Would I Have to Hold My Nose to Vote for Newt? Maybe a Nostril.

It does seem like in the comments section of every article I've read about Newt Gingrich becoming the likely contender, there are commenters here and there that are viciously opposed to this, and immediately accuse anyone who seems to be supporting him, even just considering it, of being a RINO.

Others have said that if he's the nominee, they'd hold their nose and vote for him, but still wouldn't be happy about it. Many of them, when asked to give their choices, either continue defending Herman Cain, or voice their continued support of Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann, or reveal themselves to be Ronpaulians, which is what I call the cult of personality that has mysteriously surrounded this Gollum-like old fart.

They do seem to be in the minority, but nonetheless it's weird to see; people who, for whatever reason, are so opposed to Newt Gingrich that they're clinging to any sinking ship they can, as if they can row it to land just by claiming it's not sinking.

The problem is, a lot of these people are seeking the "perfect conservative." Anything questionable about a candidate is immediately grounds for dismissal as far as they're concerned. Mention Newt's name and they froth at the mouth over his infidelity, divorces and endorsement of the global warming facade. Bring up the Contract with America or the fact that the only time in the last 30 years that we managed to actually move Congress to the Right, as opposed to merely keeping it from getting any more Left, was when Newt was speaker, and they'll scoff as if that means nothing, because he cheated on his wife.

Now, when it comes to infidelity, I should mention this article by Dennis Prager, a devout Jewish social and political conservative, who is the first man of this persuasion I've seen take this position on adultery; it doesn't actually imply anything about your character as a whole.

Upon reflection of this column, I find myself agreeing with him. After all, the reason conservatives villify Bill Clinton wasn't because he had affairs, but because he raped one woman (Juanita Broaddrick), indecently propositioned another (Paula Jones), had an affair with a third (Ginnifer Flowers), and finally, was caught having one with a fourth (Monica Lewinsky) while president, and, when questioned, both under oath and not, LIED ABOUT ALL FOUR. We know, or at least have reason to believe, all of the allegations against Clinton. We know he lied about Monica Lewinsky, and since we know threats were made to Broaddrick, and all the women who came forward were called ugly names by the Clinton Administration, who seemed to think merely making comments about "trailer parks" in regards to the Clinton accusers, acquitted Clinton in toto.

That is our issue with Clinton; not the serial affairs, but the fact that they all three; distant past, recent past and current, and that Clinton did his best to hide them, instead of acknowledging they happened and that he was wrong, and that he's changed since then. Of course, if he had said those things, it would have been laughable, but with Newt, the fact that he had a faith change and seems to have truly changed since then, including no more affairs, does resonate with me.

Good people can do bad things. They can do things that people very close to them would never have thought them capable of, and while the reasons may be numerous they're never good reasons. However, when it comes to sexual sin, primarily adultery, we approach it hypocritically.

First of all, no transgression should ever be treated as "better" or "worse" than another, because who could we trust to draw those lines? All of us are human, none of us are perfect, and everyone has something in their past they're not proud of. What matters isn't that it happened, but whether they were able to acknowledge their wrong-doing, learn from their mistakes, completely turning away from past bad actions, and growing as result. It seems Newt did this, but it's clear Clinton did not. This is also the case with Herman Cain, assuming the allegations against him are true, and they seem to be. At least SOMETHING untoward appears to have gone on there, and the fact that Cain started off denying anything and everything shows him to be unrepentant, whereas Newt, to a majority of voters, seems repentant.

Second of all, I would like to take a step back for a second and look at how society views adultery...when committed by a woman. Speaking as a man who has been cheated on by my former spouse, I'll tell you what happened in my case.

My ex-wife lost not a single friend. In fact, many came out on her side once this came to light. They assumed I must have been beating her (I wasn't) or unfaithful first, which I wasn't, unless you count the fact that I did, on a few occasions, look at pornography.

While I also didn't "lose" friends, once it was revealed that I'd had a problem with porn in the past, nearly everyone told me that I had a pretty large share of the blame regarding what my ex-wife had done. My disrespect for our marriage had "driven" her to commit adultery. Many even trotted out the old (and false) idea that a man who looks at porn is the same as a man who cheats. I am quite certain that if the details were the same but the situation was reversed, it would have played out as follows:

Our friends would ask what could possibly have driven my wife to look at porn, and would decide that the fact that I was physically unfaithful once (as my ex-wife continues to insist was true of her) was in and of itself proof that I had been unfaithful numerous times, and was not attending to her emotional and/or physical needs, therefore it was my fault I cheated, and also my fault she was driven to looking at pornography. I would bet anything that I would have lost friends.

I want to stress that I am not defending my actions. I am merely saying that I am not guilty of adultery, while my ex-wife is. I can guarantee you that if the reverse were true, the idea that "once a cheater, always a cheater" would be brought up, or the idea that the one act (which is usually an act of desperation, not deviousness, even on my ex's part) defines everything about who I am as a man.

Going further; while my ex did feel guilty enough to eventually tell me what happened, she felt justified enough to tell me a very sanitized version of the event, making it sound like she was seduced in a moment of emotional fragility, when in fact it was planned well in advance and she knew exactly what she was doing. At the same time she hid from me the fact that she was making plans to meet with this man again, and was having an emotional affair with her ex-boyfriend, an affair that only wasn't physical because he lived on the opposite side of the country.

Bringing that back to the topic at hand, it seems like society, or at least conservative society, is all too willing to tar and feather a man for sins they brush off when committed by a woman. Nobody asks why a MAN commits adultery. It's enough that he did; we know all we need to know about him. A woman must have had a reason. Think these commenters engaging in moral outrage would be any easier on Newt if the reason for his affairs was that his wife was emotionally manipulative or verbally (or even physically) abusive? Would the excuse work that "she wasn't attending to his emotional or physical needs"? Think they'd be any more forgiving if it were his WIFE that was guilty of the physical affair, and he was only guilty of looking at porn?

I understand their issues run a bit deeper with him, but my point is many of them act like he's the anti-Christ; a worse candidate than Romney by far, and not a true conservative, and when asked why, they bring up this or that minor quibble (which they would totally excuse from, say, Sarah Palin, not that I'm anti-Palin at all), but save their true vitriol for talk about his personal life.

Another topic, which I'll only touch on briefly here, is how willing leftists are to completely ignore or gloss over the scandals their own side engages in frequently, and how often we are told that a candidate's private life is none of our concern (as long as he's a Democrat). I understand the gut instinct to be the opposite of that, to the point where an affair committed by a conservative could almost be a career-killer, as opposed to the resume enhancer it almost seems to be on the left.

But we may have taken it too far. Yes, adultery is wrong. There's never an excuse for it. But there can be forgiveness, if repentance is evident.

So, linking this back to the title of my post, I'll admit, Newt's not my first choice for our next presidential nominee. But my first choice isn't running, and neither is my second, third, fourth or fifth. My sixth turned out not to be what I thought he was (and he dropped out), and my seventh and eighth will, I can almost assure you, drop out.

But the "hold your nose and vote" candidate, to me, isn't Newt. Romney is so foul to me that I couldn't pull the lever because one hand would be on my nose and the other covering my mouth to contain the vomit.

With Newt? I might have to cover a nostril thanks to a few political blunders. But he is continuing to make me think I won't even have to do that.