Gingrich says Democratic proposals "absolutely moves you towards a political dictatorship"

To avoid a political dictatorship, stop sucking.

We're getting one-party rule for the next 12 years because the other party took itself out.

Without most of us even knowing it, we already HAD a REAL political dictatorship the past couple of years, thanks to John Yoo and pals. Bush just didn't act on his "legal" advice in most aspects, which we should be thankful for.

But of course, Gingrich is free to fantasize about what we might have. Certainly, trying to rectify the actions of the previous administration would just be vindicative and backward-looking.

And he falsely claims that the current Congress allowed this.

From Tuesday, March 24

CNN's Castellanos falsely claimed Dems "gave" bonuses to AIG execs

During the March 23 edition of CNN's No Bias, No Bull, CNN contributor Alex Castellanos falsely claimed that Democrats "gave" AIG executives bonuses, advancing the false Republican accusation that by passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Democrats created the right for AIG to pay bonuses. Castellanos claimed of AIG bonuses: "[I]t does have a political impact going into the next election. These Democrats out there are -- the outrage that they're trying to, I think, feign, is a real problem. How, you know -- 'How dare these AIG execs take the bonuses we gave them?' That's going to be hard to defend." He also stated: "[I]t was Democrats who put it in there -- [Sen.] Chris Dodd [D-CT]. And it's Democrats who control the Congress." In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, the recovery bill did not create the right for AIG -- or any company -- to pay bonuses.

Rather, AIG reportedly disclosed that it had entered into agreements to pay these bonuses more than a year ago. As Media Matters has also noted, Neil Barofsky, a Bush-appointed special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), stated in March 19 congressional testimony that the Bush administration Treasury Department knew about the AIG bonus contracts and did not insist on their abrogation as a condition of AIG's receiving bailout money. Further, the relevant provision in the recovery act, which was based on an amendment sponsored by Dodd, actually restricted the ability of companies receiving TARP money to award bonuses in the future. In the absence of the recovery bill, AIG's ability to pay the bonuses would not have been limited. Indeed, if Republicans had succeeded in defeating the bill, the clause restricting the ability of troubled companies to award bonuses in the future would not have been enacted at the time.

from Wednesday, March 18

CNN's Bash falsely claims recovery bill language required AIG bonuses "to stay in place"

On the March 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash falsely claimed that "a clause" of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "effectively made sure that the contracts that were in place for the past couple of years with companies like AIG -- why those had to stay in place and why AIG had to give the bonuses." In fact, the economic recovery bill did not require that compensation contracts entered into by companies like AIG "had to stay in place," nor did the bill require AIG "to give the bonuses."

Rather, as Media Matters for America has documented, the relevant provision in the recovery bill , which was based on an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), actually restricted the ability of companies receiving funds under the act to award bonuses in the future; it did not mandate that AIG -- or any other companies -- pay bonuses.

As Christian Bale would say: "What don't you f***ing understand?"

I'll take this over the "Do Nothing" Congress these same people cried about 6 months ago

Are Fox viewers sitting at home (or in a home) screaming Newt, '12?

One whiff of these kind of hysterics and even the most ardent winger would have to choke on his brandy.

I just want to hear the phone call on which Newt was talking about his $300,000 bribe. Illegally recording an illegal act still makes both illegal. Newt should have to explain one. Not to mention his hypocrisy concerning Clinton.

Newt has no chance, the leader of the Cons, Sir Rush will not stand for it.

Political dictatorship? This coming from the man who tried to install the permanent republican majority in Congress, and steamrolled over anyone in his way?

OK Newt. I once thought you might have had a brain in your head. You don't apparently. Go back to GA where you belong.