Thursday, January 19, 2012

Mr. "Family Values"

Do you have a ball and chain for a wife? One so selfish and demanding she won’t ever let you do what you want to do? And how about her mother? Is your mother-in-law such a beast and ogre, you’d love to have a chance to show her what you think of her?

Well, lucky for us, we have Newt “Ethics” Gingrich to thank for how to remedy that situation. The man who led the Republican crusade of decency, and impeachment against that no good, lying, cheater Bill Clinton set the standard of respectability we can all emulate.

Mr. Family Values was chafing under the cruel leash of his second wife. (His first wife was reportedly served divorce papers while undergoing cancer treatment.) The cruel and demanding woman didn’t want to give Newt an “open marriage” to console the poor public servant in his time of selfless dedication to his country.

God’s Own Party had taken upon itself the tremendous responsibility to guide the morals of our wayward nation. Do you think its easy preaching good conservative values to the American people? Newt needed a little comfort, and release from all that tension one feels under all that pressure to preserve the sanctity of marriage and all the other family values that only Republicans possess.

It was time to take a stand. She was about to get what she deserved. And her mother needed a good old-fashioned jolt of Republican values too. Let the rich man have his way, or else.

What better time to implement his demand for marital justice than when his wife and mother-in-law were together?

According to the Washington Post:

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in 1999 asked his second wife for an “open marriage” or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne, told The Washington Post on Thursday.

Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as she was having dinner with her mother, Newt Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”


Happy birthday, Mom, and that's what I think of you and your daughter.

Bam! That’ll teach those selfish wenches a thing or two.

The next day, Newt was feeling so good about himself he went to give a lecture titled “The Demise of American Culture” and pontificated on....what else?....family values.

66 comments:

BB-Idaho said...

Can't speak for God, but I'm pretty sure Newt doesn't meet HIS
standards for 'three strikes and you're out'.....

The Heathen Republican said...

Here's a theory:

Clinton was unfaithful, but his presidency wasn't all that bad.

Bush Jr was faithful, and we all know he's a war criminal.

Obama is faithful, and he's been a clear disaster.

Maybe we should go back to having an unfaithful husband in the White House and let him run the country. Obviously the unfaithful ones are much better presidents.

Jerry Critter said...

Let's not forget Newt's first wife. He divorced her while she was sick with cancer. Oh wait. Didn't Pat Robertson say it was OK to screw around if your wife can't perform?

Anonymous said...

John Edwards

Mauigirl said...

Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

okjimm said...

HR...
here's a reality.... Newt isn't president... doesn't deserve to be. If Bill and Hillary worked something out....that is there business.

Newt has a my way or the highway approach....

Grung_e_Gene said...

Actually Obama's been a fantastic President, the Congress especially the 112th, has screwed the pooch.

As for Gingrich, his philandering ways prove he's a victim just ask R. Limbaugh, "Newt's a victim. We all are. Ours is the horniest generation. We were soldiers in the sex revolution. We were tempted by everything from Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice to Plato's retreat, Deep Throat to no fault divorce. Many of us paid the ultimate price..."

Always time to Bash a Hippie.

Tom Harper said...

As long as we're comparing Gingrich to Bill Clinton: at least Gingrich didn't murder Vince Foster :)

Dave Dubya said...

BB,
Nice to see you. Newt's standards are for other people.

HR,
Okaaayy...

Jerry,
According to fellow guardian of the sanctity of marriage, Rush the Oxy-Moron, Newt showed character by asking her if she'd let him screw around.

It is, after all, about character.

Anon,
Edwards is not on the ballot, is he?

Mauigirl,
Yes, I can spell hypocrite...N-e-w-t

Okjmmm,
Once again, Newt shows true Republican character and decency in showing how he treats someone, and their mother, for not giving him his way. After all, he didn't compromise his principles, did he?

Gene,
Those hippies and their free love were disgusting. Proof they were godless and have no character.

Tom,
And fortunately for Newt, God forgives Republicans. Democrats don't have the values, decency and character to be forgiven.

Anonymous said...

"that is there business."

Do you mean to say, "that there is business"?

Anonymous said...

Anon,
Edwards is not on the ballot, is he?
Not now he isn't, but then that makes the things he did alright.

Jerry Critter said...

By Newt's logic, Edwards didn't do anything wrong.

Dave Dubya said...

that makes the things he did alright

Maybe on your planet.

Jerry Critter said...

If god forgives everything, why do morals matter?

free0352 said...

Damn, all Newt wanted was what Bill Clinton has had for 25 years. Its that so wrong lol?

I'm with HR, I too liked Clinton more than Bush and Obama. And so did America, the polls all showed it.

Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

I myself was never very angry Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office from a fat girl. Hey, who doesn't like blow jobs from fat chicks?... especially when you're married to Hillary Clinton. I mean, come on? What did you expect from the poor guy!? I gotta say though, I was a little disappointed in Bubba. JFK was scoring with Marilyn Monroe after all. I mean jeeze, way to do the country proud Bill...

Anyhoo, I wasn't upset about fat girl blow jobs. Even while he was married to a Satanic Devil Harpie. It was the perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering that irritated me. Liberals never get past the sex... because then they have to admit Bill Clinton was a multiple felon and that's a hard debate to win.

By Newt's logic, Edwards didn't do anything wrong

True. Then again had I had to be married to Edward's wife I'd have been putting esbestos in her fuck'n coffee.

Jerry Critter said...

Oh nice free. What an asshole!

free0352 said...

I may be an asshole but it is what it is.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen offered...

"Here's a theory...", and then woefully made a preposterous cause-and-effect claim that "the unfaithful ones [presidents] are much better presidents".

Obviously (or should I say, hopefully?) you're not employed in any scientific endeavors or other fields that require data analysis.

You're such a disappointment.

Leslie Parsley said...

free is not only an asshole, he obviously has a problem with women. Maybe he ain't gettin' none. Can't imagine why with that attitude.

John Edwards acted the ass but he's had to pay the price, just as Gary Hart had to - unlike the numerous Republicans who preach family values and get caught with their pants down (and not always with a woman I might add).

Dave Dubya said...

Leslie,
When democrats do it, it’s an unforgivable character flaw. When republicans do it, it’s just good ol’ boy rambunctiousness to be overlooked or forgiven.

Hypocrites live by their double standards while demanding authority to tell others how to live.

Aristocrats, theocrats and autocrats specialize in hypocrisy.

What amuses me is the lockstep loyalty shown by the radical Right. We can freely say Edwards is a jerk. They cannot say Newt is a jerk, unless by reaction to this criticism. But they won't mean it, and would never admit it freely.

Their cult demands loyalty uber alles.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
I can just imagine how "irritated" you were over Cheney henchman Libby’s perjury and obstruction of justice over the outing of a covert agent. And yes, she was covert according to Director Hayden.

After all, he was just being loyal, and taking the flak for his fuhrer. That was so very noble, and far less consequential than lying about a personal incident resulting in a stained dress that was nobody's business but three souls.

Now if Willie wrapped himself in a cloak of virtue, campaigned and preached like Newt and the party of Aristocrats, Theocrats and Autocrats, it would be a different thing.

Being the sanctimonious swine they are, the Right wins the Hypocrisy Award every time.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Conservatives are convinced gay people are self-loathing, atheists are angry, progressives are life-hating.

It's not projection. It's not a question of what conservatives believe about themselves. It's a question of what they want to believe about Liberals.

They wanted to believe Clinton was obstructing justice, no evidence of it, but they wanted it. They want to believe Obama loves terrorists, contrary evidence, but they want to believe it.

Dave Dubya said...

Gene,
It's what they want to believe, and equally as significant, what they are led to believe.

The Right's Ministry of Propaganda has a never-ending chore, what with "death panels" and a "complete government takeover of health care" and other lies to feed their "real American" dupes.

Liberals are the Jews and Gypsies of the Fourth Reich. We are to blame for everything that the elites have screwed up. They must paint us as treasonous "blame America Firsters" as we lurk within our Commie lairs, just waiting to change America into a Marxist state.

Make no mistake, there's a powerful fascist element running through the radical Right.

Just say, "Bush and Cheney lied us into war", and watch them come out of the woodwork. They called us traitors for merely suggesting that Bush and Cheney were dishonest. Meanwhile Cheney terrorized voters by saying we’d “get hit again” if they didn’t vote for him.

Just like the European fascists of the last century, they vehemently oppose, and wish to silence, unions, liberals, much of the arts, intellectuals, and any science that contradicts their ideology.

They want a one party dictatorship, and they want unchallenged rule by the minority of economic and political elites. They don’t want everyone to vote and take measures that decrease voter turnout.

Fascists are programmed to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a commie. It's a tradition going back to the Beer Hall Putsch.

okjimm said...

//Fascists are programmed to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a commie.//

oh oh oh .... in that respect... I am a Commie!

which beats being an 'equestrian'... which is someone who worships. Newt... a horse's ass

Anonymous said...

Ada Ada Ada Ada Ada ada

Anonymous said...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3LqPedoxSk

More proof that the right wing republicans are bigots!

The Heathen Republican said...

The standards for "proof" around here have fallen dramatically.

The Heathen Republican said...

It also occurs to me... do you realize how many of these comment threads devolve into accusing Republicans of racism? It makes me think those of you on the left simply don't know how to debate ideas on their merits and always have to resort to shouts of "racist." Kind of sad.

Challenge for the next post: Let's see if we can get through an entire thread without an accusation of racism.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
You are so right!

General Announcement:

Attention, please.

We have a complaint of these threads devolving into accusations of racism.

Whoever among you who has devolved to the point of bringing up racism in this thread, please stop.

That is enough.

Thank you.

Just the Facts! said...

Dave,

Hold on to your bong, I agree with the racism embargo in your next post 100%!!

Dave Dubya said...

Just the FOX(R),
Why, thank you for mentioning racism again, especially since it was never a part of this discussion until someone or another brought it up. As I've heard some tea cultists say, "That's mighty white of you". ;-)

I thought I could quote that, seeing as how there's no racism in the Tea Cult.

okjimm said...

No more Racism? What about NASCAR....can we talk about that?

Jerry Critter said...

There is no point in talking about NASCAR racism. You just end up going around in circles.

okjimm said...

jerry... it is oft what I think of far right republicans.... they finish where they started, went around in circles.... and expended a lotta gas.

Jerry Critter said...

And leaving a lot do poop in their wake.

free0352 said...

he obviously has a problem with women.

Why, because I empathize with Bill Clinton on his liking of blow jobs? If you are a guy and you say you don't like blow jobs, you're lying.

As for John Edwards, he didn't really do anything illegal. I know technically paying the mistress with campaign funds is a violation but in this case a technical one. I'm NOT interested in putting my morals on people. Funny how you're accusing people of doing it when all of you are doing it on this thread. Can you still spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

As for Scooter Libbey, I feel for the guy because he didn't even get the blow job and he got jail time. Clinton got a bump in the polls. That isn't fair but hey, life ain't fair. Lets face it, reality is when you are the President the rules don't apply to you. Clearly the current President has figured it out. But at least he isn't getting blow jobs from fat girls right?

And predictably we went back to "Bush lied kids died, nuclear aluminium tubes." in a debate about family values. You should make it simple Dave, and make that the topic of every post since that's what it ends up being anyway.

But here's a thought, one of the things Bill Clinton was doing while getting said blow jobs from said fat girl was ordering Operation Desert Fox, the bombing of Iraq. Reason given: Weapons of mass destruction. Now was Bill lying to hide the whole fat girl blow job thing in the media or *ghasp* could it be Bill like George Bush thought Iraq had them? I mean, if nobody thought Iraq had WMD why oh why did Bubba order me to Kuwait in 1999 and prepare to invade Iraq? Why did we go on all those training operations at 29 Palms during the Clinton administration preparing for war in a chemical environment in Iraq? Was Bill in on the conspiracy or could it be *ghasp* there was no conspiracy and the preponderance of the intelligence during the 1990s pointed to Saddam Hussien having a chemical weapons program and at nuclear aspirations?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Obama is faithful, and he's been a clear disaster." --Heathen R.

NO. Since coming into office, Mr.Obama has stopped the jobs losses that were hemorrhaging under Bush. The unemployment numbers are going in the correct direction. He saved GM from bankruptcy, and from losing millions more jobs. He killed bin Laden, he ended DADT. All this and much more while dealing with the most obstructionist House in modern history, while also having to deal the assholes who keep demanding he prove he's an American citizen.


For you or anyone to call that a disaster is, of course, nothing more than partisan nonsense.

"The standards for "proof" around here have fallen dramatically."

Bitten in the posterior by your own words. ;-)

The Heathen Republican said...

Hi Shaw,

"Mr.Obama has stopped the jobs losses that were hemorrhaging under Bush."

There's no way to know if Obama prevented a depression or not. The job losses actually increased after Obama came to office with increases in the minimum wage, threats of tax hikes, cap and trade proposals, and new costs as a result of ObamaCare. Maybe his actions have slowed the recovery. Neither of us can prove it one way or the other.

"The unemployment numbers are going in the correct direction."

Yes they are... finally. This has been the longest recovery since the Great Depression, I believe as a result of Obama's poor economic policies. Are you willing to admit that if there were a Republican president in the White House right now, you would be blaming a high unemployment rate on him, even though the numbers are moving in the right direction?

"He saved GM from bankruptcy, and from losing millions more jobs."

This was a very bad idea and is an example of Obama ignoring free market principles and acting like a crony capitalist. GM should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy to begin with and let the courts and creditors sort it out. I don't want politicians deciding which companies to bail out.

"He killed bin Laden..."

Actually, the SEALs killed bin Laden on Obama's orders. The intelligence to locate bin Laden was acquired using enhanced interrogation techniques (according to Obama's own head of the CIA), which was a Bush policy and Obama opposed vociforously during the 2008 campaign.

"...he ended DADT."

I don't know if this is a good or bad thing. I know it's what the left wants, but I don't consider what the left wants to be automatically good. I'd need someone with a military background to tell me if DADT should've been ended. I don't presume to know.

"All this and much more while dealing with the most obstructionist House in modern history..."

This is demonstrably false. The Republican House has NOT brought congress to a halt since winning the 2010 election. In fact, they've been the third most active House since 1990. It's actually the Senate, under Harry Reid, that has slowed to a crawl.

"...while also having to deal the assholes who keep demanding he prove he's an American citizen."

I agree, those people are assholes.

"For you or anyone to call that a disaster is, of course, nothing more than partisan nonsense."

You're not suggesting that your defense of Obama is non-partisan, are you?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"There's no way to know if Obama prevented a depression or not."

Really? Every serious economist has said that he did. And you claim there's no way of knowing? Plus many econs say the stimulus should have been larger to make the recovery stronger.

"Are you willing to admit that if there were a Republican president in the White House right now, you would be blaming a high unemployment rate on him, even though the numbers are moving in the right direction?"

What has that got to do with your claim that the Obama administration is a disaster? How do hypotheticals weigh in on what has actually happened and is happening. You can look at charts on the jobs recovery and actually see that the jobs are inching back. Are you really arguing about the speed of the recovery? LIke, say, how quickly a very, very sick patient, who has done everything to contribute to his rotten health, is not getting well quickly enough, so we blame what the doctor has done?

"GM should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy to begin with and let the courts and creditors sort it out. I don't want politicians deciding which companies to bail out."

Fair enough. That's your opinion. But I'd like to hear you tell it to a town hall full of men and women, who would have lost their jobs and faced Dog knows what in the tanking economy, just how theorectically opposed you are to government helping them keep their jobs. It's nice to be able to be a purist when your ability to keep your home and feed your family isn't on the line.

Re: bin Laden. Whether you Obama bashers like it or not, it was HE who made the decision to go after bin Laden. If he had failed and US military had been killed and had bin Laden escaped, I'm wondering if you would have been eager to point out the disaster and lay the blame at Mr. Obama's feet. The fact that you and so many other of Obama's detractors won't even cede this instance of courage and success to him says volumes about your organic hatred of the man.

"You're not suggesting that your defense of Obama is non-partisan, are you?"

My defense of Mr. Obama is patriotic and very, very much in the tradition of an American who loves her country and the person who represents it. ;-)


Holy goal posts! The Patriots won because the Ravens' kicker missed an easy field goal!!???

(blogging and watching game, please excuse typos and inappropriate enthusiasm should any of you be Ravens fans.)

Just the Facts! said...

Family values, Shawn, family values. Thats the subject at hand. Unless you want Dave's Official Wingman to call you a Troll try and stay on subject.

S.W. Anderson said...

Newt Gingrich epitomizes today's political right, conservative Republicans/ tea partyers especially, as well or better than anyone alive. First, and to the core, he is a bully. He is egotistical, selfish, unscrupulous and thoroughly dishonest. What matters to Newt is what Newt wants, and anyone who gets in his way will be treated to his vicious side.

Gingrich has a con man's gift for detecting what other people want, especially those things frowned upon by good and decent people. He then panders to those desires. Listen to Gingrich campaigning in S.C. It's OK to hate liberals and all other political opponents. Greed is good. Those who have a problem with selfishness are just leftist do-gooders who want to replace the law of the jungle with European-style socialism. It's OK to be a racist, just cloak your racism in a thin veil of anger about notions of undeserved entitlement, parasitism, etc.

Some American jews want the U.S. to wage war with Iran to ensure Israel less anxiety over an unlikely existential threat, so pander to them. Don't exactly promise war with Iran. Tell them instead that Obama is a foreign policy weakling, but Gingrich will be a swaggering, crackpot crusader in the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz tradtion. So much so, Gingrich illegally promised to appoint idiot John Bolton secretary of state, if Gingrich cons enough people into voting for him.

Want another Bush-grade president? Maybe one even less scrupulous and with less regard for the Constitution, laws, ethics, common sense and decency? Gingrich is The One. Just be clear about the only living thing Gingrich will ever really work for, and that's No. 1, Gingrich himself.

The Heathen Republican said...

""There's no way to know if Obama prevented a depression or not." Really? Every serious economist has said that he did."

You're obviously only reading left-leaning economists. Perhaps you think the right-leaning ones aren't "serious," but rest assured there are alternative viewpoints from respectable economists. Perhaps we could short circuit the usual debate and say you agree with the Paul Krugmans and I agree with the Robert Samuelsons.

"What has that got to do with your claim that the Obama administration is a disaster? How do hypotheticals weigh in on what has actually happened and is happening. You can look at charts on the jobs recovery and actually see that the jobs are inching back."

My hypothetical is relevant because you ignore the high unemployment number when you say the numbers are moving in the right direction. By any measure unemployment is ugly right now and there is no silver lining. The point of the hypothetical was to help you see that, if Obama were a Republican, you would see the truth of the matter.

I agreed with you that the numbers are moving in the right direction. Can you agree that 8.5% unemployment is unacceptable? And that, given the fact Bush was derided for high unemployment at 5%, you would also deride a Republican Obama for 8.5%?

"Are you really arguing about the speed of the recovery?"

Yes, my standard for deep recessions and an appropriate length of recovery is Ronald Reagan. Obama is sadly below the Reagan standard.

"But I'd like to hear you tell it to a town hall full of men and women, who would have lost their jobs and faced Dog knows what in the tanking economy, just how theoretically opposed you are to government helping them keep their jobs. It's nice to be able to be a purist when your ability to keep your home and feed your family isn't on the line."

We don't elect politicians to do the easy things. If you're influenced by telling someone something to their face, your moral backbone must not be very strong. We still have to do what's right, even in front of an audience.

"Re: bin Laden. Whether you Obama bashers like it or not, it was HE who made the decision to go after bin Laden."

We never stopped going after bin Laden, so Obama never had to make a decision to go after him. I credit Obama for doing the right thing, ordering the operation, and killing bin Laden. Why can't you credit Bush for gathering the intelligence that led to Obama's success?

Just the Facts! said...

I am 100% sure that Dave reads nothing but left leaning publications.. He is simply too narrow minded to be reading any thing else.

free0352 said...

Mr.Obama has stopped the jobs losses that were hemorrhaging under Bush.

Unemployment rate in December 2007, 5% according to BLS. In December of 2011 it was arround 9% where it's been since mid 2008. So given this data, is your statement correct? If so, why is average of three years, a growing unemployment rate a good direction?

He saved GM from bankruptcy

He saved a union. Lots of companies survive chapter 11 reorganization. Especially the former worlds largest corporation. But union contracts don't.

He killed bin Laden

I wasn't aware Barak Obama was a Navy SEAL. Does that mean George Bush gets credit for personally killing thousands of terrorists during his presidency? I think Obama had better join the military, since he's firing 1 out of ever seven infantrymen and 1 out of every 15 soldiers they're going to need the help.

All this and much more while dealing with the most obstructionist House in modern history,

You are aware he had a super majority controlling 0% of the government from 2008 to 2010 and that even after that Republicans only narrowly controlled 1/4 of federal power. Could it be instead even Democrats thought he was insane?

For you or anyone to call that a disaster

So what you are saying is the economy is doing well and we're winning the war. You guys just keep on saying that this year... I'm sure that will work this election. You won't look woefully out of touch at all.

Dave Dubya said...

First thing.
Some of you are under the impression this post was about family values. It is not. It is titled “Mr. Family Values” because of Newt’s hypocrisy and selfish bullying. Yes it’s bullying and hypocrisy to demand a one sided open marriage and then deliberately dump a divorce demand on the woman’s birthday visit with her 84 year-old mother.

He is a cold-blooded slime ball. This fits the pattern of the Republican value of “Let the rich man have his way, or else”. This is in the post.

So you see this is more about Republican values than family values. Turns out they are not the same.


Free,
Lets face it, reality is when you are the President the rules don't apply to you.

This is your truest statement in this thread. Both parties are guilty of letting this happen. It befits a corporatist empire, not a democratic republic. We are what we are.

Operation Desert Fox, the bombing of Iraq. Reason given: Weapons of mass destruction.

Yes I remember that. Republicans accused him of bombing to distract from the Lewinsky affair. “Wag the dog” and other puffery.

While neocon tendencies are primarily on the Republican side, the Democrats are also infected by them through Liebermann and the Clintons subservience to the Israeli Right.

However, the reason for Willie bombing Iraq was not to distract us, as Republicans accused him, but as a consequence of Saddam kicking weapons inspectors out.

Clinton’s explanation:

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq’s capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.


You see, he didn’t claim Saddam had the weapons, only the fact we needed inspectors there to make sure of it.

Oh, and Obama NEVER had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Corpodems like Ben Nelson saw to that.

And are you saying that the 8.1% unemployment for February 09 was Obama’s fault?

I suppose you would.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
This was a very bad idea (save GM from bankruptcy) and is an example of Obama ignoring free market principles and acting like a crony capitalist. GM should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy to begin with and let the courts and creditors sort it out. I don't want politicians deciding which companies to bail out.

It wasn’t just Obama, now was it? Your president also disagreed with you:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.htm

President George W. Bush stepped in Friday to keep America's auto industry afloat, announcing a $17.4 billion bailout for GM and Chrysler, with the terms of the loans requiring that the firms radically restructure and show they can become profitable soon.

"If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy," Bush said at the White House, in remarks carried live by the national broadcast networks. "In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed."

Bush said that "bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies."

"My economic advisers believe that such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis," he said. "It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession."


Bad idea? Where’s your proof?

The intelligence to locate bin Laden was acquired using enhanced interrogation techniques (according to Obama's own head of the CIA)

Is that so? Where’s the proof?

U.S. intelligence did not learn the name and identity of the bin Laden courier until after the CIA interrogation program was terminated.

"The standards for "proof" around here have fallen dramatically."

I should say so.

okjimm said...

//Newt’s hypocrisy and selfish bullying. Yes it’s bullying and hypocrisy to demand a one sided open marriage and then deliberately dump a divorce demand on the woman’s birthday visit with her 84 year-old mother.//

precisely. Some have commented that... well, Clinton, FDR, Kennedy...as if that makes Gingrish's behavior acceptable.

But, as you pointed out, known of them espoused a moral code of 'Family Values'... but of course... he didn't really mean it...

"It doesn't matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I say. It doesn't matter what I live." - Newt Gingrinch.

He really believes in himself... and no one else. or anything else.

Now Rail against anyone else if you want.... but this man is running for President.......If the right wing on this post would condemn other Presidents for infidelity... why would they support a "candidate" who has already admitted to being Amoral?

The Heathen Republican said...

Dave
"It wasn’t just Obama, now was it? Your president also disagreed with you [on the GM bailout]"

You'll note I was discussing conservative principles. Bush Jr was no conservative. I defend conservatism, not every Republican action, and the bailout was bad policy no matter who did it.

[The link you gave from Politico is broken.]

"Bad idea? Where’s your proof?"

I don't need proof -- it's an opinion. Free market principles tell me that bailing out companies that fail in the marketplace should not be protected from downside risk. Apparently your principles tell you to protect auto unions using taxpayer funds.

My opinion is that bailing out an auto company that doesn't compete well is a bad idea. There is no proof for an opinion.

"Is that so? Where’s the proof? U.S. intelligence did not learn the name and identity of the bin Laden courier until after the CIA interrogation program was terminated."

You really need to expand your sources. We on the right have no choice but to read opinions and reporting from the left since the left makes up the mainstream media. We are more informed because we read both left and right. It's very easy for you to insulate yourself from the right, which you've obviously done.

From the UK Telegraph: "Leon Panetta, the CIA director, has confirmed that controversial "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding yielded some of the intelligence information that ultimately led to Osama bin Laden."

If your best argument is the date the name of the courier was learned and ignoring all of the evidence that led up to learning the courier's name, you have a long way to go to get back to reality.

Jerry Critter said...

Why? They are desperate. Infidelity is not nearly as bad as being a Mormon.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
Saving untold thousands of jobs is bad policy? That is your opinion. You offer no basis for it. I say saving untold thousands of jobs is good policy. The unemployment rate would be even higher and people would be worse off. Maybe people rate lower than your principles.

In that case your opinion is wrong.

the left makes up the mainstream media

I am so sick of the Big Lie. This is your opinion again.

This is the manufactured myth of the radical Right. FOX(R) and Rush are not fair and balanced. It is corporate media, not liberal. Fact.

If corporate media were liberal they wouldn’t parrot Right Wing lies like Death Panels, “government takeover of health care, or the famous NY Times Judith Miller/Cheney WMD lies. Compare coverage of tea cult rallies to OWS. Yeah, liberal all right. They are businesses, not advocates, with very little interest in investigation.

Your opinion is wrong. Mother Jones is liberal media.

As for the torture.

Nobody has shown the information was a result of torture. It was given after the program ended. Panetta only admitted “they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees." That’s not saying the info was given as a result of the torture.

For all we know that information was given after they were treated more humanely.

These articles suggest just that.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-interrogations-idUSTRE7417SQ20110502

U.S. intelligence did not learn the name and identity of the courier until after the CIA interrogation program was terminated.

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/role-of-enhanced-interrogation-in-finding-bin-laden-what-we-actually-know

What we know now: It’s a stretch at this point to draw conclusions about the role that enhanced interrogation techniques played in producing useful intelligence leading to bin Laden. Here’s why.

First, with the exception of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, it’s uncertain what kind of techniques were used on the other detainees who gave up information on bin Laden’s courier, reports the New York Times.

Second, KSM, who was waterboarded nearly 200 times, wasn’t forthright with interrogators, who in fact found him valuable because they saw through his attempt to steer them away from bin Laden’s courier. The same was true for the other CIA detainee, who may also have been subjected to brutal interrogation techniques—the CIA says he was not waterboarded—during his detention.

And third, as we noted yesterday, an official told the Associated Press that the information KSM gave up about the courier was not obtained during waterboarding but under standard interrogation. The Times also reported that the first time KSM was asked about the courier was months after he was waterboarded.


Your assertion remains opinion, not fact.

Dave Dubya said...

Hey, Kids.

My assistance has been requested for a project some friends are working on. This is going to keep me busy for a few weeks, so I won't have as much time to play with you.

Try to be nice to each other.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Everyone should realize the Republican Nominee for President in 2008 PROVED Torture doesn't extract useful or true information.

Also, Newt Gingrich has had more Wives and gods than he has had hairstyles.

Dave Dubya said...

Gene,
And even if it does coerce information, how far do we want to go down that path? Why would we want to become more like terrorists, Nazis or Imperial Japan?

What if the person we torture has no information? Has that happend?

Our moral standing collapses.

It wouldn't exactly help any of our guys who may be captured either.

As McCain said, it's about us not about them.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Back to the man who wants to represent the family values GOP and make Wife 3.0 the FLOTUS. Gingrich accused Mr. Obama of trying to turn this country into a European-style nation.

What, I ask, is MORE European than being married to several women and shagging them all with younger stuff on the side?

Newt! That is soooooooooooo French, and here you are accusing Mr. Obama of being a European.

When Mitterand died, his wife AND mistress stood side-by-side at his interment. That would've brought evangelical tears to Newticle's eyes.


Marianne Gingrich also stated in her interview that when Newt called her to ask for an "open [French-style] marriage," he was in their marital bed with Callista right beside him. How European. How utterly French.

Now no one would really care how many vows Gingrich broke or how many women he shagged while he was married. EXCEPT HE SET HIMSELF up as a defender of marriage and family values. That's what is so vomitous about this Taftian-sized hypocrite.

He's a perfect example of the depravity of the GOP.

Jerry Critter said...

Newticles! I love it. Aren't those something that people put in a dog's scrotum when he is newtured?

S.W. Anderson said...

"Bush Jr was no conservative. I defend conservatism, not every Republican action . . ."

How wonderfully convenient. Where, exactly, were you when Bush put two wars and an industry-written prescription drug bill on the national credit card? What did you do when Bush refused to hear of having the government bargain for better drug prices for Medicare Part D, the same way it's done for the VA? What did you do when Bush squandered the budget surplus and insisted on huge tax cuts we couldn't afford?

Did you speak out against Bush and the Republicans? Did you write letters to the newspaper complaining about them? Did you vote against them? Be honest.

Where were you in 2004 when Bush was running for re-election having thrown any semblance of fiscal responsibility out the window, with 100-percent, lockstep support of the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress?

Why do you suppose those Republicans threw fiscal responsibility out the window, HR?

I'll tell you why: to get themselves re-elected, that's why. Bush's father was a one-term president in part because of a bad economy, and George W. was determined that wouldn't happen to him. His whole presidency was one long stimulus program, with a housing bubble thrown in, all to keep the GOP in charge in Washington. George W. ran up more debt than all previous presidents combined.

We see how that all worked out. Bush got re-elected, Congress soon wound up under Democratic control, just in time for the chickens to start coming home to roost.

But oddly, all your criticism is focused on Obama, who has struggled to clean up the mess and restore the economy against total Republican obstruction. How convenient for you to be able to step away from Bush and congressional Republicans in the aftermath of what they did.

But again, I ask, when the wrecking crew was doing its thing, who were you criticizing and who were you supporting, actively or with compliant silence?

Dave Dubya said...

"Bush Jr was no conservative. I defend conservatism, not every Republican action . . ."

Right.

This is one of the best “Big Lies” from the radical Right in recent years. That’s right up there, with the “liberal” corporate media.

The only Bush policy we hear "conservatives" attack is spending...after the fact.

Handing out "Faith based" cash to select churches is not exactly in the spirit of our Constitution.

"Conservatives" loved it.

Check his corporate welfare record for what he did for Big Pharma, Big Oil, and Big Money.

He even pitched the Right's all time favorite, decades long, cause.

America didn't like it. We didn't like the idea of privatizing our socialist Social Security safety net to Wall Street Banksters and crony cons.

He cut taxes for the rich and corporations. "Conservatives" LOVE this stuff.

He started a war, one he contemplated before 9-11, based on falsehoods and propaganda

He allowed detention without charge and brutality in prisons.

"Conservatives" LOVED this.

He deregulated and loosened enforcement of rules and added more foxes in the henhouse.

See this classic example:

”Interior Probe Finds Fraternizing, Porn and Drugs at MMS Office in La.”

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/25/25greenwire-interior-probe-finds-fraternizing-porn-and-dru-45260.html?pagewanted=all


Corporations LOVED this.

The Heathen Republican said...

SW and Dave,
Bush Jr not being a conservative is hardly convenient. I hear from you lefties all the time how conservatism has been repudiated because of Bush policies, yet we haven't had a conservative in the White House since Reagan.

I haven't been blogging long enough to have spoken out against Bush policies, so I guess you'll never know what I thought of all of them. My criticisms now are focused on Obama because he is president now.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen, you countered Dave and Mr. Anderson with...

"I haven't been blogging long enough to have spoken out against Bush policies, so I guess you'll never know what I thought of all of them."

Please feel free to share your thoughts about the Bush regime right now. We're listening...

Anonymous said...

Juan Williams speaks.

youtube.com/watch?v=RmnFQkD0Eg0&feature=player_embedded

Grung_e_Gene said...

From Heathen, "I hear from you lefties all the time how conservatism has been repudiated because of Bush policies, yet we haven't had a conservative in the White House since Reagan."

This is a variation of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Bush was the epitome of Conservatism. Righties supported him en masse while he was in office, and now act like his Worst Presidency Ever didn't happen or secretly he was a Liberal.

shocking to see you offer up so weak an argument.

S.W. Anderson said...

Heathen Republican, your reply is beyond disingenuous. I asked several specific questions. You dissembled. That speaks volumes.

Here's what your position on the Bush debacle, and that of the right-wing establishment generally looks like to those of us on the left.

A guy takes his dog, which has behavior issues, with him on a visit to someone else's home. The dog manages to do his business in three places on a new wall-to-wall carpet, chews up some drapes and kills the host's beloved pet cat.

The next day, the guy drops his dog off just past the edge of town, goes home, tells others the dog ran away but it's no big deal because he never liked that dog anyway.

The day after that, when asked about all the trouble his dog got into at his friend's home, the guy says, "Gee, I didn't even really own that dog. He was just staying with me for a few days, and he ran away. I had no idea he'd do those things. Nope, not my dog, not my fault. No dog of mine would do those things . . . yada, yada, yada."

The Heathen Republican said...

@Grung_e_Gene

""...we haven't had a conservative in the White House since Reagan." This is a variation of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Bush was the epitome of Conservatism. Righties supported him en masse while he was in office..."

You've committed your own fallacy. There are clear and unambiguous conservative principles; Bush did not adhere to them, therefore he is not a conservative. Your claim that because conservatives supported Bush is irrelevant to determining if he is a conservative. Conservatives supported Bush because he was the most conservative candidate/president given the available choices.


@SW Anderson and Dave Jr... oops, I mean Jefferson's Guardian
"...your reply is beyond disingenuous. I asked several specific questions. You dissembled. That speaks volumes."

In the past I have been (incorrectly) labeled a troll on left wing blogs. I am not about to hijack Dave's comment thread with a defense of several random Bush policies, some of which I disagree with and some of which I could defend.

I won't take the bait and behave in troll-like fashion. For you to then berate me for it is in fact disingenuous. I can't win either way and I'm smarter than that.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Please feel free to share your thoughts about the Bush regime right now. We're listening...

George Bush grew government more than any President since FDR with the possible exception of LBJ. Conservatives do not like this. Oh I suspect you like most liberals think Conservatives love big government... so long as they are pulling the strings. WRONG. That's Establishment Republicans. Conservatives do not want this, nor might I add do Libertarians. You are the party of Big Government. Bush would have fit in much better in your crowd.

S.W. Anderson said...

Heathen Republican, no one asked or wants you to go way off topic at length. No defense or lack of one for Bush's policies was requested or called for. I asked you specific,m simple, germane questions. All of them could be anwered yes or no in one brief sentence.

First you dissembled, now you're dogding and weaving. Transparently.