By Judith Gayle | Political Waves
I’m sure there are places in the world where potential presidents’ sex lives are less important than their leadership skills or policy choices, like all of Europe, for instance. But not here. Here, we are invested in the covert details of our leaders sex lives, and for good or ill, it matters. It matters because such information presumes to offer a snapshot of a politician’s character and ability to uphold traditional culture and family values; or at least it did.
It now appears that rather than accept Mitt as the only viable presidential candidate, or embrace Santorum as an electable choice rather than an ideological one, the Pubs in South Carolina may forgive Newt Gingrich both his demand for open marriage and his habit of leaving ill and suffering wives in the lurch. Newt is surging. The Pub base is desperate for an un-Romney that might unseat Obama, and it’s put them in a position to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea.
In tandem with the shift of so much else, it appears Republican voters are no less appalled at the sexual history of some of their politicians, but suddenly pragmatic, are resolved to hold their noses. In the fight to rid themselves of the black guy, they’ll throw everything under the bus, even issues of morality. Well, almost. Marianne didn’t say Newt had suggested incorporating another guy in the triad, so open hetero-marriage doesn’t seem to be ruffling Pub feathers as we might have supposed. Perhaps it’s the influence of their high priest, Rush Limbaugh, who considers Newt’s marriage request no big thing:
So Newt wanted an open marriage. BFD. At least he asked his wife for permission instead of cheating on her. That’s a mark of character, in my book. Newt’s a victim. We all are. Ours is the horniest generation. We were soldiers in the sex revolution. We were tempted by everything from Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice to Plato’s retreat, Deep Throat to no fault divorce. Many of us paid the ultimate price, AIDS, abortion, or alimony for the cultural marching orders we got. Hell, for all I know we should be getting disability from the government
A bit of hypocrisy from a four-times married blowviator? Yes, considering his over-the-top vendetta against Clinton for the Monica scandal and a supposed love of “Republican family values” that becomes suspect when you Google Rush and the word “gay.” I’d be interested in an explanation of the third wife and him living in separate homes for their entire marriage, but I suppose such a question would hint of slander: you know, little blue pills and alleged sex-trip to the Dominican Republic aside. But don’t say that too loud if you want to avoid Hurricane Rush. That’s where it all gets tricky and goes south.
Conservatives are expert at playing that victim card. Mentioning anything they’ve done is synonymous with attack. They can make a mountain out of a teensy liberal molehill and suggest civilization as we know it is doomed, but pointing out any of their nonsense is considered an orchestrated media blitz against conservative values. Decades of that have made the left uniformly silent on most of these issues. We’re used to embarrassing incidents leaking out of conservative closets, including a “wide stance” incident in Rush’s youth. The conservative defense, should they offer one, is stunningly simple and obtuse: nothing to see here, move along.