(No embedding allowed fromt he original Yahoo news source, so here is a poor quality YouTube posting.)
This was certainly an entertaining way to open a political debate!!! :-DAnd it is a real neat notion, that a debate candidate can just say "screw you and your question" to any topic he wishes to deem inappropriate or irrelevant. However, I'm not sure it is easy to agree with Newt's frustration at this point. I mean this is a debate for the GOP candidate after all, not a Democratic candidate. And these very types of personal inquiries are rather the norm for the GOP. I feel there is more irony in Newt's advisors wishing to sell us on avoiding the questions, than there is in John King asking it in the first place.
Personal character and habits in the bedroom seems an almost fitting topic during a GOP debate; given the fact the GOP creatively markets itself so heavily to Evangelical Christians; since it desperately depends on 1/3 of its votes from this realm of conservative sub-cultures.
The main reason this was so well played by Newt's advisors, is the fact Christians, no more or less than anyone else, typically wish to avoid the experience of having someone rooting around in the gardens of one's own personal history as it were! So everyone can related and empathize with Newt's final denial and points. After all, Christians are indeed taught no man is without sin, and no man should cast judgement on another's opportunity for grace and salvation.
However, back to my original point; such questions of character and marital habits, sexual or otherwise, do seem a rather likely matter of discussion for a party which so blatantly weighs in on sexual orientation and lifestyles. Meaning, given the fact the GOP itself often probes such matters and makes crucial decisions based on what goes on in the bedroom; why wouldn't simular moral decisions, controversial or not, be asked directly of a GOP Presidential Candidate?
Given the crowds generous reaction towards Newt, how should such overall judgments of a man be reexamined by the GOP? If indeed this audience is synonymous with the opinions of the majority of registered Republicans; which would indicate they feel Newt is correct about the imoral, appalling natures of such interest and therefor his rights to privacy and/or enforcing relevancy to issues of leadership?
It seems each Republican whom appreciates Newt's response to John King must question how such extreme prejudice on topics related the personal lifestyles, personal morales and related personal choices each of us make in life. There is no way to "have it both ways" given the type of extreme prejudice the GOP markets. And such questions are certainly no more "inappropriate", complicated or personal to me than the GOP also campaigning on and/or being asked about positions involving Pro-Choice / Abortion matters during Federal campaigns.
Not because the two topics are related, nor compare, but just given the fact, final decisions and laws on such matters are regulated through each individual State's constitutions. Therefor it seems Newt's proposed barometer for relevancy and intimacy should also apply. After all, the only time any relevance to opinions on pro-choice or pro-life might become a potential factor for Federal influences would be indirectly through an Administration's opportunity to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. And even then the vetting process may causes final chosen candidates to fall on the apposing sides of the administration's public positions on such matters.
I see it all as just clever maketing and manipulation of the facts. But voters don't normally spot it, or care! So more power to Newt's team of advisors and their brilliant slight-of-hand! But is their strategy in tune with it's parties landscape of required voters?
The current division of voters within the Republican party continues to desperately depend on convincing Evangelicals the GOP is the more "moral" choice. How then will the GOP avoid extremely personal questions; questions of private persuasion and lifestyles; or those based on a highly sensitive levels of intimacy and marital behaviors, if they flip/flop towards an opinion they are not relevant to leadership?
What categories of piety, bais and judgements will the GOP be left with in their facade of moral high-ground? They simply MUST continue to market towards and attract Evangelicals? Do they feel being Pro-Guns will attract them? Perhaps Pro-War? Perhaps being for lower taxes in a time of extreme past debt, when lower taxes is simply "spending" by another name? Pro-Death penalty? Reduction of government support of the poor and the indigent? Anti-Government sponsored Health care for those who can't afford it? They simply must continue to act as if issue of sexuality and abortion are relevant to leadership and Federal campaigns, or they would completely loose ground in maintaining an evangelical facade.
I guess this is also why it helps when fewer than half of the candidates present at any one GOP debate have to resort to such extreme versions of "I'm rubber your glue". It is possibly all rather cumulatively measured and received by the more naive Evangelical party loyalist viewing such debates.
Again, this all just seems to offer additional reasons at least some (1/3) of the GOP's followers should re-examine the irony within the GOP's stone throwing in the first place? At least where related to marketing to the Christian far right. Since ironically, such assessments are neither very "Christ Like", nor relevant to running the country.
Regardless of how Newt's campaign may have failed to prevent further divisions amongst Republican voters; Newt's campaign advisors did a great job getting him prepared for that inevitable questioning of his character and choices made in marriage, divorce and the bedroom. About time someone within the GOP at least act out and soulfully deliver a vivid message that such probing measures and extreme basis based on the judgement of others is shameful and wrong!
...but again, the more ironic aspect of this, is not that CNN thew the stone, but rather that the GOP has the best pitching arm of the two!"
I've more recently viewed the second video on the Yahoo news site? The one with his wife's live interview, which John King's original question is based on? http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/27928796
As a matter of fact: Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, was one of the people leading the impeachment proceedings against Clinton. WOW! Fact is truly stranger than fiction!