Tag Archives: infidelity

Did Newt Gingrich just swiftboat ‘Massachusetts moderate’ Mitt?

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich makes a campaign stop in Laurens, South Carolina

Reuters photo

Former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, pictured above campaigning in South Carolina, where he decisively was victorious yesterday, now goes on to Florida in his quest to prevent the coronation of “Massachusetts moderate” Mitt Romney as the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nominee.

My bad — I just now watched the Newt Gingrich ad in which Gingrich states, correctly, of course, that “Massachusetts moderate” Mitt Romney hails from the state that brought us supposedly ultra-liberal Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. (Of course, it’s not the denotation there that is critical to the ad’s effectiveness, but it’s all of the ad’s connotations.)

The ad was talked about primarily as the ad that nails Mitt for speaking French — just like John Kerry does (the ad features brief clips of both of them speaking French) — but the ad in general likens Romney to Kerry and Dukakis and essentially asks how anyone from Massachusetts can be a real conservative.

The French connection (indeed, the ad is titled “The French Connection”is interesting, however. It serves several purposes, I think: It’s meant to indicate Romney’s supposed otherness and supposed un-Americanness (maybe even treason?) and Romney’s supposed effeteness (the French, after all, are cowardly and weak, no?); and, of course, it’s a great slur steeped in the anti-intellectualism that is so much a part of the American right wing (many if not most of whom cannot speak or write even their mother tongue correctly): He speaks French! Fluently!

It also, of course, speaks of socioeconomic class: John Kerry is rich and John Kerry speaks French. Mitt Romney is rich and Mitt Romney speaks French. They both went to expensive, exclusive Ivy League schools, where they had the luxury of learning French.

This long has been a problem for the Richie Rich wing of the Repugnican Tea Party: How to appeal to the Cooters and Skeeters and Jebs and Jethros — the “tea party” wing of the party whose votes the Richie Riches need in order to win elections — when the Richie Riches are about as far away from rednecks as you’re going to get.

However, up until now, for the most part the Repugnican Tea Party candidates who appeal primarily to the rednecks haven’t openly, publicly assaulted the aristocratic wing of their party, so Newt’s attacks on Romney’s lofty socioeconomic status seem rather novel. (“Kamikaze,” actually, might be the better word for it…)

Apparently Gingrich’s attacks on Romney in the deep red state of South Carolina worked wonders. I mean, Gingrich beat Romney in South Carolina yesterday by double digits, and since 1980, whichever Repugnican presidential primary candidate who won South Carolina also went on to win the party’s presidential nomination.

And if Gingrich wins again in Florida on January 31, it could be all over for Romney. It doesn’t matter how well Romney has been polling in the upcoming primary states as of late; if he widely is perceived as a losing candidate after having lost South Carolina and Florida, it could start a rapid domino effect that will make his previous support in those upcoming states evaporate rapidly — just as it did in South Carolina.

Romney, we know now, didn’t actually win the Iowa caucuses; the state’s Repugnican Tea Party now says that Rick Santorum won, and, as The Christian Science monitor notes, Santorum having won Iowa, Romney having won New Hampshire and Gingrich having won South Carolina “is the first time in modern GOP primary history that three different candidates won those three states.”

This indicates a Repugnican Tea Party that still is in serious disarray and that might not be sorted out for weeks to come. And if Mitt does manage to make it out of primary season alive, he might be so badly damaged that his chances of beating President Barack Obama in November are greatly diminished — and, ironically, all along Romney has polled better against Obama than have any of his primary season competitors.

We know what we would get with a President Gingrich, I think. One of Big Brother’s main slogans was:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Possessing intellect — such as knowing a foreign language — is a weakness, you see, among those who can barely speak their own native English (a.k.a. Newt’s base). And the only way to be “safe” from “terrorism” and other “evil” is to have perpetual warfare against the “evildoers,” which a chickenhawkish President Gingrich no doubt would embrace, just as chickenhawk George W. Bush did. And don’t even get me started on the topic of freedom (freedom, oh, freedom — that’s just some people talkin’…).

President Thomas Jefferson apparently could speak Latin, Greek, French, Italian and Spanish on top of English. “President” George W. Bush barely fucking could speak English. That’s how “far” we Americans have come.

And now, we have in Newt Gingrich a man who essentially would represent a third (and maybe a fourth) term by George W. Bush.

I mean, it’s no accident that upon his recent departure from the race, Texas Gov. Rick Perry — who also had wanted to continue the policies and practices of the unelected Bush regime — endorsed Newt Gingrich.

P.S. For all of the undeserved shit that First Lady Michelle Obama gets from the wingnuts, I find Gingrich’s current wife, Callista (pictured below in South Carolina last week), to be (like Newt) a fucking skank ho. I mean, when she was his aide she apparently had an affair with Newt for six years while he was still married to his second wife (with whom he’d been having an affair while he still was married to his first wife).

Gingrich had a six year affair with Callista Bisek -- now Callista Gingrich -- before divorcing his second wife

AFP (that’s French) photo

That, and the creepy Callista Gingrich looks just like the femme fatale (there’s some more French!) in Tim Burton’s “Mars Attacks!”:

Careful! She bites

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Enough with the sex scandals already

Actor Christopher Lee poses on the red carpet ...

Reuters photo

Christopher Lee shirtless! No, not that one. This one:

Christopher Lee

Associated Press image (from the U.S. House of Representatives)

Don’t get me wrong; I’m happy to see any Repugnican politician bite the dust, but something feels at least somewhat wrong about the latest casualty of a sex scandal, Repugnican U.S. Rep. Christopher Lee of New York.

Lee resigned his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives today after the website Gawker revealed that he had responded to a 34-year-old woman’s personals ad on Craigslist, telling her that he is a divorced, 39-year-old lobbyist, when, in fact, he’s a 46-year-old married-with-child U.S. representative.

And, Gawker reports, he sent her these images:

Married GOP Congressman Sent Sexy Pictures to Craigslist Babe

Oops.

The woman contacted Gawker about her e-correspondence with Lee, and the rest is history.

I don’t really see, though, that Lee was guilty of much more than attempted infidelity and apparently being in the throes of a midlife crisis. I mean, lying about his age, repeatedly using “Lol” in his e-mails to his would-be mistress, posing shirtless in a mirror and flexing his biceps like a teenager — that reeks of a midlife crisis to me.

As reprehensible as he seems to be — Gawker notes that Lee’s “support for ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and vote to reject federal abortion funding suggests a certain comfort with publicly scrutinizing others’ sex lives” while his own apparently is quite interesting* — it seems to me that the matter really is between Lee and his wife. And, dare I say, that he shouldn’t have had to resign over it.

As fun as it is to dog-pile upon an apparent Repugnican hypocrite (wait, that’s redundant…), my concern is that these sex scandals, aside from giving us perverse entertainment at the expense of others’ privacy, serve to preserve our national hangups over sexuality.

Lee’s crime here isn’t that he’s a sexual being. We all are sexual beings, and sex, when used for communion, is a wonderful thing. Lee’s crime here is that he’s a liar. He apparently lies to his wife (unless they have an open relationship, which I rather doubt) and he very apparently lied to his would-be mistress. (No, it’s not OK to lie about your stats and status, even for just a Craigslist hookup.) This makes you wonder how much Lee lies in other areas of his life.

But the embarrassment of having his private e-mails and his shirtless pic released to the entire world should be punishment enough for Lee.

Again, this was an attempted extramarital dalliance, not sexual harassment while on the job or sexual assault, which of course would justify resignation from elected office.

By focusing on the salaciously scandalous aspects of Rep. Christopher Lee’s downfall, we are missing the opportunity to have national discussions about the more important human issues, such as how we can age gracefully (and not pathetically), what we can do to change our youth-obsessed culture, and whether or not monogamy really works in the first place.

Until we do have those discussions, the sex scandals will continue.

*Gawker does not get itself off of the hook for being sensationalistic by pointing to Lee’s apparent hypocrisy. I’m perfectly OK with outing — exposing a closeted (usually Repugnican) politician whose voting record has been anti-homosexual — but this is not the same thing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

In defense of non-monogamy

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford tearfully admitted to having ...

Associated Press photo

A teary-eyed South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (top) and a teary-eyed Jimmy Swaggart. These wingnuts are assbites, to be sure, but could it be that monogamy is a tall order for most men — and that it isn’t their fault?

As much as I love to see the downfall of any Repugnican hypocrite (that’s pretty much redundant, Repugnican hypocrite…), I can’t say that I have been relishing (much) the latest Repugnican infidelity scandal, that of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

The biggest problem that I have with Sanford, whom I know of only because he jumped upon the “Obama’s economic stimulus plan = (gasp!) socialism!” bandwagon, is that he didn’t decide to remain in Argentina with his mistress.

But seriously, to me the larger question — seriously — is whether or not the human male, straight or gay, is meant to be monogamous.

My understanding of primatology, or at least of mammalogy, is that it’s biologically advantageous, and thus more or less innate, for a testosterone-driven male to spread his seed, so to speak, as widely as possible, while it is the estrogren-driven female who desires the stability of monogamy, since she is the primary caretaker of the offspring, if for no other reason than that it is the female who lactates.

(Yes, with non-heterosexual and transgendered individuals things can be different, but most gay men I know seem to be at least as sexually adventurous as are straight males. What gay and straight men do have in common is testosterone, and even though gay men cannot reproduce, of course, as Harvey Milk is quoted [accurately or not] as having said in the film “Milk,” we sure keep trying!)

Why do we human beings think that we are exempt from biology? Many if not most Americans will even argue that humans aren’t animals, they’re humans, although any biologist or zoologist will tell you that yes, of course humans are animals as they define the term “animal.”

So while I’m perfectly ready and willing to condemn Sanford for having raked Bill Clinton over the coals for Clinton’s infidelity when Sanford was a U.S. representative, I don’t know that I’m ready to condemn Sanford for his own infidelity when I surmise that monogamy is not natural to many if not most human males.

If monogamy were innate, why, then, does it fail so often?

Monogamy, I surmise, is a societal creation, not a biological reality for many if not most human males (and perhaps not for many human females, either), and to shame and condemn anyone for something that is biological, for something that is innate — like homosexuality — is potentially to make someone feel awful about himself or herself about something that is beyond his or her control.

So yes, let’s criticize the Repugnicans for their idiocy and their hypocrisy and for their frequently treasonous behavior, but we need to examine this monogamy thing more closely before we condemn any male who finds monogamy to be challenging if not impossible.

My boyfriend, of course, wholly disagrees with me on this…

P.S. An Associated Press piece titled “Analysis: Why Do Politicians Cheat?” — credited to all-female writers — typically wholly overlooks the biological aspects of infidelity/non-monogamy.

My guess is that most people take social conventions as givens, as reality, and don’t even question them. A great number of people are too afraid (and/or lazy), I think, to reconsider, much more to actively challenge, the worldview that they’ve been spoon-fed, including the societal belief that a man should be happy with one mate until death does him part, and that if this doesn’t work for him, then he is defective and/or sinful.

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized