Republicans, Presidential Candidates, and adultery … oh my

As long-time readers may recall, I wrote a piece for the Washington Monthly last year about the fact that, for the first time in American history, three admitted adulterers (McCain, Giuliani, and Gingrich) were likely to run for president. That our two-timing trifecta belong to the Republican Party, the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue, made the story all the more entertaining.

What I didn’t have, at the time, was any kind of polling data suggesting to what extent this might matter during the campaign. I spoke with many conservative evangelical leaders and found, to my surprise, that they were quite reluctant to support a candidate who had infidelity in their background. A spokesperson for Dobson’s Focus on the Family told me, “If you have a politician, an elected official, and they can’t be trusted in their own marriage, how can I trust them with the budget? How can I trust them with national security?” She added that a candidate who “had an affair and then moved on and restored that marriage” might find forgiveness with Christian conservatives, but someone “who had an affair and then left his wife” would not. Unfortunately for McCain, Giuliani, and Gingrich, this doesn’t apply to any of them.

But were the conversations I had with Christian conservatives representative of evangelicals in general? Could this be a looming iceberg for leading GOP candidates? I argued that this will matter, but there was no empirical data one way or the other.

Until now. A Newsweek poll released over the weekend produced some numbers that will no doubt discourage the Republican front-runners. They’re best hope is to prevent anyone from finding out about their past, which is far easier said than done.

* A majority (56%) of Americans said a candidate’s relationship with their spouse tells the public something about how good a president they would be. When looking just at evangelical Republicans, the number grows to 70%.

* Divorce wasn’t seen as too big a hurdle — Reagan broke that wall down in 1980 — but adultery was a deal-breaker for a lot of voters. Among all voters, 43% said they would vote against a candidate who had committed adultery. Among evangelical Republicans, that number increases to 54%.

* And in news that should make Romney happy, 60% of evangelical Republicans said they were more likely to vote for a candidate who “seems to have a strong marriage and has never been divorced.”

The trick of all this, at least at this point, is whether this will become a major campaign issue or not, particularly in the primaries. Will faithful GOP candidates with no sexual skeletons take on the leading candidates on this issue? And if so, who’ll be the first to raise the issue?

Time will tell, but if a majority of evangelical Republicans has ruled out support for an adulterous candidate, that’s a) a significant hurdle for the two-timing trifecta; and b) a tempting target for second-tier candidates anxious to get ahead.

Stay tuned.

I’ve simply stopped believing that polls on hypothetical issues have any value whatsoever.

Adultery is supposedly a dealbreaker in the GOP, as are support for abortion rights and gay rights, yet Rudy’s leading. The war is the #1 issue for Democrats, yet Hillary’s leading. The overall electorate favors Generic Democrat over Generic Republican by a wide margin, yet Rudy and (at least a few months ago) McCain beat (or are essentially tied with) Clinton and Obama. Hell, I bet if Zell Miller decided to get in the race as a Republican, all those Republicans who are telling pollsters they don’t want a seventy-something president would simply toss that aside.

  • I’ve posted this before, but only at ends of threads. I just want to get these facts out about Newt Gingrich’s patterns of behavior to all my friends at CR for their use. There are few politicians in the world whom I dislike as much as Newt, so I’m hoping this info can be used by you all to send to the appropriate moralists and their networks to stick a fork in this pathetic loser before he springs up reborn, Great Gawd Awmighty!, like some fat old tricky dick..

    Newt Gingrich to Pat Dobson, Focus on the Family, “There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There’s certainly times when I’ve fallen short of God’s standards.”

    Here are just a few of these “fallen times” when Newt, perhaps, didn’t focus as much as he should have on his family – ah, the memories of “youthful” indiscretions:

    The Early 70s – “We would have won (congressional election) in 1974 if we could have kept him out of the office and screwing her (a young campaign staffer) on the desk.” – Dot Crews, Gingrich Campaign Scheduler at the time. Newt was married to first wife, Jackie Battley, at the time.

    The Mid 70s – “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.” – Anne Manning (who was also married). Again, Newt was married to Jackie at the time. They had two young girls. Great male role model for them I say. Hey, at least Newt and Jackie weren’t a couple of homos!

    1980 – Famous incident where Newt visited Jackie at the hospital to discuss the terms of his divorce with her while she was recovering from uterine cancer surgery. Newt later explained why he divorced her, “She wasn’t pretty enough to be First Lady.” Nice. After the divorce, Newt refused to pay alimony or child support and the First Baptist Church in his hometown had to take up a collection to help Jackie and her abandoned family.

    More in The Early 80s – Six months after dumping Jackie, Newt married Marianne Ginther, who he had been having an affair with (Oh, I guess that sorta also covers the missing “The Late 70s”).

    The Early 90s – Newt began his longtime affair with Callista Bisek, a House Clerk 23 years younger than him. Of course, this means he was having an extramarital affair all the while he was strongly condemning the morals of Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair. However, this was consistent with Newt’s Hypocritic Code – for example, a few years earlier, after leading the charge against Democratic House members involved in the 1992 Banking Scandal, it came out later that Newt had bounced 22 checks himself. Oopsie, I guess.

    1999 – In what appears to be another of his strange predilections, Newt informed Marianne that he was divorcing her while she was in the hospital recovering from a ruptured appendix.

    2001 – Newt marries and makes “an honest woman” of Callista. Gosh, that was quick.

    Since I am mainly concentrating on Gingrich’s adulteries and hypocrisies, I will just mention in passing that Newt is the only member of the House of Representatives to ever be censured and fined by the House Ethics Panel (and it was chaired by his fellow Republicans – how sleazy do you have to be to accomplish THAT?).

    So, this is the guy that Dobson and the Family Values crowd now loves. Well, he’ll fit right in with McCain and Guilliani on this marital values stuff. Besides, I’m just so sure that Newt is well past all of this shameful behavior. I’m also sure that you (and Callista too, I bet) are confident of this as well. Right?

  • Somehow I doubt if the Republicans will fail to rationalize this into irrelevance once presented with an Evil Democrat to vote against.

    According to The Republican Adultery Honor Roll of Shame:

    “Ronald Reagan Dumped Jane Wyman by cheating on her with several Hollywood starlets”

    http://www.americaheldhostile.com/cheating.html

  • Of course in Romney’s case the Dobsonites will have to try and balance his marital value with the fact that they just don’t like Mormons all that much. Must be very confusing for them, poor dears.

  • What’s Thompson’s marital history?

    Sometimes it gets a little funny. We, Dems, who don’t really judge people by marital history keep jumping up and down and pointing at the 3 Adulterers yelling, “Look look, hypocrite.” And Wingnuts are congenitally unable to hear our words.

  • I posted a couple of dozen pre-9/11 stories about Giuliani’s philandering at the TPM Cafe. I don’t see how the Evangelicals could ever play down Giuliani’s adultery without coming across as hypocrites.

    Let’s be sure to remind the Evangelicals that Giuliani had more than one adulterous affair while he was mayor. Everyone knows about Giuliani’s affair with Judith Nathan but not as many know about the mayor’s affair with his communication director, Cristyne Lategano.

    Frank Rich wrote a funny story in the8/4/01 NYT Sunday magazine about Giuliani living with two gay guys after his marriage broke up, complete with a photo of the mayor and the two gay guys on the cover. That photo ought to go over big with the Evangelicals.

  • I’m going to write this just because I don’t think it will effect too much, but I think this says more about voters’ values than who they will actually vote for- kind of like those poll numbers we saw in one of your posts a while ago about voters wanting a Democrat for president- when the question was switched to voting for one specific candidate over another, the Republican/Democrat split went back to about 50/50.

    It tells us that monogamy is still a strong institution, but I doubt it tells us they won’t vote for a Republican who cheated years ago but now says all the sweet things these voters want to hear.

  • Somehow I doubt if the Republicans will fail to rationalize this into irrelevance once presented with an Evil Democrat to vote against.

    BINGO!

    Dobson and company would gladly take an adulterer over a Democrat. If their preferred candidate (Romney or whoever) isn’t available, don’t think they won’t trumpet the virtues of Giuliani or McCain if they think it will ultimately advance their cause.

  • The comment I gave in #7 was more in the way of an opinion, by the way, and not something I feel very strongly substantiated in. It very well could be, I think, that the issue is a deal-breaker for a lot of Republican voters and it will cause their nominee to lose. It’s just that I think there’s a pretty substantial chance that it won’t matter, and I think it’s substantial enough that my safe bet would be that it won’t. This doesn’t at all mean that the issue isn’t worth talking about and I think it’s worth bringing up if the conservatives want to parade hypcrisy across the national stage. They make it a fair issue with their moralizing and campaigns for Dems would be remiss if they didn’t take this for every bit it’s worth.

  • Uh, I meant:

    They make it a fair issue with their moralizing. Campaigns for Dems would be remiss if they didn’t take this for every bit it’s worth.

  • For any of my more sensitive Republican friends out there- yeah, I too feel that this stuff shouldn’t be part of politics, but that’s just the way it has to be. It’s the Republicans that make it part of politics.

  • She added that a candidate who “had an affair and then moved on and restored that marriage” might find forgiveness with Christian conservatives […] — CB

    Like Bill Clinton? Oh, my…Obviously, the right side of their mouth doesn’t know what the left side is saying/implying.

  • She added that a candidate who “had an affair and then moved on and restored that marriage” might find forgiveness with Christian conservatives, but someone “who had an affair and then left his wife” would not. Unfortunately for McCain, Giuliani, and Gingrich, this doesn’t apply to any of them.

    Interesting that this does apply to their anti-Christ, Bill Clinton himself.

    But really I don’t think none of this matters, their double-standard for Republicans and Democrats is so apparant it’s absurd. IOKIYAR

  • Time will tell, but if a majority of evangelical Republicans has ruled out support for an adulterous candidate, that’s a) a significant hurdle for the two-timing trifecta; and b) a tempting target for second-tier candidates anxious to get ahead.

    I would keep this point strongly in mind whenver discussing the presidential campaign: that at this point in the last presidential cycle the Democratic frontrunners were Lieberman and Gephardt. A lot can (and probably will change until the primaries. I suspect the eventual candidate will be none of these guys and someone we never yet thought could clinch it.

  • Cal Thomas had a piece on the ‘growing maturity’ of conservatives and how they are more accepting of the philandering of politicians. He then listed the litany of sins by the top GOP candidates.

    It was a blatantly obvious attempt at pre-empting the inevitable scandalous revelations among the GOP demographic that appears to be, um, thoroughly out of touch with most normal issues.

  • Comments are closed.