I think it is a given that many if not most conservatives will react to the decision of ABC News to air an interview with Marianne Gingrich, the former speaker of the House’s second wife, with disgust. To them it will seem just another instance of media bias against a Republican as the personal details of Gingrich’s life is subjected to intense national scrutiny rarely given to a liberal or a Democrat. The answer for many will be to accept Gingrich’s somewhat vague apology for unspecified past misdoings and his repeated statement he has asked God for forgiveness. The implication of that avowal is if God has forgiven Newt, who are we to deny him personal redemption? The second Mrs. Gingrich’s intervention in the election is a reminder that the person he wronged is the one whose forgiveness he needed to obtain first.
Republicans may say this is old news and pales in importance to the imperative of nominating the best candidate to face Barak Obama. Yet Gingrich’s past character issues and unfortunate leadership style is very much bound up with the question of whether he can, as he claims, beat Barack Obama in November.
As Larry Thornberry writes in The American Spectator today, the willingness of the second Mrs. Gingrich to drag Newt’s dirty laundry out of the closet shows the importance of gossip in contemporary politics:
What candidates would survive if required to be vetted by their ex-wives? And how tricky of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum to not have one. Is this fair? Perhaps candidates without ex-wives, including those who cannot afford an ex-wife, should have one appointed at no cost, sort of like pubic defenders. This would help level the playing field in this instance.
In an age when broken marriages and families are the norm rather than the exception, perhaps most Americans won’t hold Gingrich’s past indiscretions against him and might not, as we have noted previously, be able to relate to the squeaky clean Romney. However, I wonder if the sticky part of the Marianne interview for the candidate is not merely the fact that she will rehash his infidelity with the woman who would become the third Mrs. Gingrich. It is, instead, the notion of his public hypocrisy that is the real problem.
The problem for Gingrich is that although the default position of most in the GOP will be to dismiss this story, it is also a given that the country is still entitled to base, at least in part, its judgment about presidential hopefuls on an evaluation of the candidate’s personal character. Because unlike the initial reactions to personal charges made against other politicians, it isn’t likely that very many will dispute the truth of the second Mrs. Gingrich’s accusations, the voters are going to have to decide whether these sordid revelations should be taken into account when electing a president.
Gingrich’s supporters are willing to overlook his problems because of their antipathy for Mitt Romney. They insist Romney cannot be elected because he can’t inspire conservatives. They also think his defeat is likely because he once backed a government health care plan (as did Gingrich) and because he is wealthy and will be subjected to demagogic class warfare attacks by Democrats. That is true, but do they believe Gingrich’s record won’t be used against him? Do they think Democrats will not highlight the fact that the former speaker led an impeachment effort against Bill Clinton that centered on his infidelity while conducting his own illicit affair or that he publicly preached about family values and morality while insisting he not be held to the same standard?
Whether or not such accusations can be considered fair, it is indisputable that they are a serious political liability. Along with his image as an inconsistent and poor leader, the sleaze factor this latest rehashing of Gingrich’s past conjures up undermines the blithe assurances about his electability that we have been hearing recently.