Is Newt Gingrich Guilty of Duplicity?
– Mary A. LaClair
One dictionary describes hypocrisy as: double standards, duplicity, pretence, two-facedness.
Let’s take a look at this in the face of Gingrich’s words versus his actions.
In the last Florida debate Gingrich may be quoted as saying:
“It would be nice if you had the same standard for other people that you would like applied to you…”
Let’s check it out. When ‘googling’ the words “Gingrich $300,000 ethics fine”, I found the following:
“The case against Gingrich began on Sept, 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones, who was then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint. OnDec. 6, 1995, the ethics committee said the allegation was worth “further inquiry” and on Dec. 22, hired Cole to conduct the investigation. (On that) Last Sept. 26, the probe was expanded to investigate whether Gingrich provided “accurate, reliable and complete information’ to the panel.
“Gingrich is only the second House speaker to be charged with wrongdoing. The first was Jim Wright who resigned in 1989 just 45 days after the ethics committee accused him of using bulk sales of books to get around House honoraria limits. That probe was triggered by a complaint filed by Gingrich.”
I also consider the fact that Gingrich was leading the charge against Clinton for having an extra-marital affair while Gingrich himself was still legally married and having an extended extra-marital, and not his first affair at that; but please be clear, I am not defending Clinton.
In view of these two cases of duplicity that we know of let’s take another look at Newt’s recent statement that:
“It would be nice if you had the same standard for other people that you would like applied to you…”.
Is Newt Gringrich guilty of duplicity or double standards? Is this the kind of personality we want as a diplomat to negotiate for us with foreign dignitaries? You decide by the evidence.
Do you think the attitude of: “It’s OK for me, but wrong for you” thing that is troublesome? He appears to want to keep everyone else honest (yea) but he himself is a different story?
He continued on in that statement to say that ‘it would be nice if we didn’t enter into personal attacks’ yet that statement itself may be considered a personal attack. The more I listen to Newt Gingrich, the more he sounds to me like a fighting fifth grader and not an experienced debate person. I do not think he could conduct a refined debate with the party of the opposition, or with leaders of other countries.
In a refined debate, the two men on the end are far better competitors. Ron Paul has defused more than one hot argument. They are both squeaky clean. Maybe that’s why the press steers away from them; perhaps there is less fodder for yellow journalism both now and in the future? What a sad reason for letting the press influence us!
I believe God is looking to prove both His power and His desire to be involved in mankind’s affairs, with man’s approval. To say that we like Santorum but say also that we don’t think he could get elected is like the Israelites not going down to the Red Sea. If the Israelites did not go down to the Red Sea because they didn’t see a way to get across, we would not have seen the Red Sea parted. – end –