by Jim » Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:40 pm
Gingrich is smarter than most of the candidates and he’s done some significant things, but he’s far too flawed to be acceptable as president, notwithstanding that the voters put Bill Clinton in office twice, a virtual paradigmatic approval of not only adultery but perversion, as well. Either of his opponents was far superior from a moral standpoint, as far as is known publicly, and there’s been plenty of time for the media cutthroats to have massacred Bush 41 and Dole since then. Also, both had extensive or painful military combat experience, as did Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Ford. Carter and Bush 43 had considerable non-combat experience as well. None of that mattered, despite Clinton’s admitted “loathing” of the military. Gingrich also has had no military experience but then that’s the case with most of the candidates, including Obama, awkward in any military setting. More’s the pity when national security is the first priority for any president. Gingrich has shown a lack of common sense by his constant references to the public getting a “twofer” if he’s elected. The public is not interested in a man and wife team running the country. The Clintons proved that. The election of Clinton seemed at the time to indicate that morals mean nothing, but adultery seems now to be synonymous with dishonesty, a killer charge against any officeholder, no matter whether or not deserving of it. He who cheats on his wife is not to be trusted in anything.
As for Land, I was against the SBC CLC from the start. When the office was moved to D.C., it became political and denominations should stay out of politics, a purely personal matter. Baptists come in all shapes and sizes and should never be painted with a broad brush, which happens every time Land says anything.