"...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."

A better tactic than shutting down the government. Start with Obamacare....

Rush Limbaugh spent a lot of time discussing this during his broadcast yesterday, a full day before Gingrich followed suit.

Newt jumped the sharks years ago. He's a little late to the party. Where was he when Professor O'Barry was rising to power in the primaries?

I can still remember Newt sitting on a couch with Pelosi endorsing the whole Global Warming scam.

If you don't refer to him as "disgraced former Speaker of the House" then anything you say about him doesn't count.

Gingrich adds: "I don't think these guys set out to create a constitutional crisis. I think they set out to pay off their allies in the gay community and to do something that they thought was clever. I think they didn't understand the implication that having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional."

My God Newt. Our president claims to be a constitutional expert and Holder is our chief legal officer. Both have sworn to uphold the constitution. And you want to give them the benefit of not understanding that their refusal to prosecute current law violations is "clearly unconstitutional"? It's beyond believability. Obama is lawless and should be prosecuted!

The jury will also accept "disgraced former Speaker of the House who filed for divorce while his wife was being treated for cancer and who also cheated on his second wife while conducting a witch hunt against President Bill Clinton for getting a blow job".

Anyone who purports to care about "family values" and takes this piece of shit seriously is either a stupid person or a shitty person.

If you don't refer to him as "disgraced former Speaker of the House" then anything you say about him doesn't count.

Because, of course, you have to shoot the messenger to discredit the message.

I wonder if hyper customarily refers to Bill Clinton as "impeached ex-president and disbarred lawyer?"

J.

Looks as though Newt, Rush and the like-minded are starting to party like it's 1995-1996. Unfortunately it'll fall to those of us on Main Street who'll have to bear the brunt of another four years of Obama...

Gingrich is a moral failure. Clinton is an extraordinarily popular ex-President. One deserves ridicule and scorn, and to be ignored; the other commands tens of millions of dollars worth of speaking fees. The comparison is illustrative, though.

The issue is that the DoJ finds the DOMA constitutionally unenforceable. As in, it's a law that can't be enforced without discriminating against a minority, and so it's a law that cannot be enforced... and so it's basically not a law.

Here's the score:

Adults: 1.

Morons and bigots: 0.

Republicans had to go looking for a new dog-whistle (abortion is back!) 'cause they lost traction on this issue a while ago. Y'all need to find something else to bark at, and some other group to marginalize.

Since you're on a roll Hyper, how about a few more of your kind words for another one of our disgraceful former Speakers of the House... N. Pelosi?

Newt's talk of impeachment over this incident is about as silly as the liberals' attempt to impeach Bush over Iraq. But he is right, in that this sets a dangerous precedent. It would be pure schadenfreude if a "President Palin" asked the DOJ to stop enforcing Roe V. Wade because she no longer considered it to be constitutional.

She didn't resign in disgrace, her party lost an election. That's called democracy. Did George HW Bush leave in disgrace? No. And Pelosi actually kept her seat.

Gingrich, on the other hand, left politics in disgrace. That much is not up for debate. He cheated on his wife while she was being treated for cancer, and then cheated on the next one while trying to bring down a President for getting to third base with an intern.

Nice, though, that social conservatives still listen to this douchebag. Shows what sort of people they really are.

hyperbolist wrote:

Anyone who purports to care about "family values" and takes this piece of shit seriously is either a stupid person or a shitty person.

Jeez, did they just have a "non sequitur" seminar this week or something?

Obama's actions violate a fundamental principle of our constitutional government, and the best the left can do is complain about Gingrich's marital problems.

But Roe v. Wade is constitutional; at least, it isn't unconstitutional for the same reason that the DOMA is.

There's no slippery slope from equal rights for LGBT Americans, to denying women their autonomous control over their own bodies.

iwog: I'm "the left"? That's cool. When do I get to go do coke with Johnny Depp?

If a messenger is completely lacking in credibility--and I mean, completely and utterly lacking, as is the case with the disgraced former Speaker who committed adultery on a cancer patient and committed adultery whilst pursuing impeachment against a President on the basis of a more innocuous form of adultery--then yes, absolutely, it's fine to dismiss anything this guy has to say about the matter at hand.

That's not to say that the overall conversation about what the DoJ has just done should not take place--indeed it should!--but it is to say that Rick would better serve his readers by finding a source that ought to be taken seriously, rather than a creepy ghoul like Gingrich.

Ah, I see. In hyper's world, charisma trumps morality -- you can be as morally reprehensible as you wish, as long as enough people like you.

How enlightening. Absolute moral standards are so passe, the ends justify the means, and success forgives all sins.

Thanks for the lesson, hyper. Dunno if that's the one you wanted to teach, but it's the one that came through loud and clear.

Oh, and a bonus lesson: if you can discredit the messenger, even slightly, then it's perfectly fine to ignore the entire message. That's so much easier than actually debating the points raised, isn't it?

J.

"I wonder if hyper customarily refers to Bill Clinton as "impeached ex-president and disbarred lawyer?"

No, that would require honesty. He's too busy with his 'Oh look, another rabbit' moment.

Same has gone on in Kalifornia. Arnie and Jerry don't like Prop 8, therefore they were not going to defend it in court, because THEY determined it was unconstitutional. Just think of all the money we can save by abolishing the 3rd branch of government!

Obama isn't creating a Constitutional crisis, he IS one.

What planet did you people come from?

Do family members and friends laugh at you or behind your backs?

"Gingrich is a moral failure. Clinton is an extraordinarily popular ex-President."

OK, I'll not argue for Newt on the first sentence. However, Clinton as extraordinarily popular? Doubt it big time. Newt made him the moderate he's considered today.

"But he is right, in that this sets a dangerous precedent."

Which it does, all handwaving, misdirection, and attempts to shoot the messenger aside.

And I REALLY don't think it's one we want or need to set! We don't need an imperial presidency, where Obama's whims become law. What would be next, Obama deciding that elections are superfluous since the obvious best possible ever candidate has been elected, and therefore he decides to appoint himself President for Life?

I think myself that the "Defense of Marriage Act" is a bad idea - but there's ways we have of dealing with bad ideas and bad laws, and the President directing the law not be enforced isn't one of them! Repeal? Sure. Amend? Why not? Change it though legislation? Certainly - that's not a real problem.

But just 'ignore' it? Oh, that's NOT a good idea at all! And to have the PRESIDENT direct that?

You know, I'm still really wanting to see what Obama's grades were. Forget the birth cert - let's see the transcripts!

hyperbolist wrote:

The issue is that the DoJ finds the DOMA constitutionally unenforceable. As in, it's a law that can't be enforced without discriminating against a minority, and so it's a law that cannot be enforced... and so it's basically not a law.

But, see, that's not Obama's job. It is for the SCOTUS to make that decision. The DOMA was thought constitutional by the Congress which passed it, and by the President who signed it (your beloved perjurer, Bill Clinton).

Obama's action usurps not only the SCOTUS, but the Congress, and a prior President.

It's scary and troubling. But, by all means, let's talk about Gingrich.

gnnnooossssssoooossss papapapadododopoulis wrote:

What planet did you people come from?

Do family members and friends laugh at you or behind your backs?

Another brilliant retort!!! Well played!!!

Anybody remember what happened to all of those people that were up in arms a coupe of years ago 'cause bushitler was going to over-ride the constitution?

We could use a few of those folks today.

Where Gingrich, and you, are wrong, Lawson, is that Obama is NOT refusing to enforce the law. He has simply directed the DoJ to cease defending the law as constitutional in the appellate courts.

Because it's not. But, while it's still on the books, it will still be enforced.

See, Gingrich's Chicken Little constitutional crisis is all gone-gone.

Jefferson believed each of the three branches of government had an equal obligation to determine the constitutionality of legislation. As I understand it, Barry says he will enforce DOMA (e.g., not allowing gay couples to file joint income tax returns) but will no longer defend DOMA in court against constitutional attack. I don't see that as in any way being a high crime or misdemeanor. If Newt were elected President, would he be required to ardently defend Obamacare in court against constitutional attack under penalty of impeachment? I think not. I don' t agree that DOMA is unconstitutional but I also don't think holding and acting on a contrary view is a sound basis for an impeachment.

This is something that Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega would do. The legislature would pass a good law, but somehow they would find it does not suit them, so they unilaterally declare it Unconstitutional. All of those heroes of Obama must be clapping their hands with glee about now.

"She didn't resign in disgrace, her party lost an election."

No, she didn't resign in disgrace. But I said disgraceful, not that she resigned in disgrace.

Now, have you seen the liquor billing information released by the Air Force for Pelosi's flights? Did you read of her lecturing the Catholic Church as to what constitutes a faithful catholic? Have you seen the billing numbers for flowers in her office, or the number of miles she racked up annually on military flights? Are you aware of her bullying the Air Force over access to G-5 aircraft? Do you know of her shoving extra money into the Air Force's budget request - earmarked for purchasing more G-5 aircraft? Of of her arranging for her family members to fly on military aircraft when they were unaccompanied by her? Are you aware of the United States' financial position during all during the time she was treating herself so very, very well?

Yes, she lost the position of Speaker after she lead her fellow Democrat Representatives off the political cliff with ObamaCare. It was a loss of historic proportion that she and Harry Reid brought down on the Democrats. That loss came after forcing votes on a wide range of bills were known to be unpopular with a broad cross-section of the U.S. electorate. ObamaCare was actually just the final straw.

I suppose I could also go into some conflict of interest items, but you get the picture. So, disgraceful is an appropriate word to describe her behavior while holding the position of Speaker of the House, and I just thought you'd like to spend a few of your minutes and your well measured words on her as well.

"Obama is NOT refusing to enforce the law. He has simply directed the DoJ to cease defending the law as constitutional in the appellate courts."

So Bruce, how does one ENFORCE, when one refuses to DEFEND?

You're all tied up like a pretzel with that one.

Bruce Henry wrote:

He has simply directed the DoJ to cease defending the law as constitutional in the appellate courts.

But defense of validly enacted US law is one of the missions of the DofJ.

http://www.justice.gov/02organizations/about.html

It's astonishing that some people are defending Obama's action, and citing the Constitution for their position.

Obama's action violates one of the bedrocks of the Constitution--separation of power. Don't you get that?

By the way, if DOMA is unconstitutional, why didn't the last Congress repeal it?

After having read all of the comments. All I can say is the conservative side wins because the progressive side is just plain stupid. There argument is stupid and the presentation is stupid. One fact emerged. Clinton's reputation as President did benefit from the agenda Gingrich brought. It is doubtful Clinton would have been re-elected had he had a Democratic congress.

Re # 29:

Bob in comment # 26 answered your question before you asked it.

Right, Bruce. Sure.
Just 'cause # 26 supports you, you're absolutely correct. Riiiight.

Re #29,

Bruce, you're so tied up like pretzel it's amazing you can breathe with your head so far up your ass.

Bruce, and Bob:

The executive branch has already fulfilled its obligation to determine the constitutionality of the DOMA--that happened when Bill Clinton thoughtfully signed the DOMA into law.

If the current child President gets to declare that validly enacted legislation is unconstitutional, why do we need the SCOTUS?

Maybe you guys should ask John Roberts what he thinks about this, and whether this is a big omg constitutional crisis.

In 1990, then-acting Solicitor General Roberts REFUSED TO DEFEND a federal affirmative action law after successfully convincing the GHW Bush administration that the law was unconstitutional. In other words, exactly the same scenario. The president directed his DoJ not to defend in court a law he had been persuaded was unconstitutional, while continuing to enforce that same law on a daily basis.

Did the Republic fall?

No need for pretzel impersonations, Cap'n. Some of us are able to understand the not-all-that-complex truth that a law can be enforced while not being defended in appellate court.

By "some of us" I mean "me and Chief Justice Roberts."

BTW, Gingrich is walking back his skyisfalling rhetoric.

Barry is treasonous. If he wants to rule like a dictator he can move back to Kenja.

And take Bruce with him.

Did you guys even bother to read the AG's statement?

"Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law."

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html

This jumps above "death panels" on the blatant lie meter. Gingrich has completely flipped his lid, and Rick and the other righties on here just parrot emphatically false talking points without even bothering to learn what the hell they're talking about.

You have found, john, the raison d'etre for the whole right blogosphere.

And Mr 914 continues his perfect record of posting comments that mean either "shut up" or "whatever."

You, sir, are a genius.

Also, maybe you guys should resuscitate the corpse of Thomas Jefferson and ask him if he was committing treason when he halted all Sedition Act prosecutions because he felt the law was unconstitutional.

The Faithful Execution clause REQUIRES the president to choose the Constitution over an unconstitutional law, geniuses.

You Tea Party types kill me. Always squawking about the Constitution, which you know as much about as I know about quantum physics. That is, next to nothing.

The Faithful Execution clause REQUIRES the president to choose the Constitution over an unconstitutional law, geniuses.

Unless it's Obamacare, right Bruce?

The first Bush administration refused to defend a law that required cable systems to carry local programming. The Clinton administration refused to defend in court a provision that required the military to expel anyone testing HIV-positive. The second Bush administration refused to defend a statute that refused federal money for transit systems that accepted ads for legalization of drugs.

So why is this decision, following more than 200 years of precedent, so abhorrent to conservatives? Because it's about teh gays.

Nothing to do with the Constitution. Conservatives are just creeped out about those disgusting homosexuals. Be honest.

You brainiacs couldn't tell the difference between Constitutional and unconstitutional if your lives depended on it.

King Obama doesn't care about the rule of law.

"...remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law."

Bruce Henry, you know as well as I do that statement is a fiction, stated to provide the administration some legal cover. It's just something they had to say. Have over Presidents made similar statements under similar circumstances? Yes, but does that make it right? No, it just gives a fig leaf of legal cover.

So, bottom line, you've just told us that when Obama does the same "Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no more" other Presidents have engaged in, that's just fine with you. Did you sell-out, is that really your idea of Hope and Change?

No, Old Guy, what I'm telling you is that the decision not to defend a law in court because the President has determined it is unconstitutional is backed by over 200 years of precedent, beginning with the Jefferson administration. I've given you examples from Jefferson to Bush the Lesser. Want me to find more? I've read about some in the Coolidge and FDR administrations, too.

There's no "wink wink nudge nudge" to it. No alarm bells need to be sounded. The Republic won't fall because of this. It's not an impeachable offense to follow precedent. As I said, the only reason this is so upsetting to conservatives is because it's about Teh Gay.

And Newt is supposed to be the smart one.

Bruce Henry: "It's not an impeachable offense to follow precedent."

What if the "precedent" itself was an impeachable offense?

First guy does something and gets impeached.

Second guy comes along, does the same thing, and says "Hey, I'm just following precedent!"

Was Jefferson impeached, Drago? Was Coolidge? Was Bush the Slightly Smarter? Clinton? (I mean, for this.) Bush the Lesser?

Did you strict constructionist Tea Party prototypes have a constitutional hissyfit when Bush the First refused to defend the cable law I mentioned? How 'bout when Bush 43 did not defend his statute that he deemed unconstitutional?

Have I not read, here on Wizbang, spirited defenses of W's myriad "signing statements" in which he spelled out what parts of laws passed by Congress he would enforce, and which parts he wouldn't, and why or why not?

Maybe not. Maybe that was some other conservative site, where IOKIYAR is the rule.

Where are Boehner and Mitchie the Kid?? McCain? Grahamnesty?

Welp, that's another hysterical Tea Bagger hissy-fit totally dismantled by grown-ups.

It is to laugh.

I cannot wait until 2012 when a republican president gets in and he or she says they will no longer defend constitutional challenges to RoeVWade. If you challenge someone and they don't show up, the challenger wins. This is the actual height of hypocrisy and dunderheadedness the left Brucy spews.

I really am glad Obama did this. For the reason stated above. We no longer have to wait for the SCOTUS. ww

"No, Old Guy, what I'm telling you is that the decision not to defend a law in court because the President has determined it is unconstitutional is backed by over 200 years of precedent, beginning with the Jefferson administration."

Bruce, the President hasn't "determined" anything to be unconstitutional. He doesn't have the authority to "determine" any law/bill to be unconstitutional. He can "believe" something is unconstitutional, and he damn well better not "believe" any bill he signs into law to be unconstitutional. I have a neighbor down the street that "believes" in leprechauns. Color unimpressed.

"There's no "wink wink nudge nudge" to it."

So you're position is that Barack Obama is completely willing to enforce a law he and his advisors believe to be unconstitutional with the full force of that law. That you believe that Obama is so convinced the law is unconstitutional he is no longer willing to defend it in court... while at the same time he will allow this nation's citizens to suffer penalties under it's code?

That's pure bullshit, Bruce. And you paint Obama in a rather ugly light if this is what you truly believe. The DOJ statement is a legal fantasy with one purpose, and one purpose alone: to provide a fig leaf of cover under the law to shield Obama from impeachment. And no, I don't believe Obama should be impeached over this, not even if the DOJ hadn't issued that memo.

"Welp, that's another hysterical Tea Bagger..."

hypertrichologist, I, for one, can happily live the balance of my life without ever reading your homophobic rantings again. Begone, troll. Your stench is unbearable.

So how do you feel about Presidential Signing Statements, Upset?

Because the bestest Prez ever, W, sure issued a wondrous plenty of 'em, more than any previous president, in which he specified which provisions of legally enacted laws he intended to enforce, and which provisions he intended to ignore. These were laws HE WAS SIGNING HIMSELF. Did you jump up and down about the constitutionality of those?

Bruce, I don't see what "who did it" has to do with it. Please revisit comment (46).

And I'm not jumping up and down about constitutionality here either. Go back and read all my comments. Pretty sure you won't find any opinions on the constitutionality of any of the Presidents' actions.

Trichology? Alright, I'm a scalp doctor. Um... ouch?

It's not homophobic. Men can teabag women. It's just funny, that's all.

Bruce never said that the administration is not going to enforce the DOMA. They're just not going to defend its constitutionality and therefore not defend it from legal challenge. It's indefensible, after all.

And it's not a slippery slope towards overturning Roe v. Wade by fiat because Roe v. Wade is socially progressive legislation, and if you'll consider the history of your country, social policy has always trended more and more progressive.

So, what IS it you're upset about, Upset? If it's not the constitutionality of Obama's actions, is it "rule of law" that has you flustered? Because that's what I'm trying to get at with the tangent about signing statements. Were you as upset about "disregard for the rule of law" when President Bush unilaterally declared, in signing statement after signing statement, that he didn't intend to enforce this or that provision of bills he was signing into law?

Did you get on Wizbang's comment section and take the president to task for his power grabbing? No?

Did you write or call the White House back in 1990 when future Chief Justice Roberts was declaring, in the President's name, that DoJ wouldn't defend the bill I mentioned? Were you even aware of it happening? Were you even aware of the Bush43 signing statement controversy? Or is it simply OKIYAR?

THAT'S what "who did it" -- in other words, legal precedent -- has to do with it. You can't be completely OK with a Bush doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING and then not OK with a Democratic president doing it.

Unless, of course, you simply want to jump on Wizbang's "Obama Sux" bandwagon. Or if you simply have a problem with gay people, and any advance they make is to be automatically opposed, no matter how specious the grounds.

Bruce, your #59 demonstrates an (perhaps) over-tired mind, speculating aimlessly about something you know nothing about (me, and what I believe). It's senseless for me to continue this conversation, and it doesn't fit the premise of the thread.

Just so you know: I'm conserv-atarian.

If I was feeling middleschoolish, Upset, I might say, "Waddaya....chicken?"

Perhaps I'm not great at arguing points on Wizbang, but "Who did it?" matters because it is PRECEDENT we're talking about here.

Specifically, all the precedents I've mentioned in comments above, from Jefferson to Bush 43. What I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is that this is not some unprecedented move by Obama that's completely out of left field, but something that many previous presidents have done since, oh, the first decade of the NINETEENTH CENTURY or so.

And I'm wondering, in my aimless way, why you don't attack those instances of presidential refusal to defend certain laws as vociferously as you attack Obama's.

I've certainly asked you for clarity enough times. Did you write the White House in 1990? If not, why not? Is presidential refusal to defend laws enacted by Congress wrong, or isn't it? Did you write a strongly worded letter to the editor, or perhaps an angry Wizbang comment, when Bush 43 was issuing his many signing statements declaring parts of laws he was signing unconstitutional, and therefore that he wasn't going to enforce those provisions? Why not? Was that not a dereliction of duty on his part, if indeed what Obama is doing is one?

So, disregard the last paragraph of # 59 and just explain why refusal to defend a law, or a portion of a law, is UNACCEPTABLE when Obama does it, but fine when Jefferson, Coolidge, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 does.

I mean, if you please, and if you can.

That should be "...Clinton, and Bush 43 do." Not does.

And it's not a slippery slope towards overturning Roe v. Wade by fiat because Roe v. Wade is socially progressive legislation, and if you'll consider the history of your country, social policy has always trended more and more progressive.

That a very dangerous rational. Slaves were freed, they could vote, hold elected office and were entitled to equal protection under the law. That is until the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal was the law of the land. The US Military was integrated and Black men attend West Point that is until President Woodrow Wilson segregated the US military and Federal work force.

I am sure Japanese American were feeling secure in their status until FDR put them in Camps and then had the Supreme court stamp approval on it.
R There is no guarantee that the next law will be more or less "progressive"

If there was no slippery slope why do pro abortion groups worry about it being overturned?

The fact is the law is he law until it is overturned and we always must be vigilant or forces will take advantage of ones apathy and false trusts. that why we want Lex Rex not Rex lex.

Ok, it's morning, hopefully Bruce Henry took a few minutes to get some sleep and relax.

" just explain why refusal to defend a law, or a portion of a law, is UNACCEPTABLE when Obama does it, but fine when Jefferson, Coolidge, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 does."

One more time, go back and read my comments. Where did I defend Jefferson, "Quiet" Cal, Bush 41 & 43 or Clinton? Specifically I said, "Have over (typo, should have read: other) Presidents made similar statements under similar circumstances? Yes, but does that make it right? No, it just gives a fig leaf of legal cover."

So: (1) to the question of right or wrong I said it was wrong and (2) honestly, while I'm undeniably old, I'm not so old as to have contemporaneously defended either Jefferson or Coolidge.

Well, you got me there, Old Guy. You and I, in my estimation, are both right. When Obama engages in a practice that other presidents have engaged in, one backed by 200 years of precedent, I am indeed just fine with that. That's where you're right.

Where I'm right and you are, in my opinion, wrong, is in not attaching a pejorative "wink wink nudge nudge" connotation to the characterization of such conduct. The action is time-honored and has been upheld throughout our history.

So why are conservatives (not necessarily you personally) having a conniption fit about it? I suggest one of two possibilities: One, anything Obama does must be opposed automatically, or, two, anything that advances the cause of Gay Rights must be opposed automatically.

Forgive me if I lumped you in with your less thoughtful conservative brethren.

so not defending a law in court is ok with our liberal buddies.... I hope they remember that when President Ryan refuses to defend Obama care in court.
I also don't get this standard other presidents did it too defense of Obama, especially GWB did too. Obama was supposed to be different he was supposed to be the best president ever, now he's just like GWB. Obama complained about signing statements, he now makes signing statements, he complained that the individual mandate was unconstitutional Obama care has an indvidual mandate. Every time this guy does this crap we get the but GWB did it too, or Jefferson did too.

Did Obama hate Gays for his first 2 years ? Because he defended the law the entire time ...
Henry, you are just being a idiot to act like you give a shit about gay marriage ... its about being able to raise a wedge issue, or so you think ... since 70% of America agrees with DOMA ... which doesn't ban gay marriage by the way ...

Bruce,

Simple on Wizbang Bush did things that we opposed we stated it. When the bailout was proposed many readers here said not just no but hell no. When Bush wanted Comprehensive immigration reform that was opposed. There many more incidents. It not just because it this president or another it what they do. Now some on the left will oppose Bush and praise BHO for the same thing. Patriot Act as an example.
You had the left savage mis CA who held the same position as President BHO. BHO has switched his view now. Why to put some red meat out there. However he will not be held to account.

Just like hyper ignores how Bill Clinto cheated on his wife, tried to send a young women to mental health facility , lied under oath was disbarred and was impeached. Clinton just like newt committed adulatory . Clinton also tried to suborn purgey. Clinton moral failing are as great if not greater than Newts. Your execute is he has great speaking fees. What does popularity have to do with morality?

I ignored it? Um... no.

I don't care about it, but I do care that Gingrich purports to be a morally superior individual when he's obviously a horrible human being.

Clinton cheated on Hillary, Gingrich cheated on a woman who was being treated for cancer--specifically, his former high school teacher.

Gingrich is not a credible source of information. He's indefensible--stop defending him. You'll get shit all over your suit and dry cleaning is expensive.

Clinton,

Lied under oath. If there was no dress he would have let the world believe a young women was mentally unstable. She could have been committed. he used his power and influence for his own means.

Look buddy Clinton is just as bad ,in fact he is worse than Newt.
When Clinton took office oral sex was not considered adultery under the UCMJ penetration however slight clause . Clinton in one of his executive orders explicitly added oral sex. That means that for the same actions he wanted to wash under the rug he took away service mens freedom. That the rub. If service men can loose, liberty benefits and rank for offenses so can Clinton. See that the issue Clinton had one Law for him and another for everyone else.

BHO does not if pretend to uphold the law or constitution.

Hey hcddbz:

This article, and this thread, is about Newt's contention that Obama has committed an impeachable offense by announcing he won't defend DOMA in appellate courts. It's not about bailouts or other actions of previous presidents that conservatives may or may not have criticized.

I have asked, in several comments, why conservatives seemed to have no problems with similar actions by previous presidents, but seem to think the Republic will fall now that Obama is doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING that Bush 41 and Bush 43 did.

UOG wouldn't answer me, so I'll ask you, hcddbz: Was it an impeachable offense when Bush 41 refused to defend the cable law I mentioned? Should Bush 43 have been impeached for his signing statements? If not, why not?

And if you choose the cowardly route of saying, "I never said Obama should be impeached for this," I ask you: What's your fucking point, then?

Bruce,

My augment stands on it's own no need for you to abide by your false premise, or come to any collisions you arrive at.

You been drinkin', son?