Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 22, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

GINGRICH: STOP BEING LIKE ME....Newt Gingrich has seen the 1984/Hillary YouTube ad and he doesn't like it:

Oh it's clever....It's the Entertainment Tonight version of governing a great country. And its very dangerous, because we have no habits anymore of serious dialog, we have no habits of serious citizenship. Everything is reduced to gossip, attack, whose consultant is cleverer, and it's really very destructive.

Hold on a second while I pick my jaw off the ground. There. Got it.

Is he serious? Newt "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" Gingrich is now complaining about partisan attacks? Newt "Contract With America" Gingrich is complaining about consultant-driven politics? Newt "Let's Impeach Bill Clinton Over a Blowjob" Gingrich is complaining about the inability of our political system to solve real problems?

Newt Gingrich practically invented the modern attack-dog style of American politics. He is its patron saint and its most talented practitioner. But now that Democrats have won back control of Congress and seem likely to win back the presidency as well, he's seen the light. The Gingrichification of politics has to stop.

Wow. Just wow. But I will say this: Newt Gingrich might well be the only person on the planet with the chutzpah to pull this off. In its own way, it's impressive. But then, so was Joe McCarthy. In his own way.

Kevin Drum 1:52 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (117)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Frist?

Posted by: urkel on March 22, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

It will be easier for him to respond with that argument than to defend asking his wife for a divorce while she was in the hospital with cancer. Or a question about the serial adultery.

Posted by: DMC on March 22, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

He's the only one nasty enough to stay in the game till the end. He's the nominee.

It's looking more and more like a Gingrich/Edwards matchup......

Posted by: zmulls on March 22, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't he also suggest earlier this week that people stop making his personal life an issue?

It just defies belief.

Posted by: shortstop on March 22, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

I'd like to know where Newt got his Phd in history. Anyone who supposedly was a history prof
and has such an apparently dim grasp of the subject can't have been very good in school.
I'd forgotten how backward southern schools were.
What a douche bag!

Posted by: tailspin tommy on March 22, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Newt "Let's Impeach Bill Clinton Over a Blowjob while conducting an extramarital affair himself" Gingrich...

There. Fixed it for ya.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 22, 2007 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Gingrich did not invent attack-dog politics, which has existed since the beginning of politics, nor did he invent television or the internet, on which these attacks are dispersed publicly.

However, I agree it is a hypocritical to decry such politics since he has clearly engaged in them from time to time, and with great gusto.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on March 22, 2007 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Newt just doesn't want a bunch of wack MCs biting his phat style.

Posted by: dj moonbat on March 22, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

MsN - you are well known Sam Clemens devotee. Could you fetch us a link for his short story on politics in Tennessee? I can't find it.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 22, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Newt Gingrich practically invented the modern attack-dog style of American politics.

You mean Lee Atwater?

Posted by: grape_crush on March 22, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Newt "Let's Impeach Bill Clinton Over a Blowjob while conducting an extramarital affair himself" Gingrich... There. Fixed it for ya.

Newt "Let's Impeach Bill Clinton Over a Blowjob while conducting an extramarital affair myself" Gingrich...

There. Fixed the fix for ya.

Posted by: mister pedantic on March 22, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey Ward on March 22, 2007 at 2:14 PM:

Gingrich did not invent attack-dog politics, which has existed since the beginning of politics...

In all fairness, Kevin did say 'modern attack-dog style', Yancy.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 22, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Could you fetch us a link for his short story on politics in Tennessee?

Here.

http://www.bibliomania.com/0/5/54/246/15639/1/frameset.html

I love Twain.

Posted by: James R MacLean on March 22, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

There have been dirty politics and name-calling since the dawn of time.

However, the dirty tricks have been pulled off by political operatives, while the office-holders have kept the polite and respectful tone of comity.

Gingrich institutionalized the name-calling. His strategy was to have the entire party -- including office-holders -- to use language of dehumanization and delegitimazation. For Senators, representatives to go on Sunday talk shows and speak of Democrats as less than human -- traitors, sick, twisted, perverted, unamerican -- that's what was different.

We all knew Reagan and Tip O'Neil would get together and swap stories over scotch. That was pre-Gingrich. When the guy on the other side of the aisle was a respected friend. Gingrich created an atmosphere where crossing the aisle was a betrayal. The opposition were the enemy, disgusting creatures, not to be associated with.

He took political dialogue to a new place where there was no room for compromise or discussion.

Posted by: zmulls on March 22, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Is this like Nixon going to China?

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh on March 22, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

This would be a TuQuoqueArgument, if there were much of an argument at all. The video in question, like the Obama campaign itself, didn't have any real substance, discuss any policy matters, or the like. If it had done that, it would have probably been ignored. Of course, if the maker had had to use his own work entirely, it probably would have been ignored even with the same message.

~~~~~~~
Note: This message may have been edited after I posted it.

Posted by: TLB on March 22, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Ha ha, blaming Gingrich for the attack dog method, te he he he.

It is almost like the Clinton administration doesn't exist in this bizarro world! They were the "politics of personal distruction" group - blaming the other side for things they themselves perpetrate.

ha ha ha, no please stop, heee he, Gingrich started it, he he he, check the human wreckage from the Clintons, ha hee ha, whew my eyes are water.

Posted by: Orwell on March 22, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Excerpt

    We observe that the besotted blackguard of the Mud Spring Morning Howl is giving out, with his usual propensity for lying, that Van Werter is not elected. The heaven-born mission of journalism is to disseminate truth; to eradicate error; or educate, refine and elevate the tone of public morals and manners, and make all men more gentle, more virtuous, more charitable, and in all ways better, and holier, and happier; and yet this black-hearted scoundrel degrades his great office persistently to the dissemination of falsehood, calumny, vituperation, and vulgarity.

Blathersville wants a Nicholson pavement—it wants a jail and a poorhouse more. The idea of a pavement in a one-horse town composed of two gin-mills, a blacksmith’s shop, and that mustard-plaster of a newspaper, the Daily Hurrah! The crawling insect, Buckner, who edits the Hurrah, is braying about this business with his customary imbecility, and imagining that he is talking sense.

“Now that is the way to write—peppery and to the point. Mush-and-milk journalism gives me the fan- tods.”

About this time a brick came through the window with a splintering crash, and gave me a considerable of a jolt in the back. I moved out of range—I began to feel in the way.

The chief said, “That was the Colonel, likely. I’ve been expecting him for two days. He will be up, now, right away.”

He was correct. The Colonel appeared in the door a moment afterward with a dragoon revolver in his hand.

He said, “Sir, have I the honor of addressing the poltroon who edits this mangy sheet?”

“You have. Be seated, sir. Be careful of the chair, one of its legs is gone. I believe I have the honor of addressing the putrid liar, Col. Blatherskite Tecumseh?”

Posted by: James R MacLean on March 22, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Newt Gingrich practically invented the modern attack-dog style of American politics.

Close. Lee Atwater invented it; Newt perfected it (so to speak).

Posted by: Gregory on March 22, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Tailspin,

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

[Gingrich] received a B.A. degree from Emory University in Atlanta in 1965. He received an MA in 1968 and was finally awarded the PhD in 1971 in Modern European History from Tulane University in New Orleans.

Gingrich taught history at West Georgia College in Carrollton, Georgia from 1970 to 1978, although he was denied tenure

For what it's worth...

Posted by: Everblue Stater on March 22, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

""Newt "Let's Impeach Bill Clinton Over a Blowjob while conducting an extramarital affair himself" Gingrich...""

Actually Slick Willie was impeached for committing perjury. If it's good for Scooter then it's good for Willie isn't it.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on March 22, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus, Kevin really draws the shitasses!

The Gingrichism that marked a turning point was the time right before the 1994 election when he blamed the Democratic Party for the fact that Susan Smith had killed her two children.

It was both vicious and senseless. He was trying to take political advantage of the personal tragedy of a mentally-ill woman, even though there was no Democratic connection to the case at all.

A few days later he was Speaker of the House. He never apologized and was never really confronted on the issue.

And this isn't really should be the point, but it did turn out that Smith had been sexually abused by her stepfather, who was active and significant in the Moral Majority and the South Carolina Republican Party. And as soon as that came out, the story disappeared. It was OK for Gingrich to make completely loony accusations, but when something real came up, "decency" took over.

Posted by: John Emerson on March 22, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, that previous post looked hideous.

    That ass, Blossom, of the Higginsville Thunderbolt and Battle Cry of Freedom, is down here again sponging at the Van Buren.

    We observe that the besotted blackguard of the Mud Spring Morning Howl is giving out, with his usual propensity for lying, that Van Werter is not elected. The heaven-born mission of journalism is to disseminate truth; to eradicate error; or educate, refine and elevate the tone of public morals and manners, and make all men more gentle, more virtuous, more charitable, and in all ways better, and holier, and happier; and yet this black-hearted scoundrel degrades his great office persistently to the dissemination of falsehood, calumny, vituperation, and vulgarity.

    Blathersville wants a Nicholson pavement--it wants a jail and a poorhouse more. The idea of a pavement in a one-horse town composed of two gin-mills, a blacksmith?s shop, and that mustard-plaster of a newspaper, the Daily Hurrah! The crawling insect, Buckner, who edits the Hurrah, is braying about this business with his customary imbecility, and imagining that he is talking sense.

    "Now that is the way to write--peppery and to the point. Mush-and-milk journalism gives me the fan- tods."

    About this time a brick came through the window with a splintering crash, and gave me a considerable of a jolt in the back. I moved out of range--I began to feel in the way.

    The chief said, "That was the Colonel, likely. I?ve been expecting him for two days. He will be up, now, right away."

    He was correct. The Colonel appeared in the door a moment afterward with a dragoon revolver in his hand.

    He said, "Sir, have I the honor of addressing the poltroon who edits this mangy sheet?"

    "You have. Be seated, sir. Be careful of the chair, one of its legs is gone. I believe I have the honor of addressing the putrid liar, Col. Blatherskite Tecumseh?"

From "Journalism in Tennessee," link above Posted by: James R MacLean on March 22, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

However, I agree it is a hypocritical to decry such politics since he has clearly engaged in them all the time

Fixed it for you, Yancey.

How honest of you -- not to mention ruggedly individualistic, of course! -- to misrepresent Gingrich's style of politics. Shame on you.

Posted by: Gregory on March 22, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

"Didn't he also suggest earlier this week that people stop making his personal life an issue?

It just defies belief."


Newt learned how to do this from Bill Clinton. And it's working.

Posted by: Steve on March 22, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of fishing expeditions, what the hell did a blowjob have to do with a land deal?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 22, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you, James.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 22, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

I truly cannot believe all the hubbub over this silly, baldy derivative and meaningless ad. Seriously, the first time I saw it, I thought it was just some ultra-pathetic attempt at humor by bored college students. It has almost zero intellectual content and can't be bothered to attempt an even minimally creative idea and here we are, weeks later, with major political leaders earnestly discussing its social impact. How lame we have become. Its fucking depressing.

Posted by: brent on March 22, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Journalism in Tennessee" and "Cannibalism in the Cars" are probably the two funniest short stories ever.

Posted by: dj moonbat on March 22, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Actually Slick Willie was impeached for committing perjury. If it's good for Scooter then it's good for Willie isn't it.

Scooter was impeached?

Posted by: brent on March 22, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Newt Gingrich? Mickey Kaus? What highly relevant wingnut will we be analyzing next? Dan Riehl?

Posted by: HeavyJ on March 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

brent >"...How lame we have become..."

Uhhh, I think that should be "...How lame they have become..."

What do you expect when "they" aren`t willing to actually discuss actual issues ? All junior high school, all the time.

"Always tell the truth. That way you don`t have to remember anything." - Mark Twain

Posted by: daCascadian on March 22, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Newt learned how to do this from Bill Clinton. And it's working.

Steve, since you were apparently born within the last decade, let me explain how it worked for you. Newt led the campaign against Bill Clinton, wailing to all who would listen about Bill's moral turpitude in enjoying blow jobs from a woman to whom he was not married.

While he was doing this--at the very same time, Steve--Newt was fucking around with a woman to whom he was not married. This point being brought up to him in recent days, Newt suddenly has discovered a belief that one's private sexual actions should be of no interest to voters. Can you possibly grasp the hypocrisy inherent in this, or do you need to be walked through it again?

Posted by: shortstop on March 22, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

I'm still waiting for somebody from the "I hate Clinton" side to point out what CLinton did that even gets within 10% of the hateful politics played by Gingrich.

Gingrich turned hate politics into an art form.

And, I have a question for him. Did he approve of the Madrassa stuff on Fox Noise about something that didn't happen when Obama was EIGHT years old?

Posted by: Mark-NC on March 22, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

I saw the YouTube video when it first came out. I thought, "Ha ha. That was pretty amusing."

Is there any reason that this has turned into a "controversy" with its attendant pearl-clutchers worry about The Future of Politics because of this?

Posted by: Tyro on March 22, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

OK, we've all called Gingrich a hypocrite, and we're all right. Now can we discuss the substance of what he said?

Is he right? I think so. His idea about the weekly 90-minute discussion of issues would be an enormous improvement over modern campaigning. Might even put a few clever campaign pros out of business. Would that be so bad?

He is right that political leaders cannot have serious discussions and part of the reason is that voters are so easily distracted over the hypocrite-of-the day buzz.

Gore drives a car! He lives in a house! A house that uses electricity! He had an interest in a zinc mine!

Where were we? Oh, yeah global warming. It's still there. Now what?

Posted by: zenger on March 22, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Gingrich's preposterous statement is a calculated attempt to innoculate himself from criticism in advance of his presidential bid announcement.

He probably figures his weak suit in a presidential bid is his hypocrisy and lack of personal character and some political consultant told him to try and paint himself as a victim of the liberal press. This way he can pretend to have character by fighting off "the liberal press's vicious smear job."

What Gingrich may not realize that after a decade of this bullshit people have the GOP playbook down cold.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on March 22, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

I saw the YouTube video when it first came out. I thought, "Ha ha. That was pretty amusing."

Is there any reason that this has turned into a "controversy" with its attendant pearl-clutchers worry about The Future of Politics because of this?

Posted by: Tyro on March 22, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Newt Gingrich practically invented the modern attack-dog style of American politics.

You mean Lee Atwater?
Posted by: grape_crush

Karl Rove's involvement with Dubya goes back farther than that.

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 22, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Grape Crush,

Did you read my entire comment, or just the part you quoted?

Gregory,

He engaged in it all of the time? Really? I would expect some some support for such an outlandish assertion coming from such an honest person as yourself. Or was that just hyperbole on your part?

Posted by: Yancey Ward on March 22, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

whew my eyes are water.

are you sure that's not urine?

how can you use eric blair's nom de plum and be such a prevaricator?>

Posted by: someOtherClown on March 22, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

I truly cannot believe all the hubbub over this silly, baldy derivative and meaningless ad.

Exactly. I'm sure if Orwell were alive today, he would be thrilled to see his vision of the perfect fascist society being used as a backdrop to peddle personal computers, or to glorify uninspired status quo hack like Obama.

The difference between Hillary and Obama is a lot like the difference between Coke and Pepsi. In other words, there is no fucking difference, save for the packaging.

Posted by: smedleybutler on March 22, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Newt learned how to do this from Bill Clinton. And it's working.

When did Bill Clinton attack an opponent's personal life?

Posted by: Nemo on March 22, 2007 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, but is what Gingrich is quoted as saying here right?

One could make similar rhetorical points about the man Gingrich attacked throughout the 1990s if he said something similar. Entertainment Tonight politics? Check. Consultant-driven politics? Check. The politics of entitlement? Well, Gingrich doesn't talk about that here. But then, it isn't Gingrich whose wife is telling people she deserves to be President because her husband was.

You could make all these rhetorical points, but if Bill Clinton had said exactly what Gingrich does here, you'd still have to ask the question: is he right?

Posted by: Zathras on March 22, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of fishing expeditions, what the hell did a blowjob have to do with a land deal?

Apparently you've never conducted a real estate transaction in New York. The things you have to do here to get a brownstone.....*shudder*

Posted by: Stefan on March 22, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Brent "Actually Slick Willie was impeached for committing perjury. If it's good for Scooter then it's good for Willie isn't it.

Scooter was impeached? "

Actually Brent an impeachment is an indictment by the House of Representitives. Scooter was indicted and Clinton was impeached. Clinton however was not convicted, Scooter was. But the underlying crimes were basically the same, perjury and obstruction of justice. Not having sex with Monica.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on March 22, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

That cinches it.

Newt really is a reptile.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on March 22, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

OK, we've all called Gingrich a hypocrite, and we're all right. Now can we discuss the substance of what he said?

No, because there is no substance to what he said. The whole point is Gingrich's speech was not to decry the trivialization of politics but to deflect and distract attention from his own wrong-doing. Gingrich could give a fuck about the "substance" of what he's saying, because the second he gets another chance he'll use an opponent's personal life to attack him. You can't just pay attention to what someone is saying, you have to also consider the why of why he's saying it. There's the message, and then there's the meta-message, and the meta-message of Gingrich's speech is hey, look over there! Don't blame me for what I did!

Posted by: Stefan on March 22, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

...Blathersville wants a Nicholson pavement—it wants a jail and a poorhouse more...

For those of you who don't know what A NICHOLSON PAVEMENT is, it's made of wooden blocks.

Oh yeah, back on thread....

Newton Tooten is probably experiencing incredulity at the audacity of the demoncrats to serve up some of the very same vitriolic venom that he once was famous for spewing.

What goes around comes around.

If ya can't take it, don't dish it out!

The golden rule of Washington DC is do unto others as they did (oh so gleefully) to you.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on March 22, 2007 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Newt really is a reptile.

Wasn't he, like, the lead lizard in V?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 22, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

All you need to know about Newt's morality is his response to Clinton when asked why he was working so hard to impeach him.
Newt "Because I can"
No other reason or principle necessary.
Newt has always scared me more than any republican running for high office (which excludes Rove, another nightmare). Imagine someone as unprincipled, self delusional, and ruthless as George Bush, but with a higher IQ as your next president.

Posted by: patrick on March 22, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Newt really is a reptile.

I believe they are amphibians.

/pedant

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 22, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Fixed it for you, Yancey.

How honest of you -- not to mention ruggedly individualistic, of course! -- to misrepresent Gingrich's style of politics. Shame on you.

gregory, get a life. why do you have such an obsession with yancey? unlike many other non-liberal posters here, he does not engage in any of the following trollish behaviors:

Off-topic posts
Repeatedly harassing another commenter
Name-calling
Deliberate misrepresentation of the facts
Sock-puppeting

i've engaged in behavior that is far more objectionable than he has ever has (including some of the items on the list above), and maybe only one or two people politely told me to knock it off. the difference between yancey and i is that i'm a self-identified liberal. if you can't handle the reality that some people simply don't find your defense of your political ideals persuasive enough to change their minds, you really should stay off the internet.

Posted by: spacebaby on March 22, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

OK, we've all called Gingrich a hypocrite, and we're all right. Now can we discuss the substance of what he said?

Moreover, being lectured to by Newt Gingrich on political morality is like having to endure a lecture on good corporate governance by Ken Lay, on abstinence by Ted Haggard, or on integrity by Jack Abramoff.

Posted by: Stefan on March 22, 2007 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Moreover, being lectured to by Newt Gingrich on political morality is like having to endure a lecture on good corporate governance by Ken Lay, on abstinence by Ted Haggard, or on integrity by Jack Abramoff.
Posted by: Stefan

"Being called partisan and vindictive by Tom DeLay is like being
called ugly by a frog." - Ronnie Earle

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 22, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

You know something? I disagree with most of you, and I agree with the people defending Gingrich, well, in a way. Here's the thing.

Gingrich is crazy. I don't mean crazy crazy, but crazy as in confused out of his mind. There's this part of him that's bloodthirsty, hard-core hardball winner take all take no prisoners politics. And that's what people are talking about here.

There's another side of Gingrich that comes out every once in a while, is a conservative-based pragmatic technocrat. Even though I disagree with him, I like this character. I always have. It's a shame he doesn't show him more often, the conservative movement can use more of that.

Posted by: Karmakin on March 22, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Karmakin: Tax cuts.

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 22, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Why does every thread start with a post that reads "Frist?" or "Pelosi?" or "Fristlosi?"

What's the significance?

Posted by: dave on March 22, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

I see it's been mentioned previously but crediting Newt with something Lee Atwater did far, far better than he isn't accurate.

Posted by: steve duncan on March 22, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Zathras on March 22, 2007 at 3:05 PM:

Yes, but is what Gingrich is quoted as saying here right?

Coming from Gingrinch, no. Haven't the right whingers use of words phrases and words like 'gentlemanly conduct' and 'bipartisanship' translated into decidedly partisan conduct, taught you anything? It's called working the refs. Whether it's accusing the media of being 'too liberal', crying for bipartisanship when you are in the minority, or pleading for civility in political campaigning, the idea is to get the calls going your way...

Gingrinch's motivation for his statements are suspect given his history. Has he turned over a new leaf and decided to put America ahead of the GOP? Is he really just working the refs? Is he flat-out lying to get everyone's guard down? I can't answer those questions, and until I can, I cannot take his statements at face value, that Gingrinch actually means what he says.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 22, 2007 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry folks this is off topic but I need to come at you on a clear channel.

Listen to what Tony Snow said today:

"The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability."

Looky here...

This is the line in the sand.
What Bush and his criminal friends are saying here is that We The People don't count for a fuck.
It's as clear a broadcast as you will ever hear.

Every single one of us right now should contact our local Democratic Congress folks and Senators and tell them that this attitude is vile and wicked, and that we are holding them accountable for standing up to these Brutes.

Do it.
Express your rage.

Tell your local Dems to show all their backbone on this one.

We lose if they cave.
And you know how Dems can be...

Posted by: McPundit on March 22, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

"The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability."

This isn't just bad American history, this is bad post Charles I British history.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on March 22, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan's covered this very well, but I'd add in response to zenger at 2:53: I think we can all get behind a move toward more serious and substantive policy discussions and fewer character assassinations and personal attacks.

What we can't do is be Charlie Brown trying to kick the football one more time. There is zero history to suggest that Gingrich's plea for bipartisan problem solving is anything other than self-serving manipulation. He will not be the facilitator of any coming dialogue.

Posted by: shortstop on March 22, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

So at what point can we just start beating the crap out of these a-holes?

Posted by: Jim J on March 22, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

...crediting Newt with something Lee Atwater did far, far better than he isn't accurate.

Plus, there will be no deathbed conversion in Newt's case. Be kind of funny if his wife du jour came to said bedside to inform him she was leaving him, though.

Posted by: shortstop on March 22, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

I suppose Gingrich at least has a record of actually getting bipartisan bills through congress while doing these shenanigans...

...While today there's pretty much no bipartisan anything that isn't more of a blackmail sort of situation.

Posted by: Crissa on March 22, 2007 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

I get what you're saying about Newt. I agree. I understand that he isn't the best messenger for what he's conveying. In fact, he might be the worst.

Let's try it this way: If you said what Newt said, would you be right? If so, why can't that ever gain traction?

Posted by: zenger on March 22, 2007 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop on March 22, 2007 at 3:45 PM:

There is zero history to suggest that Gingrich's plea for bipartisan problem solving is anything other than self-serving manipulation. He will not be the facilitator of any coming dialogue.

Exactly. And much more succinctly than I tried to put it earlier. Not to mention better grammar.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 22, 2007 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop: "I think we can all get behind a move toward more serious and substantive policy discussions and fewer character assassinations and personal attacks."

I do, too. But for some reason it isn't happening. Newt is partly why.

But now what? Find more hypocrites?

Posted by: zenger on March 22, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

zenger: I don't think "find" is really the right word. We didn't go looking for Newt to brazenly exhibit hypocrisy of mind-blowing proportions, but nor should we allow him to assume any kind of moral authority on this issue. If what you're arguing is that all this must stop somewhere, and why not here?--well, then I think you're drawing the line in the wrong place.

grape: Nah, but I hadn't seen your good post when I made mine!

Posted by: shortstop on March 22, 2007 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Why does every thread start with a post that reads "Frist?" or "Pelosi?" or "Fristlosi?"

What's the significance?
Posted by: dave

Dyslexia of the first person (Al) who used to do this and the play against guy whose 'diagnosis' of that poor brain dead women in FL...

Sometimes i's hard to keep up if you don't buy a program at the gate.

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 22, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Modern Republicans embody a principle I like to call "If my side does it, it's ok". This is just the latest example, and as long as Americans take them at their word, we'll keep getting screwed.

Posted by: Mike B. on March 22, 2007 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

It's an 'in joke'.

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 22, 2007 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

MsNThrope:Actually, shorter me:Internet

But I happen to like (even though I think it goes painfully wrong), technocrat conservatives. I think they're interesting to discuss things with.

But they're almost extinct now, replaced by movement conservatives. Gingrich, at least to me straddled the line.

But it's kinda weird is because at times he's an extreme example of both.

Posted by: Karmakin on March 22, 2007 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

The ease of throwing up brightly colored baubles constructed of horse shit now exceeds the speed of rational discussion. All is lost.

Posted by: Neal on March 22, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Atwater: Attack

Gingrich: Attack all over the place with hyperbole

Rove: Attack with lies against their strength

I think that sums it up.

Posted by: K on March 22, 2007 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

It's about on a par with the Shrub's often made declaration (and always made with such seeming sincerity) that he "can't understand" how there's so much "partisanship" in Washington.

He sold his soul to the scumbag Rove 30 years ago and has let him operate freely ever since, but apparently can't see the inevitable results.

These Republicans are absolutely amazing in their ability to be completely hypocritical without batting an eye.

Posted by: marty on March 22, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

The only reason Gingrich gets a way with it is because we have a media that holds Dems to a higher standard. If Gingrich were a Dem, he wouldn've been washed up long ago.

Posted by: Horatio Parker on March 22, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Nooooorrrmannnn, Oooh Nooormaaan.. where are you?!?

Posted by: Simp on March 22, 2007 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

In the spirit of Newt Gingrich, I shall continue to call him Newt GroinItch.

Posted by: cowalker on March 22, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

"To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves. "

That's from The Contract With America.

So, the Repugnacans have found a way to govern themselves?

-Free from Congressional Inquiries.

-Free from having to be accountable for ANY of their actions, scandals, etc.

You see, God's on their side, so get with the program and see the light.

The USA is best when it's governed by folks who believe in a government for the rich and nothing but the rich so help us god.

A careful look at what the Bush administration has done/is doing, reveals the truth of the above sentence.

So, since it's wealth that runs the show, how dare us question the motives of our administration.

Further research into TCWA reveals that the fools wanted to reduce government meddling. In a way, they got that (like EPA neutering, etc.) but what about wire-tapping gone wild?

And the deficit..?.. give me a break.

The latest insult is the "Executive" privilege ploy of the bushies.

Nope. We, the people, want answers.

Ya can duck, squirm, obfuscuate until the cows come home, but you (Repugnacans who don;t seem to give a rats ass about what our country is about) cannot hide. (anymore).

So help us god.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on March 22, 2007 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

KD: Newt Gingrich practically invented the modern attack-dog style of American politics. He is its patron saint and its most talented practitioner.

I've got to agree with Kevin on this one with the exception that Newt epitomizes the elected modern attack dog leader (before Tom DeLay) unlike Lee Atwater (before Rove) who operated behind the scenes as a GOP "smashmouth" consultant and strategist. Coincidentally, Atwater was born in Atlanta, GA.

Time Magazine, An Attack Dog, Not a Lap Dog, Monday, Apr. 03, 1989:

One view is that Newt Gingrich is a bomb thrower. A fire-breathing Republican Congressman from Georgia, he is more interested in right-wing grandstanding than in fostering bipartisanship in the House of Representatives....
...By selecting the aggressive Gingrich over his mild-mannered rival, Illinois' Edward Madigan, House Republicans signaled that they want more lash in their whip. "We had a choice of being attack dogs or lapdogs," said a G.O.P. lawmaker. "We decided attack dogs are more useful."
...Gingrich is more likely to use the post as a bully pulpit for his legendary Democrat bashing. In 1984 Gingrich enraged then Speaker Tip O'Neill by vehemently accusing Democratic lawmakers of blindness to the Communist threat. It was Gingrich who fomented the House Ethics Committee's investigation of O'Neill's successor, Jim Wright of Texas. In a characteristically antagonistic oratorical flourish, Gingrich accused Wright, as well as other Democratic leaders, of having a "Mussolini-like ego."
...Most Democrats expect anything but courtesy from Gingrich. In fact, they view his combativeness as a potential plus. "Newt probably unites the Democratic Party more than any other single Republican," said House Majority Whip Tony Coelho of California. If Gingrich lives up to his loose-cannon reputation, he could further hinder the President's crusade for congressional bipartisanship. Of course, if Gingrich has his way, there will not be a Democratic majority in the House for long. "Newt wakes up in the morning, and the first thing he thinks about is how to become the majority party," says Charles Black, a Republican political consultant....
In line with Charlie Black's comment, a quote attributed to Newt:
“What is the primary purpose of a political leader? To build a majority. If voters care about parking lots, then talk about parking lots.”
Maybe Newt meant "bark about the Dem's opposition to "parking lots." Doesn't matter whether the "talk" is truthful or aboveboard just bark!

On Gingrich hypocrisy, Michael Scherer at Salon deflated the "ethically-challenged" Newt's "shock" over the Abramoff corruption scandal, Jan. 5, 2006:

The timing of Gingrich's indignation was impeccable: Exactly 24 hours after Abramoff had entered a guilty plea, sending shivers of fear through much of Capitol Hill, he had scheduled a speech on the problems of congressional corruption....
For veterans of congressional ethics scandals, Gingrich makes an unlikely champion of clean politics. It is Gingrich, after all, who still holds the distinction of being the only sitting House speaker to be disciplined by his colleagues for ethical wrongdoing. "Gingrich has a tremendous pot-calling-the-kettle-black problem," says Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional Accountability Project, a watchdog group that hounded Gingrich during the 1990s. "This hardball fundraising strategy was started by Gingrich."
Before the 1994 election, several reports noted that Gingrich had been warning the heads of corporate political action committees to give generously to Republican candidates or face political retribution. It was a threat that soon became conventional wisdom, as Republican leaders built increasingly close ties to the lobbying community and more and more corporate funds found their way into Republican coffers. By 1996, Gingrich found himself saddled with a number of ethical problems similar in type, though not in scale, to the Abramoff scandal. He was accused of misusing nonprofit organizations for political purposes, personally benefiting from political contributions and giving false statements to ethics investigators. The House eventually voted to reprimand Gingrich and require him to pay a $300,000 penalty.
Back then, many of Gingrich's Republican colleagues turned against him, in much the same way that Gingrich has now taken to criticizing Republicans tied to Abramoff. "Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., at the time....
...On Tuesday, Gingrich raised his independent profile further by telling the Washington Post that an election should be held to replace Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, as the House majority leader, who is currently struggling to retain his title. DeLay faces a Texas indictment for illegal campaign fundraising, and the prospect of further charges from the Abramoff investigation.
"I don't think you can run the House without a majority leader and I see no prospect that DeLay will, in any sense, be cleared up in any reasonable time," Gingrich told reporters at the Rotary event.
There was some irony in Gingrich's attack on DeLay, whose power has diminished considerably in recent months. Back in 1997, when Congress was debating a reprimand of Gingrich, DeLay spoke out in defense of him and in favor of party unity. "Let's stop this madness," DeLay declared on the House floor. "Let's stop the cannibalism." Nine years later, Gingrich shows no signs that he plans to return the favor.
As we've seen in the firings of the Bush-appointed US attorneys, Repubs eat their own.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 22, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

zmulls: "It's looking more and more like a Gingrich/Edwards matchup ..."

(Sigh!) Looks like zmulls found my bong and stash ...

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 22, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop,

1. We both agree that what he said was correct.
2. We both agree that he's a hypocrite for saying it.

There is no drawing lines in the sand. Can't control discourse.

But please note that everyone is running with No. 2.

If someone with credibility had said it and Kevin had posted it, the comments section would very short indeed.

That's all I'm saying. Not an earth-rattling observation; just a depressing one.

Posted by: zenger on March 22, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

While we're on the topic on "in" jokes. What's the deal with "algore?" See it spelled like that by conservatives.

Posted by: zenger on March 22, 2007 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK
While we're on the topic on "in" jokes. What's the deal with "algore?" See it spelled like that by conservatives.

Its sort of like "Democrat Party", or, on the other side of the aisle, "Repugnacan".

Posted by: cmdicely on March 22, 2007 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

So help us god.

I might and then again might not...

Posted by: God Herself on March 22, 2007 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Zenger: "Algore" is the childish epithet conservatives think is so funny because ... it's a type of tuna? I never did see why this was such a knee-slapper.

Or, I could be wrong. Afterall, conservatives never engage in name-calling, right? Rush wouldn't lie about that, would he? Or, maybe he's not really a conservative because he does this himself? It's hard to keep all the right-wing nonsense straight.

Posted by: DH Walker on March 22, 2007 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Kind of like how Bill O'Reilly attacks people for "name calling"... by calling them names.

Or like Bush attacking Democrats for "playing poltics"... by playing politics.

Posted by: Robert on March 22, 2007 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

All that principle and so forth; swept away by two little words: tax cuts.

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 22, 2007 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I agree. The hypocrisy and chutzpah is really breathtaking, coming from someone as vile and snarky as Gingrich. My guess is that he is trying to appear "presidential" - ackkkk (sorry, but I could actually taste the vomit tickling the punching bag at the back of my throat, as I typed that). Orwell couldn't have dreamed up a more bizarre character than the newly re-made Newton Leroy Gingrich.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on March 22, 2007 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Actually Brent an impeachment is an indictment by the House of Representitives. Scooter was indicted and Clinton was impeached. Clinton however was not convicted, Scooter was. But the underlying crimes were basically the same, perjury and obstruction of justice.

Yes. These things are true. What it elides is that the question was never whether or not Clinton should be indicted in a court of law but whether it was reasonable to impeach his presidency on that basis. That is the difference in the cases of Clinton and Libby and that is the difference that your blithe comparison deliberately elides. But you knew that.

Posted by: brent on March 22, 2007 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK
Wasn't he, like, the lead lizard in V?

And BGRS gets the "Obscure Reference of the Day" award. Nicely done.

Oh, and for the record, Thomas Jefferson ran what was, in all likelihood, the filthiest campaign in the history of America. And he's on our money.

The only things that keep Newt from making Jefferson look like an amateur are:

1. Election laws
2. Slander laws
3. Libel laws
4. The Google

Actually, #4 is probably the biggest one at this point.

Posted by: Mark D (aka "Unholy Moses") on March 22, 2007 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

These Republicans are absolutely amazing in their ability to be completely hypocritical without batting an eye.
Posted by: marty

Tax cuts.

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 22, 2007 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

algore = tuna? Geez, what a letdown. I bet half the people who use it don't even know that.

Posted by: zenger on March 22, 2007 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

algore = tuna? Geez, what a letdown. I bet half the people who use it don't even know that.

I should hope that would be the case. The tuna is Albacore.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 22, 2007 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

'Exactly. I'm sure if Orwell were alive today, he would be thrilled to see his vision of the perfect fascist society being used as a backdrop to peddle personal computers, or to glorify uninspired status quo hack like Obama.'

If Orwell were alive today, he'd say "I have to write a book about the hypocrisy and corruption of liberal idealists. I'll call it 'Animal Farm'."

Posted by: Canaan on March 22, 2007 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK
Wasn't he, like, the lead lizard in V?

You know, now, everytime I see Gingrich on TV I'm going to imagine him tipping his head back and swallowing a rat.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 22, 2007 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

You know, now, everytime I see Gingrich on TV I'm going to imagine him tipping his head back and swallowing a rat.

My work here is done.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 22, 2007 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

If Gingrich were Edwards, right about now he'd be asking for a divorce. Instead he decides it's time to tell the Democrats to play nice. I remember when the media considered him to be an intellect. That in itself should have been a warning of what was to come from the entire crew. We have been living through a "contract on America", thanks to Newt.

Posted by: horatio on March 22, 2007 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

Newt's innovation was standing in front of that new fixed CSPAN camera in the House chamber and blabbering. Well, we do have to give him credit for accepting that the whole thing was pure propoganda and embracing it. That took some chutzpa for an American.

In general most American pols might end up living a life that is nothing but propoganda the thing is that most of them are unaware of it for the most part and would be loath to embrace it.

It is perfectly fitting that the perfection of government propoganda has been acheived by anti government politicians. Peep back the layers of irony if you dared.

Posted by: rapier on March 22, 2007 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

...If Orwell were alive today, he'd say "I have to write a book about the hypocrisy and corruption of liberal idealists. I'll call it 'Animal Farm'."

Posted by: Canaan on March 22, 2007 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

Actually he already did that. I suggest you read it.

It's about communism as practised by totalitarian states.

Idiot!

Posted by: notthere on March 22, 2007 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

Gingrich's strength and success -- which says little for the electorate -- is to assert as "simple truths" things that are at best debatable and at worst lies and have them repeated without criticsm by the media and accepted by the listeners/readers in sufficient numbers to reinforce his credibility which is, in fact, zero.

Posted by: notthere on March 22, 2007 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

Karmakin: But I happen to like (even though I think it goes painfully wrong), technocrat conservatives. I think they're interesting to discuss things with.

But they're almost extinct now, replaced by movement conservatives. Gingrich, at least to me straddled the line.

I actually kinda respected the Newt myself once. The first time I saw Gingrich was on Firing Line, circa 1984. My impression of him was that he was scary smart - that is, he was poised, literate, and articulate. He knew all the right questions; he just had all the wrong answers. I remember thinking that he could be dangerous if he ever found an audience.

Like nearly all libertarians, Newt grossly overestimated the popularity of minimalist government. He became a movement conservative because that's where the votes are. Once Gingrich found out how easy it is to be a movement conservative - Christian Right voters don't actually require you to live like a Christian, they only ask that you know all the current buzzwords and that you praise Jesus on cue - he never looked back. Thus Newt went from mildly interesting wonk to the loathsome creature he is today.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on March 22, 2007 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Newt didn't invent the modern style of attack politics-the Democrats did. Kennedy attacked Nixon over a missile gap that didn't exist, and that Kennedy knew didn't exist. And there is much evidence that Kennedy stole the 1960 election. In fact, a major newspaper was going to run a series of stories on the voter fraud that the Kennedy camp was behind, but did not because one man, believing it would cause a Constitutional crisis, stopped them. That man was Richard Nixon.

The Democrats went on the wiretap the 1964 RNC than attempt to impeach Nixon because his people did the same thing to them in '72. And as for attack ads, just remember that the girl-picking-daisy-petals/mushroom-cloud/you-can't-trust-Barry-Goldwater was the godfather of them all.

The Democrats shouldn't try to say the Republicans invented modern negative campaigning when all the Republicans did was learn the attack methods the Democrats invented and then turned their own weapons against them.

Posted by: brian on March 22, 2007 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, Kevin, that Newt, the one who also said in a mass email that the Clintons would be vicious on the campaign trail, that they'd bruise the delicate thin skin of the GOP if they took the Clintons on.

Posted by: jurassicpork on March 22, 2007 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

From wikipedia's entry on the jargon of Rush Limbaugh:

Algore - Former Vice President Al Gore. This nickname was originally used in a parody of Count Dracula involving "Count Taxula" (voiced so as to sound like Bill Clinton) and his loyal servant "Algore" (as in Igor).

See? Their jokes never change and never get any better.

Posted by: Singularity on March 22, 2007 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Newt didn't invent the modern style of attack politics-the Democrats did...And there is much evidence that Kennedy stole the 1960 election....
Posted by: brian on March 22, 2007 at 9:25 PM

Ah yes. That's an oldie but a goodie. Still gets air play today! A GOP classic, I tell ya'!

Speaking of oldies, you did hear the one about Democrats being soft on defense? Can't trust a Dem to protect the American interest? That's a good one that goes all the way back to FDR.

Yeah, FDR was weak. Let Stalin walk all over him at Yalta. At least, that's what Dick Nixon told me, back in the 1950s. Nixon and Joe McCarthy and the rest of their Republican party. Yeah, ol' Tricky Dicky and Tailgunner Joe liked to tell some good stories.

Speaking of ol' Tailgunner Joe, don't you just love the was that "liberal" has eclipsed "communist" as the GOP's favorite "un-American" insult?

But yeah, you're right. The Democrats invented the modern style of attack politics.

Posted by: I.M.Shocked on March 22, 2007 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

His audience was a group call8ng itself the Independent Women's Forum. Could very well be pandering being trying to seem above the fray.

Seems to me, that ad would hurt the Republicans worse than either Obama or Clinton, since it gives the impression it is a Conservative hit piece if one did not dig far enough to discover that the author was an Obama supporter.

Posted by: bob in fl on March 22, 2007 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry Kevin,

Not gonna work for Newt. He's a typical conservative wanting the fouls called only when he's down so he can go back the same stuff when he's up. The guy has no credibility.

Posted by: patience on March 23, 2007 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

While we're on the subject of attack politics, and who invented what, one can make a plausible argument that the modern political campaign was invented by the Nazi Party. Every politician running for office in a democracy since 1933 owes a debt to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on March 23, 2007 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

Newt Gingrich establish a school to TEACH attack politics.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 23, 2007 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINK

Gingrich didn't invent the modern style of attack politics, any more than Ford invented the automobile. But he was the first to put it into mass production, by breaking it down into easy-to-grasp stages and training up a work force to crank it out.

Posted by: Hogan on March 23, 2007 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

"Actually Brent an impeachment is an indictment by the House of Representitives. Scooter was indicted and Clinton was impeached. Clinton however was not convicted, Scooter was. But the underlying crimes were basically the same, perjury and obstruction of justice.

Yes. These things are true. What it elides is that the question was never whether or not Clinton should be indicted in a court of law but whether it was reasonable to impeach his presidency on that basis. That is the difference in the cases of Clinton and Libby and that is the difference that your blithe comparison deliberately elides. But you knew that. "

Actually Brent The topic here is Newt Gingrich. Kevin remarked on the hypocrysy of Newt pursuing impeachment while he was also having an affair. Had the impeachment been for Clintons affair then there would have been hypocrysy, but he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

There was no hypocrysy.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on March 23, 2007 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Do you remember just before the 1994 election when Gingrich blamed Democrats when a woman in South Carolina named Susan Smith drowned her two young children in a lake? During her trial, it was revealed that her stepfather used to molest her as a child. Not only was he on the South Carolina Republican Executive Committee, he was also a member of the advisory board of the Christian Coalition.

Posted by: Vadranor on March 23, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK
guys with names like Feklisov and Zarubin? mh rat 12:29 PM
So names convict one of treason? How about names like Pollard, Novak, Hansen? What about the thousands accused baselessly? If you RepubliConTarians could, you would institute the Stasi in the US.
... Kennedy knew didn't exist.... evidence that Kennedy stole the 1960 election. ...The Democrats went on the wiretap the 1964 RNC ...the girl-picking-daisy.... brian at 9:25 PM
According to you, Democrats did it, waaaaa! Why don't you fact check your revisionist history? Afraid? Posted by: Mike on March 23, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Remember when Newt the Blimp's mommy went on the TV and called Hilary a bitch? Funny, I can't recall her tubby son apologizing for his wayward mother.

Posted by: Pechorin on March 24, 2007 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly