The Consistency of the “Family Values Party”

Rudy Giuliani has come out in favor of Newt Gingrich, and Donald Trump is certainly leaning that way. Something these 3 men have in common: 3 wives. And when it comes to their current wives, they all prefer younger women.

  • Newt is 23 years older than Callista.
  • Donald is 28 years older than Melania.
  • Rudy is 10 years older than Judith.

In 2008, Republicans chose as their nominee John McCain, who is 18 years older than Cindy (his second marriage).

Welcome to the Family Values party.

Is Newt really who Republicans want as their nominee?

On the other hand, the other candidates have had just one spouse apiece–Romney, Santorum, Paul, Cain, Huntsman, Bachman, Perry.


Share Button

1 Comment to "The Consistency of the “Family Values Party”"

  1. Hi Steve,
    I do not have a fundamental disagreement with your point. The problem comes when you try to manage reality with theory. I would love to have a man who embodies everything God wills us to be as President. Unfortunately, when it comes down to the end, we rarely get what we want or hope for. I am looking for competence. I am looking for non socialist ideology. I am looking for someone who can hit the ground running. Santorum and Bachman to me are out because while they both have more experience than Obama who had no experience beyond running for office (little evidence of any real work in either Illinois or US Senate positions) and no real world experience beyond Acorn, they both line up with him in terms of lack of qualifications for this office. No one is really qualified before they go into this job, but some people have far more experience that will enable them to rise quickly to the challenge. Based on a number of your FB posts, I believe you support Obama and I feel he has been a disaster–I am not making that argument here other than to highlight a good family life does not in and of itself qualify one for this office. So, we have to look at what else is left.

    In the current crop, next to bite the dust for me is Paul. I love him on Finances, I can live with his states rule surpreme on the social issues but his foreign policy positions are just not functional in the world in which we live. They did not work for Chamberlain, and they won’t work for us. Personally, I think Paul embodies much of what a politician should be–actually does his real job when he is not in Washington (delivers babies). But FP is just too messed up. I think he has been in the government long enough to actually qualify if his FP was ok.

    Huntsman is just too liberal on too many issues. He is qualified (He would have been much better than Obama even though he shares some of Obama’s positions on social issues.)

    Perry is qualified on the basis of experience but he can not talk his way out of a paperbag. Unless he gets his act together fast, I do not think he would compare favoribly in the debates against Obama. After all, winning the election is pretty far up the totem pole in terms of goals.

    That leaves Gingrich and Romney. I think Gingrich would shred Obama in the debates. I like Gingrich’s wide range of thought and I believe we are at a point in time where diplomacy is much less important than the ability to wield an effective hammer and I think he would wield it. Romney is far smoother and handsomer which sadly would get him some votes. I have less trust for his conservative credentials than I do for Gingrich who has had some notable flip flops.

    So in the end, while I think anyone on the list would be better than the current occupant, I believe it should come down to one of the final two I mentioned. And yes, Gingrich’s history of unfaithfulness to his wife(s) is a great sadness to me and is a cause for concern.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Receive Posts by Email

If you subscribe to my Feedburner feed, you'll automatically receive new posts by email. Very convenient.



Monthly Archives