Excellent example of hypocrisy. However, what may be even better, from article in the link, is this statement by Newt regarding Islam:

“It’s a warrior culture,” he adds, “that has been true historically for 6,000 or 7,000 years.”

I don't know which I like better, the open bigotry or the statement that Islam is older than any of the judeo-christian-islamic religions, possibly including Zoroastrianism.

The difference between Gingrich's and Clinton's situations is that Clinton got up in a courtroom and lied about his affair UNDER OATH. He broke the law. I think that's a significant difference. If Gingrich had lied under oath about his affair, he would deserve impeachment as well.

By that logic, Nadia, killing is bad unless you get caught. You can't have your moral cake and eat it, too. You're saying that lying about an affair in court is bad, but lying about an affair to your wife, family, friends, constituants outside of court is okay.
I still take offence to the idea that tax payer money went to even investigate a sleazy affair instead of helping needy people. And if Republicans really stood for what they used to stand for, the Monicagate thing would not have been persued to such an extent and cost that it would have even gotten to the point of purgery.

And another thing: The point of the post was to underline the hypocrisy of even bringing someone else's affair to light while you are having an affair yourself. I bet you it would be very easy to find quotes aplenty from Gingrich at that time saying: "This immorality is a disgrace to our country!" Or, "Our godless society is what has led us to this sad day." You know, HYPOCRITICAL horseshit like that.

Hey Paul, I think you kinda missed the point of my comment. Granted, both acts are immoral, but pointing out the "similarities" wasn't my intention. This is why my comment started with the phrase: "The difference between..." I was pointing out the "DIFFERENCES", not the "similarities".

For the record, I agree with you regarding how both men are "immoral" but the "Monicagate" thing was a "legal issue" (ever heard of Paula Jones?), not a "moral" / "immoral" one. So yes, in the arena of "hipocrisy" you "may" be making a good point. (I say "may" because that part of your argument is based on "hypothetics" i.e. (I bet you it would be very easy to find quotes aplenty from Gingrich at that time saying: "This immorality is a disgrace to our country!" Or, "Our godless society is what has led us to this sad day.") You see, it's not like you actually "quoted" Newt. You simply stated a hypothetical situation and then proceeded to make a point based on it. Get the quote, and I will concede the point as being made. Until then ...

But to wrap this up; I will state again, I was pointing out the difference between the two situations.

I get that, Nadia. I'd probably bother to find the quote if:

a] I were doing a research paper or presentation on this subject.

b] I thought you couldn't imagine the high likelihood of those kinds of comments being made by Gingrich during that period.

I understand that you're talking differences and in fact your point is very well made. I allowed my defensiveness on this subject to assert itself and didn't take the time to reason your comments more accurately. However, I guess that's what makes the conversation a journey.
The defensivenes comes from the fact that I have always felt frustrated when people try to pin me to a wall on the argument of Clinton's lying under oath. I have to concede the point through ground teeth because of what I feel gets overwhelmingly neglected in this dialogue. This is that I have never voted for a senator or congressman with the idea that part of their work in my better interest would be to examine any other politician regarding extramartal affairs. The private life of the politician, regardless of whether it is the ethical system I live by, should only be brought into the public eye when it directly impacts citizens in a significant, provable way, such as taking a bribe or neglecting a responsibility like a bomb heading towards us in favor of a weekend shagathon. So to my mind the greatest offence is the enormous amount of resources [time, money, person hours] that went into that investigation and subsequant hearings. When the 'lying under oath' card gets thrown on the table, the attitude is that it trumps the rest, and I don't think that it does.

Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite, which as our dear Lord said, is worse than the transgression itself. Brother Bill admits that he is bothered by these demons of lust and the Lord will help him. But Gingrich is like those Pharisees, the self righteous that our dear Lord use to rile against. Brother Bill has been married once, like the Bible says, NOT three times like that hypocrite. Gingrich, like the newt(salamander) he is, should go and hide under a shady stone and never come out in daylight again to open his mouth. He belongs amongst the doers of darkness.

I'm with Paul Miller on this one. Lying under oath was a bad move by Bill. But, the question should never have been asked under oath. If anyone wanted to get Bill in trouble for something, why bother with his sex life? Get him for being the largest arms dealer in history, at least until that point. I have no idea if if the current moron has beaten the record.

As for Gingrich, and most other comparisons of people to other species, it is, as always, an insult to the other species. Salamanders are cute and relatively harmless, though perhaps not to whomever they eat. Newt is a particularly vile member of the meanest, most despicable species on the planet. As usual, I feel embarassed by the loose association of being in the same species with the man. To call him pond scum would be an insult to perfectly good pond scum. So, Pastor Leroy Jones, let's try to leave the innocent cute newts out of it. Personally, I'd leave religion out of it as well, but I'll leave that to a different thread.

Well Paul, it seems as if we have beaten this dead horse enough. The main points have been made. However(new beef), your concern with the amoount of resourses spent to investigate an alleged "rape" (Paula Jones) deeply concerns me. As opposed to leaving here thinking you are a cold, heartless, man who enjoys the mental and physical abuse of women, I'd rather think that your heart is in the right place, but you simply aren't familier with the Paula Jones case.

Misanthropic; your "sounding off" on the matter shows that you do not know what the Ken Starr investigation was about. Questioning an accused rapist about his sexual past is beyond relevant and most certainly should have been asked.

I was not aware, Nadia, that we were talking about Paula Jones. I thought we were talking about Monica Lewinski who I think no one including herself ever thought was 'raped' by Clinton.
Does anyone know where Ken Starr is now? You never hear about him.

I'm with you Paul Miller. I thought we were talking about Monica. As for rape, sure, investigate. But, I'm not sure I see what point consensual sex OF EITHER PARTY before or after the alleged rape has to do with the rape case.

I think it's terrible when women are victimized first by the rapist and later by the courts as any consensual sex on her part makes her look like she wanted to have sex with the rapist. It makes no sense in those cases and makes equally little sense to talk about Bill's consensual sex prior to or since the Paula Jones case. Had there been alleged rape with Lewinsky, that would certainly be a valid point to bring up in the Paula Jones trial. Without that, there is no reason to discuss it at all.

Remember, rape is not a sexual act so much as a violent one.

A history of consensual sex says literally zero about a rape victim's side of the case or the accused rapists side of the case. To state otherwise would not only be sexist but silly. When a jeweler is robbed, no one says, but s/he put all those diamonds in the window everyday and was thus asking for it. Let's remember that rape is a violent crime. Sex, inside or outside marriage, is not a crime.

Wow, you guys are incredible. Monica Lewinsky was brought up as a result of the investigation of the Paula Jones case. The original investigation was to find out whether or not Bill Clinton raped Paula Jones, which would require an investigation of Clinton's sexual history-like I said before. Any findings of sexual indiscretion would give credibility to the Paula Jones case.

Now mind you, Clinton was accused of witness tampering, tampering with evidence, and perjury. Mind you, he was impeached (not removed from office, but impeached). Mind you, he DID lose his Law license in the State of Arkansas. Mind you, this is about breaking the Law.

The Monica Lewinsky situation would not have been turned into such a big deal, had Clinton not LIED ABOUT IT UNDER OATH at the Paula Jones trial. You can't talk about the Lewinsky scandal without talking about Paula Jones. His relationship with Lewinsky was not a crime, his lying on the stand about it WAS. It is not my concern that the president cheated on his wife (though it does make me wonder about his integrity in other areas of his life). My concern is that the president showed little enough regard for the law that he was willing to break it. Sure, he lied about sex. However, lying under oath is lying under oath; which is illegal. Remember, my point-as I said before-is that this case is about the law.

Nadia,

We are in some agreement. Clinton was both wrong and broke the law when he lied under oath. Where we disagree is whether Monica should have been an issue in the Paula Jones case.

Please explain why a history of consensual sex has any bearing on a rape case?

This happens to be something I feel strongly about. Most often, the victim of this sort of questioning is the rape victim, rather than the accused rapist. The usually female victim in a rape case is usually put on the stand by the defendant’s lawyer and, unless she was a virgin at the time of the rape, is made to look like a slut. This is an unconscionable situation in our legal system and should be changed immediately.

Bringing the issue of Monica into the Paula case is IDENTICAL to this type of behavior. It is merely an uncommon version of it where the accused rapist is made to look like a slut, which he probably is. But being sexually promiscuous is NOT a VIOLENT act. Rape is a VIOLENT act. I think it would be more relevant to bring up any cases of violence in Bill's past than cases of sex in or out of marriage.

I don't think you're going to convince me otherwise. I'm probably more of a feminist than you and less sexist. This is typically considered a women's issue. Not being sexist myself, I consider it a human one. But, I would like to hear your explanation of exactly why you think that one's consensual sex history is relevant in a rape case.

I'm with Scott on this - what is the rational for this line of offense?

I guess Newt didn't read the one, "let him without sin cast the first stone" ! Strange how they pick only what serves their purpose and ignore what doesn't. As far as the Jones thing, if I remember correctly, it was before becoming Pres., therefore not impeachable offense, as far as sex in the office, so what! We could carry this on forever. They are Professional politicians, we know most are despicable, it only gets worse. We need to get religion out of our civil government. We need to have our laws enforced equally, not just on those that can't afford great lawyers. We need to clean up our government. Our society is skewed and needs attention. How do we get back on course?

Scott- The argument is not whether or not Monica should have been an issue in the Paula Jones case. Let me remind you: The question we are debating is: weather or not Gingrich had any room to push for Clinton's impeachment even though he had committed adultery himself. The reality is, Clinton WAS questioned about Monica during the Paula Jones trial and HE LIED ABOUT IT under oath.

However, since you seem to want to go down that rabbit trail: the most likely reason the prosecutor questioned Clinton about Monica is because he wanted to show that Clinton has a “sense of entitlement” to any woman he wants. Hold on-keep reading.
-You would probably agree that rape is more about power than sex or violence. Violence is simply a common manifestation of the rapist’s quest for power.
- Paula Jones was one of 3 women who made allegations against Clinton for some kind of sexual harassment/manipulation (see Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey). Monica was simply one of the situations that was used to build the case-that’s why she was relevant to the case. The question the prosecution wanted to ask was: Did this man use his position as president to manipulate a 22 year old girl into having sex with him?

Clinton, being a lawyer himself, knew that any prosecutor in his/her right mind would use the Monica situation (as well as the others) to show consistency in that kind of manipulative behavior. Clinton lied about Monica (even denied knowing her!) and tried to cover it up (thus the “tampering with evidence” and “tampering with a witness” charges). By questioning Clinton’s history, the prosecutor was building credibility for the case against Clinton. It’s a very common way to build a case.

Now, SHOULD he have been questioned about Monica? That’s a matter of opinion. But, regardless of weather or not you think he SHOULD have been questioned about Monica, he WAS, and he lied under oath. THOSE are FACTS.

Are you saying that it is okay to commit perjury if you think the question being asked shouldn't be asked in the first place? If the judge(s) had considered the question irrelevant, he/she would not have allowed the prosecution to proceed with the questioning, NOR would he/she have allowed Bill to answer. I am not trying to convince you of weather or not the questions SHOULD have been asked. I am simply saying that there is a big difference between Gingrich and Clinton, because Clinton lied under oath about his affair.

By the way, how does any of this discussion have anything to do with being a feminist (or not being one) or being sexist? We're talking about the law here (or so I thought).

Ranselar, you must have been in a hurry to respond. If you had taken the time to read, you would have noticed that we are discussing the IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE of perjury, which DID occur during Clinton's presidency. Remember, I am not arguing that Clinton should have been impeached for having sex in the office (as you so wittily put it, "so what!"). I am saying that Clinton deserved impeachment for committing perjury, while in office, regardless of what he lied about.

You right girl, go Nadia. You are smarter then these guys. They just don't get it.

Nadia,

Had you read my prior post, you would have seen that I stated right at the top that we agree that Bill was both wrong and broke the law. No, I do not think it's OK to commit perjury when one should not be asked a question in the first place. I do think the judge should have ruled out the line of questioning. I don't agree that it had any bearing on the case. I don't think that consensual sex shows anything about one asserting either power or violence over anyone else.

The reason I brought up sexism is that in most cases where a person's past consensual sex life is brought up in a rape case, it is used to show the rape victim as a slut and therefore incapable of being raped. I would personally argue that even a prostitute can be a rape victim. No amount of prior sex prevents any woman from saying "no". To say otherwise is sexism. To this end, I strongly argue that prior consensual sex should be kept out of all rape cases to prevent any association between rape as an act that I still consider violent, and sex, which I consider beautiful.

Your view seems very different but also valid. I just disagree. I think that at this point we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Thanks Kate!

Scott,
I'm glad you understand my point. Whew! I would, however, like to clarify something. I did not say that the line of questioning was right or wrong. I was simply stating why the prosecutor used it, and I also remember saying that it is a matter of opinion weather it was right or wrong. I also never (in any way) said that prior consensual sex prevents a woman from saying "no." Surely, you must have misunderstood, and consequently proceeded to say that you are "less sexist" than me, which, to me, insinuates that I am sexist (at least a little bit). I just wanted to clarify that that is not my position on rape. I also believe that a prostitute can be a rape victim. I would even argue that a wife can be raped by her husband. No argument there.

Anyway, I agree that we will have to agree to disagree. LOL I have really enjoyed this discussion.

I enjoyed the discussion too. Sorry to imply sexism on your part. There probably isn't any. The use of consensual sex as an argument in a rape case just triggers that button for me. Perhaps I need to watch for whether it is real in each case before giving my knee jerk reaction. And, yes, of course a wife can say no to her husband. If he fails to take no for an answer, it is obviously rape. Unfortunately, I'm guessing the likelihood of proving that one in court is quite low. As a nation, we need to do a lot of work on the way we deal with rape cases.