DIS-patch
The Slow, Ugly Suicide of Newt
by Dave "Doctor" Gonzo

Wednesday, March 18, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- The latest chapter in the slow, ugly political suicide of Newt Gingrich is playing itself out in the Beltway as we write.

This one seems to have fallen below the radar of the media. Of course, given their obsession with the President's private life -- and incredulity over the fact that the more they report it, the higher his poll numbers go -- we're not surprised this one didn't make the evening newscasts.

The news: Newt's fired yet another bullet into his own foot. He's decided to have a not-so-minor dust-up with House Judiciary Committee chairman Henry Hyde.

Newt and Hyde are butting heads over what to do in the likely event that lord high executioner Kenneth Starr delivers his findings to the House.

Hyde, a partisan Republican whom even we at APJ have a modicum of respect for, is highly regarded by both sides of the aisle, and now advocates something approaching a bipartisan solution centered around the House Judiciary Committee -- essentially, the traditional contingency of handling such an event.

Newt, on the other hand, is pushing for a "special inquiry committee on impeachment," and is reportedly stepping on a lot of GOP toes in the process.

A spokesman for Newt characterized the "idea" as a "passing thought... floated by Gingrich at a leadership meeting." Reportedly, he has been pressing members of the House Republican leadership pretty hard on this "passing thought," dividing members of the GOP as minority Democrats look on gleefully.

CNN reports that Gingrich even "planted" the concept "with Bob Novak as a trial balloon." The Doc read the column and laughed out loud about the writing on the wall that went with it -- another bonehead idea bound to further split the GOP!

Has Newt gone completely mad? Does he think he can actually assemble what "Prince of Darkness" Novak calls "an all-star team of House Republicans, including Hyde?" It sounds like an all-Starr-Chamber cast, and a majority of House members and average Americans would be up in arms if Newt somehow managed to pull this off!

Newt's latest blunder -- and the brouha, ha it has caused in his own party -- will no doubt hasten his departure as House speaker. Despite Bill Paxon's withdrawal from the race, there are already strong contenders nipping at Newt's heel, including appropriations chairman Bob Livingston (R-La); Roll Call reports he's wrapped up at least 77 votes.

Combine challenges for Newt's seat with the likelihood that he may face indictment for campaign finance fraud (along with former GOP head Haley Barbour and "Americans for Tax Reform" chief thug Grover Norquist), and it's pretty easy to see where the career of Mr. Gingrich is going.

We recommend he give Dick Scaife a call. Newt's prior experience as a teacher, combined with his fast-and-loose approach to his government duties, would make him a splendid candidate for a teaching post at Pepperdine's School of Public Policy.

'Nuff said.

March 18, 1998 (APJP) -- When I'm not skewering Newt and the boys for APJ, I dabble in Web design with some friends. One of the sites of which I'm very proud is Starr Whores, which tells the story of Darth Starr sailing through space on his deadly right-wing fighter.

As you might guess, we've received plenty of fine whines from the Dittohead set about this site, just as APJ and all other political sites are constantly bombarded by frustrated losers throughout cyberspace. And it's easy to generalize, even for an avowed liberal -- more than 90% of these notes are from barely-literate, dangerously angry idiots.

The thing I don't get is why these guys don't sign their jabs. We'll open a message and see:

DIE LIBRAL FAGGET YOU AND ALL DEMOCRATS WILL GO TO HELL

No signature. Most of the time there's not even a real return address. It's amazing how technically literacy and general literacy don't go together.

Here's an idea for all you peek-a-boo whiners: if you're too weak to stand behind your words, don't let them out in the first place. Take a breath. Ask yourself a few tough questions like:

* Why am I so ticked off about this? (TIP: The answer is probably, "Because they've ripped on a nerve by telling the truth, or what I fear is the truth.")
* Why would I hide my name from the people I've decided to be ticked off at?
* If I'm right, what am I afraid of?

What, if anything, are you trying to accomplish by writing us? Do you want us to see your side, or feel real bad deep down in our hearts? I don't mean to burst any bubbles here, but maybe an all-caps note in Gibberish isn't
the most efficient path.

Think of the people who have made important political points with voices and pens. People who could make other people follow them, or at least pay attention. And I'm not talking about TV pundits with focus-group-tested talking points and pie charts. I'm talking about Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson, and Hunter S. Thompson.

Can you imagine Martin Luther King standing at a computer terminal somewhere, boiling with the rage of generations, and typing
OH YEAH RACIST BASTARD I HOPE YOU GET CANCER
?

Sounds pretty pathetic, doesn't it? But thousands of angry people who think they're making an impact, who fancy themselves political commentators, are doing it every day. And they don't sign their missives.

I actually did get a signed flame-mail from a frustrated (but atypically literate) reader once, and responded to his well-thought-out argument. Over a week or more, we exchanged mostly-polite, rational letters, and found out we agreed on quite a bit. But here's the crazy part -- nobody got arrested, audited, or turned into a pumpkin. Imagine! He had the cajones to sign his letter and start a conversation, rather than bleating and scurrying under a rock to cower.

The lessons are simple. Buy a grammar book. Think before you type. Sign it or don't send it.

Oh, and here's one last point. Before you stab down the Caps Lock key to write your attack letter, remember this: we don't hear the voices in your head. If you're thinking,
That's not what they said about Mondale's labor strategy in '84!
but you just write
DID YOU FORGET ABOUT 84?
we won't get it. Sorry!

In Sid Blumenthal's case, long time friends of his wife actually approached her offering shelter.

Drudge's defense team used the "edited" edition in federal court last week in an attempt to show that other news services were carrying the story.

In the event Drudge takes down the page (we doubt he'll do it), you can click here to take a look at our copy.