Should marital fidelity matter in a political candidate?  And yes, I am talking about Newt Gingrich.  There are many who would scoff at the notion.  Certainly, there were a large number present at the Republican primary debate who delighted in booing down John King when he questioned Gingrich on his ex-wife's allegations.  A delight that was only surpassed when their favored excoriated the value of the question and the questioner, with a perfect fury that smacked more cold calculation than any true genuine emotion.  For as Mr. Gingrich was undoubtedly already well aware, his greatest positive exposure throughout the campaign to date has come when he has rounded on the hopelessly biased left-dominated mainstream media, and let loose with both barrels.  And didn't Mr. King's question give Mr. Gingrich the perfect opportunity to do just that?!  Enabling Mr. Gingrich to garner to kind of publicity that no amount of money can buy.  Publicity which carried him to victory in the election that followed.

And what an election it was!  One in which people lined up to cast their ballot.  Voting not so much against the "injustice" which had been perpetrated upon Newt Gingrich.  But more against the morally and intellectually bankrupt fawning coverage that has been employed by the bulk of the media to carry Obama administration these past years.  Coverage for which Mr. Gingrich courtesy of John King, had now perfectly positioned him as the poster child against.  Yes, a vote for Newt was indeed a vote against the left media.  And my, how they voted!

At least, we can but hope that that was what motivated them.  Otherwise, a man who has employed some of the most despicably divisive leftist tactics ever used by a conservative candidate has a significant swell of support!

Newt Gingrich, a man who questions his rival Mitt Romney as to what percentage rate he has paid in taxes before tacitly painting himself as the morally superior being because he himself has paid more!  Excuse me, but isn't the whole idea that government is wasting our money hand over fist?  That being the case, wouldn't it behoove any sane individual to employ any and all legal means at his disposal to give over as little money in tax as possible?  To do otherwise would mark any man as an idiot who not only handed the monkeys the keys to the banana plantation, but left behind a box of loaded .45s as well!  Besides which, if Newt Gingrich's fevered dreams came true and he did indeed attain the presidency, the reduction of the Capital Gains Tax he would institute would in effect see the man he now condemns for paying a tax rate of approximately 16% pay instead close to 0%!  And you thought it was only the Democratic Party that was capable of taking logic and contorting it 'til its eyes watered?

But back to the question I opened with.  Marital fidelity -- should it matter in a political candidate?  Put aside your quite justified loathing of the mainstream media for a moment, and ask yourself what your answer would have been to that question if it had been asked in the time of Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, or John Edwards.  In each of those cases, marital infidelity was seen as symptomatic of a much larger malaise of character.  It was no surprise that these men reveled in adultery.  Any more than it was their other sleazy dealings.  For it was obvious that morality and ethics could not be neatly compartmentalized.  That there would always be a bleeding across the lines.  When it comes to infidelity, the truth of it is that it is in how a man acquits himself in response to a temptation proffered by power, that he shows how wisely and justly he will employ any future power given over to him.  Power that is certain to come with sundry new seductions and temptations for abuse all its own.

Newt Gingrich is a man who may count amongst his many achievements a co-sponsoring of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.  A bill which, had it not been vetoed by Ronald Reagan, would have seen the government dictate what privately owned media outlets could express in form of political opinion.

He is a man who eagerly sat beside Nancy Pelosi to endorse the idea that government should amass even more power over, and extract even more money from, private enterprise.  All in the name of combatting the unproven theory of man-made global warming.  Though, in fairness, it must be said that thankfully, with the passage of time, he has now softened his position somewhat, so that he now advocates only forcibly extracting money from the citizenry so that he might make workable the wholly economically unworkable industry that is biofuels.  And if this also inevitably raises the price of cereal crops?  Well, you know what they say about omelets and eggs.  

Mr. Gingrich is also a man who, while taking millions of taxpayer dollars from the failed entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, castigated Mitt Romney for the money he earned privately, by taking over businesses which had been woefully mismanaged, and, in the majority of cases, turning them around.  In short, Newt Gingrich is a man who should be sincerely grateful to John King.  For without Mr. King's question, he would have had to run on his record.  And that, along with consistently telling anyone who will listen just how smart he is, hasn't gotten him very far at all in this campaign.