Friday, March 09, 2007

Newt's Zipper Issue

Interesting title from Howard Kurtz in today's Washington Post that raises some questions as to the concept of "if it's wrong for A to do something than it should be wrong for B to do something".

Of course it will be said that it's different, that's already happening:
"Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity. 'The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge,' the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. 'I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept . . . perjury in your highest officials.' "

Right, it wasn't about the sex, it was about the perjury. Whereas Gingrich's affair was only about the sex.

Logically that is correct had then President Clinton just admitted the sex imagine how different things could have been...

3 comments:

Head Spinner Scott said...

I still think it was a bogus deal and I am not a Clinton fan. If it was just about perjury, I could accept that, but they looked into everything Clinton did in his entire life trying to bring him down. It didn't help the country and didn't do all that much to hurt Clinton. In the end, it was a waste of money, time, and news space. In my opinion anyway.

And I do think Newt is a hypocrite. Wasn't he part of the moral majority?

Head Spinner Scott said...

Isn't it also technically perjury for someone to lie on the floor of the House or Senate?

Hooda Thunkit said...

If I recall correctly, doesn't Newt live in a glass house?