Contributors

Friday, January 20, 2012

Newt's Trifiecta

The catch-phrase for this blog is "WHERE POLITICS, SEX, AND RELIGION ARE ALWAYS POLITE TO DISCUSS." With Newt Gingrich we have the trifecta.

According to a story in Thursday's Washington Post about Marianne Gingrich's interview with ABC's Nightline:
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.
Gingrich is famous for asking for a divorce from his first wife, Jackie Battley, when she was in the hospital recovering from surgery. At the time he was apparently having an affair with Marianne, whom he married six months after his first divorce was finalized. Battley was Gingrich's geometry teacher, and they married when he was 19 and she was 26. Creepy, huh? According to L. H. Carter, Gingrich's campaign treasurer, Gingrich said of Battley: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer." Gingrich has denied saying it.

Gingrich started another affair with Callista Bisek in the mid-1990s. He was having sex with an aide at exactly the same time he was demanding President Bill Clinton be impeached for having sex with an aide. Newt famously blamed his patriotism for the affair in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network:
There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.
Apparently, Newt wanted to screw America but he had to make do with Callista. They married in 2000 after a very messy divorce that was conducted publicly in the pages of the Atlanta newspapers.

In Thursday night's debate Gingrich predictably blamed the media for bringing up his infidelity issue again, saying it was untrue. It got him another standing ovation. But really, who has more credibility on the details of Newt's infidelity? The man who has admitted to lying to and cheating on his wife for six years, or the woman he lied to and cheated on?

The most telling part of the interview for me was this:
“He said the problem with me was I wanted him all to myself,” she said. “I said, ‘That’s what marriage is.’ He said [of Callista], ‘She doesn’t care what I do.’ ”
It's a telling detail that gives the entire account the ring of truth. Like a pernicious little boy trying to get his divorced mother to let him go to an R-rated movie by claiming that "Dad doesn't care if I go," Newt tried to guilt his wife into letting him have a mistress.

Which brings us to the third leg of the Gingrich stool: religion.

Gingrich was raised a Lutheran, apparently became a Southern Baptist in grad school, and converted to Catholicism. According to Gingrich's Wikipedia page, he said:
"Over the course of several years, I gradually became Catholic and then decided one day to accept the faith I had already come to embrace." The moment when he decided to officially become a Catholic was when he saw Pope Benedict XVI on his visit to the United States in 2008: "Catching a glimpse of Pope Benedict that day, I was struck by the happiness and peacefulness he exuded. The joyful and radiating presence of the Holy Father was a moment of confirmation about the many things I had been thinking and experiencing for several years."
To me this just seems crazy. Anyone who was ever a real Lutheran or Baptist and truly believed Luther's teachings in the Reformation could never convert to Catholicism. And how could anyone who's been divorced twice have the gall to convert to Catholicism, a religion which requires the pope himself to grant a dispensation for divorce? I find it even harder to believe that anyone could describe Benedict ("Papa Nazi") XVI's creepy presence as "happy and peaceful." Every time I see Pope Benedict I'm reminded of the Emperor in Return of the Jedi.

But why should Newt stop at Catholicism? Gingrich should go all the way and become an old-style Mormon. Republicans are concerned about Romney's religion, but Newt's the guy in the race who has admitted publicly that he was for all intents and purposes a practicing bigamist.

Thus, it is overwhelmingly apparent that Gingrich has no conviction or commitment to anything except himself, his own pleasure and his own convenience.

Republicans keep telling us that "character matters." Newt tries to finesse the issue by begging the forgiveness of God for the same sins he's repeated again and again over decades. Many envious middle-aged white men are more than glad to forgive Newt for his trespasses. But most Republicans also don't think that felons who've served their time and completely repaid their debt to society should be allowed to vote, a fact Mitt Romney pandered to when he attacked Rick Santorum on the issue.

Over the years Newt Gingrich has shown himself to be a megalomaniacal, mendacious, cynical, flip-flopping, self-serving narcissist. He is the fleshly manifestation of all the worst traits of the political animal.

During Newt's "strong" performance in the Myrtle Beach debate he gained many converts: the audience gave Newt a standing ovation after he slapped down Juan Williams for his uppity question about Gingrich's food stamp president remarks. Is it any surprise that Rick Perry was the first one to stand up and salute Gingrich, considering where Perry liked to hunt?

Newt's underlying argument is that he is the only man in the race who totally lacks integrity, the man for whom no hypocrisy is too great, no blow too low, no shot too cheap, or no lie too big. And the Republicans are willing to follow him down that road to hell.

The real question is, if Gingrich is the nominee will the Republicans be writing off the female vote? Mitt might be a calculating, cold-fish CEO, but at least he's got good hair and stands by his ma'am. Newt is every woman's worst nightmare: a fat, philandering, condescending loud-mouth who betrays his vows when his wives need him the most.

76 comments:

rld said...

>Republicans keep telling us that "character matters."

And Dems have told us that private lives don't matter. Infidelity didn't matter much to you in 1992 and 2008. Your media covered for John Edwards.

Anonymous said...

"Clinton be impeached for having sex with an aide"

Really? And here I thought it was that perjury thing.

The Supreme Court boycotted the SOTU speech for a blowjob?

Fucking Repubelickers.

juris imprudent said...

Leaving aside Democrat politicians indiscretions, Newt exposes the evangelicals as first-rate hypocrites for their on-going support of someone who pisses on their morality.

Now, of course if we use the Markadelphia standard we ignore what Newt actually did and only judge him based on what he says.

Isn't it wonderful that hypocrisy is so versatile?

Larry said...

Actually, I thought the Markadelphia Standard was to admire people who are willing to betray their principles for expediency's sake, more euphemistically termed as being "pragmatic". Then again, the chorus line of the Markadelphia Anthem goes, "`Cuz there's nooo standards like double standards!"

I don't like any of the Republican candidates, and I can't see myself voting for any of them. But if it looks like it will be a close election in my state, I might have to hold my nose and do so anyway. Both parties are intent on taking us down the road to hell, but at least the Republicans tend to want to go a little slower instead of standing on the gas pedal.

Mitt or Newt is like a choice between loose stool soup or turd sandwich. And yet voting Obama is like ordering both along with a side of feces fries.

Mark Ward said...

And yet voting Obama is like ordering both along with a side of feces fries.

How exactly? And when will we reach the gates of hell? I'd like a time when this is going to happen. See, Larry, I think you people are completely full of shit and have no rational basis whatsoever for thinking what you do. It's all about paranoia, anger, hate and fear for you folks-all of which have no place in reality.

I listen to the things you say about President Obama and compare them to what has actually happened (outside your little Armageddon Bubble) and they simply aren't real. The good news is that while things get better in the world at least you will be able to have your make believe land where you can pretend that our president is not doing a good job and that Red Dawn is just about to happen.

-just dave said...

So you're saying Newt is kinda like John Edwards?...
...and John Kerry...
...and Bill Clinton...

Larry said...

Fuck you very much for putting words in my mouth, Mark. Can you ever not misrepresent what other people have actually said? Or to put it more baldly, make shit up and lie about them? Well, unless you can dig up some, you know, verbatim (do you know the meaning of that word yet, "teacher"?) quotes where I actually say what you claim I've said, then shut the fuck up and quit lying. For once.

Mark Ward said...

Both parties are intent on taking us down the road to hell,

yet voting Obama is like ordering both along with a side of feces fries.

Uh, putting words in your mouth? I guess that was someone else that posted the comment above named "Larry." So, again, I'm asking you when are we going to arrive at the gates of hell? How exactly has that happened? More importantly, what Barack Obama are you talking about? Instead of thanking him for cleaning up (stabilizing the economy, adding private sector jobs, actually getting the guys behind 9-11 among a whole host of other accomplishments) after the mess a terribly incompetent president left for us, you've created a fictional character that is taking us down a "road to hell" and is both a "loose stool soup or turd sandwich" with a "side of feces fries." What the fuck does that mean anyway?

This person doesn't exist in reality, Larry. It's in your mind and anyone else who has such a rabid and knee jerk hatred for President Obama. I find the criticisms of the president to be so ridiculously warped that I'm honestly troubled. This sort of mental imbalance never ends well.

Larry said...

"Red Dawn"? "Armageddon"?

As far as taking us down the road to hell, you have absolutely NO problem claiming that Republicans are doing that.

Shitweasel.

juris imprudent said...

Can you ever not misrepresent what other people have actually said?

The next time will be the first time! But the really weird part is that we expect him to.

Mark Ward said...

Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between the road to hell/excrement sandwiches and Red Dawn/Armageddon. There must be something subtle I am missing that only card carrying members of right wing paranoia land understand.

So, I guess that's a "no comment" on the rest then, eh Larry? Like I said, full of shit. I guess you have to run against the fictional character of Obama because running against the real one is an epic fail from the start.

juris, see my post today. Good luck!

Larry said...

Mark, I didn't write "road to Hell" since I'm not a Christian and don't believe in it. Believe it or not, the uncapitalized "road to hell" has long been a general secular term meaning "to an undesirable state of affairs". For being a "teacher", you're certainly ignorant of metaphor. But then, you've proven time and again that there's a lot of words that you don't know the meaning of, such as "verbatim" and "induce".

Mark Ward said...

Mark, I didn't write "road to Hell"

Both parties are intent on taking us down the road to hell

verbatim (adv): in the exact words : word for word (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verbatim )

???

Further, I'm still waiting for what exactly that road to hell looks like specifically....an undesirable state of affairs...alright, how exactly? And when does this all take place? Got a date in mind?

Don't write a check with your keyboard that your butt can't cash.

juris imprudent said...

On the road to hell is hyperbole, but people are frequently asked about the direction of the country. Even though I'm not fond of polling, there is a certain consistency here...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

I'm sure you'll do your best to spin and twist that - but you'll just end up in knots.

Larry said...

Mark, even a Liberal ought to know the difference between "road to hell" (secular slang for a bad state) and "road to Hell" (Satan's domain). Kind of like the difference "a god" and "God". Capitalization can be such a bitch, can't it? Kind of like the difference between "This morning Mark helped Uncle Jack off his horse," and "This morning Mark helped Uncle jack off his horse."

Larry said...

And of course I don't have a date, dumb shit. There are so many variables that only an idiot or liar makes such a prediction. See Paul Krugman for past 10 years as an example. He successfully predicted 4 or 5 out of the past 1 recessions. :-D

But long-term trends, well, that's another matter. None of the trends towards greater government power that had you so frightened when Bush was president has reversed, and yet now you tell us, "All is well! All is well!" Uh huh.

Mark Ward said...

Alright, so we are becoming a bad state. I think you would agree that at least that's a little more measured than "road to hell."

None of the trends towards greater government power that had you so frightened when Bush was president has reversed, and yet now you tell us, "All is well! All is well!" Uh huh.

Because Barack Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. It depends on who is driving the car. There are some that are crappy drivers who clearly shouldn't have a license. Others do a much better job at operating a car. So it comes down to capabilities and trust. Aren't there people you know who you trust to do a competent job at something and those you know who simply aren't?

GuardDuck said...

If they are doing the exact same things how can you determine if one is a better driver than the other.....

Unless your trust is based upon that tingle in you leg.....

Larry said...

I didn't trust Bush, and I sure as hell don't trust Obama. And between Tweedle Mitt and Tweedle Newt, I'd as soon vote for the Mad Hatter Ron Paul.

But you're certainly quite the butt-monkey for Obama, aren't you?

Mark Ward said...

Yeah, that's right, Larry. I think someone is a good president and that means I'm in love with him. Good grief, I know you're unhappy that's he done a good job but now you're simply being ridiculous.

Mark Ward said...

If they are doing the exact same things

Well, that's just an outright lie. Better tactics against Al Qaeda with clear results, the end of DADT, two moderate to liberal women on the SCOTUS, and, just announced tonight, a serious commitment to renewables vis a vis the DoD...all things Bush or any GOP folk would not have done. Obviously, there's much more.

GuardDuck said...

Mark, if you weren't such a fucking idiot it would be easier to talk to you.

READ YOU IDIOT!

Quote: "None of the trends towards greater government power that had you so frightened when Bush was president has reversed, and yet now you tell us, "All is well! All is well!" Uh huh."

Reply: "It depends on who is driving the car."

Comment: "If they are doing the exact same things how can you determine if one is a better driver than the other....."


Then you come back calling me a liar? How dare you? You are too fucking incompetent to even comprehend the words you read. What the hell does Al Qaeda, DADT, women on the SCOTUS or renewables at DoD have to do with the original comment. Which was, to refresh your obviously short memory, trends towards greater government power?

Mark Ward said...

They aren't doing the exact same things which is why I called you a liar. Even in the areas where there are some similarities they still aren't the "exact same things." In fact, I'd like to see a list of the "exact same things" they are doing. Remember, "exact same things." As I am so often reminded by you and the others, words have meaning.

GuardDuck said...

They aren't doing the exact same things which is why I called you a liar.

You didn't even know what subject we were talking about Mark - don't back pedal now.

You don't even deserve a reply - that's some chicken shit you are trying to pull.

Actually, I'd bet that more government policies remain completely unchanged than have been changed by Obama.

But how about this short list - which by the by actually addresses trends towards greater government power.


Patriot Act
TSA
CIA rendition
Suspended Habeas Corpus
Limiting 5th amendment rights

Mark Ward said...

Has the Patriot Act been changed or is it the exact same as it was under President Bush?

It's my understanding that the TSA stuff is new so that's an Obama only, right? Again, not exact same even though you consider it worse.

CIA rendition-also different. Check your facts on this one. We don't use the exact same techniques anymore (waterboarding etc). There's also this...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

Regarding Habeas Corpus, the president issued an executive order regarding the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and the individuals held there. This order asserted that "[they] have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus". There's also a lot of murkiness around the current debate over this that could not be characterized as "exact same."

Regarding 5th amendment rights, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Hmmm...

http://lewrockwell.com/bauman/bauman-b13.1.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111227232426AATBie5

Is this what you are basing your assertion on? I hope not.

I don't see how any of these are the "exact same thing." To me, the president has done a more nuanced and effective job of handling these issues. That's because he is a more competent leader. Please don't translate that through your right wing blog brain to mean that I worship him and have sexual feelings for him. I know it's your first instinct to behave like either an 8 year old boy having a temper tantrum or a 14 year old having an adolescent power fantasy but please, enough. I'm simply stating that he is a more capable leader than George W. Bush. His definable actions and results prove this to be the case.
Why is that so hard for you to admit?

juris imprudent said...

Has the Patriot Act been changed or is it the exact same as it was under President Bush?

Congratulations, you actually just criticized the Democrats that had the chance to change that, and didn't. Of course you will still insist that they are better about civil liberties - totally oblivious to the fact that you just pointed out that they are not.

And Bushhitler-Cheney-McEvil didn't even attempt to classify part of the law such that you could be charged with violating it without even being allowed to know it existed. Credit to Obama all on his own for that (with only ONE Senate Democrat in opposition).

Mark Ward said...

juris (et al), simple question for you...are there some people that you trust with a gun more than others?

GuardDuck said...

You're giving that gun to a different person every four to eight years. You didn't trust the last person, are you going to trust the next?

Larry said...

I was just thinking about that myself, and wondering if Mark really wanted to go there. After all, if he trusts his guy with all that power, but deeply distrusts the "other side's" representative with it (deadly force, no less, Mark's own choice of metaphor!), how far would a Frightened Little Marky be willing to go to keep power in their hands? If I really wanted to play the fool (like our illustrious host), I might add, "Especially with his apocalyptic vision ("road to hell") of such a potential president."

And I've certainly never understood Mark's "adolescent power fantasy" line. What the hell does that even mean, anyway? I mean, other than, "They disagree with me, and resent being called fascist suckers of corporate cock. And that's bad, m'kay?"

Mark Ward said...

You didn't trust the last person, are you going to trust the next?

Yes. I trust President Obama. I trusted (or would've trusted) Presidents Clinton, HW Bush, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, and Teddy Roosevelt. I did not trust (or would not have trusted) W, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Hoover, or Wilson. I have no opinion about Coolidge, Harding or Taft.

Reagan is in a category by himself. I both trusted him and did not trust him. Very Jungian, I know, but that was his character.

What the hell does that even mean, anyway?

It's essentially a summation of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Ironic, because Rand ended up being completely wrong. Yeah, those innovators sure ended up being oppressed alright...:)

The behavior that many of you exhibit towards the federal government is similar to that of an adolescent rebelling against his parents. How DARE they tell me what to do with my life or what is best for me? That sort of thing...

Larry said...

Oh, right. Because the government is our mommy and daddy. Only in your dreams, Mark. Unless of course it's a non-Leftist government, in which case it's a nightmare that must be resisted, because we've got to stand up to The Man, man!

Sheesh. You're nothing if not comical, Mark.

GuardDuck said...

Uh, way to miss the point Mark......


The question was what happens when all the power being wielded by the guy you do trust is then wielded by the one you don't?

GuardDuck said...

Oh and uhm,

How DARE they tell me what to do with my life or what is best for me?

Well, yeah. If you think you, and by proxy those you vote for should be telling me what to do....then you seem to be having the power fantasy.

Mark Ward said...

Only in your dreams, Mark.

You're not getting it and that's the problem. They aren't my dreams, they are YOURS and your very warped perception (the nanny state silliness) of how liberals and Democrats perceive the government. Essentially, you've set up a straw man about the government's role in our lives and then argue against that instead the the role they should and do play in American society.

when all the power being wielded by the guy you do trust is then wielded by the one you don't?

Then bad things happen as we have seen when incompetents get elected. So, let's not given in to emotion and continue to elect them.

I get it, though, that you think we should take away government power and that will solve everything because then they can't do as much damage. That's not really a solution given the complexities of the world today and is, ahem, quite adolescent.

by proxy those you vote for should be telling me what to do

First of all, that's great exaggerated for theatrical purposes. Second, what if you are wrong? See, that's the problem with folks on the right. You think you never are.

juris imprudent said...

There are some M that might pause and reflect on where they are going with an argument. Then there are those who charge on, not satisified with mere stupidity, but bravely insist on doubling down on their error(s). You M could be king of those fools.

You so remind me of that Churchillian quip about the man that occasionally stumbles across the truth and then quickly picks himself up and carries on as if nothing happened.

Mark Ward said...

You so remind me of that Churchillian quip about the man that occasionally stumbles across the truth and then quickly picks himself up and carries on as if nothing happened.

I find this statement to be very ironic considering how much you blow a bowel about the whole "acting against one's interests" thing. And I knew it was only a matter of time before Churchill came up:)

juris imprudent said...

I may not know what is in your best interest, but I can say when you are full of shit. It isn't my fault that for you that is such a common condition.

And you know me, if I can't give it to you in Latin I have to give it to you from one of the greatest orators of the English language. Hopefully that balances out the vulgarity that I too often resort to.

Larry said...

You're not getting it and that's the problem. They aren't my dreams, they are YOURS and your very warped perception (the nanny state silliness) of how liberals and Democrats perceive the government.

Huh. And here I was just responding to your very own words:

The behavior that many of you exhibit towards the federal government is similar to that of an adolescent rebelling against his parents. How DARE they tell me what to do with my life or what is best for me? That sort of thing...

What in the world is anyone to think that means if not that we should act more like dutiful children with government in the role of parents? You're the one who chose the idiotic metaphor, after all, not me or GuardDuck or juris "bully weasel" imprudent.

Larry said...

Err, idiotic analogy, not metaphor.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Larry words only mean what M wants them to mean - at that moment only. You keep insisting that those words have some sort of non-transient relevance. They don't to M so they must not to anyone else, right?

Mark Ward said...

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, Larry. I'm simply pointing out the behavior pattern. You're acting out an adolescent power fantasy where, really, none should exist.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

This APF you prattle on about, that's your new "cult" thing, isn't it. Kind of an all purpose put down when you can't hold up your end of an argument. Or when someone reminds you of what you said, verbatim and you really don't want to own up to it.

Childish, M, very childish.

GuardDuck said...

OK, wait a minute. Just to clarify; are you saying that this AFP is "us" rebelling against the government telling us what to do, or are you saying that the government isn't really telling us what to do and thus the rebellion is actually the fantasy?


Then bad things happen as we have seen when incompetents get elected. So, let's not given in to emotion and continue to elect them.

Wow. Just. Wow. Mark - your previous list of presidents you trust or not was split almost 50/50. That's a hell of a low average. Based upon historical precedence I could pretty much predict that the next president would have a 50% chance that you won't trust him. Are you comfortable giving, say, Sarah Palin expanded powers into your life - powers that you would be fine with Obama having?

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

I believe M is suggesting that if we never ever elect anyone "bad" [as he defines it] then we don't have anything to worry about. If that came from someone who never studied history, I could understand it, sort of. It certainly is in keeping with someone who lives by faith (to the exclusion of experience and reason).

But I am stuck for how to parody, satire or otherwise ridicule that. If we are adolescents on a power trip, they must be thumb-sucking toddlers desperate for mommy's attention.

Mark Ward said...

are you saying that this AFP is "us" rebelling against the government telling us what to do, or are you saying that the government isn't really telling us what to do and thus the rebellion is actually the fantasy?

Actually, it's a little of both. You perceive the government as a much bigger "daddy" than it is. This is where the fantasies come in about freedoms being taken away (War on Christmas type stuff, guns being taken away even though the opposite is happening, etc). So you act out against this false perception as an adolescent does against his parents.

You also have to consider your responsibilities to society as a whole. Odd, that I have to remind a conservative of individual responsibility and how the federal government is a part of that but then again I've never understood how free and loose you play with that concept (eg, if people are poor, it's all their fault. If our climate is changing, it's absolutely not our fault--huh?)

Are you comfortable giving, say, Sarah Palin expanded powers into your life - powers that you would be fine with Obama having?

No. But that doesn't mean that I have to be against all government power. Why does it always have to be either/or with you guys? I also think Sarah Palin is a poor example as she has ZERO chance of being president.

And, again, your illusion of government power is odd when you consider that they are more of a mechanism for the private sector. You want to continue to remove all of the teeth of government and actually give more power to the private sector? The ones who have demonstrated time and again that they will abuse that power? WTF?!!??

The main problem here is really not the candidates but the people. Nixon, for example, largely won because of his Southern Strategy. That's a whole bunch of people voting purely on emotion (anger, hate, fear) and not logic. As long as there are people who are ignorant (willful or otherwise), we are going to elect leaders that are going to be incompetent.

juris imprudent said...

You perceive the government as a much bigger "daddy" than it is.

It shouldn't be perceived as a "daddy" at all. Brilliant choice of metaphor as it exposes the absolute foolishness of your belief in govt.

You also have to consider your responsibilities to society as a whole.

You continually confuse govt with society. They are two different things. Society may encourage religious belief, govt does not (and should not).

But that doesn't mean that I have to be against all government power.

STRAWMAN ALERT. When have I or any other non-proggie here said we against ALL govt power? You see the problem with arguing about things we didn't say? Do you do that because you are stupid, dishonest or just intellectually lazy?

Why does it always have to be either/or with you guys?

Says the fucking God-Emperor of black-or-white! How fucking dare you accuse anyone of being either/or. Speaking for myself, the problem with over-reaching govt is that it dilutes and/or delegitimizes the essential functions of govt.

You want to continue to remove all of the teeth of government and actually give more power to the private sector?

Like Centerpoint/RMR? I understand how we give power to govt - how exactly do we give it to the private sector?

The main problem here is really not the candidates but the people.

We just need the right people in charge, huh M?

Larry said...

Corollary, for those whose heads aren't too far up their asses, is that once they have the governmental power and control that they want and think is necessary for the "right people" to govern, is that then that sort of power could never be entrusted to their opposition. Yet that genie is out of the bottle? What it is to be done to prevent such power falling out of the "right hands" and into those of the "wrong". I suspect, and history provides many, many examples, that power will not be given up, and that through various "emergency measures" the "right people" maintain control.

The Founding Fathers would perform an epic intellectual beatdown on Mark and his yippie dog posse of anklebiters. After having their words willfully spun and transformed into dunbassery a few times, a violent ejection would be likely. And the citizens cheered!

sasquatch said...

The Founding Fathers would perform an epic intellectual beatdown on Mark and his yippie dog posse of anklebiters.

Which ones, exactly? I wasn't aware that they all thought with a uniform mind. Mark's already demonstrated that your "Founding Fathers" fall back is bullshit with the First National Bank decision. And what about the Whiskey Rebellion?

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Don't forget the Alien & Sedition Act! That is a classic in the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says and even if it does it doesn't matter trope.

Mark Ward said...

Yeah, which ones exactly, Larry? The Founding Fathers were comprised of many differing views so your statement is pretty vague and shallow if you ask me.

Speaking of the Constitution, it really must stick in your craw that the president is a Constitutional scholar. The simple fact that he's studied that document more than all of the right wing bloggers put together and clearly knows more about it than all of you combined has got to be an ass rip.

Aw, who am I kidding, though? You guys know what it REALLY means and are the official mouth and think pieces for the ghosts of the Founding Fathers, right?

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

It really doesn't take much effort to study the Constitution M. It does take a lot to master the sophistry to ignore plain language and real history to wring out of it what you want. I have no doubt that Obama is a scholar in the latter sense. And he is clean and articulate.

Of course I am opposed to all govt power - at least in M's mind - so obviously I must not know anything about it at all. If only I had faith in the right people being the only ones to ever exercise power and that they would only do so in their divine wisdom. I seem to recall Madison having something to say on that - but what would he know.

GuardDuck said...

A scholar? Well he may have studied it, but since he hasn't shown his transcripts I don't know if he is indeed a scholar.

Don said...

I notice that there are no students that speak of working with or under Obama from years past. Very little evidence of his college work, its like he just plopped out of nowhere when he became a politician.

Mark Ward said...

Really?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

But the liberal students did not necessarily find reassurance. “For people who thought they were getting a doctrinal, rah-rah experience, it wasn’t that kind of class,” said D. Daniel Sokol, a former student who now teaches law at the University of Florida at Gainesville.

For one thing, Mr. Obama’s courses chronicled the failure of liberal policies and court-led efforts at social change: the Reconstruction-era amendments that were rendered meaningless by a century of resistance, the way the triumph of Brown gave way to fights over busing, the voting rights laws that crowded blacks into as few districts as possible. He was wary of noble theories, students say; instead, they call Mr. Obama a contextualist, willing to look past legal niceties to get results.

For another, Mr. Obama liked to provoke. He wanted his charges to try arguing that life was better under segregation, that black people were better athletes than white ones.

“I remember thinking, ‘You’re offending my liberal instincts,’ ” Mary Ellen Callahan, now a privacy lawyer in Washington, recalled.

“Are there legal remedies that alleviate not just existing racism, but racism from the past?” Adam Gross, now a public interest lawyer in Chicago, wrote in his class notes in April 1994.

For all the weighty material, Mr. Obama had a disarming touch. He did not belittle students; instead he drew them out, restating and polishing halting answers, students recall. In one class on race, he imitated the way clueless white people talked. “Why are your friends at the housing projects shooting each other?” he asked in a mock-innocent voice.

A favorite theme, said Salil Mehra, now a law professor at Temple University, were the values and cultural touchstones that Americans share. Mr. Obama’s case in point: his wife, Michelle, a black woman, loved “The Brady Bunch” so much that she could identify every episode by its opening shots.

In his voting rights course, Mr. Obama taught Lani Guinier’s proposals for structuring elections differently to increase minority representation. Opponents attacked those suggestions when Ms. Guinier was nominated as assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1993, costing her the post.

“I think he thought they were good and worth trying,” said David Franklin, who now teaches law at DePaul University in Chicago.

But whether out of professorial reserve or budding political caution, Mr. Obama would not say so directly. “He surfaced all the competing points of view on Guinier’s proposals with total neutrality and equanimity,” Mr. Franklin said. “He just let the class debate the merits of them back and forth.”


Hmm...sounds familiar:)

GuardDuck said...

Hmmmm. Sounds like a social studies class. Doesn't make him a constitutional scholar.

That requires, well, scholarship. Oh, and something to do with the constitution, besides a desire to ignore legal niceties.

Mark Ward said...

Hmmmm. Sounds like a social studies class. Doesn't make him a constitutional scholar.

Well...

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

That's LAW school, not Social Studies school. He taught three classes on Constitutional Law (Voting Rights, Due Process and Equal Protection, and Racism and the Law).

In addition, he has a JD, magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where he also served as the President of the Harvard Law Review.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/obama-at-hls.html

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

I don't know who, but I'm sure there must have been right-wingers that fellated W with all the gusto you have for Obama. It doesn't make it anymore dignified.

So tell me M why do you constantly argue things we never said - is it stupidity, dishonesty or laziness?

sasquatch said...

Perhaps it's because Mark isn't talking about you but is generally bitching about the state of conservatism today although he has responded directly to things said in this thread so there are two ways in which your comment makes no sense.

juris imprudent said...

Well sas, he directly asserted that I and other commenters here are opposed to all govt power, that we are either/or thinkers and he hasn't addressed or retracted that. He appeals to authority - that Obama is privvy to Constitutional knowledge inaccessible to us mere mortals. I really am curious - is it laziness, stupidity, what. A reflective man (as he claims to be) ought to be able to answer that and not avert his eyes from unpleasant truths.

Mark Ward said...

that Obama is privvy to Constitutional knowledge inaccessible to us mere mortals.

It's so funny how you guys overreact. Somehow, the president being a Constitutional scholar translates into God like wisdom and insight into what the Founding Fathers were asserting (if there were such a thing...although that is what you guys are asserting about yourselves so we're back to Projection/Flipping...again!).

Maher is really onto something with this whole Barack X thing. It's a fictional character that doesn't exist.

juris imprudent said...

No M, I only know what the Founders wrote, not anything secret or arcane. The Constitution wasn't written in code or in sanskrit - it is pretty easy to read and understand, particularly if you have any grasp of English Common Law and/or Enlightenment political philosophy. Oh, and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

But keep asserting that I am against all govt power -- that's a real winner.

I still can't figure though if it is stupidity, dishonesty or laziness that drives you. Maybe it depends on the day.

GuardDuck said...

It's so funny how you guys overreact. Somehow, the president being a Constitutional scholar translates into God like wisdom and insight into what the Founding Fathers were asserting

Hey Mark, go back on your meds.


In case you forgot, ten posts earlier you said:


The simple fact that he's studied that document more than all of the right wing bloggers put together and clearly knows more about it than all of you


You are the one asserting the god like wisdom. No wonder you can't react to what we actually say - you don't even know what you are actually saying five minutes after the fact.

sw said...

Good catch gd. Looks like they can't keep their story straight. If they were telling the truth there would be no problem being consistent.

Mark Ward said...

GD, that doesn't make him a God, looking down on us mere mortoals. It simply means he knows more than you do about the Constitution and likely has a deeper understanding of it.

It's not simply reading the Constitution, juris. It's also reading all the actions, precedents, and court cases that came after it that also figuring in to a deeper understanding of it. It is a living document and for many that's sacrilege.

juris imprudent said...

Wrong M - the Constitution is what it is. The Court cases that come later have often gotten things wrong: Dred Scot, Plessey v. Ferguson, Slaughterhouse, Buck v. Bell, Wickard and Griswold for a few. None of those changed the Constitution, but they did do a spectacularly bad job of interpreting it.

Mark Ward said...

That include slavery then, juris? Just to be clear, you don't think that the framers had an open document in mind and that our society would change over time...is that accurate? Further, what's your evaluation of how our country has changed and whether or not it's detrimental to adhere so rigidly to the Constitution?

Many of these conversations go the way that the ones go with the Bible. Everyone has an interpretation and that IS the right one!!!

GuardDuck said...

It simply means he knows more than you do about the Constitution and likely has a deeper understanding of it.


Oh, so he isn't privy to more information than us mere mortals, you just treat him like he does.


My wife is an ER nurse, and one night while griping about a particularly stupid doctor she said "remember that there is a 50% chance that your doctor graduated in the bottom half of his class."

I think I will reserve judgement about whether he does know more about the constitution than I do until he deigns to actually show whether he is indeed a scholar or part of the bottom 50%.

GuardDuck said...

you don't think that the framers had an open document in mind and that our society would change over time

Of course they did you silly goose. That's why they included in the constitution a feature capable of adjusting to changes in society - the neato little part called Article V

If that is how little you know about the constitution then it is no wonder you place such faith in somebody just because they "studied" it at a major name-brand university.

Larry said...

Yeah, which ones exactly, Larry? The Founding Fathers were comprised of many differing views so your statement is pretty vague and shallow if you ask me.

If you actually bothered to read the Constitution, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, etc., you will find that none of the Founding Fathers supported anything even approaching the power of the Federal government from the New Deal onward. Claiming that just because they disagreed about how much power the Federal government should have relative to the States and the People, no more means that Hamilton and the other Federalists would've supported Obama's vision of Federal power than that the Anti-Federalists (and most of your commenters) wanted no government at all. That's just more of your dishonest, dick-headed, asinine Calvinball "logic". Hamilton wanted a national bank? Well then obviously he would've supported nationalized/socialized healthcare and all the other apparatus of a semi-socialist state. Riiight. If he or any others did, it should be quite easy for you find where they actually said something like that, right? Right?

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

That include slavery then, juris?

That was fixed via amendment (after a whole lot of violence). Are you really that stupid to think I didn't consider amendments to be part of the Constitution?

Yeah, you probably are. After all...

Further, what's your evaluation of how our country has changed and whether or not it's detrimental to adhere so rigidly to the Constitution?

No, let's just ignore the Constitution when we think it is convenient to do so. Not only can you not get enough Obama I think you've been fellating Bush and Cheney as well.

Of course you aren't interested in amending it - that's too hard (as it was intended to be). You have no business being in the front of a classroom, particularly one dealing with the subject of U.S. govt.

Mark Ward said...

If you actually bothered to read the Constitution, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, etc.,

I've read them all many times, Larry, and, since I'm not as sensitive to government power as you are, I see them differently. So did all the Founding Fathers at the time and fought bitterly over how our country should govern itself. In fact, there used to be duels behind Congress over this kind of stuff which honestly make the arguing that goes on now look tame.

The rest of your comment gave me an epiphany that I am going to turn into a full post for tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Mark Ward said...

You have no business being in the front of a classroom, particularly one dealing with the subject of U.S. govt.

That ol' chestnut...how I missed it:) What's it been? Nearly a month? Obviously, you haven't been in a classroom at the secondary level for quite some time so your vision of what it is like is pure fantasy.

juris imprudent said...

how I missed it:)

I'm sorry that you could so thoroughly disgust me that I felt the need to trot it out. But that comment about "rigidly adhering" did it.

I paid attention to what my son was being taught in the secondary level which wasn't all that long ago, so I have some idea. Not that that matters as when you proclaim that the Constitution doesn't really matter you have invalidated all pretense to being a teacher of civics. You don't need my help to make a fool of yourself.

Mark Ward said...

Typical hubris of the right...somehow your view of the Constitution becomes...the Constitution. And anyone who doesn't share that view is an idiot who says the Constitution doesn't matter. It does matter, of course, but your opinion on it does not. The problem you are having is that you believe these are the same thing...just as conservative Christians are with the Bible. If you don't think the way I do, the you are a sinner.

Mark Ward said...

I'll amend the above comment to say that your opinion does not matter as long as you operate within such a rigid structure.

juris imprudent said...

And anyone who doesn't share that view is an idiot

If by that you mean that you believe that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says and even if it does it doesn't matter, then yes - that is my problem with your idiotic belief. If you can specifically articulate a power that was granted to the federal govt in accordance with Madison's point about limited and few then we might be able to have a reasonable discussion.