Thursday, February 15, 2007

In Defense Of Mudkitty

"History is a voice forever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of eternity." ~ James A. Forude

In my previous entry, where I posted my thoughts regarding the field of Republican Presidential candidates, I had a commenter posting under the name Mudkitty. Mudkitty is apparently Democrat, or at least anti-Republican. And that's fine. Mudkitty is entitled to her/his opinion.

Mudkitty said, "Interesting that you like Newtie - a tree time divorce who prosecuted Clinton while having an adulterous affair with a staffer, whom he eventually dumped his second wife for. Clinton gets a bj, but stays with his wife, and you support impeachment. Newt has a full-blown affair, and is divorced twice, and he's presidential material to you guys. Well, logic and consistency has never been a republican virtue."

Mudkitty also said, "Makes you wonder, that when he speaks of protecting traditional marriage and family and which marriage of his, he wants to protect."

In addition, in reference to Rudy Guiliani, Mudkitty said, "So now the rightwingers are going to swallow their pride, and vote for someone who is pro-abortion, someone who is pro-gay, someone who placed the emergency command center in the World Trade Center, someone who sent 217 firemen up into the towers with non-working walkie talkies, so that they couldn't be recalled, someone who carried on a blatant affair with his mistress while in office. Someone who married his cousin. This is what you guys say you're going to do. Pardon me, if this confirms the lack of credibility in rightwing thinking, and the crass hypocrisy of rightwingers."

Then, Mudkitty said, "Rudy is the guy who carried on a flagrant affair with his mistress, whom he left his wife for. Rudy is the guy who supports gay rights and abortion. Rudy is the guy in business with Bernie Kerrik...Rudy is the guy who's first marriage was to his first cousin."

I don't know who Bernie Kerrik is, so I won't comment on that charge.

For the record, I never said I support either Newt or Rudy. My support is behind Duncan Hunter of California.

Be that as it may, Mudkitty, while attacking Republicans, has accidentally made a very good point.

I am unaware of any marital infidelities of Newt Gingrich, but if those allegations are true, I agree. He wouldn't necessarily be an authoritative voice for morality and Christian values. I know Rudy had an affair which ultimately led to his divorce, which would also go against Christian Conservative values. Because of that, he loses some support from that segment of the Republican base.

I also have a problem with a candidate that supports abortion and special rights for gays.

If we, as Conservative Republicans, settle for a candidate who demonstrates, through his actions, a lack of respect for Conservative Christian values, we cannot condemn former President Clinton for his indiscretions.

As I have said on numerous occasions, it is not the infidelity of Clinton that concerned me, so much as the fact that I would hope the leader of a country would have better self control over his wanton sexual desires. My conviction is if he can't even control that, how can we expect him to exercise good judgement when faced with an international crisis?

My point here is Mudkitty is right to be concerned about candidates with questionable family values.

I don't agree that the unfortunate decision (if it was indeed solely Rudy's) to set up a command center inside the twin towers on 9/11 and malfunctioning communications equipment necessarily disqualifies Rudy to be President.

Nor do I agree that because of some candidates indiscretions, it is an indictment of the whole Republican party. That is, of course, preposterous. By that logic, Republicans could say the same about Democrats. Do we really need to discuss Clinton and his dishonesty, affairs, sexual harassment, attempted rapes, and rapes?

I agree with Mudkitty that a Presidential candidate should be morally unblemished. How could we trust a President to properly lead this country if we can't trust him to control his own base emotions?


Very Rev. Fr. Gregori said...

I agree whole heartedly with you Mark.

I also get ticked off whenever those on the left want to preach to the Republican/Conservatives about morality, especially when their party is a stinking cesspool of corruption, unethical and immoral behavior. To get a good example of what I am talking about, just take a look at William Jefferson, Alcee Hastings, Murtha, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Need I say more? And look at all the immoral crap they support and foist upon the American people, like: Abortion, same-sex marriage, leagalization of drugs and euthanasia, etc.

Francis Lynn said...

Not an easy answer. You can be a pig in your private life, but excel as a leader. Which to prefer - the morally straight one who is poor as a leader or the pig who excels at leadership? Preferably the morally straight one who excels at leadership - but absent that choice, whom do we choose? Nothing's black or white.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian who hated smoking, loved animals, never drank alcohol, and was faithful to Eva Braun. Hitler was righteous in his personal life, but when it came to the big picture, that was about as close to pure evil humanity has ever seen.

Any rational person would consider Churchill, who liked cigars and alcohol and cigars, to be the better man.

Much of the criticism of Bill Clinton is way overblown, btw. Clinton did a lot of good things, like passing welfare reform, signing the Defense of Marriage Act, cutting the capital gains tax twice, deregulating the telecom industries, passing NAFTA, smacking down Saddam in 1998, and smacking down Milosevic in 1999. A person's personal life isn't the test of being an effective leader.

The Dems today have gone wrong by not understanding Revolutionary Islam, and renouncing free trade ideas that work for wacko Ross Perot ideas that don't. Those are the big reasons why I switched parties.

ELAshley said...

I'm in agreement with Jason. A man's past is his past. Even Clinton's. Mudkitty presupposes that a man's past defines his present... AND future. I'm not inclined to toss out Newt and Ruddy simply because of adultery. David, after all, was a man after God's own heart, and the apple of His eye. Not because he was a murderer and an adulterer, but because he honestly sought after God in the face of his own shortcomings... and despite of them. I'm not saying either men are particularly 'Godly', but the simple truth is, elections in this country have ceased to be about electing the right candidate and have instead become more about voting against the WRONG candidate. We have been voting for the lesser of two evils for quite some time now.

By saying you understand mudkitty's argument and subsequently proceed to throw rocks at the very same people as s/he, you've stumbled into his/er trap. Let him/er rant about Republican hypocrisy... So what!? Just don't let him/er pull a 'bait and switch' on you; effectively taking your eye off of the stark, glaring hypocrisies of the Left-- Hypocrisies for which there are no legitimate justifications.

Stand your ground. Don't be blown about by every deceitful wind of partisan rhetoric.

ELAshley said...

"My point here is Mudkitty is right to be concerned about candidates with questionable family values."

But Mudkitty isn't interested in anything other than muddying the waters-- making you question and doubt your own field of candidates --or defending family values. If Mudkitty IS a Democrat chances are good that his/er sense of "Family Values" is quite different from those espoused by conservatives. If s/he has a valid point it would be intellectually dishonest to not admit it. Fine. But don't do his/er work for him/er by joining in the assault.

Mark said...

Allow me to clarify. I know Mudkitty was simply trying to be as obnoxious as possible, and probably doesn't really have a problem with a lack of morals, as she/he implied when defending Bill Clinton's immorality.

But morals are important to the Christian Conservatives, and a lack of morality in a Presidential candidate should be taken into consideration when choosing a candidate, in my opinion.

look at it this way:

I was taught that one lies, it would not be surprising if he steals, and if he steals, it would not be surprising if he kills. Likewise, if a candidate has a lack of morality, it is an easy step towards condoning homosexual marriage, sodomy, bestiality, and all manor of sexual immorality.

A man who strives to be upright and moral in his personal life is more worthy of leading a country than a man who doesn't.

Sin begats more sin.

Anonymous said...

"I am unaware of any marital infidelities of Newt Gingrich ..."


Little Miss Chatterbox said...

There is a chasm of difference between Rudy & Bill Clinton on moral grounds alone. Just because someone is divorced doesn't mean they are a morally bankrupt person.

As for Mudkitty he/she has been banned on many a conservative blog for a reason.

Marshall Art said...

I am aware of accusations of marital infidelity regarding Newt, but I've yet to see anything that certifies it took place. Nor have I heard any he said/she said regarding the details of any alleged adulterous affairs. Thus, all I know is that some on the left have thrown out some trash in order to smear the character of an opponent. I will not defend such behavior in a public servant, but I will also not let such reputations prevent a vote if the alternative is worse, as it surely will be should he be the Republican nominee. This is not hypocrisy. It is doing the best one can for one's country with what is available.

Dan Trabue said...

"I am unaware of any marital infidelities of Newt Gingrich, but if those allegations are true"

Gingrich apparently had an affair with an aide and left his wife, serving her divorce papers while she was sick in the hospital!

"I also get ticked off whenever those on the left want to preach to the Republican/Conservatives about morality, especially when their party is a stinking cesspool of corruption, unethical and immoral behavior."

I don't believe the data supports this position. Clearly, both parties have their share of ethical illiterates.

But judging by who ends up being convicted of actual crimes, I'm pretty sure that the prize for corruption goes to the Republican party (if you're going to merely add up counts and compare), at least for the last generation or two.

I'd think this to be even more true if you want to change it from a straight count of convictions to consider what they were convicted for. I mean, the Reagan administration committed war crimes and sold arms to both Iraq AND Iran to send money to terrorists in Nicaragua - secretly, against the will of congress!!

Corruption? It goes both ways, to be sure, but I don't think the Republicans will want to start comparing actual convictions and serious charges.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, Dan,

That's what I've heard. But I never hear of anything that actually substantiates the charge. That's what I'm talking about. I've never seen anything from his ex-wife, for example, that would back it up. I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen, only that all I ever hear is the accusation just as you've presented it. For all I know, the divorce was decided amicably well before the alleged hospital incident and the signing of the papers was just the formality. Then, because of the chronology of events, the left used what would have been an innocent affair (assuming the divorce was well on it's way) and made it out to be some devious infidelity. In fact, for all I know, his wife demanded he show up to get the damn papers signed so she could get on with HER life.

Personally, I would prefer that people stop acting like children, resolve their issues, and honor their vows like they said they would. But again, a divorce, even under the circumstances the left obviously would love to be true, would not preclude my voting for the man if he was the GOP nominee.

mudkitty said...

Gingrich served his first wife with divorce papers in her hospital bed with their children and a notary in the room. It's a matter of public record. It's a matter of court record.

Gingrich cheated on his second wife, Marrianne (before and during his failed prosecution of Clinton) with his office-aid, while she was on his payroll, and then dumped Marrianne for Calista (the office aid and current wife - who knows if there will be another wife) and soon married her. No word on how Marrianne was served with her divorce papers. Common knowledge, and a matter of public record.

It was the GOP who kicked Gingrich out of his leadership position, when all this info was coming out. They couldn't very well prosecute Clinton, with all this Gingrich stuff going on. Matter of Congressional record.

Why do you think Gingrich had to step down from his leadership, after having been the steward of the '94 republican rout?

Then, what did the geniuses in the GOP do? They appointed Bob Livingston to replace Newtie. That's when Larry Flint, of Hustler Mag threatened to come out with the undeniable fact that Livingston was a notorious whore-monger, and I mean notorious. So much so that Livingston's wife personally called and begged Flynt not to go to print, because of their children, and Flynt graciously complied; but not before Livingston not only had to give up his nomination for the Newts vacated leadership, but he actually was forced, by GOP moralists, to give up his seat in the Congress. Gingrich didn't even have to do that. Gingrich kept his seat, divorced Marrianne, and quietly married Calista. All common knowledge, all a matter of public record, court records, and congressional record.

Enter Danny Hastert...the man who gave the house back to the democtrats this year, with his sheer ineptitude, corruption, and corpulence.

This is also a matter of history.

I can't believe you guys don't know this stuff.

mudkitty said...

Bernard Kerick was the former police commissioner of NY, appointed as a Rudy crony. He's also well known for having an extra-marital affair with Judith Regan, the rightwing publisher, and the person behind the O.J. confession book.

After retiring from the Police Commission, Kerrick became Bush's first nominee to replace Bush's previous crony, who's name escapes me right now (will get back to ya...) The nomination had to be withdrawn when some of Kerrick's, shall we say, underworld conncetions came to light, along with several instances of profiteering and abuses of power as Police Commissioner. Not to mention what the scrutiny of his personal life might come up with.

Kerrick is now a partner in the firm of Gulliani and Kerrick (sic) and Gulliani's campaign people fear the association will damage, if not kill Guliani's chances at the nomination.

All this is widely and commonly known, part of the public record, part of the political record, part of the court record, and is easily verifiable, should you have any real interest in doing so.

mudkitty said...

(Sorry) Kerrick was Bush's first nominee as replacement for Secretary of Homeland Security, of all things. Talk about bad judgment.

Anonymous said...

I am guessing mudkitty is a angry girl who knows what she hates. What she wont tell you is what she likes. The reason is, she likes the left wingers despite the fact they have the same faults as the conservatives she hates. Perhaps you hate conservatives because they aspire to something better instead of just dragging us down with lower standards. Conservative standards matter, thats why Newt is an issue.
Its easy to be liberal, do nothing, believe nothing, always tell everyone else they are wrong.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

A Newt, Rudy, or John McCain candidacy will ensure a Democratic victory.

Trader Rick said...

Mudkitty said:

"Enter Danny Hastert...the man who gave the house back to the democtrats this year, with his sheer ineptitude, corruption, and corpulence."

Add obesity to the list of Republican sins....

Very Rev. Fr. Gregori said...

Hey Mudkitty, try this out for size:


Rep. Alcee Hastings (D) of Florida: a disgraced and impeached federal court judge for judicial misconduct and taking bribes. Continuously re-elected to the House.

Rep. William Jefferson (D) of Louisiana: Accused of accepting huge amounts of money in bribes. He lied repeatedly denying the charges even after the FBI found thousands of dollars hidden in the freezer of his home. Re-elected by the people of Louisiana.

Rep. John Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania: Caught on tape, contemplating accepting bribes. Re-elected by the people of Pennsylvania.

Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts: Arrested and charged with operating a homosexual call-boy operation out of his basement in Boston, before running for and being elected to the House of Representatives. Back in the 1980’s and continuing into the 1990’s, there was a large homosexual and pedophile child sex-ring probe that involved children from Boys Town in Nebraska and young boys kidnapped from various parts of the United States. The perpetrators of this ring included prominent government officials and current or retired U.S. House-Senate members, one of which is none-other than Rep. Barney Frank. Pedophile victim Paul Bonacci--kidnapped and forced into sex slavery between the ages of 6 and 17--told U.S. District Court Judge Warren Urbom in sworn testimony [pp.105, 124-126] on February 5, 1999: "Where were the parties?...down in Washington, DC...and that was for sex...There was sex between adult men and other adult men but most of it had to do with young boys and young girls with the older folks...specifically for sex with minors...Also in Washington, DC, there were parties after a party...there were a lot of parties where there would be senators and congressmen who had nothing to do with the sexual stuff. But there were some senators and congressmen who stayed for the [pedophile sex] parties afterwards...on a lot of the trips he took us on he had us, I mean, I met some people that I don't feel comfortable telling their name because I don't want to --- ...Q: Are you scared?...Yes...". In his testimony before Judge Urbom, Bonacci specifically named Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) as having participated in the parties--also telling the judge he had "relationships with him" in Washington, DC and was flown to Massachusetts for sex in the basement of Frank's Boston home.
[2-5-1999, p. 126]. If you have any doubts as to the validity of any of this, you can go to the website of former FBI Special Agent Ted Gunderson (Retired) at:
%20suicide.htm :

where you can read the whole sordid story. So, where is Barney Frank today? : Still shamelessly serving in the House of Representatives, being re-elected to office over and over again.

Rep. Gerry Studs (D): In 1988, Studs, admitted to having sex with an under-age male page. He refused to resign and when he was censured by the House members, he stood up and turned his back on those members and was vigorously applauded by other Democratic House members, including Rep. Pelosi.: He was re-elected to office. He passed away about a month ago.


Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida): was forced to resign in shame when it came to light that he was sending sexually explicit emails to underage (16 year old) boys who were working as congressional pages.: Resigned in shame and was NOT re-elected.

There have been about two or three other Republican Representatives who have either resigned or been forced out of office for various scandals and they have never been re-elected or run for office again.


Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts): Those of us who are old enough, most certainly remember the tragic case of Mary Jo Kopechne in which the highly “esteemed” and “Honorable” Senator from Massachusetts, Edward (Ted) Kennedy was involved. Kopechne was a former campaign worker for Kennedy's brother, Robert F. Kennedy who was assassinated in 1968. On 18 July 1969, Kopechne attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island, a short ferry ride off the island of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. Edward Kennedy and Kopechne left the party together; a short time later, their car plunged off the Dike Bridge into a pond, where it overturned. Edward Kennedy escaped from the car and swam ashore and went home, leaving Miss Kopechne to drown in the car. Kennedy didn’t even report the accident until the next day. It is suspected that Kennedy was driving while intoxicated and that he tried to arrange a cover-up of his involvement, but with the exception of him pleading guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and having his driver’s license revoked for one year, nothing else was done. Kennedy continues to be re-elected to the Senate, over and over again. Kennedy has never shown any sense of shame or remorse to this day.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York): She is the wife of former President Bill Clinton. Hillary was involved in several scandals while she was the First Lady, and while her husband was governor of Arkansas. These included the "White Water" land deal in Arkansas, missing records from the Rose Law firm, which she denied any knowledge of, then they mysteriously turned up on a table out side of her office in the White House and there was here involvement in the White House Travel Office Scandal. She was NEVER held to account on any of these charges and she refuses to give any explanations of them. She ran for the senate, won and was just re-elected. She has plans to run for the Presidency in 2008.


Sen. Tom Delay (R-Texas): He was one of the most powerful senators, but he was forced to resign after being accused (never convicted) of taking bribes from a political activist. He did not run nor was he re-elected. There have been a few other Republican Senators who had to resign for similar reasons, and they never been re-elected nor have any of them ever run for office again.


President William Jefferson Clinton (D): Who can forget the most notorious of all the immoral clowns in public office, Bill Clinton, the former President of the United States who, while in office, blatantly violated a federal law that says no government employer may carry on an affair with a subordinate. Monica Lewinsky was a White House Intern when Bill the Commander-in-Sleaze, was having her perform oral sex on him under the desk of the Oval Office and using his cigars as a dildo on her. Then he shamelessly went on television and waged his finger at the American people and lied saying: “I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky”. Then, as if that wasn’t enough, this man, who was the “top law enforcement officer” in the land, brazenly went before a Federal Grand Jury and while under oath, committed perjury. What was the result? Clinton was impeached, but was allowed to remain in office. The only "punishment" he faced was to have his law license revoked, and he was given a hefty fine. He never had to pay the fine or his legal bills out of his own pocket because he and his wife Hillary held fund raisers to raise the money. To this day, he still travels around the country campaigning for his wife and he shamelessly travels the world getting involved in global politics.

At the time of his first election to the Presidency, it was a well known fact that he was not only a draft dodger, but that during the Vietnam War; he had gone to Russia and protested against the United States. Both he and Hillary never missed an opportunity to let the public know how much they detested the military. They are both heavily involved in socialist causes and believe in a "One World" Government.


President Richard M. Nixon (R): Nixon was forced to resign from the Office of the Presidency in shame due to his involvement in the cover-up of the "Water Gate" break-in at the Democratic National Convention Headquarters, rather then face possible impeachment. Once he left office, Nixon kept a low profile rarely making any public appearances.

All of the above is a matter of public record and common knowledge.

So, have you noticed the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats when it comes to scandals? You can plainly see that the Republicans, who are involved in any kind of scandals, always resign or are forced from office and they never run again for political office. They also exhibit a sense of shame and remorse. The Democrats always deny any wrong doing, never resign from office and they keep getting re-elected, which speaks volumes of the moral compass of those who keep re-electing them. And the Democrats NEVER show shame or remorse.

mudkitty said...

So your response is the other guy does it? Two wrongs make a right? What are you saying? Are you saying it's all a wash? Or just changing the subject?

What I'm writing about, is who republicans are going to vote for, and how they are going to rationalize it.

mudkitty said...

AT any rate, these are your front runners.

Hunter is too harsh and extreme. He'll never last the whole primary. He'll run out of money.

Jason H. Bowden said...


I rationalize nothing. If the Revolutionary Islamists are not stopped, stick a fork in America.

I thought Clinton's misbehavior was overblown in the 1990s, and have no reason to change my views about the current crop of politicians. There are simply more important things to be concerned about.

mudkitty said...

Substitute the word Jew for Muslim, and then see how you sentence reads.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

Bush-hater AND anti-semite.

Ignore your own faultts, mudkitten, while you magnify others.

Goat said...

Newt and Rudy have very ugly skeletons in their closet but that does not make their ideas any less important to moving the US forward on an economic and defensive footing. Being prolife, and pro marriage are fine if we still have a free country to be pro gay and pro abbortion. Let the free will and market decide not the courts or legislature. Yes I am a small l libertarian and we need to get off the nonsense and onto some actually serious problems, like entitlement reform and the end of socialism.

Marshall Art said...


You answer my questions with the same charges for which I had the questions. No details, just charges. No idea about what initiated any of it, just charges. Well, I've heard the charges, I've not heard any explanations. Thus, I'll make no judgements. If he's not willing to expound upon it, if his ex-wives are not, then who are you or who am I to assume whether or not he's the scumbag you'd like to believe. The most anyone can rightfully take away is that for all his intellect, he ain't no good wit da womens. Let's crucify him for it. As I said, I don't abide those who don't hold to their vows, but I know of no real saints and am not one myself. But it's pretty cheap to now talk about character when your side insisted it didn't matter. If he's the Republican nominee, he gets my vote. I'll not sit out over your feigned shock at his muddy personal life. That may be the only way a Dem wins, but not with my help.

Lone Ranger said...

Clinton did not get impeached nor disbarred because of his infidelity. He broke the law. He committed perjury. Period.

On the other hand, Newt broke no laws. He was ejected from his leadership position precisely because of his marital problems.

For a liberal to question anyone's morals is a ghastly joke. They can't even find Democrats with unblemished records to put in leadership positions. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson just got a spot on the House Homeland Security panel WHILE HE'S UNDER INVESTIGATION in a bribary scandal. He's the guy who had $90K hidden in his freezer. Had he been a Republican, he would have been out on the street before the money reached room temperature. Every time liberals get on their high horse, they get bucked off.

There is a clear double standard in our political arena. If a Republican is even ACCUSED of a misdeed, he's out (remember Tom DeLay?). But a Democrat can hide bribe money in his freezer (Jefferson), loot the House post office (Boxer), be a former KKK member (Byrd), even kill a woman (Teddy) and thrive in Congress.

For a Democrat to question anyone's morality is a ghastly joke.

mudkitty said...

Excuse me, my husband's a Jew, and it was he who shuddered when he read what you wrote, Daddyo. And rather than deal with the issue, which is republican candidates, you chose to attack me personally. You would not only lose for your team on a formal debate, you would get kicked off the team.


I have no use for any corrupt democrat. Republicans can have them as far as I'm concerned. But you don't defend corrupt Republicans, and Republican hypocrites who fundraise on family values issues (and the people who support them) by changing the subject to democrats. Right now we're talking about The Candidates For The Republican Presidential Nomination In "08.

Marshall - Newt has copped to it. That's why he was forced out of the house leadership.

His multiple wives have been interviewed numerous times, on the matter. Which is why it is a matter of public record. Google will help you, it is your friend. Don't be afraid to use it.

People, by all means, don't take my word for any of this. I suggest, that if your truly interested, you can look it up. However, had you been paying attention all along, you would have known all this already.

And believe me, I'm not shocked at Newt's personal life, nor have I ever once said I was, nor implied it. What shocks me is that the religious right, and family values voters, would even consider voting for him after excoriating Clinton over his personal life. Hypocrisy always shocks me.

And for those of you who are so concerned with perjury, I don't hear you squawking about Scooter Libby lying about outing a CIA agent - a matter of compromising National Security.

As for Newt not breaking any laws, that's questionable. Calista was on the congressional payroll, after all. Just because he wasn't you guys always say about liberals.


Finally, I want to thank siteowner for the defense of mudkitty. But I want to make a correction to the record. Site owner said that he "agreed with Mudkitty" that candidates for the presidency have to be morally spotless, or somesuch, in order to run or in order to vote for them.

I never once said that. One of the few things I ask, is not to put words in my mouth (and I know you didn't do it intentionally.)

Here's how I feel about that: I think if you want to take the humanity out of our leaders, than you'll end up with leaders who have no humanity. Being fallible is what makes us human.

Personally, I think Newt is head and shoulders above the other republican candidates intellectually. But I also think he's a grasping opportunist - but what politician of any stripe, isn't?

Jason H. Bowden said...

"But I also think he's a grasping opportunist - but what politician of any stripe, isn't?"

In the liberal mind, everything is Darwin, the raw struggle for power, the war of all against all.

Ever think that many people get into politics because they want to do good in the big picture? Just because no one is perfect doesn't imply everyone is bad.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"Substitute the word Jew for Muslim, and then see how you sentence reads."

I see...this statement of yours is only in reference to "zionists", right?

Debate? You bring fallacy to the table, pile it high, and think you have debating ability?

You people really are deluded.

mudkitty said...

Jason; your right. I'm sure there ARE some people in politics who want to do right. Yeah. Absolutely. I agree, and thank you for reminding me that I'm not really all that cynical.

mudkitty said...

However, I do think the essence of the libertarian influenced republican thought is "survival of the fittest." I tend to think that in a civilized world, the stronger cares for the weaker. Call me crazy.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"I tend to think that in a civilized world, the stronger cares for the weaker."

Except in matters of war.

Pamela Reece said...

Indeed it is true that the true Conservatives are feeling a bit uneasy. I myself, who defines myself as a "conservative" am worried.

Jason, elashey et al, you can not compare Clinton with Hitler. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

C'mon....let's get real here folks!!! Morality is something all humans are given from conception, it their upbringing and their further interpretations of experiences that corrupt them.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark said...

The previous comment was deleted by me because of an offensice obscene personal attack on another commenter, which had nothing to do with the subject or the adminstrator.

Anonymous, in the future, if you have a problem with Daddio, take it to his place. He will deal with it in a n appropriate manner. It is not up to me to referree your personal squabbles.

Marshall Art said...

OK Mudkitty,

I've googled Newt's Speaker resignation and have so far found nothing having to do with his personal life being a reason. What articles I've read dealt with a divided party and loss of seats in the election previous to his resignation. Seems his personal life never came up. In fact, he believed if he vied for speaker again, he'd win, but he didn't want to be a distraction, which is how I remembered it. But I'll try to find something from his ex-wives and see where that goes. A link from you would've saved me this wasted time. I can deal with the truth. And the truth is, a soiled Republican is always preferable to a Dem who is soiled by their philosophy and thus is bad for the country.

Marshall Art said...

This morning I've googled "Newt Gingrich's ex-wives" and "interviews with Newt Gingrich's ex-wives". Plenty of offerings, but most seem to be Kos-like opinion blogs. I won't waste my time with such. You'll need to provide a link or else I must consider your remarks about the details of Newt's divorces simply anti-Newt rhetoric. Without proof of your assertions, we could be dealing with a guy who just can't pick 'em. Not good, but not indicative of his true character.

mudkitty said...

Well then you didn't do a very good job of it, or you didn't do it at all. Look up wives, etc. Operation: keywords.

Tell me then, why did they force Newt out of his seat?

Did you even try Wiki?

mudkitty said...

I'm an old lady now, but when I was a kid, and sometimes I would ask a question, and my parents thought it was a good idea for me to "look it up."

Sure, they could have told me off the bat, but you have to work for knowledge and experience.

You also have to be open-minded. One of the definitions of a liberal.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, nice dodge. Apparently you have no source, just lib gossip. Fine. I never said I'd stop looking, just thought you'd like the chance to rub my nose in it. If there's nothing to rub it in, of course...

To your question, I believe I stated that the growing divisions in the party at the time were the reason he "elected" to abdicate. He was considering another run before he thought it better to drop out for the sake of the party, so as not to be a distraction. I've found nothing about him being "forced" out. Perhaps you're referring to a parallel universe?

You see, I'm somewhat of an older man now, but when I was a kid, I was taught to lend a hand in the spirit of Christian brotherhood. But that's OK. I'll waste some more time eventually to find this mythical anti-Newt info. I'm sure it will be compelling.

Mike's America said...

Oh you cannot think that ignorant moonbat kitty litter gives a damn about the questionable family values of candidates.

It's concern is so transparent it's not funny.

P.S. Duncan Hunter is coming here next month. I'm planning to go see him. Something tells me your moonbat will find some other reason to trash him.

mudkitty said...

Well, if Newt ever says he cares about family values, ask him which of his families he values.

mom2 said...

Maybe mudkitty wants to research Barney Frank's, Henry Waxman's family values and bring us up to date. She would want to be fair and balanced, I'm political intentions. Meowwwwww.

mudkitty said...

Mom. Neither one is grandstanding or fundraising on the family values issues. Democrats support all families, not just the ones that the religious right insists is the only family worthy of the name. But all republicans have to grandstand on so-called family values, otherwise they can't raise funds or get elected.

And I hope, mom, that you're not teaching your children that 2 wrongs make a right, or that what you condemn in a democrat is ok if you're a republican.

mom2 said...

And I hope, mom, that you're not teaching your children that 2 wrongs make a right, or that what you condemn in a democrat is ok if you're a republican.>
Nope, never taught them that. I taught them that wrong is wrong and right is right. I showed them by example when I changed my political party from Democrat and lean toward the most conservative candidate I can find and it just happens never to be a Democrat anymore.

Marshall Art said...

I'm sure mudkitty is sincere when saying that we're hypocritical to vote for someone who's not lilly white in their personal lives. What mudkitty fails to understand is that supporting right and perfectly living right are two different things. The problems a person has in his personal life are not indicative of his support for living in a proper way. Everyone has problems, and when relationships are having problems, it doesn't mean that both parties are responsible for the problems. But the bottom line is, despite any problems Newt might have in his marital situations, he still knows what should be, and traditional family values are it. Would a Dem feel the same? The Dem might think so, but his past performance in public service tells the tale as to what his beliefs are or how strongly he feels them. So since Jesus Christ isn't running for office, I'll look to the best candidate, because there are no perfect ones. The best is likely to be running out of the GOP camp.

mudkitty said...

Did you guys know that the origin of the word sin is a Chinese archery term, meaning "off the mark?"

Marshall Art said...

Considering the mark is the Will of God, that's pretty accurate.

mudkitty said...

You make sin evil, Marshall. The Chinese didn't. And since when are you able to speak to any god's will?

Interesting. Revealing.

mom2 said...

You make sin evil, Marshall. The Chinese didn't. And since when are you able to speak to any god's will?

Mudkitty, one could ask the same of you. IF you are a Bible student, I guess you remember the story in 1 Kings 18 where the prophets of Baal placed their bulls on the alter and tried to get their gods to send down fire to burn them up and Elijah had water poured all over the bulls until the water ran off into trenches and when he called upon the true God (the one Mark and I believe in) to send down fire the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering, the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. The prophets of Baal saw nothing happen when they called upon their gods.

Mark said...

Actually, Mudkitty, it isn't a Chinese term. Sin is a Greek word meaning "to miss the mark". It comes from the original Greek translation of the Bible. You might try studying the Bible before you try to preach.

mudkitty said...

The origin of the term Sin is an archery tern, ORIGINALLY Chinese. The Greeks did not originate the term. Ask any linguist. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.

Believe it or not, the Chinese had an entirely developed Culture at the time the bible was's just conveniently left out of the bible, as so many things are.

I don't preach, and I don't limit my references to just one book, or one point of view.

Marshall Art said...


I can speak to the Will of God due to the fact that His Will, how He prefers we live our lives while on earth, is plainly spelled out in the Bible. It's no secret. It's no mystery.

As we can also plainly see with words such as "gay", "queer", "fairy", "faggot", "bitch", and a host of other words, original definitions don't always matter. The manner in which the word "sin" has come to be known for the last 4-5ooo years is really quite common knowledge. I don't see the point of conversing with someone who wishes to "muddy" the water by playing games with definitions. Cut the crap and get on with it.

mudkitty said... can speak to the will of God, and only you?

Marshall Art said...


As I've stated, I can speak to the Will of God because it is spelled out plainly in Scripture. If you would study it with the same open minded objectivity I used, I believe you and I would not differ much in what we see as Biblical Truth. I did it this way: I'll read it and change my behavior and attitudes according to what I find, even if it means giving up things I enjoy. I'll continue to study the Bible and about the Bible in order to narrow the possibilities of interpretations where there may be "gray areas".

As a result of this ongoing study, I've found that the more one does study, the fewer gray areas there are (I believe there aren't really any), the deeper my belief in what it means to say, and the easier it is to defend what I believe. Try it. It doesn't hurt.

mudkitty said...

To quote the bible is one thing. Anyone can quote any book they want. But to claim to speak for god or for gods is the height of arrogance and blashphemy.

Marshall Art said...

"But to claim to speak for god or for gods is the height of arrogance and blashphemy."

Only if what one is saying is not supported by Scripture. It wouldn't be as if I was putting words in God's mouth, only repeating what He has already said through Scripture. Does that clear it up for you?

Marshall Art said...

I can speak for God, as can anyone, insofar as what is being said is supported by Scripture. If you were to ask me, "What does God say about calculators?" I couldn't answer due to no such reference in Scripture. But as to sin and evil, which by the way are synonomous in Scripture, I simply refer to His Word as laid out plainly in Scripture.