"For example, on Fast and Furious, the gun sting that went bad and killed an American agent, Holder either didn't know, which means he ought to resign, or he did know, which means he ought to resign.

Says the man who can't even get on the ballot in VA. I guess Newt knows incompetent management from the inside.

Funny how he didn't say a word about Alberto Gonzales aka Amnesia Man.

Newt who?

For example, on Fast and Furious, the gun sting that went bad and killed an American agent, Holder either didn't know, which means he ought to resign, or he did know, which means he ought to resign.

Is that how you felt about Reagan and Iran Contra, Newt?

Lionel Mandrake: For example, on Fast and Furious, the gun sting that went bad and killed an American agent, Holder either didn't know, which means he ought to resign, or he did know, which means he ought to resign.

Is that how you felt about Reagan and Iran Contra, Newt?

wow
came here to say THIS and was beaten??
+2

/what is more shocking is that Reagan was suffering from early onset Alzheimer and should have stepped down. Instead THEY ran the country behind his back. Thanks Ronnie!!

Lionel Mandrake: Is that how you felt about Reagan and Iran Contra, Newt?

Marcus Aurelius: Funny how he didn't say a word about Alberto Gonzales aka Amnesia Man.

Dude, I am about as liberal as they come, and even I'm gonna go ahead and call that comment partisan grapes.

Eric Holder farked up. Eric Holder should resign due to said fark up. No one who is anything other than a shill will try to argue otherwise. You screw up on a colossal scale, you "retire to spend more time with your family, etc." That is how the system worked when the people elected had a FRACTION of integrity and/or we had a less complaisant population.

In this RARE instance, New Gingrich is speaking correctly. Even a broken clock is right on occasion, however Newt Gingrich doesn't give a crap about that... the ONLY reason he is saying this is because it will play well to the base and will score him a couple of more book sales. New Gingrich is a psychopath in the purest sense of the word, and he only cares about promoting the Newt Gingrich "brand" at this point. To a man like Newt, there is no need to concern yourself with factual truths, or evidence...... he says what you think will illicit the desired emotional response from the audience, without any thought or care what-so-god-damned-ever to the truth or untruth of his statement. It's not even truthiness because it involves no intent to speak what you FEEL to be factual. It is utter and unadulterated bullshiat.

However, because he doesn't care one whit about whether or not he is speaking honestly or deceptively, he will, on occasion utter somethings that happen to be true... this is not to say that Newt Gingrich CARES that he is speaking the truth, only that what will serve him best and what is factual happen to coincide. That is what happened here.

The problem is that you instantly jumped to the, "Your side is worse!" argument, without bothering to realize that is the exact sort of school yard behavior that drives most folks, because it's been used so much in the past, with no positive outcomes. Instead of arguing from a relative position (comparing it to another scandal, in this instance), a far more powerful and persuasive tool (not to mention far more polite) is to argue from the abstract. Take apart an argument on it's merits alone. What is actually incorrect about what Newt Gingrich is saying here? Obviously, myself... I think he is right, and most everyone agrees that Eric Holder effed up big time, and should politely step down. Arguing from the relative invites more disagreement and bickering about whatever it is you are comparing the topic to, and moves you further away from the actual point. It can be a useful rhetorical tool, but often times backfires in political discussions, I have come to find in my life.

If you happen to have an argument that paints the situation in a different light, I'd really enjoy reading that. While I might not end up agreeing with you, to consider such a point is 90% of the reason to read forums on such topics... to gain some kind of new insight. If you could punch it up with a few witty comments, hey... I don't mind that, as that is kinda the thing around here.

/rant off
//Still don't like Newt
/// He is right though...

So he's allowed to have the attorney general he wants, who is some guy who to most of us is way to the left and not very competent.

I'm still pissed at the guy for the Marc Rich pardon. However, way to the left? Give me a f*cking break. Left? Have you seen this guys positions on crime and drugs? No? Oh, you're just spouting bull sh*t again.

You can dislike Holder, but do it for the right reasons. He is not a leftist.

Newt is a belligerent fathead. He's probably a mean drunk, too.

Phoenix87ta: You know, I may be remembering incorrectly, but haven't Republicans blocked every one of Obama's attempts to nominate someone to replace Holder since well before the whole Fast and Furious business?

"It's different when we do it."

Michael Moore seems to have found some relatively obscure place to be fat lately.
Is there some compelling reason Newt can't do the same?
He'd be helping everybody - even himself.

jso2897: Michael Moore seems to have found some relatively obscure place to be fat lately.
Is there some compelling reason Newt can't do the same?
He'd be helping everybody - even himself.

Those books don't sell themselves, you know.

ClipJoint: -1: a broken clock is right twice a day

Newt's the flip face clock that ALMOST looks modern, tossing in an AM and PM so people don't have to look outside. Given that.... Newt can only be right once per day.

/I didn't want to give him too much credit, after all.

You know, if Republicans were so concerned about leadership of the ATF, maybe they shouldn't have prevented Obama from appointing anyone to lead it.

Phoenix87ta: You know, I may be remembering incorrectly, but haven't Republicans blocked every one of Obama's attempts to nominate someone to replace Holder since well before the whole Fast and Furious business?

Has he tried to nominate someone for the position? Then yes, they have at least tried to block it. I can't think of a single thing he has done, right down to the type of office stationary his staff uses, that Congressional Republicans have not railed against. Not. One. Thing.

skepticultist: jihad_cowboy: But it cannot be discussed in a vacuum. There is no way ant nomination would be approved by the Senate due to the shortcircuiting of the confirmation process. The days of a President being able to choose his own cabinet seem to be gone, let alone approving standard judges without grandstanding over every statement made in their past. As long as that goodwill is gone, there is no longer an incentive to hold cabinet members accountable.

Consider the blocking of Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for a moment. The GOP came out and acknowledged that they were blocking his nomination not because of any issue with the man himself, but because they disagree with the existence of the CFPB itself.

Now consider that the GOP's ideology is opposed to the existence of several cabinet level positions - Energy, Education, etc. As well as numerous regulatory agencies like the EPA. Now that this threshold has been crossed, and the GOP is willing to use secret holds to filibuster nominations on the basis of objection to the agency and not the nominee, it might very well be impossible to replace anyone in the executive branch. This situation is completely untenable, and amounts to the GOP taking a massive dump on the very concept of the division of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Facts are no way to face the new year.

Welcome to the hitlist. GOP already hated you. Now they want you dead.