Patterico's Pontifications

1/22/2012

From South Carolina to Florida and Beyond

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 5:00 am

[Posted by Karl]

You know who South Carolina benefits? NotRomney.  As RCP’s Sean Trende noted, there was nothing good for Mitt in last night’s numbers, raising a “non-trivial” chance of losing the nomination.

The Fox News exit poll reveals several problems for Romney.  First, of the 60% who said a candidate’s religious beliefs matter, Newt Gingrich crushed Romney by a 46-19% margin.  This will be less of a factor in other states, but it was more of a factor in South Carolina than some thought it would be this cycle.  Gallup and Pew have both polled about a Mormon candidate.  Gallup opined it would be a bigger factor in the general election, while Pew opined it would loom larger in the primaries.  So far, Pew may have the better argument, but Gallup could yet be proven right if Mitt gets the nomination.

Second, there is the Bain issue.  Of the 28% who had a negative view of Romney’s background of investing in and restructuring companies, Gingrich crushed Romney by a 50-3% margin.  Granted, it’s a good thing that 64% had a generally positive view of Mitt’s Bain tenure… but that number would likely be smaller in a general election pool.  And for those with a negative view, Bain seems toxic.

Third, beyond Bain, the economy did not work as an issue for Romney.  The 60% who named the economy as the top issue broke for Gingrich 40-32%.  Romney lost by larger margins among the 88% who said they were holding steady or falling behind financially, and those who had someone who lost a job or was laid off in the past three years.  By income, Romney overperformed only with families making over $100,000.  Gingrich cleaned up in the most economically-distressed areas of South Carolina.  People wondered how Romney would play in more economically depressed states; the answer last night was not good.

Fourth, Romney lost the electability vote last night.  Of the 45% who thought picking someone who can beat Obama was the top priority, Gingrich beat Romney 51-37%.  The media attributes this to Gingrich’s debate performances.  The exit polling supports the idea that the debates were important, although the high number of late deciders creates a chicken/egg issue.  In this respect, keep in mind that Newt has generally been a good debater throughout.  As Larry Sabato noted, the impact of the debates may have come from Romney’s unexpectedly poor performances during the last 10 days.  Are Mitt’s fumbling responses to seemingly obvious lines of attack a bigger problem than Bain?  Maybe so.

Nevertheless, Romney remains a formidable candidate.  His SC concession speech emphasized it would be a long campaign (even though he had hoped otherwise).  Romney is currently still better positioned to win a war of attrition.  His better-funded and organized campaign has been locking down early voting in Florida and monopolizing the airwaves.  However, there have not been many polls in the Sunshine State as Romney slid in South Carolina and nationally.  Nate Silver hypothesizes that Mitt’s formidable Florida lead may have shrunk to five points or less.

–Karl

372 Responses to “From South Carolina to Florida and Beyond”

  1. Who did the Dems vote for and what % of the vote were they?

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  2. How many times did he sign it? … all I want to know…

    http://t.co/z5KkLWiU

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  3. The “toxicity” of Newt Gingrich will become much more clear over the coming weeks. The man lacks discipline,character, and moral fiber. What he doesn’t lack is personal baggage and a severely grandiose nature.

    Republicans couldn’t give a gift to the Obama campaign – or House and Senate Democrats – that would be any more appreciated.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  4. Looks like the establishment republicans have become the doormat of the party.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  5. Gingrich is the establishment. He is the status quo. He is Washington, D.C.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  6. I don’t think so. He will be wiping his feet on the cream puff elite.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  7. Gingrich works within established consensus. If you’re looking for a revolutionary, look elsewhere. His attempts at harnessing public anger, contempt for the establishment and the media are completely self-serving. He doesn’t believe half of what he says. It’s performance art and it’s intent is to catapult Newt to his self-anointed position as an historical figure.

    He is an over-confident windbag and he will soon receive his comeuppance.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  8. Gingrich touts half-baked ideas as solutions. He lacks a moral compass. He has no chance of defeating Obama in a general election and his presence on the ticket will lose the House, as well.

    But you will get the satisfaction of lashing out at the media, which should be pretty far down on an intelligent person’s list.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  9. I especially giggle at voters who assume that the candidate they like is the one who is most electable. And given how prevalent that is, I giggle a lot.

    steve (254463)

  10. you will get the satisfaction of lashing out at the media, which should be pretty far down on an intelligent person’s list

    but who said voters were rational and intelligent?

    Perhaps that’s Romney’s problem, that he isn’t playing to their ignorance as Gingrich does?

    steve (254463)

  11. Romney is responsible for his poor showing, his well funded and professionally directed campaign failed at the most fundamental requirement of on-the-ground retail politics in South Carolina: he never connected with the voters, he took them for granted and talked down to them in the empty terms of one focus group tested platitude after another.

    Newt, with all his flaws, was a much more authentic politician, a real candidate out stumping for votes, asking for support, articulating an agenda, fighting against entrenched media opposition.

    Romney looked distracted by the tax returns issue, ducking and dodging. Romney was just going through the motions, while Newt was doing the heavy lifting and the votes followed his efforts.

    ropelight (d8d97d)

  12. You elites are always right, how could I possibly feel anything you don’t. Being just an ignorant oaf, why would you respond?

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  13. Yep, Romney needs to do a much better job of talking about his success and his plans to pursue policies that will ensure economic revitalization and employment. He has much success in the private sector. Gingrich is establishment Washington, D.C.

    Given the financial/asset disclosures these guys need to submit, one would think sharing tax returns would be a non-issue, but in the interest of transparency, Mitt should share his for the last 10 or 15 years and get it out of the way.

    In that same interest of transparency, Newt should do the same, as well as releasing the background documents that were part of his House Ethics reprimand. He should also disclose all info/reports he wrote re: his work as an “historian” for Freddie Mac.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  14. Nearly all of Gingrich’s wealth has been made in the Washington power politics game and as a lobbyist. Romney should highlight his own success story, which includes millions of dollars in charitable contributions and in tithing to his church.

    This would be in stark contrast to Gingrich’s tight-fisted donations to charities (reported to be 2.6%) and – despite his claims to be a deeply religious man, a Catholic – Gingrich pays no tithing to his church. I have Catholic friends and I have personal knowledge that tithing is an important aspect, or virtue, of Catholicism.

    Bottom line… Romney needs to explain the difference between his capitalism and Gingrich’s standing as the very definition of a crony capitalist.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  15. We learned recently that FDR blew off notice of Japan’s imminent menace of Pearl for three days.

    We know he exacerbated the Depression, racial inequality and the slaughter of the Jews.

    We know he owes his wife a number of his Presidency’s positives.

    We are also aware of personal improprieties:

    “Family papers, made public for the 1st time in 1971, show that Eleanor always considered sex an ordeal, while Franklin had an unusually vigorous sexual appetite. In the early years of the marriage, FDR usually got his way, but in 1916, after the birth of her 6th child, Eleanor put her foot down. During the 29 years of marriage that remained to them, the Roosevelts never slept together again. They maintained separate bedrooms and in the White House actually took over different wings of the mansion.

    Not surprisingly, FDR looked for consolation outside his marriage. His 1st and most serious affair involved Lucy Mercer, his wife’s beautiful and sophisticated social secretary. By the time Eleanor discovered a batch of love letters and found out about the affair, Franklin and Lucy were deeply in love. There was talk of a divorce and remarriage, but Roosevelt’s mother squelched all such plans by threatening to cut off her boy’s generous financial allowance. Franklin was forced to give up Lucy Mercer, but his interest in her continued from a distance for the rest of his life.

    In a sense, Roosevelt’s paralysis probably strengthened his bond with Eleanor, but their relationship was one of mutual respect and dependence rather than personal intimacy. Medical reports prove that FDR’s sexual prowess was unimpaired by polio, and rumors continued to link him with other women. Wartime gossip centered on a supposed romantic involvement between the President and the glamorous young Princess Martha of Norway. Then in 1973, FDR’s son Elliott published a book in which he declared that Missy LeHand, his father’s tall, slim, gray-eyed private secretary, was Roosevelt’s mistress for 20 years. Elliott also asserts that Eleanor not only knew about the relationship, but approved of it-allowing Missy and Franklin to occupy adjoining bedrooms.”

    Neut must be stopped.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  16. Newt should do the same, as well as releasing the background documents that were part of his House Ethics reprimand.

    Why on earth should he? You are a slimy son of a bitch for even bringing it up. You know very well that that whole episode was a witch hunt, the prototype for what was later done to Palin. The IRS found that the tax charge was bogus. At the end of the day the result was that he had done nothing wrong, and had endured the ordeal for nothing. Whatever he disclosed to the committee under duress and in strictest confidence should remain confidential for the simple reason that he should never have had to reveal it in the first place.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  17. Perhaps that’s Romney’s problem, that he isn’t playing to their ignorance as Gingrich does?

    Comment by steve

    Sorry, this is not my read on it. “Rick Perry will Kill Social Security” is a direct quote from one of Romney’s panders to the gullible. I feel, if anything, Newt has taken the intelligence of the voters for granted too often, while Romney has shamelessly changed positions in a way that suggests he thinks the voters are fools.

    Looks like most of them aren’t fools.

    Always remember to never forget, sock, that even though he hails from Texas, his real heritage is Middle Eastern. And if they’re not kept under your boot, they’re at your throat.

    Comment by General Major

    Hate speech like this has become so common even in blogs like this (that was said about me on this blog two days ago), usually coming from Romney fanatics. It is not playing to anyone’s intelligence. Whoever said that about me is not an intelligent or good person.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  18. CH: I think Romney’s problem is that he focuses on the logical, while Gingrich plays better to the emotional… which at least this week, worked.

    Romney’s tax returns shouldn’t be an issue. Gingrich shouldn’t be able to come across as anything but a corrupt Washington insider. Gingrich should have been seen as a fool for attacking Bain from the left. Lashing out at John King and Juan Williams shouldn’t be the deciding factor in how someone decides to vote.

    But, for good or bad, they are… and per Ropelight’s comments, Romney needs to better connect with the primary voters.

    In a political campaign, as with any marketing, the seller has to give the buyer what the buyer wants and not simply try to get them to buy what the seller is selling. Plenty of companies with good products have gone bankrupt because they didn’t connect with the buyers.

    steve (254463)

  19. If Eleanor had cut him off then in what way were his affairs “improprieties”? He owed her no faithfulness, so why shouldn’t he seek what he needed elsewhere?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  20. Romney needs to better connect with the primary voters.

    How is a self described progressive with a tax and spend record supposed to connect with conservatives in 2012?

    Romney initially proposed raising the fee for a gun license from $25 to $75, but the Legislature bumped it to $100, and Romney signed that increase into law, according to James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, a Massachusetts gun rights group.

    The following year, Romney worked with the Legislature to increase the duration of a gun license from four to six years, which had the effect of mitigating the higher gun license fee. So a gun license that used to cost $25 for 4 years ($6.25 per year) became $100 for 6 years ($16.66 per year).

    All told, Romney raised fees by about $375 million and closed tax loopholes that raised another $375 million in revenue, according to Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonpartisan, business-backed budget watchdog group.

    Spending went up quite a bit as well. Romneycare alone is in the ten digits.

    Gingrich shouldn’t be able to come across as anything but a corrupt Washington insider.

    He’s that bad? What corruption are you even talking about? Being a professor of a class the democrats don’t like? Why play into narratives like that? Specifically, what corruption are you aware of?

    Romney’s tax returns shouldn’t be an issue.

    Electability is a big issue for him, and some of his comments show he’s going to have a very hard time on this issue. I don’t really care if he releases documentation about it… it’s not going to make him any more electable if he does, which is why he won’t, but the problem remains.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  21. Milhouse: if Gingrich did nothing wrong, what would he have said ‘under duress’ that would be embarrassing? He wasn’t waterboarded into giving false testimony, was he? And why pay what was for him a good chunk of money if there was no there there? (if I remember right, he could have used campaign funds to defend himself so it isn’t as if defending himself would have left him poor). Palin didn’t have to pay $300,000 to settle the ‘bogus’ charges against her, did she?

    If there was truly nothing to see, then releasing the records would show there was nothing there. Gingrich refusing to do so is pretty good circumstantial evidence that he in fact did do wrong. Can’t be used in court, but in public opinion, sure.

    steve (254463)

  22. Milhouse: if Gingrich did nothing wrong, what would he have said ‘under duress’ that would be embarrassing?

    That’s some severe bias you’re showing, isn’t it?

    And why pay what was for him a good chunk of money if there was no there there?

    To stop the ugly attack that was costly in and of itself. We already know there was no there there, actually. That part is not under debate by serious people.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  23. If the political system is corrupt, then a former member of Congress who takes money to ply his influence with Congress is corrupt.

    steve (254463)

  24. 18. “Romney’s tax returns shouldn’t be an issue”

    Whatever the details of Bain Capital’s 77 purchases and sales during Romney’s official tenure or his involvement in transactions until 2001 when his oversight concluded are private and not a credible concern of the public.

    And whatever might have been reveealed by public property destroyed on MA file servers shouldn’t be of interest.

    Ted Kennedy is responsible for Romneycare and Obamacare.

    And above all, his reasons for wearing Mom Jean’s are never going to be discussed on ‘The View’.

    http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/mormon/underwear/

    Move along, nothing to see here, all is well.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  25. What bias? I quoted Milhouse in citing ‘under duress’. This wasn’t a military interrogation, someone as smart as Gingrich wouldn’t have said anything embarrassing if it wasn’t true, would he?

    We don’t know if there is a there or not. Claiming that there isn’t doesn’t it make it so. Have you seen the transcript? If so, care to share with us the details? In particular, the part that Gingrich doesn’t want us rubes to see?

    It’s analogous to Pete Rose trying to claim he’s innocent while not releasing the Dowd report.

    steve (254463)

  26. We learned recently that FDR blew off notice of Japan’s imminent menace of Pearl for three days.

    That is bullsh*t. It’s every bit as much bullsh*t as the claim that Bush was warned of the 11-Sep-2001 attacks in his briefing on 6-Aug. FDR received no notice, and blew nothing off. There was no way FDR or anyone in Washington could have known about the attack in time to do anything about it.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  27. 19. And why shouldn’t Marianne’s fables be accepted?

    The crucial, overweening difference is “We know”.

    Amerikkka the beautiful, would have been responsible for FDR’s crimes had they known of his satyriasis and voted for the miscreant over Alfred Smith.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  28. Haiku, all those negatives about mr. g are already widely known …and how abut this words: accepted. How do you think he overcomes this? If you haven’t figured it out yet you are in complete denial.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  29. What bias?

    Sorry, but it seems that we all know that was a witchhunt. We already know Newt did not derive any personal gain. Can you describe that controversy, please? What do you know about it?

    There’s been an annoying pattern.

    That argument against Romney is generally “Look at his record, it sucks” and the argument against whoever the leading not Romney is is generally “we don’t know this, but let’s assume until proven innocent something really terrible”

    You say: “Gingrich shouldn’t be able to come across as anything but a corrupt Washington insider.” Why? Because … what secrets hasn’t he told us yet?

    You need substantial, powerful evidence of corruption to back up what you said.

    BTW, attacking Bain for costing the taxpayers a seven digit FDIC bailout for how it screwed up a company is not an attack from the left. It’s an attack from the right, unless the right doesn’t mind bailouts and wasteful government spending now.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  30. What bias? I quoted Milhouse in citing ‘under duress’. This wasn’t a military interrogation, someone as smart as Gingrich wouldn’t have said anything embarrassing if it wasn’t true, would he?

    He provided information to the committee because he had to. That’s duress. And since we know that none of the hundreds of allegations against him were substantiated, and the entire investigation was a witch hunt, it should never have happened and he should never have been made to provide it with anything. Therefore it is deeply unethical for any use to be made today of material that should never have existed.

    We don’t know if there is a there or not.

    Yes, we do. After investigating all the hundreds of allegations, the only one the committee “substantiated” was the tax claim, which we now know was bogus because the IRS said so. So what do you claim he did wrong? On what basis do you presume to call him corrupt?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  31. BTW, attacking Bain for costing the taxpayers a seven digit FDIC bailout for how it screwed up a company is not an attack from the left. It’s an attack from the right, unless the right doesn’t mind bailouts and wasteful government spending now.

    What’s this about? If it’s about GS Technologies then it was the union and the workers who screwed it up, not Bain.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  32. Gingrich spent several years as a highly paid lobbyist and now he lies and says he wasn’t a lobbyist. He works to make the connections between Big Government and Big Business. Gingrich wants to give ethanol companies, large pharmaceutical producers and federal government owned mortgage companies access to taxpayer money. He is the definition of a crony capitalist.

    Confront Gingrich with specifics and then watch as he falls back on attacking the media.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  33. Romany isn’t likeable.

    Neut is reviled.

    Ogabe is both likeable and reviled.

    Let’s move on.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  34. So vote for Gingrich in Virginia, sarahw… oh wait… you’re planning to vote for Ron Paul… as a “protest”.

    And they talk about the wacky-left…

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  35. Colonel, your defense of the Mitt-Bot seems positively… programmed.

    Suspicious.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  36. I support the candidate I’ve decided to support, leviticus. I’ll leave it to you to stew in your own undecided juices.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  37. The idea that Gingrich is “the status quo” but the aspiring Robot Overlord is not is laughable.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  38. __________________________________________________

    Are Mitt’s fumbling responses to seemingly obvious lines of attack a bigger problem than Bain?

    Heck, yea. Certainly when it came to the question of whether he would release more of his past income tax reports. With an insincere smile plastered on his face, his response was so bad that I’d think anyone watching at that moment would want to smack him right then and there.

    All these candidates suffer from a bit too much ego and lack of self-awareness. It they didn’t have those qualities, they’d probably be too hesitant and embarrassed to run in the first place.

    FWIW, a better way of presenting oneself during a debate is when a candidate, as he is listening to another candidate speaking, looks straight ahead or down at the papers on his podium. I believe Ronald Reagan often composed himself that way during debates, and it conveys a better image to me than when the person who isn’t speaking is instead angling his head and looking over at the person who’s jabbering away. Even more so when the observer is smiling at (or overreacting to) the person who has the command of the moderator.

    Mark (411533)

  39. I already defined corrupt. Gingrich fits that to a T.

    Bain didn’t receive a bailout while Romney was there (read Kevin Williamson at NRO for the details). Nice tactic of blurring the lines, but anything goes in pursuit of victory, right?

    There were complaints against Gingrich. The ethics committee was obligated to investigate. If all of the claims were in fact bogus, Gingrich would have been the first one to release the transcripts. His refusal to do so is as suspicious as his refusal (on account of client confidentiality) to release the details of what he did for Freddie and Fannie. You can pretend there’s no there there, you can insult those who say otherwise, but Gingrich’s own actions (as opposed to his words) indicate otherwise.

    steve (254463)

  40. Romney and Gingrich is corrupt.

    The democraps have had the reigns since 2007 and the economy got worse ever since then.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  41. 39. If you actually read the complaints and their disposal you might find those that were not dismissed had mostly to do with advances on book deals, and other arcana of House procedure.

    Intimating that these are moral issues, without actually delving into details is disingenuous at minimum.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  42. I think Gingrich will have to release the ethics report and Romney will have to release his tax returns. The Democrats certainly have found ways to get both and they will use them. However, I’m sure they both hope to delay that release until after they’ve secured the nomination.

    As for Gingrich’s marriage issues, I’m tired of being a values and character voter when it doesn’t matter to either Party. The Democrats tell us marriage issues are private and the GOP nominated McCain, who left his severely injured wife to marry a richer, younger woman. At this point, I’m just glad Republicans still expect politicians to marry their mistresses.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  43. Gack! By all means continue to debate the merits and demerits of Romney, Gingrich, Paul & Santorum, but please tone down the attacks on each other. Or prepare to congratulate Obama on his second term. There’s nothing more helpful to a politician than a divided opposition.

    Gingrich is a very deeply flawed individual, hypocritical, holier-than-thou, he lies, he’s dangerously flirtatious with global warming activism. Romney, on the other hand, exudes personal integrity.

    But Newt is light-years ahead of Romney in articulating a defense of free markets and individual liberties. In the recent debate, he tore apart Juan Williams’ race-baiting question.

    A tingle went up my leg as I heard Gingrich explain clearly what was wrong with how minority children are treated, and how screwed up the left has become in belittling the importance of learning good work habits and the chance to earn money on their own as a youngster.

    If we could only transplant Newt’s ability to articulate the message of freedom and personal responsibility onto the character of Romney, we’d really have something.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (b59509)

  44. Steve… Gingrich claims that he pleaded with fellow House Republicans in the House to vote “yes” on the ethics charges against him in order to put a swift end to the proceedings.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  45. Bradley,

    Gingrich-Romney 2012? Or Romney-Gingrich 2012?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  46. “Gack! By all means continue to debate the merits and demerits of Romney, Gingrich, Paul & Santorum, but please tone down the attacks on each other.

    Gingrich is a very deeply flawed individual, hypocritical, holier-than-thou, he lies, he’s dangerously flirtatious with global warming activism. Romney, on the other hand, exudes personal integrity.”

    In all charity Brother, cognitive dissonance.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  47. At this point, I’m just glad Republicans still expect politicians to marry their mistresses.

    A sad truth, DRJ.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (b59509)

  48. Yep, Leviticus, you had better fall in with the rest of your lefty cohorts as they march our country into the abyss…

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  49. In all charity Brother, cognitive dissonance.

    Precisely. I don’t know how to resolve this cognitive dissonance, other than supporting Ron Paul.

    BTW, have you heard of Atheists for Santorum? It appears to be authentic and not Colbertian.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (b59509)

  50. Today, Gingrich blamed his ethics violations and reprimand on a letter from his lawyers that he signed.

    Wake up, folks.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  51. TheFix: “Gingrich drops Saul Alinksy and elite media in same sentence. Terrific stuff.”

    lol.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  52. Newt has John “Tears of a Clown” Boehner, Jim Clyburn and Lindsay Graham in his corner.

    He’s really lining up the key endorsements.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  53. Gingrich wants to give ethanol companies, large pharmaceutical producers and federal government owned mortgage companies access to taxpayer money. He is the definition of a crony capitalist.

    Oh, come on. You aren’t that stupid. Subsidies of an industry or a type of product are as old as government. In and of themselves they are not crony capitalism because there is no “crony.”

    It is when, like this President, you subsidize or favor individual companies that you get into cronyism. GE, Solyndra, etc.

    Example: if you say “we will rebate 20% of the cost of solar panels” you are not favoring any particular company and the more efficient makers of solar panels will presumably benefit most. If instead you say “we will give Solyndra $500 million” you are clearly in bed with Solyndra.

    Morality aside, cronyism is a particularly inefficient method of subsidy since the risk/reward ratio is awful and there is no guarantee that you are favoring the better player (and some reasonable expectation you are not).

    Now, subsidies may well be a bad idea, and Gingrich favors them rather more than I would like. Happily, as one goes about budget cutting, subsidies pretty quickly rise to the top of the list.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  54. It’s fascinating to see the Hillary-Obama contest repeated in the Republican Party. I hope November 2012 turns out as well for the GOP as November 2008 turned out for the Democrats.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  55. ______________________________________________

    If we could only transplant Newt’s ability to articulate the message of freedom and personal responsibility onto the character of Romney, we’d really have something.

    I’d second that. Although both Romney and Gingrich have a lot of squish (or “centrism”) in them, and based on their histories have backbones with plenty of go-along-to-get-along (or Bush Sr’s “read my lips…”) curves, the former is too much like the Ned Flanders character (the namby-pamby devout Christian) in “The Simpsons,” while Gingrich is faster on his feet and more able to cut to the chase. I guess he’s more like a Bart Simpson.

    Mark (411533)

  56. Colonel Haiku
    Still seems to be for Romney
    Clearly dislikes Newt

    Kevin M (563f77)

  57. His better-funded and organized campaign has been locking down early voting in Florida

    So he plays well among idiots? Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

    The only people who should vote early are those who are going to be out of their home town and don’t feel like bothering with an absentee ballot. There are a LOT of early voters, however, who just want to show that they want the candidate to not have to worry about campaigning in the state.

    I Got Bupkis, Election Critic Extraordinaire (a88bfa)

  58. Here’s hoping the democraps agenda is soundly rejected.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  59. Ah Mike Castle syndrome, that never gets old, Coulter, Lowry, et al, are all verklempt.

    narciso (87e966)

  60. Gingrich has never been for limited government. He’s a government-solutions guy, e.g., cap and trade, individual mandate.

    The folks who continue thinking this man has any chance of defeating Obama are virtually guaranteeing another four years of catastrophic economic policies, leftwing SCOTUS nominations and a continued, anti-Constitution power grab by the executive branch of government.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  61. Romney’s biggest issue is that he’s a corporate suit. Sure, he’s particularly smooth and immaculate, and he’s got a lot of good talking points, but it is really clear to folks that he’s from a different culture. And not one they particularly like. Guys like this have burned them before.

    Gingrich has the advantage here in that he is quite maculate. People get Newt in a way that they will never get Romney. This connection makes the selling of ideas much easier for Newt, since it is only the ideas that people are wary of, not the presenter as well.

    Not sure how Romney deals with this, but his hesitancy with the Bain and tax issues are not helpful. Worse than a suit, is a suit hiding stuff. And it is perhaps further telling that Gingrich knew how this would play with people and Mitt clearly did not. That connection thing again.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  62. Happily, as one goes about budget cutting, subsidies pretty quickly rise to the top of the list.

    Comment by Kevin M

    Apparently, you have been played the fool, as Gingrich invented earmarks. Cuts in spending? Ha.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  63. Gingrich has never been for limited government.Yet he shut down the government as Speaker trying to pare the budget. Who am I going to believe? You or my own lying eyes?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  64. Romney gave us MassCare, was on of the leading forces behind the RGGI, his major domo Murphy,
    was one of those ‘go along to get along’ types who dismissed the tea party,

    narciso (87e966)

  65. RON PAUL is for earmarks. Does that make Ron a big spending liberal?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  66. Empty posturing and he got played.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  67. It will be no holds barred in the coming weeks and we’re about to see what 240 lbs of out-of-shape/Washington Insider suet sounds like when it hits the canvass.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  68. Go 49ers!

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  69. Haiku – It’s not a protest vote, it’s a spoiler vote. And the result and meaning of many of those, unmistakeable in context of Virginia’s peculiar circumstances. Wait and see what happens. :)

    Typical Snow White person (b0e533)

  70. Gingrich as Speaker:

    When Clinton refused to cut the budget in the way Republicans wanted, Gingrich threatened to refuse to raise the debt limit, which would have caused the United States Treasury to suspend funding other portions of the government to avoid putting the country in default.[2]

    Clinton said Republican amendments would strip the U.S. Treasury of its ability to dip into federal trust funds to avoid a borrowing crisis. Republican amendments would have limited appeals by death-row inmates, made it harder to issue health, safety and environmental regulations, and would have committed the president to a seven-year balanced budget.

    The revolution failed because the MSM, not yet opposed by talkradio or the internet, managed to fool people by framing the issue around Gingrich. Some are, apparently, still fooled.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  71. Haiku, wrong about the mandate thing, as wrong as about the OWS thing. Newt said something else entirely. He essentially said what I was saying: the time for talking has JUST BEGUN – that different approaches should be considered by the states.

    Typical Snow White person (b0e533)

  72. Kevin M,

    It occurs to me that Romney’s awkward response to Bain and his tax returns could be related to his corporate mentality. My experience is that good executives anticipate important events and map out a timeline for responses. I’m sure Romney has done this for those issues, too, but maybe his problem is this isn’t happening on his timeline. The good thing about competent executives is they have structure that makes them prepared to deal with events, but sometimes that structure is more like a straight-jacket.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  73. Colonel,

    You often seem to be a keen observer of people. Why do you think Romney cannot seem to connect with voters? Do you still think he can turn it around and what steps/changes would you recommend that he take to try to do so? Mitt came into this race after four years of prep and building both a warchest and an organization as the understood frontrunner. He apparently cannot close the deal. He seems to be losing ground. Sure we can look at the stupidity and biases and shallowness and distractedness of many voters but they are what they are and that is not going to change. Those are the same people all candidates need to connect with.

    IMO, Mitt has still not explained why he is running for president and what he will accomplish as president. He has not gotten voters to view him as a self-aware and human 21st century man with at least a little bit of passion and who lives in the real world and stands for something. Surely you don’t really think that Mitt can ultimately win solely by his surrogates trashing the opposition and with his own primary argument being “Well, look, I’m way better than that nutty Newt”. To my eyes that’s no better campaign strategy than Obama saying “Yeah, the economy still sucketh—but hey, it could be worse!! So vote for me.”

    elissa (28c05d)

  74. Frankly, granting any of these, our fellow travelers, the mantle of Integrity, is a bridge way too far for me.

    Santorum may well have more ethical integrity than I, but not intellectually by a round trip to Alpha Centauri.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  75. DRJ,

    I see that. I expect that there is some connection between Newt’s ability to pivot and think on his feet, and his tendency to put is foot in his mouth. Mitt never puts his foot in his mouth, but seems slow on the response as a result. Fluid versus programmed.

    This explains the tax thing, but is a bit worrisome in a general election as this fault will be exploited by Obama and his toreadors. It does not explain the difficulty with getting Bain explained — the exit polls show that Bain effing killed Mitt in SC. He needs to get a handle on that ASAP before it metastasizes.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  76. The good thing about competent executives is they have structure that makes them prepared to deal with events, but sometimes that structure is more like a straight-jacket.

    Really good executives make flexible plans that allow for the unexpected. Since Romney has already run for president, it’s hard to understand why he is so locked into such a brittle strategy this time around.

    Like elissa, I haven’t heard Romney clearly explain what his governing beliefs are, and why those are superior to those of his rivals. Now is the time to give that explanation.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (b59509)

  77. As much as Newt can seemingly impulsively go off the rails (mid-sentence a new idea pops into his head and before he thinks it through, it’s already coming out of his mouth) and one isn’t sure if it’s going to be a good thing or not, Mitt is the opposite: Everything is very calculated, pulling up the queued answer out of his Answer Rolodex. I feel we haven’t been allowed under his skin to see just Mitt, the guy who wants to be president, warts and all. With Newt, I’ve seen so much, I’m screaming Show me no more!

    I don’t think either can be anything more than what they are and what we see. It’s troubling to see such ardent loyalists out there for either when both are so deeply flawed. It’s one thing to be supportive for a candidate and admit and recognize the flaws; it’s an entirely different matter when one just sees near perfection. It makes me uncomfortable that the party is perhaps that without discernment, let alone some here at P’s.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  78. Elissa – After primaries in three states, Romney has won the most support of any of these candidates, so I don’t think it’s true to point to him as the one who hasn’t connected. If, given his numbers, he hasn’t connected, what does that say about the others?

    I explained earlier in this thread what I think Romney needs to do. I think he needs to better make the case of why his success in the private sector is a better qualification than what a Washington Insider like Newt Gingrich has to offer. We need a fellow who understands how capitalism, free market and our free enterprise system works. That is the talent that will revitalize the economy and promote job growth.

    What we don’t need is another classic narcissist, which , as I watch Newt’s playing to the base (not better) nature of these debate audiences, as he winks and moves his piggish eyes back and forth across the audience to see how his latest cheap shots at the “elite” and the easy target presented by the media play, I have come to view as Newt’s most troubling flaw.

    They all have surrogates making attacks, why single one man out?

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  79. If Eleanor had cut him off then in what way were his affairs “improprieties”? He owed her no faithfulness, so why shouldn’t he seek what he needed elsewhere?

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 7:04 am

    Because he made the committment before God and said, I do?

    Dana (4eca6e)

  80. _______________________________________

    And it is perhaps further telling that Gingrich knew how this would play with people and Mitt clearly did not.

    Moreover, the ideal tactics are made much tougher because it’s impossible to have any confidence in a good portion of the electorate. Too many of them fell for Al “Global-Warming” Gore in 2000, too many of them fell for John “Leftwing-Solider” Kerry in 2004, and, of course, a majority of them fell for Barack “Goddamn-America” Obama in 2008. IOW, they’ve been treading further and further to the left since Clinton’s time in office.

    That there is a legitimate reason to doubt a majority of Americans this year will have enough sanity to go into the voting booth and at least proclaim “ABO” (ie, anyone but…), much less truly favor the Republican alternative, shows just how Argentina-ian, Mexican-ian or Euro-Socialist-ian we’ve become or are becoming.

    Mark (411533)

  81. The real issue with Bain:

    About 1/3rd of Republican primary voters thought Bain was a big issue in SC and only 3% of them voted for Romney, 51% for Newt, and the reset split among the other two.

    Now, what happens in the general election with the 30% or so of the electorate who are independent? If the same kind of thing holds, and only, say, 10% of independents who have an issue with Bain vote for Romney, with the other 90% going for Obama, then the percentage of independents who have an issue with Bain had better be DAMN low or the election is lost.

    If this group is as large as it was among SC Republicans (1/3) then [math happens] Obama will win that 30% independent block by 19-11. And 8% of the vote as the cost of one unresolved issue is the election, folks.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  82. Dana,

    The folks behind Mitt seem to be thinking that “we NEED to win, and who wins it isn’t important.” There is quite a bit to be said for this, actually.

    The folks behind Newt, however, feel that the goals of the victor ARE important and winning with GOP Lite won’t be enough to fix things. Managing the decline well isn’t interesting to us. Newt has the fire in his belly, and Mitt doesn’t, and it’s obvious to all who look.

    In short, which is more important: passion or discipline?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  83. To be clear, none of these candidates are without flaws. I said early on that the guy I support, Romney, was going to have to do a much better job of connecting with prospective voters. He has a CEO background and mentality and, as I’ve worked for – and closely with – several, they are usually viewed as being somewhat disconnected because they are looking down the road, trying to discern the market and how to better position their enterprise to meet changing conditions and provide solutions and product for the customer.

    Gingrich is an insider and as I watched these morning shows today, I had to laugh as I saw general delight on the faces of the liberal hosts of these shows as Gingrich plied his trade.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  84. If Eleanor had cut him off then in what way were his affairs “improprieties”? He owed her no faithfulness, so why shouldn’t he seek what he needed elsewhere?

    Comment by Milhouse

    Typical leftwing mentality.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  85. Actually he’s only won one state ,he tied in Iowa, where Organization is at a premium and he got walloped in S. Carolina, now there were certainly
    self inflicted wounds, supporting the Detroit bailouts, in BMW and Toyota country, failing to disengage from MassCare,

    narciso (87e966)

  86. shows just how Argentina-ian, Mexican-ian or Euro-Socialist-ian we’ve become or are becoming.

    There is some worry that we will be in for a giant money drop into the economy from the Fed this spring and summer, like they do in Mexico just before the election. Someone better make clear to Bernanke and his Board that if they do that they may end up in prison.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  87. Narciso… who has won the most delegates to this point?

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  88. It’s a long slog ahead. If it doesn’t kill ‘em, it will hopefully make them stronger.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  89. As for Gingrich’s marriage issues, I’m tired of being a values and character voter when it doesn’t matter to either Party. The Democrats tell us marriage issues are private and the GOP nominated McCain, who left his severely injured wife to marry a richer, younger woman. At this point, I’m just glad Republicans still expect politicians to marry their mistresses.

    I’ve been thinking about this: If Newt is the one, the U.S. will have a mistress as a First Lady. Of course others have had their flings, but this couple will be the first couple coming into the office as publicly known adulterers. I think the left will be ruthless with not only Newt (if he takes it) but with Calista, too. There will be no hands-off re her.

    I wonder if they are prepared to take the inevitable viciousness? Is Newt with his volatility?

    As the family values party, have we lost something inherently important in that we are considering as our candidate one who clearly lacks in this department? Are we hypocrites? Or did it never mean anything in the first place (or perhaps post-Clinton, it became irrelevant or at least, less important).

    Dana (4eca6e)

  90. Romney’s refusal to repudiate MassCare is the foundation of the Not-Romney movement. When Romney had the opportunity to disassociate himself from MassCare and embraced it instead, it rendered him acceptable to Conservatives only as a candidate of last resort.

    As long as Conservatives have a choice, it’s going to be Not-Romney by a landslide.

    ropelight (d8d97d)

  91. all ethics charges were dismissed against Newt but hey romneyturds don’t let that put a chink into your romneybot armor.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  92. You know I thought about that Dana, for a second,
    then I remembered what happened this fall with McGuiness, and how the lies he spread, when the publisher knew darn well, he was making it up,
    And subsequently there was no apology, it’s left to float in the ether.

    Now Romney couldn’t anticipate an angle of attack,
    from 17 years ago, which the Alinsky Press will drill down with the force of a hundred suns, I have no illusions about Newt, but neither do I have them about any other candidate.

    narciso (87e966)

  93. As if MassCare was going to be forced on the USA!

    This is where we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  94. The piling-on about Bain has corrupted the judgment of some observers, such as Andrew Malcolm. Eager to score points against Obama, Malcolm panned his selection of Jeffrey Zients for OMB due to his “Bain” connection:

    “Zients is 45 and acquired much of his predatory capitalist skills during a stint at Bain & Co. If that name sounds familiar, it should. Republican Mitt Romney was among the venture capital firm’s founders.”

    There are actually two firms with the name of Bain, legally independent of each other, although they do share a history. Bain & Co. is a consulting firm. Romney left Bain & Co. to found Bain Capital, the “predatory capitalist” firm Malcolm was thinking of.

    Malcolm hasn’t corrected his error. The Blaze has corrected its error, very grudgingly. And the false premise is still evident in the URL, which says in part “no-bainer-obamas-new-budget-chief-worked-for-bain-capital-too/”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (b59509)

  95. Actually he’s only won one state ,he tied in Iowa, where Organization is at a premium and he got walloped in S. Carolina, now there were certainly
    self inflicted wounds, supporting the Detroit bailouts, in BMW and Toyota country, failing to disengage from MassCare,

    Comment by narciso

    I guess I’ll have to ask again… Narciso? Who has won the most delegates as of today, Sunday, January 22, 2012?

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  96. “People Power”

    - Ned Lamont Newt Gingrich

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  97. Dana,

    I doubt Newt is the first modern Presidential adulterer and he’s certainly not the first in history if you go back to the election of 1828, which has several similarities to this primary. As for family values, that ship sailed for me after the Clinton impeachment. If voters won’t punish a Presidential perjurer who was also a lawyer and officer of the court, I have no faith they will punish an adulterer.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  98. You are a slimy son of a bitch for even bringing it up.

    “It’s nice to see a little sock”
    – Marie Barone

    Icy (83a940)

  99. Chris Christie: “The fact of the matter is, from my perspective — not as a member of the establishment, David, but has a governor — I know we don’t need another legislator in the Oval Office… we have had one for the last three years who doesn’t have the first idea of how to use executive power or bring Congress together. We’ve had the worst years of Congress in my lifetime because this president refuses to get in the room, roll up his sleeves and get the hard work done. We do not need another legislator in the Oval Office who does not know how to use executive authority. We need an executive, someone who both in private sector and as a governor, understands how to bring people together and use executive power. The speaker simply does not have that experience. He’s never run anything.”

    David Gregory: “Do you think Newt Gingrich will embarrass the party?”

    Christie: “I think Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party over time. Whether he’ll do again in the future, I don’t know. But Gov. Romney never has.”

    GREGORY: “You say he has embarrassed the party. How, and where do you worry he might do it again, that makes him unelectable?”

    CHRISTIE: “David, we all know the record. I mean, he was run out of the speakership of his own party. He was fined $300,000 for ethics violations. This is a guy that has had a very difficult political career at times and it has been an embarrassment to the party. You remember those times because you were here. So the fact of the matter is, I don’t need to regale the country with that entire list again, except to say this — I am not saying he will do it again in the future, but sometimes the past is prologue.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/22/christie-on-gingrichs-past-newt-gingrich-has-embarrassed-the-party-video/#ixzz1kDFvGxJB

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/22/christie-on-gingrichs-past-newt-gingrich-has-embarrassed-the-party-video/#ixzz1kDFf2nFh

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  100. BTW, attacking Bain for costing the taxpayers a seven digit FDIC bailout for how it screwed up a company is not an attack from the left.

    – Bain owned a bank that failed?

    Icy (83a940)

  101. DRJ, I think we all know that Newt isn’t the first Presidential adulturer – that wasn’t my point. My point was this will be the first publicly known adulterers in the WH – with Calista the first mistress we’ve had. Does that make a difference with the party of family values? How much excoriation will they face from a ruthless press about this?

    And remember, it’s not going to be fair. They will be much harsher and unforgiving with the Gingriches than with Clinton.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  102. I hope Colonel gets out of his mom’s basement. The IRS said all 84 ethics charges were bogus.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  103. first publicly known adulterers ..

    …as in a President and First Lady.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  104. it is deeply unethical for any use to be made today of material that should never have existed

    – It’s like that entire season of “Dallas” wherein Victoria Principal had the strangest dream . . .

    Icy (83a940)

  105. Of course, they will, now this is category error at a ‘shirley you can’t be serious’ level;

    http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/south-carolina-gingrich-egypt-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

    narciso (87e966)

  106. “Colonel, the meatbag called Leviticus knows too much.”

    “Ex-term-i-nate! EX-TERM-I-NATE!!!”

    Icy (83a940)

  107. I understood your point, Dana, which is why I linked the 1828 election about Andrew Jackson. I admire you for trying to stand up for family values. That ship has sailed for me.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  108. So he plays well among idiots? Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

    The only people who should vote early are those who are going to be out of their home town and don’t feel like bothering with an absentee ballot

    – So the “idiots” are who? Everyone that voted early? The people that enacted early voting? Floridians in general?

    Icy (83a940)

  109. ==They all have surrogates making attacks, why single one man out?==

    I am not singling one man out. All the over the top intra party attacks are troubling to me. Until recently I lived in a dream that Team R so wanted victory to save the country; that Team R so had Obama by the short hairs after 2010; and that the president had become so deeply unpopular among Independents that what was required was to put forth a few competent and interesting Republican candidates. We would test their mettle through the trials of a rigorous primary season, see whom and what issues most connected with voters as the candidates concentrated their attacks, honed their campaigning skills, and set their sights directly on Obama. Obviously I no longer have that overly simplistic dream.

    Unlike some who comment here I do not have “a candidate” yet and have been open-mindely ABO–may the best man (or woman) win– since the start. None have finalized the sale with me yet. Ideally I would like both Romney and Gingrich to be less flawed and/or to carry less baggage, but they are who they are and both are light years better than Obama. Still, how forthrightly and boldly they each accept and deal with their “issues”, how they grow as candidates and how they comport themselves and connect with voters in the weeks going forward will increasingly tell the tale of who can best remove the Obamas from the White House.

    elissa (28c05d)

  110. Narciso… how should I interpret your silence on the number of delegates?

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  111. We continue with unexamined or completely daft assumptions as fact-foremost among them, ABO.

    Subtending this premise are contingent, supporting assumptions.

    Electability, these guys are not ameliorable.

    Resort, the GOP is effete and inept, we still have natural causes, military coup, third party write-ins.

    Results, one can imagine outcomes, like a weak executive with no Congressional constituency that would be worse.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  112. 65. RON PAUL is for earmarks. Does that make Ron a big spending liberal?
    Comment by Kevin M — 1/22/2012 @ 9:04 am

    – Kevin, are YOU for earmarks?

    Icy (83a940)

  113. No need to exterminate, Icy. Lemmings have a tendency to cull en masse.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  114. “with Calista the first mistress we’ve had”

    But definitely not the first for Newtie.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  115. :mad: You gonna move out of your mom’s basement?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  116. Dana,

    It’s just a guess but I suspect Republican voters will be more forgiving of Newt’s infidelity as long as he presents himself as a populist, just as they forgave Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy. It’s easier to identify with and forgive populists than elites.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  117. I admire you for trying to stand up for family values. That ship has sailed for me.

    I’m not standing up for family values as much as I am questioning the tacit shift in our party away from it. I’m agnostic on it simply because it seems no longer to matter. However, a month ago or so, there was a rather long thread about the character of the candidate being of utmost importance because everything else the candidate did would stem from that. I think it’s fascinating and troubling to see the ship sail.

    There will certainly be a price to pay, one way or another.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  118. I agree, DRJ, Republicans will be forgiving of Newt. His wife is an unknown quantity. I think if she had presented herself on the campaign trail as a more openly warm and embraceable woman, voters would feel in like toward her. However, with the Tiffany/vacation issues as well as her exterior appearance of cold aloofness, I’m wondering ifshe will be extended the same grace.

    As we’ve seen with Michelle Obama, the wife matters. And it was the right that pushed that.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  119. We’re already paying a price, Dana. At this point, I’m not as concerned about our sinking ship of morality as our fiscal well-being.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  120. I also agree Calista isn’t very likeable. Too elite.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  121. DRJ and Dana–the reason the ship has sailed is that society has changed. It is rare to hear a Republican ever say in passing that they are the party of family values (whatever that even means). It is more likely that you will hear the Kos kids claim Republicans pretend to be the party of family values. I have always found the moniker to be troubling. I know many fine, strong, intact Democratic multi- generational families. I know many Republican homes torn apart by infidelity and divorce. It’s become a cynical and meaningless political narrative as far as I am concerned. Family values are in people’s hearts not in a party platform.

    elissa (28c05d)

  122. as well as her exterior appearance of cold aloofness

    So that is what that’s called. And here I’d thought she was some sort of carbon-based, alien life-form that had traveled over space and time who was still trying to master communication with humankind.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  123. And I love how the left insist tax cuts cost money when they do not.

    And I love how the left insist Chris Christie criticizes Obama because he is black when he is criticizing him for his policies which is Rich considering the fact he endorsed Flopney.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  124. I doubt Newt is the first modern Presidential adulterer and he’s certainly not the first in history if you go back to the election of 1828, which has several similarities to this primary. As for family values, that ship sailed for me after the Clinton impeachment. If voters won’t punish a Presidential perjurer who was also a lawyer and officer of the court, I have no faith they will punish an adulterer.

    Comment by DRJ — 1/22/2012 @ 10:23 am

    I understood your point, Dana, which is why I linked the 1828 election about Andrew Jackson. I admire you for trying to stand up for family values. That ship has sailed for me.

    Comment by DRJ — 1/22/2012 @ 10:34 am

    DRJ,

    by “that ship has sailed” for you, do you mean that it doesn’t matter for you as much in this election as it used to, or that you don’t think voters are going to agree even if it does matter to you?

    Not trying to pry, just curious on your thinking. Must say that this election year is the toughest decision, for me, on a primary candidate ever. My favorite candidates either didn’t join the race or kept dropping out. Family values, and character, are very important to me. It seems to me that Romney and Gingrich, for two very different reasons, come up very short on what I want in a presidential candidate. And the fiscal conservatism, also very important, I’m not seeing in either one of them.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  125. Good point, elissa. I do, however, believe that a complicit media wishing to see Obama stay in office will use the family values moniker as a weapon with regard to Newt and Calista. At that point, it won’t matter if it’s a cynical and meaningless political narrative – it will be pushed and sold as reality and will need to be addressed. Of course Newt is more than capable of deflecting the media and/or putting them in their place… it should be interesting.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  126. At this point, I’m not as concerned about our sinking ship of morality as our fiscal well-being.

    Comment by DRJ — 1/22/2012 @ 11:09 am

    Once again my slow typing-n=editing skills are exposed; we crossposted. Is this what you meant?

    no one you know (577ce5)

  127. I admire you for trying to stand up for family values. That ship has sailed for me.
    Comment by DRJ — 1/22/2012 @ 10:34 am

    – William Jefferson Clinton was a known adulterer whom the voters saw fit to elect anyway. Surprisingly, once in office he committed adultery! It has been suggested that this so affected matters that it caused him to take his eye off the ball when he had a chance to take out Osama bin Laden.

    Icy (83a940)

  128. Re Clinton’s escapades: It’s interesting to see how that has shaped the thinking and view of morality and values on the right with regard to our candidates. A man of too much influence.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  129. Kevin, are YOU for earmarks?

    I would like bills to include some spending details, yes. Failing to do that just leaves the power in the hands of the federal bureaucracy which is no less prone to bad ideas. See Solyndra.

    When they aren’t part of the bill and aren’t clear to the public, I’m against. Lack of transparency is the problem, not the direction of funds itself. Congressmen may have very legitimate reasons to set aside funds for particular projects, but insisting that they be part of the bill itself means that they’ll be exposed to the light of day.

    Yes, there may still be the $700K for the kumquat museum, but the Congressman will have to defend it.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  130. Earlier, Brother Bradley referred to Romney’s “brittle” strategy and that resonated with me. It always feels like Romney is walking on eggshells trying to avoid a mistake so everyone will like him, and I think that’s part of the reason he reminds people of a robot. I hope Romney can find a way to overcome this and connect with people because if he’s the nominee, I don’t think he can beat Obama with this brittleness.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  131. s this will be the first publicly known adulterers in the WH

    But think how much the French will like us for it.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  132. “that ship has sailed”

    My experience is that voters who go on about a candidates moral failing, or hypocrisy or similar were never going to vote for them anyway. See Col Haiku.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  133. Yes, Colonel, Mitt won New Hampshire, but he’s tied with Santorum and Newt, between them,

    narciso (87e966)

  134. – William Jefferson Clinton was a known adulterer whom the voters saw fit to elect anyway. Surprisingly, once in office he committed adultery! It has been suggested that this so affected matters that it caused him to take his eye off the ball when he had a chance to take out Osama bin Laden.

    Comment by Icy — 1/22/2012 @ 11:18 am

    Good point, Icy, and one of the reasons (in addition to that alluded to by elissa, Dana and DRJ above–that of the influence, “fair” or not, that a President has on a nation watching him) why I want to be able to support a nominee I’m not going to have to worry about being in danger of blackmailing, multiple distractions etc.

    “The best predictor of someone’s future behavior is their past behavior…This is what used to be known as a reputation.” –Wendy Shalit, A Return to Modesty

    no one you know (577ce5)

  135. I have read with interest this thread, and I recommend a thought experiment. It has two parts:

    1. Imagine you are “anti” the possible nominee, and feeling as strongly about it as Axelrod or some of the uberconservative/ubermiddle of the road types here.

    But also fold in (and this is absolutely relevant):

    2. Consider the absolute hypocrisy of the Left.

    Yes, voters put Clinton in, despite the fact he was an adulterer. The Left is absolutely committeed to “its” candidate, come hell or high water. So hypocrisy…Does. Not. Matter.

    But hypocrisy does matter to the Right.

    So the Left will hammer on this, and the Right will trumpet it. And it will help usher in Obama’s re-election.

    We are being played very well, and (as usual) the best way: using our own blind spots against us.

    Elections can be lost due to the loss of a base, to be sure. But they are won with the undecided/middle of the road.

    Republicans have a bad field right now. I’m hoping that Gingrich grows up (that OWS argumentation was awful), and that Romney shows fire. Or that a third person comes in.

    Four Worse Years loom.

    And I am already seeing, on conservative blogs, the whole “…even if the President is re-elected…” meme emerging.

    Friends. We need to quit fighting each other, and start fighting the administration.

    But I’m squishy, I guess. I just don’t want four more years of Obama and his cronies.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  136. Heh. Or the Italians, KevinM. Are there WH bunga-bunga parties on the horizon?

    Dana (4eca6e)

  137. NOYK, do you know the old Jung quote?

    “You are what you do, not what you say you will do.”

    Sigh.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  138. Gerrymandering is seen by some as racist.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  139. Didn’t know that quote, Simon. I think there’s a lot of truth there. It reminds me of the “that’s really not me” excuse given by people caught in bad behavior.

    Particularly liked the reply (not spoken in so many words, but unmistakably clear) given in the movie Changing Lanes, after Ben Affleck’s character makes a series of selfish decisions one morning and later repeatedly tries to give that same excuse: “that wasn’t me, you know?”

    no one you know (577ce5)

  140. no one you know,

    Candidly, morality doesn’t matter to me in this election because I want to beat Obama and so I really would vote for Anyone But Obama (maybe even Ron Paul!). However, in a normal year, I’m not sure how I would feel. All things being equal, I’d much rather vote for someone with Romney’s family background than Newt’s.

    Elissa is right that society has changed. In addition, I think politics has changed in that candidates who used to espouse family values also used to stand for fiscal and personal responsibility — values that also matter to me. So when I voted for the family values candidate, I was also voting for the bundle of values that went along with that. That isn’t true anymore.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  141. Why do the left insist Tax cuts cost money when they do not?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  142. Carl Jung was a prophet.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  143. oh who can you trust?
    the man who keeps his promise
    or one who does not

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  144. Lack of transparency is the problem, not the direction of funds itself. Congressmen may have very legitimate reasons to set aside funds for particular projects, but insisting that they be part of the bill itself means that they’ll be exposed to the light of day

    – This was McCain’s big push last time around (“you will know the names!”). I would suggest that more often than not these earmarks are NOT made for purposes that the average voter would find legitimate.

    Icy (83a940)

  145. Romney keeping his promises?

    :shock: Jeesh your shilling is taken to new extremes.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  146. DRJ,

    Thanks for the clarification.

    candidates who used to espouse family values also used to stand for fiscal and personal responsibility — values that also matter to me. So when I voted for the family values candidate, I was also voting for the bundle of values that went along with that. That isn’t true anymore.

    Absolutely correct. That’s the main reason, I think, that it used to be easy voting Republican. Not anymore.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  147. DRJ, this has a religious orientation, but it is spot on:

    http://www.amazon.com/Who-You-When-Ones-Looking/dp/0830837493/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327261744&sr=1-1

    Who are we when no one is watching?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  148. Newt rides that painted pony and let’s the spinning wheel fly

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  149. hour come round at last
    Beast slouches toward Tampa
    only to be shorn

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  150. hour come round at last
    Beast slouches toward Tampa
    only to be shorn

    Comment by Colonel Haiku — 1/22/2012 @ 12:03 pm

    LOL
    awesome

    no one you know (577ce5)

  151. If Eleanor had cut him off then in what way were his affairs “improprieties”? He owed her no faithfulness, so why shouldn’t he seek what he needed elsewhere?

    Because he made the committment before God and said, I do?

    If she’s made herself unavailable to him then in what sense is there still a marriage? If your apartment becomes uninhabitable you don’t have to keep paying rent.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  152. Who will the Romney shills attack next?

    JD (318f81)

  153. I predict that Florida will give Romney two reasons to smile: a primary victory and a surprisingly large margin. Florida GOPers are tired of watching as troglydyte S.C. Republicans dictate the nominee of the party, making us irrelevant. S.C. proved it’s still a swamp of ignorance fever.

    DV1252x (045cef)

  154. noyk, what I will grant Gingrich is that I believe him when he says that he’s settled down now. I mean, CRIKEY!, it’s been 20 years since Clinton was elected — and Gingrich is 3 years older than Slick Willy. What does concern me is the psychology of someone that, when the going gets tough, looks for an “out” in another direction.

    Icy (83a940)

  155. To steve,

    I totally understand where you’ve coming from. I don’t hold it against you that you’re predisposed to cut Newt very little slack.

    I could name all kinds of reasons justifying that. Scozzafava, what Beldar recently enlightened me to with Newt’s comparing the Swift Boaters to Michael Moore, what an Ace of Spades commenter, Robtr, showed me about Newt’s comments mere months ago on the individual mandate (a bond based alternative that is still a national mandate), the personal baggage, the undisciplined tongue, the couch scene with Nancy Pelosi. The list could go on for ages.

    I don’t see why anyone would be outspoken in support of Newt, but he remains much more solidly grounded in my kind of conservatism than the alternatives. He has a sufficient stage presence and political skill to pull off a win, and he’s not Romney.

    Anyway, there are plenty of good faith Newt detractors… didn’t want you to think I wasn’t putting you in that category. But I think, in good faith, your bias against Newt has led you to a conclusion about his corruption level which is not justified and I hope you reconsider what your basis is for that particular view.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  156. Typical leftwing mentality.

    What exactly is left-wing about it? It seems to me that if anything is left-wing, it’s insisting that someone keep their side of a contract when the other side is not being kept.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  157. There is some worry that we will be in for a giant money drop into the economy from the Fed this spring and summer, like they do in Mexico just before the election. Someone better make clear to Bernanke and his Board that if they do that they may end up in prison.

    Perry tried that and got lambasted for it.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  158. As the family values party, have we lost something inherently important in that we are considering as our candidate one who clearly lacks in this department?

    We already crossed that bridge with McCain.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  159. They will attack Palin because she deserves it now get off my blog Serbian genocide denier.

    /Charles Johnson

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  160. noyk, what I will grant Gingrich is that I believe him when he says that he’s settled down now. I mean, CRIKEY!, it’s been 20 years since Clinton was elected — and Gingrich is 3 years older than Slick Willy. What does concern me is the psychology of someone that, when the going gets tough, looks for an “out” in another direction.

    Comment by Icy — 1/22/2012 @ 12:09 pm

    I want to believe him. I guess he had a religious conversion and I take him at his word on that. But, as you point out so well, the underlying character issues that drove him to the adultery in the first place are still there, and if were looking for a pressure cooker to bring them back to the surface, there are not much better places, I would think, than the presidency of the US.

    The bottom line is, I want to trust him but I just don’t. And, for for similar reasons, but this time involving more public behavior, I want to trust Romney but I just don’t. It’s a real quandary.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  161. DVX sure is a compelling proponent. Great way to win friends and influence voters.

    JD (318f81)

  162. The scheduled warming of Calista began last night on national TV. She stood close to Newt and was allowed to smile into the cameras, grin, nod her head, and clap hands when he made a point.

    I see a hockey stick graph in her future.

    ropelight (d8d97d)

  163. I understood your point, Dana, which is why I linked the 1828 election about Andrew Jackson.

    You’re assuming that the claim about the timing of Mrs Jackson’s divorce was true, and was generally believed to be true. Both assumptions are dubious. And even if they were true, it was only technically adultery, especially if they both believed in good faith that she was single.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  164. So the “idiots” are who? Everyone that voted early?

    Yes, except those who have a genuine need to do so.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  165. If she’s made herself unavailable to him then in what sense is there still a marriage? If your apartment becomes uninhabitable you don’t have to keep paying rent.

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 12:07 pm

    That’s an interesting standard. Many a time in a marriage a husband or wife will be “unavailable” in a sexual sense, for a shorter period or a longer one. And for a variety of reasons. So…exactly how long should this unavailability be, and for what reasons you’d consider “acceptable”, or not, before it’s OK to get sex from someone other than your wife?

    It is easy to start thinking marriage is simply a contract, like renting an apartment. In a strictly secular, legal sense I suppose it is. But at least in the religious sense, it is a covenant, which means even if the other party is unfaithful to you, you still remain faithful.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  166. If she’s made herself unavailable to him then in what sense is there still a marriage?
    – So, if it’s no longer a marriage then the right thing to do is get a divorce; right?

    If your apartment becomes uninhabitable you don’t have to keep paying rent
    – If the first pot opened contains no Hunny, Pooh keeps checking all of the pots until he finds the good stuff!

    Icy (83a940)

  167. It’s just a guess but I suspect Republican voters will be more forgiving of Newt’s infidelity as long as he presents himself as a populist, just as they forgave Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy.

    What was there to forgive? How exactly was Palin responsible for that in the first place? Any parent of teenagers knows that at the end of the day they have no control over what their children do.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  168. Isn’t she the one that clearedntheir place out, years ago?

    JD (318f81)

  169. 152. Who will the Romney shills attack next?
    Comment by JD — 1/22/2012 @ 12:07 pm

    – Next, we attack all RACISTS!

    Icy (83a940)

  170. #162… funny stuff, ropelight!

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  171. William Jefferson Clinton was a known adulterer whom the voters saw fit to elect anyway.

    He was not known at the time. He denied the Flowers story, and most people believed him.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  172. we half a plethora of piñatas, Señor JD.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  173. S.C. proved it’s still a swamp of ignorance fever.

    Comment by DV1252x

    Just because it didn’t like Mitt? Really?

    Maybe it’s Mitt’s record of hundreds of millions in new tax/free revenues (I linked this in a prior comment in this thread) and record of enormous money holes like Romneycare, or his record on guns?

    Maybe people have good faith reasons to disagree with you?

    I’m getting sick and tired of the hatred folks have for people who just don’t disagree with them. Plenty of people have legit reasons to reject any of the remaining candidates.

    This is what I read about me yesterday on this blog:

    Always remember to never forget, sock, that even though he hails from Texas, his real heritage is Middle Eastern. And if they’re not kept under your boot, they’re at your throat.

    Do you have any idea how much harder it will be for me to support Romney now, if he’s the nominee? I have to join with people who have never respected me, merely because of my nationality.

    I’ve never heard anything like that from an Obama supporter, and I don’t see a huge difference between Obama and Romney on governing competence or ideology. What party loyalty to you expect from people who are being told they belong under the boot of a Romney fanatic because of their heritage?

    So seriously, chill. The SC voters who rejected Romney will still be necessary in November if we wind up nominating Romney. We should all be generous enough to see what Bradley explained above: Newt has some serious problems, Romney has some serious problems. Santorum is not conservative the way I am (by all means, vote for him if you disagree) and Paul is a joke.

    There is no Mr Wonderful Reagan running for anyone to be upset to see rejected. And I think the particular zeal on display for one candidate is a consequence of some serious overreach. Romney isn’t conservative. If you try to prove he is, you’re going to go overboard. Romney is, rather, a very, very moderate Republican who appeals to the classic analysis that centrists are more electable. He’s a tough sell to conservatives… there’s no real way out of that because the record can’t be changed, but that doesn’t mean those making that argument are bad folks… they just really want to get rid of Obama, which is a worthy goal.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  174. I think Mitt and Ann are faker than storefront churches.

    Notice how churches who pimp for Dems get to keep their tax exempt status.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  175. Milhouse, I have to say, I greatly disagree with your view on marriage. Marriage is much, much more important than satisfying our personal needs. It’s the glue that holds society together, and if your spouse is not available in any of many ways, that’s no excuse. Especially if you have kids.

    Newt messed up. I think everyone has messed up in some way in their life, and it was a very long time ago, and I think Newt is the best candidate, but I don’t think complaining about his second wife is a good justification for his mistake.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  176. than some storefront churches.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  177. DV shut your mouth.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  178. Milhouse:

    You’re assuming that the claim about the timing of Mrs Jackson’s divorce was true, and was generally believed to be true. Both assumptions are dubious.

    The White House website acknowledges that there were rumors during Jackson’s political career and confirms that Rachel Jackson was a bigamist:

    Andrew Jackson married her in 1791; and after two happy years they learned to their dismay that Robards had not obtained a divorce, only permission to file for one. Now he brought suit on grounds of adultery. After the divorce was granted, the Jacksons quietly remarried in 1794. They had made an honest mistake, as friends well understood, but whispers of adultery and bigamy followed Rachel as Jackson’s career advanced in both politics and war. He was quick to take offense at, and ready to avenge, any slight to her.

    I believe they were unwitting adulterers and she was an innocent bigamist, but I don’t see how you can call the issue a dubious assumption when even the White House verifies it.

    As for FDR and Eleanor, I’m curious: If Eleanor had been “unavailable” to FDR because of her injury or illness, would that be a sound basis for his infidelity?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  179. Mitt losing to the clown Scozzafava loving Pelosi sitting AGW proponent is proof of Mitt’s electability.

    JD (318f81)

  180. Wow the left are accusing catholic priests of being fag pedophiles.

    And yet we’re anti-gay.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  181. Mitt losing to the clown Scozzafava loving Pelosi sitting AGW proponent is proof of Mitt’s electability.

    Comment by JD

    Of course, I could say the same for Newt losing to the father of Romneycare in both Iowa and New Hampshire, but you’ve got a great point.

    I am not enthusiastic about the Republican party, to say the least. I am much more open to third party options that trade a few years of worse problems in exchange for destroying one of the greatest obstacles to reform.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  182. That’s an interesting standard. Many a time in a marriage a husband or wife will be “unavailable” in a sexual sense, for a shorter period or a longer one. And for a variety of reasons. So…exactly how long should this unavailability be, and for what reasons you’d consider “acceptable”, or not, before it’s OK to get sex from someone other than your wife?

    There was no illness or disability; she simply decided to no longer be a wife to him. He had every reason to suppose that this was permanent. Please explain why that would not release him from any obligation to be faithful to her.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  183. Newt messed up. I think everyone has messed up in some way in their life, and it was a very long time ago, and I think Newt is the best candidate, but I don’t think complaining about his second wife is a good justification for his mistake.

    Um, we were talking about Eleanor Roosevelt, not Marianne Gingrich.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  184. If Eleanor had cut him off then in what way were his affairs “improprieties”? He owed her no faithfulness, so why shouldn’t he seek what he needed elsewhere?

    Because he made the committment before God and said, I do?

    If she’s made herself unavailable to him then in what sense is there still a marriage? If your apartment becomes uninhabitable you don’t have to keep paying rent.

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 12:07 pm

    Milhouse, when I answered, …because he said, I do, notice I said before God. That to me is a living breathing covenant with our maker. It is not the same as renting an apartment that becomes inhabitable. It’s revealing that you find them analogous.

    Either infidelity is justified or it isn’t. Because there are a number of times throughout marriage where sex is not available – pregnancy, post-partum, illness, etc. The pledge of ‘in sickness and in health’ is not a light frivolous vow to make. If Mrs. R was disinclined toward sex with her husband, perhaps it might have been the nobler act by him – in light of his vows – to try to figure out what he could do to remedy her disinclination instead of taking the easier way out.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  185. becomes uninhabitable

    I see I cross-posted with the same point being made…

    Dana (4eca6e)

  186. Ultimately, I think his decision to have sex outside his marriage rather than do the hard work of attempting to fix whatever the problem was, spoke to his weak character…which was also evidenced by not wanting to lose mommy’s allowance, too.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  187. I see that now. Sorry. But regardless, I disagree on principle and it applies to Newt (which I find more relevant, not that you shouldn’t talk about what you’re interested in instead).

    Dustin (7362cd)

  188. my 187 was a reply to Milhouse

    Dustin (7362cd)

  189. Milhouse, when I answered, …because he said, I do, notice I said before God. That to me is a living breathing covenant with our maker. It is not the same as renting an apartment that becomes inhabitable. It’s revealing that you find them analogous.

    First of all, a lease is also made before God. Every contract is. He’s present everywhere, after all.

    Second, what she did amounted to a divorce anyway.

    Third, if you’re getting into religious obligations then you should bear in mind that the Bible forbids married women from sleeping around, but says not a word about married men doing the same. That’s not an accident, it’s because in the Biblical model a woman is married to a man, not the other way around.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  190. This should be interesting.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  191. you should bear in mind that the Bible forbids married women from sleeping around, but says not a word about married men doing the same.

    The ten commandments seems pretty straightforward about coveting thy neighbor’s wife, but not they neighbor’s husband.

    I think the ‘though shall not commit adultery’ bit is helpful, though… if you needed that kind of help.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  192. Thou shall not commit adultery. For starters.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  193. It’s in Exodus 20:12-13.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  194. You might ask yourself, Milhouse, if you really believe your statement, why then did David work very, very hard to hide his sin with Bathsheba? If there were no prohibition from him having sex with another man’s wife, why not just be open about it. I know you know the story, as well as the outcome.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  195. Milhouse will probably distinguish another man’s wife from a woman who isn’t another man’s wife.

    I mean no disrespect to him here, but yeeesh I think he’s mistaken on this one.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  196. But there is support for Milhouse’s position in the Jewish Encyclopedia. It sounds similar to Islamic law, Milhouse. Is this still Jewish law?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  197. It begins in 2 Samuel 11:1 with the sin of adultery, the coverup, the condemnation, and the restoration of King David.

    The condemnation, of which there is a serious amount, speaks loudly and clearly of God’s take on David’s actions,

    7 Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, ‘It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the
    hand of Saul.

    8 ‘I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would
    have added to you many more things like these!

    9 ‘Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife,
    and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.

    10 ‘Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’

    11 “Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your
    companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.

    12 ‘Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.’”

    Dana (4eca6e)

  198. Hebrews 13:4
    Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

    Proverbs 6:32
    He who commits adultery lacks sense; he who does it destroys himself.

    Icy (83a940)

  199. I think the ‘though shall not commit adultery’ bit is helpful, though… if you needed that kind of help.

    And the Biblical definition of ניאוף, which is translated into English as “adultery” is a man sleeping with another man’s wife. The Bible knows of no such concept as a married man. The English term works both ways, and is thus not an exact translation of the Hebrew.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  200. Third, if you’re getting into religious obligations then you should bear in mind that the Bible forbids married women from sleeping around, but says not a word about married men doing the same. That’s not an accident, it’s because in the Biblical model a woman is married to a man, not the other way around.

    This is absolutely absurd on a number of levels.

    The New Testament further confirms,

    Jesus teaches: “You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (vss. 27-28). Jesus is saying essentially that the crime is in not only the act, but the intent is enough to make one guilty of breaking God’s law.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  201. If there were no prohibition from him having sex with another man’s wife

    Um, where did I suggest any such thing? I wrote the exact opposite.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  202. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

    Adultery rips apart the “one flesh” that has been joined together through marriage.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  203. Jesus teaches: “You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (vss. 27-28).

    He clearly means a married woman; if she’s single it’s not adultery but fornication.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  204. Here: the Bible forbids married women from sleeping around, but says not a word about married men doing the same.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  205. Adultery rips apart the “one flesh” that has been joined together through marriage.

    And adultery happens when the wife sleeps with another man. That is Biblical law. If you wish to argue otherwise you will have to cite something in the Bible to that effect.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  206. Milhouse: King David was married. Bathsheba was married, too.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  207. Here: the Bible forbids married women from sleeping around, but says not a word about married men doing the same.

    Exactly. So what is your point about Bathsheba? She was married. Had she been single there would have been no adultery. The fact that David had at least half a dozen wives already made no difference.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  208. Milhouse,

    The assumption is that both parties are subject to the rule of God. Thou shall not commit adultery does not have a pre-qualification of male or female. You are wrong.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  209. Milhouse: King David was married.

    Yes, several times. If a married man sleeping with another woman were adultery, then polygamy would be impossible. And yet in that very story the prophet tells David that if the wives he has are not enough for him God would provide him with twice as many!

    Bathsheba was married, too.

    That is the point.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  210. Shorthand Milhouse: God says, “Get yo freak on, playa!”

    Icy (83a940)

  211. Thou shall not commit adultery does not have a pre-qualification of male or female.

    It’s in the definition.

    You are wrong.

    Sorry, this happens to be a subject on which I have expertise and you do not. As I said, if you think otherwise, cite a Biblical reference to that effect.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  212. Shorthand Milhouse: God says, “Get yo freak on, playa!”

    God doesn’t exactly approve of fornication either, but it’s not adultery. And for all the many times He spoke of married women sleeping around as adultery, He didn’t once mention anything in the other direction. That is a fact. I’m not responsible for that.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  213. IF A MAN IS CAUGHT SLEEPING WITH ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE THEN BOTH MUST DIE BECAUSE YOU MUST PURGE EVIL FROM ISRAEL.

    Duet 22:22

    Dana (4eca6e)

  214. ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE

    Precisely. What point is it that you think you are making?

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  215. Sorry, this happens to be a subject on which I have expertise and you do not.

    Oh. Well. That must settle it then, eh?

    Heh.

    As I said, if you think otherwise, cite a Biblical reference to that effect.

    Milhouse, I have cited a number of scriptures and you choose to dance around them, which is certainly your prerogative. Clearly you are only interesting in being ‘right’, which is also your prerogative, however one that I am not interested in.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  216. But a man who commits adultery lacks judgement, whoever does so destroys himself. Prov. 6:32

    Husbands can and do commit adultery in the eyes of God.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  217. Oh good Allah. The idea that men cannot commit adultery in the eyes of the Lord is abject silliness.

    JD (318f81)

  218. Milhouse,

    I assume the Biblical law of adultery you refer to is the notion in ancient times that adultery was wrong for a married woman because it violated her husband’s property rights, but it would not be wrong for a man since a wife had no such rights. In addition, in some cultures men could take multiple wives. But what is the Jewish law in modern times, such as when FDR and Eleanor were married?

    Having said that, FDR and Eleanor were life-long Episcopalians and their marriage was registered in the Episcopal parish register. Thus, they surely felt their marriage was subject to Episcopalian rules that view adultery as equally wrong for women and men. (Episcopalians are notoriously lax on rules but they are rigorous about applying that laxity equally to men and women.) So I submit that whatever Jewish law provides about adultery, FDR and Eleanor didn’t subscribe to it.

    Had Bill Clinton known about this, however, I suspect he would have already converted.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  219. if your wife is crazy and mean like Newt’s second one it’s ok to sleep with someone else even if they’re a tacky adulterous bimbo like Callista or at least I’m not gonna judge you for it and I doubt God will get too excited either – he’s very big picture

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  220. Milhouse, I have cited a number of scriptures and you choose to dance around them,

    No, you have not cited a single one. Every single cite you gave supports my position, not yours.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  221. Neut 1:69 And the Lord said a man that layeth with a woman who is not cloven unto him shall fall into a deep sleep and then feel much shame.

    Neuterotonme (b486eb)

  222. But a man who commits adultery lacks judgement, whoever does so destroys himself. Prov. 6:32

    Husbands can and do commit adultery in the eyes of God.

    Deal.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  223. Obama is making Bush’s economny WORSE.

    He is not cleaning it up useful idiots.

    Obama doesn’t care about you liberals.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  224. “I doubt God will get too excited either – he’s very big picture”

    Yeah, just forget that Ten Commandments jazz. Those aren’t meant to be God’s Law, they’re more like God’s informal guidelines and suggestions.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  225. Had Bill Clinton known about this, however, I suspect he would have already converted.

    Comment by DRJ

    :D

    Dustin (7362cd)

  226. I think God’s waiting to see if Newt repeals obamacare then all is forgiven – he’s super big on the forgiveness thing too, God is

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  227. if your wife is crazy and mean like Newt’s second one it’s ok to sleep with someone else even if they’re a tacky adulterous bimbo like Callista or at least I’m not gonna judge you for it and I doubt God will get too excited either – he’s very big picture

    Comment by happyfeet

    Disagree. It’s the crazy and tacky times that are the primary times the vow matters.

    The parts of the vow where you pledge to remain married in times of health, richness, happiness… that’s not really productive. You’re going to naturally want what’s making you happy.

    It’s the poorness, the sickness, the sadness where the vow means something in your decision process.

    It was ages ago and I don’t see this as the most important issue in the primary, but angry exes of cheating husbands have justification. Of course, as that instapundit comment (I assume we all read) said, what did she expect? That’s how she and Newt got together when he was married to wife #1.

    It is very unfortunate that Newt is the most conservative candidate who can win, or that unifying behind him is so important because Romney needs to lose.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  228. :grin: Does crappyfeet have manboobies?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  229. One of the things I most admire about Newty is his never ending quest for spiritual truth.

    He starts out as a Lutheran, then he finds out they have rules against adultery and lying. So he switches over to the Baptists…and finds out they have the same rules! Then he hears about a sect that also has those rules, but has a history of selling indulgences and whatnot…so, now he’s a Roman Catholic. Break a commandment? No problemo. Just say a couple of Hail Mary’s and off you go about your business.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  230. The idea that men cannot commit adultery in the eyes of the Lord is abject silliness.

    Of course it is. Who has suggested otherwise?

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  231. he’s super big on the forgiveness thing too, God is

    Comment by happyfeet —

    That is important. Newt has admitted his mistake and I think that he deserves to be allowed to be a better man now.

    I also think I’ll cut him a lot of slack if he repeals Obamacare, which Romney won’t (and if someone out there thinks he will, that is absolutely hilarious).

    Dustin (7362cd)

  232. What Milhouse is trying to say is that adultery happens if the woman in the adultery is married. If the woman in the adultery is married, the man and the woman have committed adultery.

    I disagree strongly with this view, but it seems that his interpretation of many of these verses is at least logically consistent. It definitely seems wrong, no matter if God was quoted saying it, because it assumes women are property.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  233. But a man who commits adultery lacks judgement, whoever does so destroys himself. Prov. 6:32

    Husbands can and do commit adultery in the eyes of God.

    Where do you see anything about husbands? Your own quote says “a man”, not “a husband”. Whether he is in fact a husband is irrelevant.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  234. “The idea that men cannot commit adultery in the eyes of the Lord is abject silliness.”

    It’s possible. You just have to bide your time until the Lord is looking the other way.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  235. An interesting look at Newt’s affair* with the media and theirs with him.

    Let’s face it, Gingrich loves the “destructive, vicious, negative” news media. He knows how to play the game. And the press loves him for it.

    * at least this affair won’t get him in trouble…

    Dana (4eca6e)

  236. Dana, that is quite a perspective on Newt. It seems pretty true, too. It speaks to his artificiality, but it also speaks to his ability to handle the tough road ahead.

    But it would be stupid for any Republican to think they are the media’s pal as soon as the primary has ended. Just ask Mccain.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  237. By definition, you have to be married in order to commit adultery, Milhouse, therefore it stands to reason that if God is making the statement But a man who commits adultery…, the man is married, hence a husband.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  238. Neut 2:92 And the Lord said if a man taketh a shekel and trolleth through a park of many tents and he is not a fisher of men, but of women, he shall be cast upon a steaming heap.

    Neut 2:98 And the Lord gave an admonition that if a man useth Astroturf to lineth the bed of his El Camino, he shall also be cast out, for that too is an abomination unto the eyes of the Lord.

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    Neuterotonme (b486eb)

  239. “if your wife is crazy and mean like Newt’s second one it’s ok to sleep with someone else”

    Well, duh:

    Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless

    a.) Thy wife is mean or,

    b.) Thy wife is crazy.

    It’s right there in the Bible. The King Newt version.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  240. Dustin,

    I had conflicting responses to the article. On one hand, we need a candidate who knows how to play the game with the media – and how to win. Newt is deft and able to do that. However, like most of us, he is his own worst enemy: He is impulsive, impetuous and has little discipline over his emotions. I can see that being very problematic as he assumes he can always beat them at their own game. His arrogance will doubtlessly work against him.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  241. I found this when looking for more information on the subject.

    Sexual intercourse of a married woman with any man other than her husband. The crime can be committed only by and with a married woman; for the unlawful intercourse of a married man with an unmarried woman is not technically Adultery in the Jewish law. [...] it was not until comparatively recent times that the woman was legally entitled to enforce her husband’s faithfulness, and was given the right to demand a bill of divorce for his sexual immorality

    So it does seem Milhouse’s view is not baseless.

    she was there obliged to undergo the severe “ordeal of the bitter waters.” A full account of the details of this ordeal is given in Num. v. 11-31; these details may also be found amplified in the Mishnah. The suspected woman was taken to the local court by her husband and there his charge was made. The court assigned two doctors of the law to escort the parties to the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. The purpose of the hearing before the Sanhedrin was to evoke a confession. The Sanhedrin appealed to the woman and suggested various causes that might have induced her to go astray, and finally asked her to confess. If she admitted her crime, she was divorced from her husband at once and lost her property rights under her Ketubah. But if she denied it, she was taken to the East Gate of the Temple, in front of the Nicanor Gate, and there was placed in charge of a priest, who performed the ceremony mentioned in the Book of Numbers. He rent her garment so that her breast was exposed, and loosened her hair; she was draped in black; all ornaments were removed from her person, and a rope was tied around her chest. Thus publicly exposed (only her servants being prevented from seeing her), the jealousy-offering was placed in her hands. It was a humble offering of barley meal, without oil or incense upon it, the feed of beasts, typifying the meanness of the crime that she was supposed to have committed. The priest then placed some of the dust of the Tabernacle in an earthen vessel full of water, and charged her with the solemn oath of purgation (Num. v. 19-22). After this the priest wrote the oath on parchment, blotted it out with the water, which he caused her to drink, and the jealousy-offering was then offered upon the altar (Soṭah, i. 4-6; ii. 1-3).

    But these were times when people were stupid.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  242. His arrogance will doubtlessly work against him.

    Yes Dana. I think you’re 100% right in your mixed reaction to the story.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  243. The only thing that interest me at this point is:

    Given the Congress as it is likely to be,

    given the economic situations as it is likely to be,

    what, based on what they propose, is a candidate likely to produce.

    Who is certain to go to bed Jan. 21st having rescinded or reversed every BHO EO, and a couple BJC’s?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  244. Gays can be pedophiles leftys.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  245. Had Bill Clinton known about this, however, I suspect he would have already converted.

    The difference between fornication and adultery is like the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. Misdemeanors are still crimes. The difference only becomes relevant when it comes to the penalty.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  246. Bill Clinton is an idiot.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  247. The democraps are pure malevolency starting with Carter.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  248. How does Mark 10: 11-12 (KJV) fit in with the adultery-is-only-for-wives argument?

    11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

    12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  249. “put away” is the biblical equivalent of putting one in the brain and leaving ‘em down on Lower Wacker.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  250. Dana,

    Great link. In today’s world, I consider the media to be the Republicans’ opponent just as much as Democrats are, and I think one of the best lessons Ronald Reagan taught (after “Trust, but Verify”) is that you don’t need to act like you hate your opponents to beat them. Oppose them, criticize them, but never hate them … and so far Newt seems to be at staying just inside that line.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  251. Milhouse,

    I don’t know about other religions but I think Protestants believe it’s up to God to judge sinners and the seriousness of their sins. In other words, I don’t think we can say whether a sin is a misdemeanor or a felony.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  252. By definition, you have to be married in order to commit adultery, Milhouse,

    Nonsense. A single man who sleeps with a married woman commits adultery. As the term is used in English, that works the other way around too; a single woman who sleeps with a married man is also committing adultery. But the Bible doesn’t use the word “adultery”, it uses ניאוף. And that word is defined in Leviticus 20:10 “A man who shall commit adultery with a married woman; who commits adultery with the wife of his fellow”.

    Milhouse (d7842d)

  253. That was great, narciso. Thanks.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  254. Newt Wins SC!

    I can live with that.
    People appreciate a “scrapper”.

    AD-RtR/OS! (7ef190)

  255. There was no illness or disability; she simply decided to no longer be a wife to him. He had every reason to suppose that this was permanent. Please explain why that would not release him from any obligation to be faithful to her.

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 12:47 pm

    Sorry for my, um, unavailability the last few hrs. Dana answered your challenge for me quite nicely at 12:48, 1:18 and 1:30, and I have absolutely nothing to add to what she said.

    He clearly means a married woman; if she’s single it’s not adultery but fornication.

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 1:33 pm

    All due respect, you are choosing to dance around, as others correctly noted, around clear Biblical evidence that Jesus Himself forbade male adultery. There is absolutely nothing in this verse that indicates Jesus (or Proverbs, or Paul in the other verse discussed above) was excluding Himself to talking about married women vs married. Or only about unmarried men vs married, for that matter. “I’m an expert and you’re not” is not sufficient to explain this Scriptural evidence away.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  256. Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary has this definition of adultery:

    Adultery definition

    conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  257. Should have added, to Milhouse:

    the very fact that centuries of universal Christian and Jewish law and practice forbid a married man from going outside his vows, even with an unmarried woman, should have alerted you to the fact that perhaps there is more to the Scripture than you are proposing.

    Or are you claiming that you understand the Scriptures better than all these people, Christians and Jews, who have come before us?

    no one you know (577ce5)

  258. There is absolutely nothing in this verse that indicates Jesus (or Proverbs, or Paul in the other verse discussed above) was excluding Himself to talking about married women vs married.

    Adultery by definition must distinguish between married and unmarried! If two single people have sex, nobody would call it adultery.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  259. Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary has this definition of adultery:

    Adultery definition

    conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication.

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 4:58 pm

    OK. So was that definition accepted by Christians, or by Jews?

    no one you know (577ce5)

  260. Adultery by definition must distinguish between married and unmarried! If two single people have sex, nobody would call it adultery.

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 5:00 pm

    Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.

    Where in the verse itself does Jesus (or Proverbs, or Paul) is there a caveat that says, Oh, only if the man is unmarried and the woman is married, not the other way around.

    And my original question stands:

    Why does the majority of the Christian and Jewish world agree that the Scriptural evidence considers married men “knowing” unmarried women, adultery?

    no one you know (577ce5)

  261. the very fact that centuries of universal Christian and Jewish law and practice forbid a married man from going outside his vows, even with an unmarried woman

    No more than they do an unmarried man.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  262. No more than they do an unmarried man.

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 5:06 pm

    Heh. Now you are dancing around again. A married man having sex with an unmarried woman is considered “adultery” by the vast majority of the Christian and Jewish world. Why is that?

    no one you know (577ce5)

  263. Whether FDR was an adulterer or not, he was still a fascist who is responsible for much of what is wrong with America today. But it is not true that he “blew off” information that could have prevented Pearl Harbor. And to his eternal credit he saved the world from Hitler and Tojo, when a President Lindbergh (the Ron Paul of his day) would never have interfered with the Japanese occupation of China, and therefore the Japanese would have had no need to attack the USA, and the USA would have stayed out of the war and let the rest of the world go to hell, at least until there were German tanks massed on the Mexican and Canadian borders.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  264. The guy sure is focused when he’s talking about extramarital tomfoolery.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  265. Heh. Now you are dancing around again. A married man having sex with an unmarried woman is considered “adultery” by the vast majority of the Christian and Jewish world. Why is that?

    Because the English word means that. But the Ten Commandments were not written in English, and they were not written by Christians.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  266. OK. So was that definition accepted by Christians, or by Jews?

    That was the definition of the word. And when it was written there were no Christians.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  267. Where in the verse itself does Jesus (or Proverbs, or Paul) is there a caveat that says, Oh, only if the man is unmarried and the woman is married, not the other way around.

    On the contrary, you will find many places where the woman’s married state is specified; you will not find a single place where it is specified whether the man is married. Thus the onus is on you to cite something showing that it doesn’t matter which one is married.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  268. Because the English word means that. But the Ten Commandments were not written in English, and they were not written by Christians.

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 5:12 pm

    Ah. So you do understand the Bible better than current Jewish scholars, and better than all the Christian scholars who spoke (and speak) Hebrew, and Aramaic, and Greek, up till now.

    Dana at 1:57 said it very well.

    Thank you for the clarification.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  269. Can someone explain Mark 10: 11-12 (quoted above) to me?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  270. DRJ @ 247, referencing Mark 10:11-12,

    I suspect that the Book of Mark doesn’t hold water with Milhouse, if he’s using the ancient Jewish definitions of these concepts.

    It’s the difference between Jewish legalism and New Testament Christianity – the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.

    We’re splitting hairs over the difference between “adultery” and “fornication” when this whole argument could be resolved by a good faith acknowledgement from Milhouse that one is just as serious as the other in the eyes of God and a good faith acknowledgement from all of us that in Old Testament terms Milhouse is technically probably right, for whatever a victory by technicality is worth.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  271. The point is ‘thou shalt not’ what goes afterwards matters little.

    narciso (87e966)

  272. Leviticus,

    I acknowledged his statement of ancient law here and here but even with the adultery-fornication distinction, it doesn’t sound like Jesus recognized that distinction in Mark 10:11-12. His parallel between the rule that governs wives and the rule that governs husbands was too similar.

    More important, the email you sent Patterico didn’t have any attachment (or if it did, he didn’t forward it to me). I emailed Patterico but he hasn’t responded. Can you send it to him again, or do you want me to ask Patterico to give me your email address so I can write you?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  273. Go ahead and ask him to give you my email address, DRJ – that way we won’t have to keep demanding his attention in a busy time. Sorry about that – it looked like it had attached.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  274. Can someone explain Mark 10: 11-12 (quoted above) to me?

    Comment by DRJ — 1/22/2012 @ 5:23 pm

    Well, obviously Jesus didn’t know Hebrew.

    (Sockpuppet Friday snark habit rears its ugly head)

    no one you know (577ce5)

  275. re: the debate at hand, I was questioning whether or not Milhouse would acknowledge the validity of Jesus’ definitions.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  276. It’s the difference between Jewish legalism and New Testament Christianity – the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.

    Yeah, not to be judgmental of other faiths, but this is how I view much of the gospels. Jesus was confronting a system that was lost in following rules instead of applying the real concepts.

    There’s a reason it’s wrong for a married woman to commit adultery. And if we understand that, we realize it’s equally wrong for a married man to commit adultery. The fact is that women have been treated as second class as our values developed, which probably explains most of why these rules worked in ways that don’t sit right with most of us today.

    And I think Milhouse is technically right, meaning no harm by it, but I think it’s not wisdom we should apply today.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  277. Yeah. What Dustin said.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  278. re: the debate at hand, I was questioning whether or not Milhouse would acknowledge the validity of Jesus’ definitions.

    Comment by Leviticus — 1/22/2012 @ 5:37 pm

    Oh, sorry, Leviticus (and Dustin). I was basically answering DRJ.

    Milhouse did speak about this as a currently applicable stricture, though, at 1:04 above, just by the way. And (am not Jewish but I believe) Jews currently consider married men sleeping with unmarried women, adultery. Is that right?

    no one you know (577ce5)

  279. Will do, Leviticus.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  280. On a side note: This has been a very good discussion for me. I have no interest in being ‘right‘, nor need to be, nor would presume to be an expert. What I do have is overwhelming interest in logical and honest argument/debate.

    As a mere sinner saved by Grace, I have been repeatedly reminded during this thread that it is prudent and healthy to remain teachable in life. Without that, awe and wonder and curiosity about this life, fade away.

    Micah 6:8 gives me the simple breakdown,

    He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  281. Also, I think Milhouse raised this as a response to Dana’s point that marital vows are an agreement between husbands and God, as well as husbands and wives (and vice versa). Regardless of what Jewish teachings provide, I didn’t see how FDR and Newt could believe ancient Jewish law applied so they were only guilty of fornication, not adultery. I still don’t see that.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  282. By the way, is this what Jewish teachings still provide? It’s not clear to me.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  283. Milhouse did speak about this as a currently applicable stricture, though,

    Yeah, I think he is mistaken to do so.

    Jews currently consider married men sleeping with unmarried women, adultery. Is that right?

    I looked it up on “Jewish Encyclopedia” (who knows if that’s credible) and it seems that no, at least some Jews think the word Adultery means what Milhouse has explained, though they simply called what you’re talking about a married man’s “Sexual immorality”. so it’s not OK, but the word adultery doesn’t apply.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  284. I looked it up on “Jewish Encyclopedia” (who knows if that’s credible) and it seems that no, at least some Jews think the word Adultery means what Milhouse has explained, though they simply called what you’re talking about a married man’s “Sexual immorality”. so it’s not OK, but the word adultery doesn’t apply.

    Comment by Dustin — 1/22/2012 @ 5:49 pm

    Thanks, Dustin. I guess DRJ’s question, then, is the same one I have, whether Newt’s understanding of whether he was committing adultery would have jibed with that Jewish understanding you linked.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  285. 281. Even psychological infidelity is adulterous.

    But the central idea behind the Biblical idea of evil is the foolishness of living as tho there is no god.

    I think its Proverbs that says “The fool, in his heart, says there is no God”.

    Evil is the damage one does to one’s potentially eternal self, let alone to God’s creatures and creation.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  286. I am convinced God in eternity can give the aborted child all that Life in Him affords.

    The damage done most lastingly tragic is that done to the ‘mother’, and often, done to herself.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  287. Ah. So you do understand the Bible better than current Jewish scholars, and better than all the Christian scholars who spoke (and speak) Hebrew, and Aramaic, and Greek, up till now.

    There are no Jewish or Christian scholars who disagree with what I have written here.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  288. The Mosaic Covenant was given that Israel manifest God among the nations as a Nation of Priests(Exodus 19).

    Certainly observant Jews are as righteous as mankind gets but the Covenant as a path to salvation never was intended a path to salvation, and even in the appropriate sense, the Prophets deem a failure.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  289. And (am not Jewish but I believe) Jews currently consider married men sleeping with unmarried women, adultery. Is that right?

    No, that is not right. And no, it still isn’t right for men to cheat on their wives, even if it isn’t adultery. The wives still feel hurt. And it’s fornication, which while not explicitly forbidden by the Bible is generally understood not to be the sort of behaviour decent people engage in.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  290. Remember, I gave three reasons why FDR’s affairs should not be considered adultery. I don’t know why we spent so long debating only #3. The first two are far more interesting, but nobody seemed much interested in discussing them. It seems to me that Eleanor effectively divorced FDR, or at least forfeited her right to the consideration a wife expects from her husband.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  291. Let marriage be held in honor by all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Heb. 13:4

    Dana (4eca6e)

  292. Wow. You don’t think “fornication” falls under the sort of sexual immorality repeatedly forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments?

    Why? That strikes me as a remarkably flippant characterization of fornication.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  293. See 291, Leviticus.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  294. There are no Jewish or Christian scholars who disagree with what I have written here.

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 6:03 pm

    Well, was about to thank you for giving me the Jewish view but from what Leviticus aaid at 6:16 am not sure what that is now. And…still not sure why Christians define adultery the way they do, then, but…

    No, that is not right. And no, it still isn’t right for men to cheat on their wives, even if it isn’t adultery. The wives still feel hurt. And it’s fornication, which while not explicitly forbidden by the Bible is generally understood not to be the sort of behaviour decent people engage in.

    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 6:09 pm

    I agree with Dana and Leviticus about the Biblical view of fornication, but at least we are agreed that Newt was not a decent person when he did what he did.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  295. What do you mean, Dana?

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  296. “It seems to me that Eleanor effectively divorced FDR, or at least forfeited her right to the consideration a wife expects from her husband.”

    - Milhouse

    So you’re saying that sex is the only thing that binds a husband and a wife together?

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  297. Not, say, A PROMISE BEFORE GOD?

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  298. Leviticus, I jumped in with the scripture that shows God does indeed view adultery and fornication as forbidden sexual sin. . . it was in response to Milhouse’s it’s fornication, which while not explicitly forbidden by the Bible is generally understood not to be the sort of behaviour decent people engage in.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  299. We’re splitting hairs over the difference between “adultery” and “fornication” when this whole argument could be resolved by a good faith acknowledgement from Milhouse that one is just as serious as the other in the eyes of God and a good faith acknowledgement from all of us that in Old Testament terms Milhouse is technically probably right, for whatever a victory by technicality is worth.
    Comment by Leviticus — 1/22/2012 @ 5:29 pm

    I think I’ve found your problem. You don’t seem to realize that Milhouse is expert in all conversational topics and should be the undisputed authority on everything under the sun. His contempt for others here is only what we deserve, being ignorant rubes and such. If we would just bow down before our better (no plural intended), there would be no need for conflict here. I’m waiting for the url to his blog so I can delete everything else in my favorites. ;)

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  300. There are no Jewish or Christian scholars who disagree with what I have written here.

    Oh, I missed this. Heh.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  301. There are no Jewish or Christian scholars who disagree with what I have written here.
    Comment by Milhouse — 1/22/2012 @ 6:03 pm

    If they disagree, they’re not scholars. Simple logic.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  302. _____________________________________________

    It seems to me that Eleanor effectively divorced FDR

    FWIW, she apparently had an intimate relationship with another woman, who was addressed in oddly and overly affectionate terms in letters Eleanor wrote to her. I recall a passage in a book written by the guy who was the White House’s chief usher in the 1940s describing Eleanor’s companion as being a rather masculine female. So FDR’s wife probably was an earlier version of Hillary.

    Folks like that are the reason I’m not being totally sarcastic when I say that if society is expected to accommodate same-sex couples, then it should also accommodate multi-sex trios, or one husband, two wives, or one wife, two husbands. Or the “B” in “GLBT.”

    Mark (411533)

  303. Well Scalia did point this out, in his dissent in Lawrence more than a dozen years ago,

    narciso (87e966)

  304. Ah – I see what you were saying, Dana. I thought that was a very good point.

    Beyond that…

    STASHIU3!

    Good to see you, sir.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  305. Comment by Leviticus — 1/22/2012 @ 6:59 pm

    Likewise, my friend. Glad to hear law school is going well. I would also be interested in your thesis if you would be willing to share it. I can forward to DRJ as well. stashiu3 at gmail dot com.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  306. :roll: All hail the omnipotent Milhouse.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  307. PPP have the antagonists dead even in FL tonight:

    https://twitter.com/#!/ppppolls/status/161267070040936449

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  308. Byron York:

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/why-gingrich-won-why-romney-lost/328266

    “I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy.”

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  309. I seem to remember, in 2008, a lot of democrats were really irritated that they were nominating Obama over Hillary, since Hillary was obviously able to win and Obama obviously wasn’t.

    It was, in fact, one of Hillary’s main themes. Obama is too inexperienced, and that among other factors means democrats who support him shouldn’t vote for him because Obama obviously can’t win.

    The more that needs to be said, the less true it seems to be. Electability takes care of itself, after all. There was a reason Obama caught on, and it doesn’t make any sense on paper, but Hillary didn’t have it and Obama did.

    Should whatever ‘it’ is matter? I don’t think so. But it does matter.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  310. Dyer at HotAir:

    “The voters who put Gingrich over the top yesterday believe that we can’t keep going down the same political path in the United States .. Their perception is that the GOP leadership is invested in the current path of government: that it doesn’t want change; it is not committed to restoring liberty and limited government, but instead is comfortable with the growth of regulatory intrusiveness, and seeks merely to broker pragmatic accommodations to leftist activism as a sort of rear-guard action.”

    Wish I could write like that.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  311. From the Byron York article about SC linked above.

    Gingrich’s campaign was also faster and more nimble than the Romney battleship. “There is a very strong contrast between the two campaign organizations,” said Gingrich adviser (and former George W. Bush administration official) Kevin Kellems. “In military terms, it’s speed versus mass. Newt Gingrich’s operation, and Newt Gingrich as a man, has a great deal of speed — intellectual speed, decisiveness. The Romney campaign is much more about money and size, having hired half of Washington D.C. And sometimes, speed beats mass.”

    elissa (28c05d)

  312. “…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    AD-RtR/OS! (7ef190)

  313. 313. “…but no religious Test shall ever be required [by law] as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    A layman’s gloss.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  314. “Ma, ma, where’s my pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!”

    AD-RtR/OS! (7ef190)

  315. Comment by elissa — 1/22/2012 @ 7:38 pm

    Newt’s fleet of destroyers and quick cruisers struck at will against the pondering dreadnaught which had set its’ course and never deviated until the battle was lost.

    AD-RtR/OS! (7ef190)

  316. “You don’t seem to realize that Milhouse is expert in all conversational topics and should be the undisputed authority on everything under the sun.”

    Stashiu3 – It is the gift of universal knowledge. I have a sibling who is also afflicted with the gift.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  317. Hilarious

    AD, I’m not sure if you’re talking about the recent in the weeds discussion about adultery, or the claim SC voters were motivated by a problem with Mormons, but I think they are actually related topics in a sense.

    Sure, the constitutional bar on religious tests doesn’t apply to voters being unfairly bigoted. Sure, there is a definition of adultery that applies a rather universal concept in only one direction for no good reason.

    But we know why that constitutional bar is there, and the spirit of it is that we want a free society where any of us can worship however we please without being treated as second class.

    I’ve wondered a lot about how the press will handle Mormonism if Romney is nominated, but we shouldn’t fear that or let it control us. If the press or democrats want to try it, I have faith that America will push back pretty strongly.

    And, frankly, they are going to savage any of these guys. Santorum, Newt… plenty they will find to savage.

    No major faith can claim a perfect history, and I just don’t see why any of these candidates’s faiths, save arguably Santorum’s (because of how he lays out some of his arguments) is relevant.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  318. Oh dear. Thanksgiving dinners in your family must be a real joy, daley.

    elissa (28c05d)

  319. I just don’t see why any of these candidates’s faiths, save arguably Santorum’s (because of how he lays out some of his arguments) is relevant.

    I think this sort of thinking (believing something that isn’t relevant to the issues/campaign would not be used) reveals we still believe and/or hope for some sort of fairness from the press. Ultimately, it’s not whether a candidate’s religious issues are relevant or not, it’s whether or not they can be used against them to benefit Obama, and how much so.

    Santorum’s religion will be used against and him, and I wouldn’t be surprised if his hideous sweater vests were too. Some operative, journo, pol just has to find the angle to use. And they will.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  320. Romney taking at aim at Gingrich’s character?

    This is rich coming from a religion that has offshoots that support polygamy for all eternity.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  321. elissa – I’m out here, they are all libs and out there in Milhouse’s neck of the woods.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  322. I think this sort of thinking (believing something that isn’t relevant to the issues/campaign would not be used) reveals we still believe and/or hope for some sort of fairness from the press.

    Well, I think your pessimism is justified. It’ll come up.

    But how do we pick a candidate who won’t be hit very hard with something akin to this?

    So I’m hoping it’s close enough to a wash that we can avoid it.

    But it would be interesting if we had a debate forum where a questioner presented each of these candidates with the nastiest predicted crap, and the candidate tried to answer it without resorting to the righteous ‘this is a despicable question’ answer Newt so wonderfully offered to King.

    If we know they are going to be hit with this, then of course it’s better if they show they are ready for that.

    But it’s hard to do that without feeding into what’s wrong, or at minimum, outraging somebody.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  323. Dana, Leviticus et al.

    The Bible does recognize a difference between fornication and adultery. That’s why the Biblical punishment for adultery (for both the male and female participants) is death, and for fornication 40 (in practice, 39) lashes.

    The difference lies in the fact that the culture of that era was patriarchal in a way that rabid feminists are actually correct to complain of–and the Bible’s mandates are actually an advance in the rights of women compared to those of other ancient societies. But it took a special intervention by God to allow daughters to inherit their father’s property, and that was only if there were no sons, and only if the daughters married within the tribe so the inheritance stayed within the tribe. (See Numbers and the incident of the daughters of Zelophohad or however his name is spelled–I’m too tired tonight to look up the correct spelling).

    And I thought it was it clear that I’m the only universal expert here–no others are allowed to claim the title of universal knowledge in my lofty presence :)

    JBS (437df2)

  324. Oh waaaaaaaaah how dare Santorum’s preacher dude criticize Mormons I guess that makes Santorum enemy numero uno on the Romneyturds list.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  325. Let’s blame gorebull warming for snow and Romney losing to Gingrich

    /Leftys

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  326. So, Mitt plays the ethics card. Isn’t this the guy who just last week was saying we don’t need to use the liberal’s arguments and now he is going on about trumped-up Democrat ethics charges as if they had real meaning. And then lying about why Newt stepped down as speaker (which was because the 1998 election went poorly after Clinton went all October Surprise in Kosovo, not because of old-by-then ethics charges).

    Kevin M (563f77)

  327. The winner of this nomination has to be able to unite the party. Mitt’s negative ads against everyone are going to make that impossible for him, with people only voting against Obama and never FOR Mitt. Not the way to win. Mitt is looking like a really desperate guy right now.

    All Newt has to do is weather this and win Florida and Mitt has nothing left. Newt can still unify folks. Even Paul’s if he meant what he said about Ron Paul’s monetary policy.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  328. And following on the K note-

    taking the high road:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71802.html

    Talk about tin ear.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  329. Mitty looks confused, probably because he can’t remember which side of the issue he’s on this week.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  330. A snap of Mitty in disarray:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

    Hair’s gonna look that way in the casket you know.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  331. The hair looks like plastic.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  332. And I thought it was it clear that I’m the only universal expert here–no others are allowed to claim the title of universal knowledge in my lofty presence

    – Yeah, well, Spartacvs has been banned, so . . .

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    Icy (e68f57)

  333. Bleak:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/22/curl-the-truly-dismal-state-of-the-union/?page=all#pagebreak

    Things will be worse by April 15. Don’t think this helps Romany.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  334. Another FL poll yesterday:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/22/curl-the-truly-dismal-state-of-the-union/?page=all#pagebreak

    Mr. We Can Fix SS lagging with the youth–31% to 0!

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  335. Dismal-just like mitty.
    Conservatives must win this fight against the republican collectivists.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  336. The Cap’n on Romany’s tax rate:

    ” Just as with the Bain debate, the willingness of Republicans to engage in these class-warfare attacks has been pretty disheartening, to say the least.”

    Well if you’d pledge to cut a $TRILLION$ in spending year PostOne, I bet you’d catch a break.

    But NOoooo, let’s chase a million votes and lose ten.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  337. 336. Think MA thinks he earned “MittWit”?

    Healtcare premiums up 15% as insurers close their doors. Isn’t capitalism all about competition?

    You sort of need competitors.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  338. You can’t print what I have been calling him for 8-years.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  339. I’m sure narciso has included this somewhere but it let’s listen again:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/22/newt-gingrich-tells-david-gregory-nobody-elite-media-wants-cover-obam

    Ria commenting at Gateway:

    “I am for Newt because Obama can’t go after him on moral or ethical grounds. With Obama past history (cocaine use, Tony Rezko, college transcripts, ect) that would be playing right up Newts road.”

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  340. As Rush would say- Right On, Right On, Right On.
    And Down goes Romney!!!

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  341. T-Paw to lead antiNewt charge, he of ObamaneyCare:

    https://twitter.com/#!/BuzzFeedBen/status/161258217756819456

    ‘Cause Michele did such a good job being for Neut before she was against.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  342. Let’s review what we’ve learned today:
    – Newt did not commit adultery; he fornicated.
    – Fornication is not as bad as adultery, as there is no commandment against it.
    – “You shall not commit adultery” in the original Hebrew translates as “God made man to sow his seed where he may; He made woman to limit the crop to one farmer.”
    – Remember, ladies, if you close your legs you open your marriage!
    – It’s never wise to argue with an expert, especially one that cannot grasp the concept of the Trinity.

    Icy (e68f57)

  343. Oh Canada, et tu?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288873/man-who-gave-us-newt-mark-steyn

    Frum next?

    Like elissa’s excerpt of York above, the ship is a supertanker. A turn today needed several spins of the wheel before Xmas.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  344. Ann to Mitt one morning a year ago over coffee watching Fox and Friends:

    “Mitt, can you save the country?”

    Better make a start with Nevada.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  345. I have this nagging query in light of the support of savants like Milhouse for Nor Laup regarding his strategy of piling up delegates bound to Romney on the first ballot and some dozens committed to himself.

    What makes you think when he deals you’ll get the coercion of sane fiscal conservatism.

    What about the batsh*t crazy remainder of his agenda?

    Mitt doesn’t care about positives with the base as negatives with the Elite.

    Somehow hanging Bernanke doesn’t seem as likely as giving a bundle to the Muslim Brotherhood so Egypt doesn’t starve.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  346. Willard on Neut:

    “At the end of four years it was proven he was a failed leader, and he had to resign in disgrace — how many of you knew that?” Romney emphasized a day after Gingrich won a blow-out victory in the South Carolina primary. “He actually had to resign after four years in disgrace…He has not had a record of successful leadership.”

    Oh Mitt, Neuter has 100% name recognition. We know who he is, it’s you we can’t find in a mirror.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  347. – Remember, ladies, if you close your legs you open your marriage!
    Comment by Icy — 1/23/2012 @ 4:58 am

    You are Too. Much. LOL

    no one you know (325a59)

  348. Just in case, you wondering what else was going on;

    http://twitter.com/NicoleGennette

    narciso (87e966)

  349. You are Too. Much. LOL

    :)

    Icy (e68f57)

  350. :grin: Hehehe Icy.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  351. Well done, Icy.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  352. Yes for a RomneyBot Icy has an agile, creative, even human sense of humour.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  353. I don’t know how much of a “RomneyBot” I am. I willingly defend him from false attacks, and will do the same for Newt. The jokes I make about Newt in the sockpuppet threads are just that: jokes. He is not my preferred candidate. None of them are. My preferred candidate has some of Ron Paul’s libertarian ideas, some of his monetary ideas, some of Mitt’s domestic policies and monetary ideas, and a whole lot of Santorum’s foreign policy positions. Since that amalgam does not exist in the person of one candidate I will probably continue to lean in the direction of the candidate that I think is most electable on a nationwide basis.

    Beating Obama has to be our top priority!

    Icy (e68f57)

  354. Go get ‘em, IceMan!

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  355. Sorry, been busy, and a bit under the weather.

    So you’re saying that sex is the only thing that binds a husband and a wife together?

    Not, say, A PROMISE BEFORE GOD?

    A promise TO DO WHAT? There are lots of things a marriage can be, but what defines it is the sexual union. Without that it’s just a good friendship, or a business partnership, and you can have that with a member of the same sex or a close relative too. Most of the time in a marriage is not spent in bed; much of the time sex isn’t even theoretically available, e.g. when one partner is away or sick, etc., or just when they happen not to be in the same place. But there’s always the promise and the potential; you look at your spouse and you know that this is the only person you have sex with. When one partner unilatarally decides to cut that off, permanently, the marriage has been negated. What’s the difference between that and a divorce?

    Milhouse is expert in all conversational topics and should be the undisputed authority on everything under the sun.

    Bull. I have never suggested any such thing, and resent your attributing this attitude to me. There are many many subjects on which I know very little. You don’t often catch me being wrong about them, simply because I don’t often comment about them. When I do venture to comment on such subjects, I often get an education, and from then on know a little more about them than I did. But usually I just watch and learn. I chip in the most on subjects where I do know a fair bit, and this happens to be a subject on which I know more than most. Is there nobody among the Patterico commentariat who knows more than me about the subject? I wouldn’t be so bold as to say that for sure, but it’s a distinct possibility. Which is why I challenge you to refute me with actual proofs, not hand-waving or sputtering. We’re not equals in this particular discussion.

    There are no Jewish or Christian scholars who disagree with what I have written here.

    If they disagree, they’re not scholars. Simple logic.

    No, I meant what I wrote. There are no such scholars. If you think there are, please go look for them. You will find that they don’t exist. What I wrote is not controversial. It’s the standard view on the matter.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  356. As for the quote offered from Mark, look at how the Vulgate translates Mark 10:11 and 10:12. Notice anything? Now compare to Exodus 20:14 You don’t need to actually know Latin to do this exercise. I don’t. But my point should be apparent without it. You can’t really miss it, if you look.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  357. Bull. I have never suggested any such thing, and resent your attributing this attitude to me.
    Comment by Milhouse — 1/25/2012 @ 3:58 am

    Resent away. *yawn*

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  358. In other words, the attitude you intend to present is far different than the one you actually present. The reason I don’t engage you in substantive conversation is that while you may be arguing in good faith, you assume others are either dishonest or stupid unless they accept your position. Normally, I delete my responses to you before hitting submit… mostly because life is too short for that kind of nonsense. You became so over-the-top that my delete key malfunctioned.

    Enjoy your day.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  359. And F you too. I don’t know about other people arguing in bad faith, but you certainly are.

    Milhouse (d3fd53)

  360. Milhouse,

    I thought your point was that men can’t commit adultery, but your Latin translation of Mark doesn’t support that. Verse 11 says a man who puts aside his wife commits adultery.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  361. I don’t know about other people arguing in bad faith, but you certainly are.
    Comment by Milhouse — 1/25/2012 @ 7:13 am

    Are you contending that what I said is not how I see it? Really? Try explaining how anything I’ve said is in bad faith. If you can.

    Alternatively, you could realize that I’m telling the truth about how you’re coming across to others (not just me) and make a decision to adjust accordingly. Or not adjust, if you enjoy looking like an arrogant know-it-all. Certainly up to you.

    Finally, you’re not my type.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  362. Same ol’ same ol’ from Milhouse.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  363. I thought your point was that men can’t commit adultery, but your Latin translation of Mark doesn’t support that. Verse 11 says a man who puts aside his wife commits adultery.

    And that’s not the word used to translate the 7th commandment.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  364. Oh, and I never suggested that men couldn’t commit adultery. On the contrary, every act of adultery involves a man. But it makes no difference whether he is married or not.

    Milhouse (9a4c23)

  365. It might do you well to review some of your comments up thread. It could give you insight into why some of us thought you were saying something different than what you’re saying now.

    Icy (c9fff2)

  366. Milhouse,

    My earlier comment wasn’t clear. Allow me to restate it:

    I thought your point was that married men can’t commit adultery, but your Latin translation of Mark doesn’t support that. Verse 11 says a man who puts aside his wife commits adultery.

    As I understand it, you claim that because the Roman translation of the commandment against adultery uses a different word to say “adultery” than the verse in Mark, then they aren’t talking about the same thing and the commandment doesn’t apply to a married man. The mere fact the Roman translation and other translations define the term used in Mark to mean “commit adultery” or “adultery” is irrelevant.

    If so, it’s a legal argument reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s parsing of “is.” It’s not the kind of lawyer I aimed to be but I acknowledge it’s interesting and the way some lawyers look at things.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  367. DRJ, Mark is the only source so far cited that would seem to contradict what I wrote. So I got curious, and looked up the Vulgate, and posted what I found. Look at the word Jerome uses to translate the term in Exodus. Then look a the two terms he uses in Mark. One of them is the same as the one in Exodus; one is different. It follows that the one that uses the same term means the same thing; the one that uses the other term means something different. If the two verses in Mark, coming one after the other, meant the same thing, then the same word would be used. My conclusion is that Mark is consistent with the entire rest of the Bible, and the apparent contradiction comes from the English translators having used the same word for both offenses.

    Milhouse (862bfe)

  368. It might do you well to review some of your comments up thread. It could give you insight into why some of us thought you were saying something different than what you’re saying now.

    Could you please point to such a comment, that could be misunderstood in that way? I can’t find any, and for the life of me can’t understand why anyone would think I said such a thing. If I’ve been unclear where I thought I was being clear, you’d better show me where and how, so I can learn not to repeat the mistake.

    Milhouse (862bfe)

  369. Milhouse,

    As others mentioned above and I acknowledged 3 weeks ago, there is support for your position that married men cannot commit adultery under ancient law and Jewish tradition. (By the way, is this still Jewish doctrine? I don’t believe you ever answered my question about that.)

    However, I’m not sure I concur with your analysis that the translations support your position. As you say, there aren’t many people who speak Latin anymore so we don’t really know what this is intended to convey. For instance, was this an actual difference in meaning or merely a gender difference? Or was the Latin translation attempting to conform to ancient law in a way that Jesus (via Mark) didn’t intend, and the other translations understood?

    Finally, if your analysis is correct, don’t you think other translations — other than the Latin translation — would use a different term to show there was a different standard?

    DRJ (a83b8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8633 secs.