Answer The Question, Newt

The other day, CNN news man John King began a Republican debate by asking Newt Gingrich if he wanted to comment on his ex wife's claim that he wanted to maintain an open marriage. Newt's reply, in which chastised King and the media for asking such a question, drew loud applause and eventually a standing ovation. It's too bad he did not answer the question.

Thanks to the lies and indiscretions of Bill Clinton, questions like the one asked by John King to candidates with a checkered past personal life, like Gingrich, are fair game if you are running for public office.

Newt's response would have been a proper one had this been 1992 and he was being asked what kind of underwear he wore as was the case with Bill Clinton. However, when a candidate for president is on his third marriage and his current wife was the congressional staffer he had an affair with while married to his second wife, Americans are entitled to ask questions about the fitness of his personal life, past or present.

Candidates with questionable past financial dealings or voting records are asked and expected to explain themselves when they run for office so there is no reason one with a questionable past personal life should be excluded. Bill Clinton was hounded by the media over these matters as was Herm Cain, who recently dropped out of the primary process as a result.

These are difficult and challenging times for this nation and there is nothing wrong with voters wanting a leader they can be assured is not going to conduct himself in a manner that will adversely affect his ability to lead. George W. Bush was asked about his past drinking problems and Ted Kennedy never escaped questions about Chappaquiddick. To ask a candidate whose second wife claims he wanted to maintain an open marriage to explain himself is perfectly fair.

What's more troubling, Newt did not provide an answer, only a commentary about the media. If indeed Newt wanted an open marriage, he should admit it rather than hide behind a rehearsed response aimed to garner the vote of Christian conservatives. By simply telling us he has returned to his Christian roots is not an answer. Newt wants and needs the support of conservative Christians if he is going to have any shot of defeating Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination so it becomes easy for him to tell people about how he has grown closer to God rather than telling him he was once an adulterous male who wanted to have his cake and eat it.

However, Newt did not have this relationship with God when he was speaker of the house. His ethics were called into question and he eventually was voted out of office only to cash in as a well paid consultant to major lobbyists. If he is elected as our next president, many will wonder how he will handle the trappings of power that come with being the most powerful person in the world. Whoever our next president is, Americans deserve knowing we have a leader who will not embarrass the office or the nation because power went to his head.

Nothing about President Obama's past would indicate such a question should be asked of him. The same is true with Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. However, this is not the case with Newt Gingrich and he needs to be held accountable for failing to provide voters with an honest answer to a fair question.

Debates Don't Tell Us Anything

I caught the recent Republican presidential debate on CNN the other night and came to the conclusion they serve no real purpose. Seven republican hopefuls stood in front of the cameras for two hours and told us nothing new, gave us nothing controversial, and said nothing worth pondering. It is not because they are republicans. I am certain if there was a republican in the White House, the democrats would have put on the same show.

The problem with these debates is they provide viewers with little new and only serve as an opportunity to give a national stump speech. Candidates rarely answered the questions they were asked. Instead, they rehashed those positions they want to get across to voters.

Instead of debates, why not just give them free television time to make a monthly fifteen minute speech on a specific topic? One month, candidates might be asked to speak about the economy, another education and so on. Let candidates get the information out to whoever is interested and be done with it. This allows all candidates the chance to go before potential voters without having to raise boat loads of money. Those that still want to raise cash and hit the campaign trail can do so but it will allow money to be less of a player in our election process.

Televised speeches can also be linked to instant national survey questions providing us with immediate feedback on what we thought of the speeches. Since the people who will watch these televised events are the ones most likely to vote in elections, it provides an accurate take on how Americans feel about each candidate.

To still rely on the same system of televised debates to elect candidates who do not stray from already known positions is like still relying on foreign oil to fuel our energy needs. Neither one is doing us any good so perhaps it is time to shake things up a bit.