaofstories. Its because he gets the whole Libertarian constitutional thing about its not the government’s business what religion we are, so he doesn’t go spouting off about it. Except when its a function specifically set up for that anyway, a privately funded event.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>