Newt’s Singeing Statement

Newt Gingrich, in a role that was probably cast years ago, now calls on Obama to be impeached because he refuses to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who plans within two weeks to announce if he will run for president, said today that if President Obama doesn’t change his mind and order his Justice Department to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans in Congress should strike back and even consider impeachment proceedings.

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,” said Gingrich. “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.”

Mind you, Newt seems to misunderstand what’s going on. After all, Obama will continue to enforce DOMA. What he won’t do is defend a law he believes to be unconstitutional; but he’ll let a court decide whether he’s right or not.

Which makes what Obama did far far less abusive (in all senses of the word) than what George W Bush did with his long catalog of signing statements. Perhaps Bush’s most famous was his signing statement to the Detainee Treatment Act.

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005. [my emphasis]

Not long after the DTA went into effect, Stephen Bradbury wrote his ridiculous Appendix M opinion allowing DOD to use any techniques they wanted to claim were included in that Appendix and later refused to share it with Congress.

But my personal favorite is the one he signed on the Defense Appropriation Bill in 2003, after Congress defunded data mining programs directed at Americans.

Sections 8082, 8091, 8117, and 8131 of the Act make clear that the classified annex accompanies but is not incorporated as a part of the Act, and therefore the classified annex does not meet the bicameralism and presentment requirements specified by the Constitution for the making of a law. Accordingly, the executive branch shall construe the classified annex references in sections 8082, 8091, 8117, and 8131 as advisory in effect. My Administration continues to discourage any efforts to enact secret law as part of defense funding legislation and encourages instead appropriate use of classified annexes to committee reports and joint statements of managers that accompany the final legislation.

As this timeline makes clear, it appears to have been an attempt to avoid having the data mining prohibition apply to the illegal wiretap program that was used, among other things, to wiretap protected conversations between defendants and their lawyers. Even after Jim Comey et al refused to reauthorize the program with its next approval (leading up to the hospital confrontation), Bush authorized it to continue anyway.

Of course, Newt didn’t make a peep when Bush issued signing statements followed by executive branch assertions of authority (his March 10, 2004 reauthorization of the illegal wiretap program and Bradbury’s memo) designed to thwart Congressional efforts to shut down specific programs.

But now that Obama has stepped back to allow the courts to decide whether a legally married gay man can extend his federal benefits to his spouse–even while continuing to enforce DOMA–Newt considers such executive branch tactics an impeachable offense.

Once again, torture and domestic surveillance are acceptable abuses of executive authority for Republicans. But a blowjob or a loving marriage requires impeachment.

Marcy has been blogging full time since 2007. She’s known for her live-blogging of the Scooter Libby trial, her discovery of the number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, and generally for her weedy analysis of document dumps.

Marcy Wheeler is an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial.

Marcy has a PhD from the University of Michigan, where she researched the “feuilleton,” a short conversational newspaper form that has proven important in times of heightened censorship. Before and after her time in academics, Marcy provided documentation consulting for corporations in the auto, tech, and energy industries. She lives with her spouse and dog in Grand Rapids, MI.

  1. PeasantParty says:

    Sheesh! Teh Crazy.

    I am wishing that Anonymous or somebody with the ability to pull his stuff out into the open would get it ready for a special day in the near future.

    He needs to be in a cell with Tom Delay.

    “I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,” said Gingrich. “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.”

    No, he doesn’t believe that at all. If he did, he would have been calling for the entire Bush administration to be locked up forever. IOKIYAR

  2. greenharper says:

    Ah, not to mention prosecuting terror perpetrators found within the jurisdiction of the United States. Newt, Newt, what about impeaching Obama for failure to enforce the law as to THEM?

  3. PeasantParty says:

    EW,

    Just found this on Ondelletes post. I tried to go but the link has been disengaged. Wonder why? *g*

    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf2

    President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.

    Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn’t be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision.

    The timing of Bush’s move is intriguing. On the same day the President signed the memo, Porter Goss resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency amid criticism of ineffectiveness and poor morale at the agency. Only six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had obtained millions of calling records of ordinary citizens provided by three major U.S. phone companies. Negroponte oversees both the CIA and NSA in his role as the administration’s top intelligence official.

    William McLucas, the Securities & Exchange Commission’s former enforcement chief, suggested that the ability to conceal financial information in the name of national security could lead some companies “to play fast and loose with their numbers.” McLucas, a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr in Washington, added: “It could be that you have a bunch of books and records out there that no one knows about.”

  4. BoxTurtle says:

    Now, now. Don’t dismiss Newt out of hand. Yes, his reasons are all wrong but the idea of impeaching Obama should at least be debated. Do I need to list the constitutionally questionable actions ObamaLLP has committed?

    Boxturtle (The major reason NOT to impeach Obama is Biden, IMO)

  5. rosalind says:

    now that’s the Honorable Newt Gingrich, according to Rummy. And re-reading the “Millenium Challenge” memo in the dump (p. 20), I wonder what exact expertise Newtie could possibly have to offer on the subject of military transformation:

    “One other individual who might be helpful is the Honorable Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives who has some interesting ideas on transformation and has been in from time to time to share his thoughts.”

    Given the spectacular failure of the transformational side of the Millennium Challenge war game, perhaps Newtie G.’s deep thoughts did see some action.

  6. scribe says:

    Could it be that Newt’s rant (and, doubtless, some Rethugs taking him up on it) was a result Barry desired with this announcement and decision?

    I mean, what better way to rally a demoralized Dem base than to have to defend a Dem president against Rethug whack-jobs out to remove him from office?

    As a move, it seems akin to McSame throwing the dice with Palin: high risk, high reward, and appropriate to a situation where you’ve got a real uphill climb and nothing to lose. If the tenor of this and other sites is any indication of where the Dem base is, I’d bet Obama’s internal polling numbers – particularly as to base Dems, the ones who do the shoe-leather GOTV, phone-banking, and such – are even worse than we might imagine. I know he’s lost me and, because I view re-election as a voter’s act of ratifying the official’s conduct during the first term, won’t get me back.

    And I could give a shit about defending him during an impeachment. Unless he’s willing to hire me as part of his legal team. If it comes to that, we can talk.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      Could it be that Newt’s rant (and, doubtless, some Rethugs taking him up on it) was a result Barry desired with this announcement and decision?

      Well, it was certainly one that he should have expected. So he either wanted it or was prepared to handle it.

      Dem president against Rethug whack-jobs out to remove him from office?

      They’re not the only ones who’d rather him out, but most of us are hoping for a primary challenge from the left.

      Unless he’s willing to hire me as part of his legal team. If it comes to that, we can talk.

      You lawyers really will do anything for money! :-)

      Boxturtle (I’d work for him too. But I’d probably get fired quickly for speaking my mind)

  7. WhatConstitution says:

    Instead of approaching this from the perspective of how hypocritical is is for a rethug to object to a president’s selective enforcement of law when the rethug liked the law being enforced (i.e., Newt likes DOMA), maybe the question might be asked whether some good might come from Congress actually debating the contours of presidential authority?

    Yes, Bush’s signing statements announcing Cheney’s construct of a “unitary executive” were pernicious. The thing is, since nobody ever challenged those by impeaching Bush, that pernicious construct is still out there, waiting for the next rethug to seek to re-implement it regardless of whether Obama makes any noise about it during his terms.

    It’s right to invoke the memory of Bush’s despicable “unitary executive” refusals to enforce the law, but perhaps less productive to do so to excuse Obama’s present policy announcement relative to DOMA. Is the analogy true? If they are the same act for purposes of constitutional scrutiny, then I’d rather have Obama chided by Congress and the “unitary executive theory” pulled into a congressional definition of what kind of presidential action will be subject to impeachment (and DOMA is headed for demise in the courts, IMO, so I don’t necessarily believe that an acceleration of that process due to a presidential edict is more important, in the long run, than having the Cheney “unitary executive theory” congressionally debunked once and for all from a constitutional perspective).

    Isn’t the real question whether the presidential authority to act as Obama has acted relative to DOMA on materially different (i.e. solid) constitutional footing than was Bush’s series of signing statements? And if it isn’t, might there perhaps be value in daring the rethugs to pursue Newt’s threat?

  8. barrelofmonkeys says:

    Right! Newt can speak out on Defense of Adultery. Newt wisdom: It’s not what I do, it’s what I say that matters.

  9. JohnLopresti says:

    I see a dyssymmetry in the comparisons between WBushco and Holder*s functional equivalent of demurrer in the Massachusetts 2nd circuit case concerning modern interpretations of contemporary first-world genderizable marriage laws. In the Bush instances, that administration, true, was Republican activist-like aggregating executive precedents of impunity and immunity; those were structural and historical initiatives Republicans want limned in the constitutional empyrean. What went unsaid and mostly unargued was the partial martial law Bush rolled out. Asymmetrical warfare, Orwellian lexicon, undeclared limitless executive detention, other first and 4A suspensions. I am still waiting for the Bush Sr. ReaganCo era library of *secret findings*, and the subsequent likely trove of WBushCo *secret* findings. We got some hand wringing from IG reports, and lemmas of *professional responsibility* as post morta.

    However, the polemical hoopla from Gingrich, though predictably down home constituency invoking, actually has some interesting subject matter, quite unusual for Gingrich, whose past history was much more about obliterating government oversight than streamlining corpulent bureaucracies. Gingrich stood for elimination of the department of energy; ah, yes, and how much quicker would MMS have processed boilerplate EIRs for BP*s deepwaterhorizon under that regime, I would ask (rhetorically); or, let*s see, how would educational funding have fared under Gingrich*s plan to dissolve the department of education? His demagoguery is beyond superficial, clearly.

    Yet, the Massachusetts case has stirred the likes of a well respected centrist former US attorney general, WDellinger, to write recently a brief article pondering what results Holder*s hands-off approach will engender; and even Yale*s prof Balkin has opined in a short post that, indeed, Holder*s effort is likely to draw the other branches of government into examining the viscous issue which is US marriage law.

    I like the dynamism Holder*s approach has elicited; it seems to have struck just the right note of balance and comity among the branches of government. The elected representatives and jurists may have to examine the questions Obama and his attorney general have brought to the fore with this interesting declaration and opinion. See the Balkin article op.cit. for musings on the gradations of likely rulings from the several federal court districts and jurisdictions in this matter.

  10. dkeithgriffiths says:

    The issue isn’t same sex marriage or adultery. The issue is whether the executive branch can interpret the law before deciding to execute the law. Hence the executive branch name. How would you feel if President Mitt Romney decided ObamaCare is unconstitutional and told the Justice Department to quit defending it? This is a slippery slope. If you want to change the law then pass it through congress or litigate in the courts and have it thrown back to the legislative branch. The troubling part is we are so blinded by ideology, that we aren’t anticipating the side affects.

    • barrelofmonkeys says:

      1. Gingrich is certainly NOT the messenger and holds no authority–moral or otherwise–in this area.
      2. This pales compared to some of the subversive signing statements executed by BushCo.

      • dkeithgriffiths says:

        Don’t get hung up on Newts morals and weird as that is. Pretend I made the argument. Also, just because Bush did it doesn’t make it acceptable. I don’t have to explain that logic to you. It just seems to me that once the executive branch starts interpreting the law a democracy takes a dangerous fa-cod of a democracy. Who will defend the law? Not congress, not the courts

    • papau says:

      Sorry – but the “won’t defend” boat left the dock in Aug 1981 when Reagan shut down the EEOC, eventually having now Justice C. Thomas as head of the EEOC doing nothing but holding filings. Indeed it can be argued that Reagan did not even “enforce” the equal opportunity in the workplace laws.

      Amazing how if an action previously used by the GOP is used by a Dem it is “dangerous” because the GOP might again use it.

      • dkeithgriffiths says:

        I am not here to defend either party. It just happens the current president is a Democrat. It just seems like a dangerous precedent and is gaining popularity with each successive administration.

    • sona says:

      how do you explain bush’s snowflakes of signing statements?

      these statements indicated how the executive intended to implement relevant stautes which remained unchanged regardless of the executive’s intent on implementation

      how were these signing statements differ in essence from obama’s intent as to how DOMA would be implemented by his administration?

      it just smacks to me of double standard, if not outright hypocrisy, all dressed up in pseudo legalese to sound important but essentially meaningless

  11. Jim says:

    Nice to see they’re working hard to create jobs.

    Isn’t this the guy who left his first wife who had cancer, cheated on his second, and is now whittling away at his third? Should Newt be allowed to get married?

    • dkeithgriffiths says:

      We all have hypocrisy in our life. Are we to hold no standards so as to be blameless. Personal attacks aside does he not have a valid point. What is your response to the argument.

      • Jim says:

        My response is the GOP has not ‘upheld it’s Constitutional oath’ and has syetematically worked against the welfare of the people and abused/ ignored the Constitution. They cry foul when they do not get what they want. Also, this is entirely political. Republicans always look for any excuse to impeach Dem Prresidents.

      • cwaltz says:

        Speak for yourself. I don’t spend my time telling others how to live their lives like Newt and his cabal.

        Oh and no he doesn’t have a point other than scoring political points for his ambition.

        Newt and his baggage can return from the hole from whence he and it came and I see that as someone who would NOT be considered an ideologue.

        • dkeithgriffiths says:

          OK, Newt aside. Do you want President Romney making these decisions. The tables will turn that is certain.

          • PJEvans says:

            Extremely hypothetical situation, since Romney isn’t going to be president any time soon.

            We deal with the president we have, not with the one someone else wishes to have.

            • dkeithgriffiths says:

              The point is the political pendulum will swing. Do you want some future Republican president calling off the defense of a law that is near and dear to you. And don’t try and parse defending and executing the law to fit an ideology. What if I decide to ignore the law you are executing? Then what? You ignore me and you are not executing anything or you try and compel me, in which case your are defending the law. They are synonymous from a legal standpoint. Case law 101.

          • wilvick says:

            Well, you’re right about one thing. The right will use it, baseless though it may be. Engineering a right wing backlash to a left wing straw-man is by now a hoary institution in the GOP. Gingrich’s one talent has always been his ability to suss out/invent and promote quasi-moral, legal or historical arguments for such straw-men. Even if they can’t get the political traction for impeachment, they’ll use it to raise money in religious right circles and will add it to their list of “get backs” when they have the presidency again.

          • jdmckay0 says:

            The tables will turn that is certain.

            Oh c’mon dude… the tables have already been turned, the drawers have been emptied, the game has been fixed, the US Treasury has been co-opted and most of the world no longer trusts us w/much of anything.

            Newt’s “ascendancy” was fueled by partnership w/Limbaugh, calculated every morning, to wrap his scripted list of incendiary words around every single statement uttered by either of those bums wrt dems/liberals or anyone else not in the pocket of +/- 0.01% of their moneyed interests.

            That is one thing about Newt that hasn’t changed.

            If there’s one person responsible for initiating and giving momentum to the events which, through the Bush years, have gotten us to a vacuous no-reality, no responsibility, no common sense and (especially) no honesty… all as a basis for US policies, it’s Newt.

            Go pound sand dude.

      • sona says:

        again, given the precedence of bush’s signing statements, i don’t see any adverse side effects, anticipated or not

        if bush could get away with ideas on how statutes are to implemented, why can’t obama? or has the principle of precedence suddenly and quite inexplicably become non applicable?

  12. JohnLopresti says:

    Errata, my @13, WDellinger was AAG at OLC, not AG; regarding which see also Dellinger July 17, 2008 testimony (formal prepared remarks) regarding BushCo illicit methodology in bypassing prohibitions against torture, at a House hearing on that topic.

  13. Cynthia Kouril says:

    If Obama does not order his DOJ to enforce the laws of mail and wire fraud and securities fraud against banksters in the foreclosure fraud scandal the should be…….

  14. perris says:

    I’m LOVING the idea of FINALLY getting impeachment on the table for a number of reasons;

    first, obama needs to be removed from office, he has abused his constituents far too long, the constitution, his oath to office.

    the fact that they’re using the wrong reasons for impeachment bother me not one bit

    PLUS

    it informs the democrats, impeachment is NEVER off the table when it comes to republicans and though they will probably not learn the lesson, they need to be slapped in the face with that lesson anyway

  15. myshadow says:

    This is right up there with the quitter’s ghost written tweets.
    This is another person who isn’t worthy of the facetime devoted to his positions. He is another troll who should be malnourished with inattention.
    I’m more interested in the fact the President didn’t mention anything about wisconson, or labor in general in his Saturday message, or the existence of a growing population of 99ers.

  16. Phoenix Woman says:

    Once again, torture and domestic surveillance are acceptable abuses of executive authority for Republicans. But a blowjob or a loving marriage requires impeachment.

    Yup. And whereas being suspected of lying under oath about an affair is grounds for impeaching Democratic presidents, it’s laughed off when it’s ordered by Roger Ailes to protect Republican presidential candidates.

  17. Knoxville says:

    Newt Gingrich … now calls on Obama to be impeached because he refuses to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court

    …because for Newt Gingrich, marriage is a sacred institution.

    Obama should not be reelected in 2012 because he lied about what he would do as president.

  18. Twain says:

    Newtie’s play is a bright shiny object. It would take the attention away from the real problems and we all know that the Rs have no sort of plan to fix anything. It would cost millions and do nothing but waste time. Whatever Obama is or does, I don’t want them wasting time on this. Plus, he has not committed an impeachable offense. When it’s impeachable to lie, we won’t have a prez or a congress – what a good idea.

  19. Cellar47 says:

    In the Immortal words of JoeMyGod:

    “Gingrich would like to remind everybody that that marriage is between one man and one woman whom you abandon riddled with cancer on her hospital bed while you fuck the shit out of your mistress whom you later marry and cheat on with a third woman while screaming with Godly moral outrage about the infidelities of the president”

  20. dkeithgriffiths says:

    I am astounded at the vitriol. This tread sounds like a bunch of petulant children demanding equality. News flash. Life isn’t fair. Fairness is achieved through argument, persuasion and long suffering. We have valid points. Make them. Don’t disqualify oneself with tit-for-tat commentary.

  21. Cujo359 says:

    Once again, torture and domestic surveillance are acceptable abuses of executive authority for Republicans. But a blowjob or a loving marriage requires impeachment.

    President Bush didn’t just refuse to enforce laws, he actually violated them, and yet not a peep from Newt. By the time Obama took office, most of those laws had been rewritten or obviated, but it’s hard to justify allowing a President to knowingly and repeatedly violate laws, and at the same time calling selective enforcement of a law that isn’t doing well in court impeachable really is ridiculous.

  22. wagthedog says:

    Like Ruddy G and Sarah P, he is not a viable candidate but, that doesn’t stop these clown from pimping for political donations.

  23. dkeithgriffiths says:

    Another example. A Republican president rolls into office in 2012 (could happen) an decides ObamaCare is unconstitutional. He calls off the Justice Department. That also sends the message to all cabinet levels that the law is opposed by the president. Do you really think they are going to work against the presidents wishes? Not if they want any proximity to himher or the political party machinary. The president can effectively kill passed law without any checks. Both parties will abuse the system (and have) and it is equally destructive.

    • PJEvans says:

      You might want to worry more about the government we have now, instead of worrying about the one we might have two years from now. Worrying about hypotheticals makes you crazy.

    • barrelofmonkeys says:

      In response to [email protected]:

      Your assumption that Republicans wait for Democrats to set precedent is faulty. They do whatever they damn well please.

      The issue for me is the “father knows best” meme in the conservative base. Newt has ZERO moral authority here, and it should be duly noted. Reminds me gay Republicans who vote against gay rights.

    • MadDog says:

      You seem to have entirely missed the primary fact of the Obama Admininstration’s DOMA announcement, so it’s not surprising that your arguments aren’t making any headway here.

      First and foremost, try reading this:

      Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act

      As you should note (but apparently haven’t), the statement of AG Holder irrefutably and obviously declares the following:

      …the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit

      …Furthermore, pursuant to the President ’ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President’s and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3…

      Now some people may have a hard time understanding this, but those who are sentient don’t.

      The Obama Administration, and it’s DOJ, are not unilaterally deciding which laws are constitutional or not, but instead are making their representations about DOMA in fookin’ court!

      Yes, that equal 3rd branch of our government where decisions are made about the constitutionality of our laws!

      So don’t give us that crap about ideology ruling the roost here too.

      And don’t give us that crap about “the executive branch starts interpreting the law”.

      And don’t give us that crap about comparing this case with “Bush did it too”.

      There is a big fookin’ difference here. Bush did not take his “interpretations” to court where the test of constitutionality is rightly decided.

      Now, do you have anything else to say?

      • dkeithgriffiths says:

        Your style is a bit heavy handed, but you make some good points. A couple of questions.

        1. If you decide to “not defend the constitutionality”, you must believe it unconstitutional. Who decided Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional? The Second Circuit hasn’t ruled yet.

        2. Why would the Justice department refuse to defend the law in the Second Circuit court but continue to defend it in any other court? AG Holder makes this very point in paragraph two. All defense across all Section 3 litigation will cease “pursuant to the Presidents instruction”. Isn’t this the definition of unilateral?

        3. Why must we ALWAYS talk about Bush? (he’s gone)

        4. Lastly, should a future president be allowed to NOT execute the insurance mandate of ObamaCare?

          • dkeithgriffiths says:

            With all due respect, I could go chat it up with people who think like me and you likewise. I believe that people who search for truth, keep company with those who think differently. I do not wish to crash your party. I have overstayed my welcome.

            PS
            When I refer to ‘style’ I was kindly referring to belittling words (crap, not sentient etc), when referring to others opinions. I may not always agree but I try (not perfect) to be respectful of others opinions.

  24. barrelofmonkeys says:

    Your assumption that Republicans wait for Democrats to set precedent is faulty. They do whatever they damn well please.

    The issue for me is the “father knows best” meme in the conservative base. Newt has ZERO moral authority here, and it should be duly noted. Reminds me gay Republicans who vote against gay rights.

  25. radiofreewill says:

    Goopers like the same things, the same way, over and over.

    This is particularly true, imvho, with how they posture publicly during general election cycles. Meaning that, since they’re rigidly authoritarian, they have a pecking order going from the littlest sub-monkeys up to the big gorilla.

    So, Newt is amongst the first to stand-up, shout his hate, and run away…then Huckleberry will get his hit-and-run chest-beating in…and so on until all the sub-monkeys fall in-line with the current silverback – Jeb – or the silverback-in-waiting – Mitt.

    So, it’s way early in the election cycle – which only means it’s time for Newt to dash up to the mic wearing his cheap gorilla suit, and act like he’s running for President, but none of the Goopers actually see him that way.

    He’s more like a jester, out early to get the crowd crudely chanting ‘Loyalty over Hypocrisy!’

  26. jdmckay0 says:

    NYT’s has a puff piece today on Newt’s prez ambitions. They make brief mention of his marriage foibles, none of his fraud, and proceed to explain he’ll have to court GOP base (evangelicals) if he’s to “succeed.”

    Comforting to know these fuckers can still get their propaganda on NYT’s front page uncritically through whatever invisible back channels they’ve been doing this for last +/- decade.

    AFAIC, the notion that this bum can be taken seriously in *any* serious discussion, by US’ best daily newspaper no less, is a measure of just how far things have slipped here on the home front.

    The only thing this guy deserves his ball & chain.

    • jdmckay0 says:

      On same page, Time’s has an article on the entirely expected, wholly predictable: Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers… the culmination of a process Gingrich mastered & his followers since have expanded upon: calling FED oversight cops off everything… every-fucking-thing, that might cost his lords a buck.

      Irregardless of the fact this kind’a stuff costs everybody… everybody else their health, or home, or safe food, or safe water, or safe air, or a planet to live on, built w/incredible self-regulating natural mechanisms which maintain it’s habitability for humans, yet these guys are undermining that… planet livability, for a buck.

  27. bobschacht says:

    Did I miss it in the comments? Is it too late to change your headline, EW? What is a “Singeing Statement”? Most people seem to read it as “signing,” but it could be “singing,” although “singeing” might actually be appropriate, because Newt has been singe-d, as in burnt superficially or lightly. Or were you stretching for a pun there? But even there, spelling might be in disorder, because the past tense of “singe” is apparently spelt “singed,” so it may be that the gerund form of “singe” should be “singing”.

    At any rate, I agree that Newt is due for another singe-ing.

    Bob in AZ