Saying George Bush lied under oath is hateful ranting? But comparing Clinton to Caligula is demonstrative of a firm and righteous Christian faith? All the innuendo about who killed Vince Foster is substantive? The "BLOODGATE" thing that some wacko keeps plastering all over the place? Your little "poll" demonstrated by the tasteless skit of the week on SNL is a "fact"?
I'll get back to you on Bush, not that it particularly matters. The only "facts" that count are in the Starr report, right? Meanwhile, a little quote from the kind-hearted, factual and substantive Mr. Vaugh, who would never go the slur and insult route. This goes back to another one of those "advice" things that you are so benevolent in bestowing.
Yes, you are a partisan hater. Gingrich is running a professional non partisan inquiry, standing on the floor of the house shutting up Congressmen who want to rant about Clinton's misdeeds, and you produce an article with a bunch of unsubstantiated Gingrich bashing.
Get on with your hateful life.
And another one:
Are you asking me to believe that you believe everything you read? A single article from a liberal writer with hearsay quotes from unnamed sources about somebody's demeanor - GIVE ME A BREAK!
You've got nothing of substance to back your claim that Newt hasn't been the model of non-partisanship in this impeachment inquiry. Yet I've offered the fact that he sternly admonished Congressional republican grandstanders. Now that is a fact, buddy.
So go on with your hate, ignore the facts, and enjoy your myths.
Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Hate! Wonderful Hate!!! (apologies to Monty Python)
Hate is a funny thing. I'd say there's a substantial hate industry out there, but I don't know how anybody could call Newt its primary target. The industry seems to have plenty of representatives in this particular forum, though. Anyway, a little look back at the particular piece that Mr. Vaughn found so insubstantial:
Gingrich Lies Low on Clinton Scandal, at Least in Public nytimes.com
But behind the scenes, according to other Republican lawmakers, not a step is taken or a decision made without the approval of Gingrich, possibly the most partisan and certainly the most dominant speaker in the last generation.
"Look, the speaker is the speaker," said the chairman of an important committee who insisted on anonymity. "He calls all the shots. If tapes are going to be released, it's his decision. If hearings are going to be held, he will decide. He consults with us. He listens to us. But he makes the calls."
At a closed meeting of House Republicans on Wednesday, Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut expressed concern about the release of sexually explicit portions of the videotape of the president's grand jury testimony.
Gingrich -- angry, according to some who were there, or merely firm, according to others -- rose to his feet and declared that the House had already voted to make the material public and that Republicans were not going to back down in the face of complaints from the White House and Democrats in Congress. Gingrich called the president a "misogynist," a person who hates women.
Maybe old Nancy Johnson was on to something there, since the much ballyhooed deposition tapes seemed to be a turning point of sorts. Not to worry, though, things will be softpedaled through the Nov. election. Then nonpartisan Newt will take charge again. As mrknowitall would say, right now it's really unknowable how anybody would vote. After Nov. 3, I'm sure Newt will do his part in making the unknowable clear to all his minions. In an objective, professional, and nonpartisan manner, of course. |
