As outlined in “It’s Gingrich Time!” (http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9629), the Obamian attack machine, led in Congress by its High Chieftess of Vacuity and Obama idolatress, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, has begun to mobilize against Newton Leroy Gingrich.
The carefully-designed Democrat deconstruction of the latest front-runner in the Republican sweepstakes for the nomination had Pelosi hinting at a ton of allegedly unethical dirt she was prepared to dump on Gingrich, a threatened dumping that made no mention of her own alleged ethical breaches nor of the slew of Obama administration unethical and questionably legal machinations.
Rep. Pelosi withdrew the threat the same day she made it.
As I concluded in “It’s Gringich Time!” “The worst is yet to come in the Destroy Gingrich Campaign.” This will be a long and dirty political year and one of the most reprehensible Dem tactics is already becoming apparent: Tar Newt as a religious hypocrite, a newly-baptized papist fanatic, or both.
The ploy’s success is totally dependent on how well Democrats can get away with smearing Gingrich without smearing his new religion and his new wife lest they be seen as trampling on the First Amendment and the feminine gender. They usually have to be sly about it as in the case of the NewYork Times shortly after his 2009 conversion to Catholicism.
In “Gingrich Gets (a New) Religion,” the Times commented, “But even before his conversion, Mr. Gingrich was branded a hypocrite in the blogosphere after he wrote in a recent Twitter post that President Obama had ‘anti-Catholic values’ ” after he criticized the invitation to President Obama to speak at Notre Dame. (http://tiny.cc/6o2fb)
Do note: The blogosphere, not the Times, called Gingrich a hypocrite. Still, the lambasting had begun and mostly relates to his marriages.
In “Newt Gingrich’s Religion,” Salon.com is less subtle, delineating the differences between the religion Newt had left and the one he had adopted, pointing out the basic tenets of the Baptist faith and that, ”With Gingrich’s conversion to Catholicism, he has, in effect, publicly renounced them.”
Salon not only snidely attacks Gingrich but takes digs at his wife, citing why Newt converted and casting aspersions on Callista Bisek with snide references to her immorality: “The first reason he mentions is the fact that his current wife, Callista, is a devout Catholic.”
Then Salon goes for the real dirt: ”Not so devout, however, that she minded carrying on an affair with the married Speaker of the House. The affair lasted for at least five years while Gingrich was married to his second wife.”
As we all know, ultra-moral liberals take great umbrage at such things, especially when liberals are not involved.
Sounding more envious than chagrined, Salon also threw in another shocker: “Not that it really matters, but Gingrich is 23 years older than Callista. When their affair began, she was in her late 20’s, Gingrich in his 50’s.” (http://tiny.cc/6o2fb )
If it didn’t matter, why mention it–other than to paint Mrs. Gingrich as a bimbo and her husband as an aging, hypocritical roue’?
Bill Clinton married once, Ronald Reagan twice, Newt Gingrich thrice.
By all indications, Clinton’s marriage has been something other than one made in heaven, Reagan’s first marriage to Jane Wyman ended amicably and his second to Nancy Davis was the stuff of marital legend. Gingrich’s first two weddings have been mischaracterized by the media as something akin to marriages by Jack the Ripper to his victims.
Newt’s third marriage, which has lasted eleven years, is the one that most sticks in the MSM craw.
Gingrich lately seems more than a bit happy, content, and at peace with himself and his philosophy, none of which sits well with the mainstreamers who distrust him because his father was career military and because they’re still peeved over 1994.
Variously described over the course of his long career as everything from an authoritarian and a hothead to brilliant and inspirational, Gingrich’s greatest political success was the passage of the 1994 Republican “Contract with America” which helped end the four-decade death grip the Democrat Party had had in Congress.
Gingrich has been widely criticized by Democrats for his policies, but their favorite ad hominem attacks have focused on his marriages, not as much for their multiplicity as for the manner in which the first two allegedly ended, an indicator, the sensitive party contends, that displayed his underlying callous insensitivity.
Gingrich has more than adequately defended himself against those allegations and it is not the purpose here to elaborate further on the charges or his explanations but rather to comment on his conversion to Catholicism and the effect that conversion and his marrige to Callista Bisek may have had on the 68 year old Newt.
Last week, the Left wing HuffingtonPost.com published an article on Gingrich’s conversion, unusually for the left wing HufPo not a hit piece on the moderately- conservative Newt. In the article by Jaweed Kaleem, the author suggested the former Speaker experienced “a spiritual shift in his life and politics” as a result of switching from Southern Baptist to Catholic in 2009.
Catholics have no corner on spirituality or morality–think the Kennedys–although they do generally have a different take on direct access to the Almighty. Though prayer is encouraged, so, too, are intermediaries such as priests and bishops at Mass, confessions, etc.
Raised a Lutheran and never exceptionally religious, Gingrich said earlier this year, “People ask me when I decided to become Catholic. It would be more accurate to say that I gradually became Catholic and then realized that I should accept the faith that surrounded me.”
As HuffPo’s Kaleem reports, prior to his conversion, Newt felt he was “psychologically a Protestant” because of ”the opportunity to go directly to God,” but conceded an attraction to “the depth of the Catholic church” with his fate resting in God’s hands.
Two years later, he converted.
Democrats, always uncomfortable with “God-talk” but always liberal when it comes to religious beliefs–and everything else–are in a quandary. Even in our increasingly-secular society, they can’t directly rip Gingrich’s Catholic religion any more than they could Mitt Romney’s Mormonism so, instead, they resort to Pelosi-ist innuendo and plant doubts.
It was no great revelation but, as I wrote in “It’s Gingrich Time!” Newt Gingrich is no saint. More importantly, at this stage, at this critical juncture in America’s history, we don’t need or want saintliness in a president. What we need is competence, leadership, what Margaret Thatcher said about Gingrich, a man with “guts.”
President Barack Hussein Obama has none of those qualities and, as flawed as he is, Newt is the best alternative in the picture, in spite of being a Catholic.