Speaker Newt says

Newt Gingrich is not my favorite American, but he packs a lot of meaning into a few words when he talks about “the growth of a government-favored pagan culture to replace Christianity.” (seen here)

For my mostly notional readers from the secular far-left, it’s not that I dislike Gingrich because he is a sinner. It’s simple ignorance that leads people to think, “Ha! He broke one, two, three! of the Ten Commandments; he even admitted it on video. The Christians will have to condemn him now.” Would not any man take the trouble to inform himself on the most basic elements of Christianity? Maybe if there were a book…

Others, more seriously, object that Gingrich is a pharisee and a hypocrite. Those charges carry more weight, because everyone knows pharisees and hypocrites are wicked. Jesus speaks against them – it’s in the Bible, how wicked those pharisees are to condemn others.

It does, however, add a positive note to contemporary politics that there are so many intelligent liberals who feel themselves able to condemn Gingrich for his hypocrisy. You’d think those wise and good men would have simply elected enough Democrats to control the presidency, congress, and the senate; then the nation wouldn’t be in such a fix. Probably while the sinless liberals were putting the rich man’s money in the poor box and thanking God they had been blessed with virtue, the wicked pharisaical Republicans stole their votes. It just goes to show how much damage those hypocritical pharisees do, going around condemning others.

Still, the reason Newt Gingrich isn’t my favorite American is not because he’s a sinner or a hypocrite, but because he’s a politician; and I’m glad I’m not like those politicians.

Advertisements

3 Replies to “Speaker Newt says”

  1. I think a lot of people tend to misunderstand my attitude on this. I won’t vote for Newt because of the way that he mistreated his wife. It’s not that I hate Newt or that I’m angry at him or that I want to hurt him –it is just that elected officials ought to be held to standards and Newt no longer meets those standards. This is a matter that is larger than Newt, and no matter how I feel about him personally, the fecklessness and corruption of our elected officials is the main problem that the US faces today, so we should demand the most serious and honorable people we can get for public office in an attempt to counter this problem. Newt, sad to say, has shown a distinct lack of honor.

    1. So when you vote against a man you don’t first work yourself into a foaming spitting rage, damning him for a black-hearted scoundrel, a thug, a coward, and a funny-looking village idiot. By implication, you would not convince yourself, and then tell everyone else ad nauseum, that your preferred candidate was a demi-god of intelligence and nobility who would cause the seas to turn back, end war, feed the hungry, and usher in a millennium of justice and peace. Instead you look soberly at character, accomplishments, and views, and then vote accordingly. That’s an unusual approach to politics.

      More seriously, someone once asked of a man being considered for a sensitive position, ‘His wife was wrong to trust him; why should we?’ Repentance and forgiveness don’t really come up. Newt can best serve the country by speaking and writing, not by holding office. It’s like Nixon after his rehabilitation, when he wrote (people say) serious and thoughtful works on foreign policy – people might read the book and weigh the arguments, but they’d be crazy to elect him to office. Just by running, Gingrich loses credibility.

  2. Well, I am subject to foam and spittle without the rage, so no need to generate any. I try to remember to keep a hanky with me when I’m going to be in polite company.

Comments are closed.