My God, people... what does it take?

What topic needs to be raised here to get some interest going?

Since he was such a supporter in 2008, I'm going to guess that Ryan is leaning hard in his support of Romney for the 2012 nomination. However, I know Ryan has been a fan of Gingrich for years too... and that is the topic I've chosen to follow today.

Gingrich is running for the 2012 nomination, and he's running on a platform of traditional, conservative values. He routinely points to platforms and agendas dating back to his tenure as Speaker of the House. He has admitted to making mistakes in the past... and insists that he has learned from them and will be a better President for having learned from them.

One "mistake" that he made, though, is making it very difficult for me to take him seriously... and that is his extra-marital affair while he was in office as Speaker with an intern that was more than 20 years his junior. That intern is his current wife, Callista Bisek. I understand completely how the Left will use this obvious contradiction in use of terms such as "conservative moral values" by Gingrich... but I am truly curious as to how Gingrich is going to get moderate conservatives (such as myself) to overlook the hypocrisy of his championing the impeachment process of Clinton for the very same behavior he was indulging in at the very same time. To go to such lengths, and to spend such vast amounts of money, to expose Clinton for doing exactly the same thing he was doing... and to justify his actions while decrying Clinton's... seems to me to constitute a real and measurable hypocritical position for a man trying very hard to show us all how "fair and just" he really is.

Let's face it: Clinton was pushed and pushed by the Star Investigation (justifiably so or not) until he put the noose around his neck and perjured himself in front of the entire nation... and he paid that price, legally and electorally. Clinton was wrong, and it was proven so in court. End of story.

Gingrich did not have to answer any questions in front of a grand jury, or to present any evidence in his defense to a Federal investigator... but has admitted to the same sort of "wrong doing" that Clinton was guilty of, yet expects all of us that remember it to either forget it or over look it. How do I do that?

His explanation for the lapse is that he was "over-worked" and made bad choices... and that may be a valid explanation (he has made no excuses, nor asked for any... to his credit, I'll add), but doesn't that mean that Clinton deserves the same consideration? Should that have been a valid defense in Clinton's case? How much more demanding and pressure-filled was Clinton's job during the same time period? Gingrich was the Speaker of the House... a prestigious and very demanding job, no doubt... but Clinton was President of the United States. Surely, that was a bit harder and more demanding than Newt's job... right?

How do I rationally consider him for the highest office in the free world with this nagging at the back of my mind? Can anyone defend the man, fairly and rationally?