The CNN Debate: Gingrich vs King

Tonight, South Carolina hosted a presidential debate in Charleston. Like many Americans, I was glued to the television (actually, my computer screen, watching the CNN livestream). If politics really is history in the making, then history was certainly made tonight.

Above all other parts of the debate, what most intrigued me was Newt Gingrich's performance. In particular, I would like to seize this bully pulpit that I call my blog to talk about his opening feud with Moderator John King.

King opened the debate by asking Gingrich about the recent ABC interview with his ex-wife, Marianne, who claims that during the time when Gingrich was attempting to impeach President Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Newt asked Marianne for an open marriage after admitting to his long-term affair with his now-wife, Callista. Newt responded by...well, by being Newt Gingrich (see above).

I'm not one to advocate sexual shaming, so I don't agree with Marianne's decision to come forward with the intention of shaming her ex-husband, or with her feigned disgust at the thought of having an open partnership, a model that works well for many consenting couples. I can also maybe concede that opening the debate with this question was a little bit tacky, although, to be honest, I had the same question in my mind and would have been absolutely shocked if it never came up during the debate. But do I think that King had the right to ask the question? Do I think that Gingrich was wrong to twist his answer into some attack against the media? Yes, absolutely, and here is why.

Whether I like it or not, sexual politics have become an important issue in this election. All of the GOP presidential candidates have taken a stand in such politics, to include Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich has a history of using sexual politics to shame people in the name of the family (I've already mentioned the Lewinsky scandal). By making sexuality and family politics an issue in this debate, Gingrich has invited voters to examine his own policies and make sure he practices what he preaches. This is no different than the transparency Gingrich is all too happy to provide when it comes to, say, his taxes. Michael Signorile, a prominent gay writer, summed this issue up nicely on twitter:

So, for me, the political issue in this whole scandal isn't that Newt wanted to have an open relationship. So what? Who cares? The problem is that Newt exalts the right to sexual freedom as a privilege for himself and not others, and then gets mad when people point this out inadvertently through the questions that they have the right to ask him. While he could have simply chosen to deny Marianne's claims (like he later did) and then move on or even apologize for his "indiscretion" (although why apologize for what is really just a sexual preference?), he instead threw a hissy fit and dodged the question like an ass.