I newt it would come to this

Many people will not see this key difference:

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity. 'The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge,' the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. 'I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept . . . perjury in your highest officials.' "

Right, it wasn't about the sex, it was about the perjury. Whereas Gingrich's affair was only about the sex


Kurtz demonstrates himself that he does not get the difference. Perjury is an immoral action which society has deemed worthy of legal penalty. Adultry is an immoral action which society has deemed lega.

Clinton perjured himself. He also proved himself an immoral, worthless human being not worthy of holding office for 2 reasons; immorality and criminality. Gingrich proved himself a worthless human being not worthy of holding office due to immorality (and maybe stupidity).

Perjury does not equal adultery no matter how much Clintonian defenders try to spin it that way and adultery combined with stupidity...seriously, in the climate of those times, any public politician engaged in a reckless behavioral mode like that had to assume it would come to light...remember the senator from...Indiana? Illinois? who made his way off the hill after his own infidelity was revealed. Either way, ain't no way Gingrich is worthy of any moral person's vote; there is no reason to suspect he would not engage in the same behavior again. Bye bye, Newt.