Pogotheostrich wrote: knapplc wrote:
Seriously, though - how can Newt Gingrich be considered a viable candidate for the presidency? The guy can't possibly have a chance, can he?
Reublican voters love him. But in the National election I don't think he'd have a chance. He has the same problem as Hillary IMO. For the majority of Americans their opinions on Hillary and Newt are already formed and nothing is going to change them.
Yeah, I can't see how either one of them have the chance at winning. You have to get some of the people that don't have an opinion and you're just not going to do that when you're as polarizing as these two have been.
Big Pimpin wrote:I'm not going to advocate anything Newt did, nor does this mean that I like/respect/would vote for him. But the big difference is that while what Newt did is wrong and immoral, what Bill did was illegal. Having an affair in and of itself isn't against the law. Lying under oath is.
Absolutely. Clinton should have been in trouble with people for what he did. Newt wasn't just going after him about the lying under oath though...he was attacking him on moral grounds as well which definitely makes him a hypocrite here.
All that said Clinton shouldn't have been in trouble anyways because he never should have been questioned on a civil matter like that under oath. The office of the presidency is far more important than getting to the bottom of whether the man in office can't keep his pants on. The courts never should have forced him to testify and their decision caused more damage to the country than the actions of anyone else involved.