Sometimes you want to be careful to not be a “bird of a feather” with someone who is toxic. Newt Gingrich seems to have failed to get that message as he came to the defense of Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh went overboard, even for himself, on February 29, when he called Georgetown University Law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” because she advocated the university including contraception in its health insurance program. Rush got in trouble because he seems to have trouble understanding that, just because a woman takes a birth control bill every day, does not mean that she has sex every day, or for that matter any day. Newt then came to his defense, blaming the whole fiasco on who else but President Obama.

So President Obama, who has been faithfully married to his wife, Michelle, for twenty years, was the target of their judgment on relationships. This came from Rush Limbaugh, who has been married four times, and Newt Gingrich who has been married three times. Is there something odd about them presenting themselves as paragons of virtue?

In the way of background, the issue of contraception has not been settled for many Republicans. Following President Obama’s announced policies to have the insurance company provide coverage for churches and other houses of worship, Republicans figured that they had a hot political issue, because fully 2% of women in the U.S. have never used contraception.

Darrell Issa (R-CA), the wealthiest member of Congress, thought that the issue was so important that he immediately called for a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he chairs. His goal was to better inform committee members on the president’s policy. He forgot something, perhaps not too important to him, but he excluded 51% of the nation’s population. His panel of five experts included no women.

Female members of the committee as well as most men were outraged at what was either Issa’s oversight or his intentional lack of sensitivity. As might be expected and certainly justified, House Democrats walked out of the hearing because of its one-sidedness, but only after several Democratic congresswomen were able to point out the absurdity of the situation.

Things happened rather quickly after that. Sandra Fluke, Co-President of the Georgetown Law Chapter at law Students for Reproductive Justice, was one of the women who House Democrats had wanted Issa to have testify. He refused. Democrats then held their own hearing and she was the primary witness.

She described how contraceptive coverage is not available through Georgetown University’s health insurance program because the Catholic Church is opposed to most common forms of birth control. She elaborated; the out-of-pocket cost of one year’s supply of birth control pills is approximately $1,000.

This is where Rush went off his wide-ranging reservation to the point where over one hundred forty corporate sponsors have withdrawn their support of his syndicated radio program, leaving the program with a lot of “dead air” as well as hot air. Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.” He called for her to make sex tapes and post them online. Essentially what he said is that because she was talking the precaution of utilizing birth control pills, she was an immoral woman.

Much to his credit, President Barack Obama called Ms. Fluke and expressed his support for her bravery. He indicated that her parents must be quite proud of her. This was most important to her because her opponents had indicated that she was a disgrace to them.

In comes former House Speaker and presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich. A man with an extensive vocabulary, he seems to have difficulty knowing the meaning of “victim.” In his mind, Limbaugh was the victim. Gingrich said:

HAMILTON, Ohio – Newt Gingrich on Saturday used the flap over Rush Limbaugh’s controversial denunciations of birth-control advocate Sandra Fluke as a way to attack President Obama for acting “opportunistically” when he called the Georgetown University law student to express his disappointment over Limbaugh’s comments.

After Limbaugh described Fluke as “slut” and “prostitute” for advocating for subsidizing birth control, Obama contacted Fluke personally. Numerous conservatives and other GOP presidential candidates have rebuked Limbaugh to varying degrees, but the former House speaker said he saw the issue much differently.

“I think the president will opportunistically do anything he can,” Gingrich said in response to a reporter’s question after a rally Saturday morning in Hamilton. “I think the most important use of language in the last week has been the president’s apology to religious fanatics, and I want to stay focused on what the president has said, and I think what he said was inexcusable and is exactly the wrong policy at a time of life and death, and playing political games is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.”

But with Rush’s advertising fleeing, the “king of gab” issued an apology, or kind of an apology. This is unusual for him. However, of the 192 words in the apology, 118 were a defense of his position. His apology was only for “word choices,” not for insulting Ms. Fluke’s integrity.

The value and validity of someone’s words are often a function of their own credibility. Where your record is significantly flawed, it is best to not judge others. Neither Rush Limbaugh nor Newt Gingrich seem to understand that on the basis of seven wives and six divorces (some very messy), they might best remain silent to issues about relationships. Perhaps their faux pas in this case would be excusable if they were isolated. But both voices of the right seem to have also failed to learn the meaning of the word “hypocrisy.” Now it is up to more American people to recognize hypocrisy when they hear it. Maybe five sponsors bolting Rush’s show will provide a little bit of a hint.

The post Relationship advice from two guys with seven wives appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Newt Gingrich has been the subject of well-deserved criticism as he attempts to be the “outside-insider” candidate to win the Republican presidential nomination. Because he is such a fun target for many Republicans as well as virtually all Democrats, there is little discrimination in the criticism directed his way. Many of his opponents acknowledge that he has smarts – perhaps more than any of the other Republican candidates. However, whenever he speaks truth to power, he is treated as the same piñata as when he pontificates on family values, while having left two wives who were recovering from serious illnesses in hospitals. He also led the impeachment charade against Bill Clinton, while having his own affair a few hundred feet from the House floor.

Democrats have good reason to fear that Republican presidents will be reckless. Criticizing a candidate for being potentially dangerous and a loose cannon is fair game and within the bounds of political correctness. However, to speak about a candidate not being intelligent or educated enough to be president is not acceptable, either politically or to the P.C. police. So when Democrats want to talk about the intellectual capabilities of a George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, or Sarah Palin, they have two choices. They can whisper to one another, now more feasible with the growth of the blogosphere. Or they can leave it to comedians such as Jon Stewart or Bill Maher to say what everyone else is thinking. Particularly in Stewart’s case, he validates his mocking of intellectually challenged candidates through use the magic of TiVo and by nailing them with their own quotes.

But Newt can’t buy a break. Shortly after announcing his candidacy, he appeared on Meet the Press. In response to a question from David Gregory about Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) voucher plan to cut Medicare costs, Gingrich said, “I don’t think that right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering.”

Gingrich was not criticized by people on the left, because they see right-wing engineering as curtailing reproductive rights, gay rights, civil rights, and a host of other human rights. While they may not agree with Gingrich on many things, the “Meet the Press” statement with a libertarian tinge to it was acceptable, perhaps refreshing.

However, Gingrich was immediately skewered by Republicans for violating Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Clearly, Gingrich’s propensity to consider ideas not in the standard Republican playbook is unacceptable, because that playbook does not include any provision for free thought.

Regrettably for Gingrich, he often undermines his independent thinking by allowing himself to be bullied by his colleagues. While Anthony Weiner showed how awkward it is to step back from an indiscretion, Gingrich showed how awkward it is to step back from truth to falsehood. First he said that he didn’t mean what he said on Meet the Press; then he said that David Gregory’s question was a “gotcha” (listen to the question on the tape, and you’ll find that hard to believe); and finally he took Apology Road and professed his respect for Paul Ryan and loyalty to the party line.

Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday, May 15, and the next major event for Republican candidates was a so-called debate  in New Hampshire on Monday, June 13. Many of the other candidates were beating the hustings in Iowa where the first caucus will be, and New Hampshire, where the first primary will be. Gingrich, who certainly did not have the reputation of a family man, decided to take a two week Mediterranean cruise with his latest wife, Callista. Apparently, her name means “thoroughly beautiful” in Greek,  and that was important enough to her for her to want to visit the country. Newt wanted to please and also saw the cruise as an opportunity to research issues and clarify his positions on various issues. That was playing to his forte; unlike some of the other Republican candidates, he knows how to study and to utilize information to form arguments.

Unfortunately for him, his campaign staff did not see the cruise as time well spent, and on June 9 they resigned en masse. This was basically unprecedented in American politics. They could not believe that he would not dedicate every waking moment to meeting with party officials and voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.

It may be that Gingrich realized the absurd importance that most politicians and pundits place on these two relatively small states. To a large extent, voters in these two states judge a candidate by how much time he or she spends in the state. The voters have every right to do this, but in a rational world, they would lose their right to accuse a candidate of being petty by not setting up camp in their state. Those candidates who focus on Iowa and New Hampshire (i.e. those who usually win the nominations) choose to play along with our absurd system of caucuses and primariess. Iowa and New Hampshire each have less than 1% of the nation’s population. Why should candidates spend close to 100% of their time in these two states over the first six months of the campaign?

Gingrich never said that he took the cruise because he felt that there was too much emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire. However, he’s smart enough to know that the system is flawed. Perhaps he’s also impatient enough to choose to avoid the tedium and boredom of endless and mindless campaigning.

In any event, Gingrich’s decision to take the cruise was more than his staff and many of his supporters could take. When the June 13 debate finally rolled around, Gingrich showed that he was the class of the field when it came to factual knowledge and creative thinking.

It appears to all have been for naught. His liabilities as a candidate who reasonable voters could respect and support are far too great. No one has to look hard to find ways to question Gingrich’s character and his viability as a candidate. With that being the case, perhaps he can be respected for those moments when he exercises command of facts, wisdom, good judgment, and a keen eye for the absurd. There is a second side to the “Newt Coin,” and it includes a few virtues. There’s no need to criticize him for everything. Perhaps he understood this when he traveled to Greece, understanding that the best he could be was not a winner, but rather a tragic Greek figure whose flaws were far too many for any virtues to surmount.

The post The other side of the Newt coin appeared first on Occasional Planet.