Voters haven’t heard much about it, but Newt Gingrich hasn’t exactly held a real job in a very long time. He has, however, overseen a very lucrative enterprise often called “Newt Inc.”

Gingrich, you’ll recall, was forced to resign from Congress in disgrace way back in 1998, after his fellow Republicans decided they no longer had use for his kind of “leadership.” In the 13 years since, the former House Speaker hasn’t held or sought public office at any level.

What’s he been doing? Karen Tumulty and Dan Eggen take a look today at the “business conglomerate” Gingrich put together after his political career was left in shambles.

The power of the Gingrich brand fueled a for-profit collection of enterprises that generated close to $100 million in revenue over the past decade, said his longtime attorney Randy Evans.

Among Gingrich’s moneymaking ventures: a health-care think tank financed by six-figure dues from corporations; a consulting business; a communications firm that handled his speeches of up to $60,000 a pop, media appearances and books; a historical documentary production company; a separate operation to administer the royalties for the historical fiction that Gingrich writes with two co-authors; even an in-house literary agency that has counted among its clients a presidential campaign rival, former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

Separate from all of that was his nonprofit political operation, American Solutions for Winning the Future. Before it disintegrated this summer in Gingrich’s absence, American Solutions generated another $52 million and provided some of the money that allowed the former speaker to travel by private jet and hired limousine.

Along the way, Gingrich has become a wealthy man, earning $2.5 million in personal income last year, according to his financial disclosure form.

It’s not altogether clear what, exactly, Gingrich has done with his days. He’s been paid handsomely for his “strategic advice,” which the disgraced former Speaker insists was not technically lobbying. Gingrich has also given plenty of speeches, made near-constant appearances on television, and adopted a rather luxurious personal lifestyle, but in terms of actual work, the record appears to be pretty thin.

In any case, while the Post’s piece is a good one, the one thing it doesn’t fully convey is just how sketchy — and at times, even sleazy — Gingrich’s operation has been.

As part of his shady financial empire, for example, Gingrich ran a dubious direct-mail scheme, offering to name random businesspeople as “entrepreneur of the year” in exchange for a $5,000 “membership fee” to Gingrich’s American Solutions for Winning the Future.

In one rather amusing example, Gingrich offered to name a strip-club owner as “entrepreneur of the year” for $5,000. When the nude-dancing entrepreneur accepted, Gingrich’s embarrassed staff canceled the 2009 award and returned the money — only to hit the exact same strip-club owner up for more cash two years later.

It wasn’t an isolated incident. Gingrich has overseen all kinds of entities, all of which have raised a lot of money over the last several years, without much to show for it. Not surprisingly, the whole operation has drawn some quizzical looks.

[C]onsumer advocates and some disgruntled donors have raised questions over the years about Gingrich’s seeming penchant for aggressive tactics, including the heavy use of fundraising polls, blast-faxes and other techniques considered unsavory or even predatory by philanthropy groups. […]

According to complaints on consumer-focused Web sites, some American Solutions calls begin with slanted polling questions before proceeding to a request for money. The tactic, known as “fundraising under the guise of research,” or frugging, is discouraged as unethical by trade groups such as the Marketing Research Association.

American Solutions also has drawn criticism because it spends nearly $2 on fundraising for every $3 it brings in — about twice the figure for many nonprofit groups, experts said.

Given the fact that Gingrich was plagued by ethics scandals during his congressional tenure, coupled with his business ventures over the last 13 years, it’s hard to have much confidence in this guy’s sense of propriety.

Following up on the last item, Nick Kristof asked former President Bill Clinton for his take on the political dynamic shaping up for 2012.

Earlier this month, I asked Bill Clinton — who has a better intuitive feel for politics than anyone I know — about Obama’s chances for re-election. “I’ll be surprised if he’s not re-elected,” Clinton said, adding that Obama would do better when matched against a specific opponent like Romney.

Clinton said that Romney did “a very good job” as governor of Massachusetts and would be a credible general election candidate. But Clinton added that Romney or any Republican nominee would be hampered by “a political environment in the Republican primary that basically means you can’t be authentic unless you’ve got a single-digit I.Q.” [emphasis added]

It’s always nice when someone of prominence says on the record what many believe but are afraid to say.

The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof argues today that President Obama “has done better than many critics on the left or the right give him credit for.”

He took office in the worst recession in more than half a century, amid fears of a complete economic implosion…. The administration helped tug us back from the brink of economic ruin. Obama oversaw an economic stimulus that, while too small, was far larger than the one House Democrats had proposed. He rescued the auto industry and achieved health care reform that presidents have been seeking since the time of Theodore Roosevelt.

Despite virulent opposition that has paralyzed the government, Obama bolstered regulation of the tobacco industry, signed a fair pay act and tightened control of the credit card industry. He has been superb on education, weaning the Democratic Party from blind support for teachers’ unions while still trying to strengthen public schools.

In foreign policy, Obama has taken a couple of huge risks. He approved the assault on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, and despite much criticism he led the international effort to overthrow Muammar el-Qaddafi. So far, both bets are paying off.

That’s a reasonably good summary of the last three years. I’d include some additional accomplishments to the president’s list — Wall Street reform, DADT repeal, ending the war in Iraq, the woefully under-appreciated student loan reform, New START, etc. — but the column’s summary includes several highlights.

Kristof’s larger point, though, was to offer a suggestion to voters.

[T]hink back to 2000. Many Democrats and journalists alike, feeling grouchy, were dismissive of Al Gore and magnified his shortcomings. We forgot the context, prided ourselves on our disdainful superiority — and won eight years of George W. Bush.

This time, let’s do a better job of retaining perspective. If we turn Obama out of office a year from now, let’s make sure it is because the Republican nominee is preferable, not just out of grumpiness toward the incumbent during a difficult time.

That sounds about right.

Looking for something else, I came across a speech Mitt Romney delivered in April to a Koch brothers group, and given recent events, a line in his remarks stood out.

“…I’ll tell you, the fact that you’ve got people in this country really squeezed with gasoline getting so expensive, with commodities getting so expensive, families are having a hard time making ends meet. So we’re going to have to do talk about that, and housing foreclosures and bankruptcies and higher taxation.

“We’re going to hang him with that — uh, so to speak, metaphorically, with, uh, you have to be careful these days, I learned that.”

As a substantive matter, Romney’s case is a mess. There is, for example, no “higher taxation.” Romney also supports housing foreclosures, making it an odd thing for him to complain about.

But what I’m interested in now is, of course, context. Let’s say someone wanted to put together an ad accusing Romney of threatening violence against President Obama. The ad could show the former governor saying, “We’re going to hang him.”

In Romney’s mind, would that ad be fair? By all indications, yes.

Remember, as far as the Romney campaign is concerned, context doesn’t mean anything. If someone can honestly say, “He did say the words. That’s his voice,” then the spot is kosher. And in this case, Romney did say, “We’re going to hang him.” That’s Romney’s voice.

Obviously, in context, Romney wasn’t literally talking about committing an act of violence against the president. But what happens when context is deemed irrelevant?

To the extent that newspaper endorsements still matter, this is one Newt Gingrich will be thrilled to pick up.

GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich received the endorsement of the influential editorial board of the New Hampshire Union Leader on Sunday, providing another boost to his surging campaign.

The endorsement gives the former House Speaker additional momentum after a month which has seen him vault to the top of national GOP polls.

“We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing,” said the editorial by publisher Joseph W. McQuaid. “A lot of candidates say they’re going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again,” he added.

Here’s the Union Leader’s front-page editorial.

Gingrich was looking for some kind of boost in New Hampshire, and this may well give him one. The Union Leader is arguably the state’s most influential media outlet, especially in Republican circles — the paper makes no secret of its conservative perspective — and its endorsement has been widely sought by all of the leading GOP candidates.

Does the recipient of the Union Leader’s endorsement generally go on to win the state’s primary? Looking back, the track record is mixed:

1976: The paper endorsed Ronald Reagan over Gerald Ford, but Reagan lost

1980: Reagan won the endorsement and the primary

1988: The Union Leader supported Pete du Pont, who finished fourth in the primary

1992: The paper supported Pat Buchanan, who finished a competitive second against an incumbent president

1996: The Union Leader again backed Buchanan, who this time won the primary

2000: Steve Forbes won the paper’s endorsement, in advance of a third-place showing

2008: The Union Leader supported John McCain, who won the state’s primary

Given this recent history, it’s a stretch to think today’s endorsement will suddenly propel Gingrich into contention. But given the Union Leader’s influence, it’s probably fair to say New Hampshire voters who weren’t sure about the disgraced former House Speaker will give the guy another look.

If the polls are any indication, the New Hampshire primary is still Mitt Romney’s race to lose, and he remains the heavy favorite.

The primary is 44 days away.

Following up on the last item, all six of the Republican members of the super-committee wrote a joint op-ed for the Washington Post today, trying to avoid blame for the panel’s failure. There’s a lot of nonsense in the piece, but the gist is about what you’d expect: Democrats wanted the GOP to accept some tax increases as part of a balanced compromise, and Republicans refused.

There was, however, one tidbit in the op-ed that stood out for me. From the piece:

The 2001 and 2003 changes to the tax code reduced marginal rates for all taxpayers as well as the rates for capital gains, dividends and the death tax. For technical reasons, all of these provisions expire at the end of next year — meaning that if Congress does not act, Americans will face the largest tax increase in our history.

This prospect has put a wet blanket over job creation and economic recovery. It would be the wrong medicine for our ailing economy. As President Obama has famously said, “You don’t raise taxes in a recession.”

The six Republican co-authors of the piece are playing fast and loose with several key details, hoping the public won’t know the difference. For example, the mere possibility of tax increases in 2013 is not holding back the economy in 2011. That’s ridiculous.

But let’s put that aside for now and look at the argument at face value: these six powerful and influential Republican lawmakers are saying they’re against a tax increase in the short term, and believe such an increase would hurt the economy.

And that leads to a different question: doesn’t this mean these same Republican lawmakers will have to agree with President Obama’s call for an extension of the payroll tax cut, which is set to expire next month?

The White House is eager, if not desperate, for the payroll break to go through 2012, with projections showing weaker economic growth next year without it. Republicans have balked and said they want taxes to go up on practically all American workers in January because, well, they haven’t exactly explained why they want this. (To see how much your taxes would go up if Republicans succeed, the White House has put together an online calculator.)

And that leaves GOP lawmakers in an interesting position. On the one hand, they’re killing a super-committee deal because they refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy in 2013. On the other hand — indeed, at the exact same time — the identical Republicans have no qualms about supporting a tax increase on practically every American who earns a paycheck, which would kick in on Jan. 1, which is just six weeks away.

You see the problem. Republicans are afraid a tax increase affecting a small sliver of the population over a year from now is awful for the economy, but they’re comfortable with a tax increase affecting practically everyone a month from now.

The GOP message machine is an impressive operation, able to convince millions of people to not only believe nonsense, but oppose their own interests. But I’ll look forward to this message machine spinning Republican support for a major tax increase on working families nationwide during a jobs crisis and a weak economy.

The six Republicans from the failed super-committee, in an op-ed today:

The 2001 and 2003 changes to the tax code reduced marginal rates for all taxpayers as well as the rates for capital gains, dividends and the death tax. For technical reasons, all of these provisions expire at the end of next year — meaning that if Congress does not act, Americans will face the largest tax increase in our history. This prospect has put a wet blanket over job creation and economic recovery.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), three weeks ago:

“I think the budget deficit and our debt serves as a wet blanket over our economy.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), in late September:

“Business owners are reluctant to create jobs today when they’re going to need to pay more tomorrow to comply with onerous new regulations. That’s what employers mean when they say that uncertainty generated by Washington is a big wet blanket on our economy.”

Former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), seeking a comeback, in mid September:

” [T]ax hikes that President Obama has been pushing since he was elected and they will put a heavy, wet blanket on an economy.”

So, to review, Republicans believe the possibility of potential tax increases, regulations, the debt, the deficit, and uncertainty are all a “wet blanket.” I can only assume some focus group somewhere told pollsters they like this metaphor, which is why it’s being used so incessantly.

Let’s make this plain, shall we? The laws of supply and demand are not subject to a Republican filibuster. The economy is struggling because businesses don’t have enough customers. We have high unemployment and depressed wages, which lead to less demand, slower growth, and fewer new jobs. It’s really not that complicated.

Republicans, who should be able to understand these basics, are eager to make matters worse, undermining demand when we should be doing the opposite. And that’s the real wet blanket we should be talking about.

As part of the debt-reduction agreement initiated by congressional Republicans over the summer, the Pentagon was already preparing to cut $450 billion over the next decade. In addition, Republicans offered over $500 billion in automatic Pentagon cuts as part of the super-committee process.

The result is one of the year’s sillier GOP attacks.

…Republicans see an opening with the $500 billion in automatic cuts that would hit the defense budget beginning in January 2013, and several candidates seized on the issue in the last GOP debate. […]

Since the cuts don’t take effect until January 2013, Congress will have plenty of time to change them, and the GOP will have plenty of opportunities to beat up Obama over the issue.

The question that matters is why Republicans would beat up President Obama over their own idea.

Before reality slips completely down the memory hole, let’s recap how we got here. Congressional Republicans, in a move without precedent in American history, were holding the economy and the full faith and credit of the United States hostage. Democrats, fearful that the GOP wasn’t bluffing and that the nation would pay a severe price, was willing to cut a bad deal: $900 billion in debt reduction, on top of another $1.2 trillion agreement to be worked out by a so-called super-committee.

But Dems weren’t completely willing to roll over — they wanted to create an incentive for Republicans to work in good faith on the $1.2 trillion in savings. Democrats proposed the threat of automatic tax increases to push GOP officials to be responsible, but Republicans refused and offered an alternative: if the committee failed, the GOP would accept $600 billion in defense cuts and Dems would accept $600 billion in non-defense domestic cuts.

Remember, the point was to create an incentive that the parties would be desperate to avoid. Pentagon cuts were Republicans’ contribution to the process. These cuts were their idea. They struck a deal and agreed to accept these consequences.

Now, however, they’ve decided (a) they don’t like their idea anymore; (b) no longer want to hold up their end of the bargain; (c) want to increase government spending, no matter what it does to the debt; and (d) President Obama is to blame for the Republicans’ own proposal.

And yet, what you’re likely to hear, over and over again in the coming months, is that Republicans are fighting to prevent dangerous defense cuts, and are meeting resistance from Democrats.

There’s no reason for the media to play along. News outlets will do so anyway, but there’s no reason for it. Republicans started this fight demanding debt reduction, then offered massive spending cuts to a part of the government they care about. They’re now demanding less debt reduction and more government spending — and if Democrats balk, these same Republicans will spend an election year accusing them of being anti-military.

Every GOP official and/or candidate whining about this should be asked two simple questions: (1) why are you blaming Democrats for a Republican proposal; and (2) if you’re against this idea now, why didn’t you say anything in August?

It’s hard to overstate how much success the United States has had over the last few years against al Qaeda. The terrorist network isn’t dead, but it’s close.

The leadership ranks of the main al-Qaeda terrorist network, once expansive enough to supervise the plot for Sept. 11, 2001, have been reduced to just two figures whose demise would mean the group’s defeat, U.S. counterterrorism and intelligence officials said.

Ayman al-Zawahiri and his second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, are the last remaining “high-value” targets of the CIA’s drone campaign against al-Qaeda in Pakistan, U.S. officials said, although lower-level fighters and other insurgent groups remain a focus of Predator surveillance and strikes. […]

“We have rendered the organization that brought us 9/11 operationally ineffective,” a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said. Asked what exists of al-Qaeda’s leadership group beyond the top two positions, the official said: “Not very much. Not any of the world-class terrorists they once had.”

This would have been hard to predict as recently as five years ago. At that point, evidence suggested al Qaeda was growing in size and strength, with increased fundraising, and recruiting boosts resulting from the war in Iraq and the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Now, however, the network has been all but crushed. Remember a few years ago, before the 2008 elections, when Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) proclaimed on Fox News that al Qaeda members would be “dancing in the streets” if Barack Obama were elected president? Well, that turned out to be backwards.

Given all of this, can we pretty much wrap up the whole “war on terror” thing? Apparently not. The same piece that reported on al Qaeda’s dismantling also tells us that the terrorist network could regroup if we move on, and that its Yemen-based spin-off group — al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — remains a key international threat.

But in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s demise, the fact remains that al Qaeda, whatever its intentions for the future, has been reduced to a largely defeated force.

First up from the God Machine this week is a Thanksgiving-related news story, which had some conservatives pretty worked up this week.

Here, for example, was the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer warning American consumers about the scourge of Muslim turkeys:

“I want to talk a little bit about Butterball turkeys. And I want to let you know [that] every single Butterball turkey sold in the United States of America has been sacrificed to Allah.

“Every single turkey that Butterball sells has been ritually slaughtered according to Islamic practice and has had an Islamic prayer prayed over that bird while it is being slaughtered.”

Anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller was also outraged by the prospect of “stealth halal turkeys” on dining room tables nationwide.

“Across this great country, on Thanksgiving tables nationwide, infidel Americans are unwittingly going to be serving halal turkeys to their families this Thursday. Turkeys that are halal certified — who wants that, especially on a day on which we are giving thanks to G-d for our freedom? I wouldn’t knowingly buy a halal turkey — would you? Halal turkey, slaughtered according to the rules of Islamic law, is just the opposite of what Thanksgiving represents: freedom and inclusiveness, neither of which are allowed for under that same Islamic law.”

Geller went so far as to call for a boycott of Butterball, while Fischer wants right-wing activists to pressure the company on this.

What in the world are these folks talking about? Well, it turns out that Butterball slaughters its turkeys in a pretty standard way, but that method happens to coincide with Jewish and Muslim dietary laws regarding food preparation. It allows Butterball to appeal to Jewish consumers who want to eat kosher, observant Muslims consumers, as well as everyone else who might want to buy a turkey. The company isn’t promoting or favoring one religion; it’s just trying to sell its product to as diverse an audience as possible. It’s about capitalism, plain and simple.

Right-wing hysterics notwithstanding, there’s just nothing for sane people to get excited about here. The turkeys themselves, in all likelihood, probably aren’t religious, and there’s nothing about their slaughter that associates them with any specific faith tradition.

This is just about some bigots who’ve decided that even turkeys at Thanksgiving should be turned into a culture-war squabble.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* The latest research from the Pew Research Center suggests Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith may affect his chances in the GOP primaries, but even conservatives who hate Mormons would vote for him over President Obama.

* Officials in Denmark are eyeing changes to the country’s marriage laws, and want to allow “same-sex couples to get married in formal church weddings, instead of the short blessing ceremonies that the state Lutheran Church currently offers.” (thanks to R.P. for the tip)

* Psychology researchers at the University of British Columbia have found that atheists are “among the least liked people … in most of the world,” and believe the animosity is driven by a lack of trust.

* In Ohio, seven members of the so-called “Bergholz Clan,” a cult-like breakaway Amish group, were arrested by FBI agents this week, charged with “violating the Hate Crimes Prevention Act in connection with a string of beard-cutting incidents.”

Newt Gingrich took a fairly significant risk on Tuesday night, talking about his “red card” approach to immigration during a debate. “The party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century?” he said. “I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, ‘Let’s be humane in enforcing the law.’”

Try to imagine Mitt Romney telling Republicans what they don’t want to hear — on literally any subject — and saying, “I’m prepared to take the heat.” It’s hard to fathom, isn’t it?

In any case, as expected, Gingrich has been the target of significant pushback on this, and campaigning in Florida yesterday, the disgraced former House Speaker fleshed out what a “humane” policy might look like in a Gingrich administration.

“I am not for amnesty for anyone. I am not for a path to citizenship for anybody who got here illegally,” Gingrich told the crowd of roughly 750 people, many of whom were forced to stand in the hallway. “But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties are so deeply into America that it would truly be tragic to try and rip their family apart.” […]

Gingrich wants to model his immigration plan for illegals already in the country on the WWII model of the Selective Service System program, which allowed local communities to decide who would be drafted for war. He noted that the program “really tried to take general policy and give it a human face.”

“I think the vast majority [of illegal immigrants] will go home and should go home and then should reapply. I do not think anybody should be eligible for citizenship,” the former speaker said to loud applause in Southwest Florida with his wife, Callista, sitting in the front row of the audience. “I am suggesting a certification of legality with no right to vote and no right to become an American citizen unless they go home and apply through the regular procedures back home and get in line behind everybody else who has obeyed the law and stayed back there.”

Gingrich hasn’t walked back his position from Tuesday night, but these finer details clarify his position in ways that matter a great deal. In this case, a “humane” immigration policy would establish local community boards — who would sit on the panels is unclear — who would apparently scrutinize the lives of undocumented immigrants and their families, and determine who would and wouldn’t be allowed to legally stay in the country.

To put it mildly, this isn’t a good plan, and it’s not even close to “amnesty.”

On a related note, Romney’s team has been using this against Gingrich since Tuesday night, but Gingrich has been quick to remind folks of a 2007 interview in which Romney said undocumented immigrants currently in the United States should “be able to stay, sign up for permanent residency or citizenship.”

Of course, Romney has been through some metamorphoses since 2007.

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* Tumult in Egypt: “Egypt’s embattled military rulers appointed a new prime minister Friday as fiery crowds of supporters and opponents took to the streets, exposing the severity of a split over the leading role of the nation’s long-revered armed forces on the eve of parliamentary elections.”

* U.S. intervention: “The White House on Friday threw its weight behind Egypt’s resurgent protest movement, urging for the first time the handover of power by the interim military rulers in the Obama administration’s most public effort yet to steer Egypt toward democracy.”

* Mario Monti is running out of time: “The nation’s borrowing rates skyrocketed Friday after a grim set of bond auctions, with a new auction looming Tuesday. Another borrowing debacle could ratchet up fears that Italy has entered a debt spiral driving it toward bankruptcy and the 17-nation eurozone into its most acute crisis yet.”

* Belgium, too: “Standard & Poor’s downgraded Belgium’s financial standing Friday, citing the country’s government stalemate and a looming European recession.”

* A very unpleasant week on Wall Street: “The worst week for the stock market in two months ended with a whimper in thin trading Friday. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 4.8 percent this week, while the broader Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell 4.7 percent. Both had their worst weeks since Sept. 23.”

* It’s worth appreciating what premium support is, what it isn’t, and how it’s different from a voucher.

* Newt Gingrich has said he wants to teach an online course after being elected president, but a closer look suggests he actually has something slightly different in mind.

* Michele Bachmann got an apology from Jimmy Fallon, but said it wasn’t good enough — she wanted an apology from NBC, too. Wednesday, the network did as she asked.

* I won’t even try to understand the phenomenon of Black Friday shopping.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

President Obama issued a Thanksgiving proclamation, honoring a holiday that “brings us closer to our loved ones and invites us to reflect on the blessings that enrich our lives.” He added, “As we gather in our communities and in our homes, around the table or near the hearth, we give thanks to each other and to God for the many kindnesses and comforts that grace our lives.”

The president also delivered an address on Thanksgiving, paying thanks to U.S. servicemen and women, those who volunteer in their communities, and American traditions. Obama added:

“With all the partisanship and gridlock here in Washington, it’s easy to wonder if such unity is really possible. But think about what’s happening at this very moment: Americans from all walks of life are coming together as one people, grateful for the blessings of family, community, and country.

“If we keep that spirit alive, if we support each other, and look out for each other, and remember that we’re all in this together, then I know that we too will overcome the challenges of our time.”

Almost immediately, in a rather ironic twist, right-wing voices rejected the idea that we’re all in this together, and condemned the address. Apparently, Obama said “we give thanks to God” in his proclamation, but that was insufficient, because Obama didn’t also mention God in his address.

Critics of President Obama felt little holiday cheer after the president made no reference to God in his Thanksgiving-themed weekly Internet address. They immediately took to Twitter and the Internet to voice anger and disbelief.

“Holy cow! Is that one screwed up or what?” columnist Sherman Frederick of the Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote in a Thanksgiving-morning blog post. “Somebody ought to remind Obama (and his speechwriter) that when Americans sit down around a meal today and give thanks, they give thanks to God.”

Over on the website of Fox News Radio, radio host Todd Starnes also took issue. “His remarks were void of any religious references, although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God,” Starnes wrote.

Obama Derangement Syndrome isn’t pretty.

For one thing, the president specifically included a religious message in his proclamation. That really ought to be good enough for those desperate to see government officials use their offices to promote religiosity.

For another, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum also issued secular Thanksgiving statements, and for some reason, the right isn’t whining about this.

Ultimately, though, religious people shouldn’t need elected officials to help them celebrate religious aspects of holidays in the first place. To make a fuss about this is absurd, even for conservatives.

When a governor and his staff has been reduced to complaining about random tweets from teenagers, it’s time for them to reevaluate their priorities. (thanks to several alert readers for the heads-up)

A Kansas teenager is in trouble after mocking Gov. Sam Brownback during a mock legislative assembly for high school students.

Emma Sullivan, a senior at Shawnee Mission East High School in Prairie Village, was in Topeka on Monday as part of Kansas Youth in Government, a program for students interested in politics and government.

During the session, in which Brownback addressed the group, Sullivan posted on her personal Twitter page: “Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot”

Now, a teenaged student is, of course, allowed to tell a governor he “sucks.” She’s also allowed to tell others that she told the governor he “sucks.”

But Brownback has his staff monitoring social media, and was so offended by the random tweet that the governor’s office contacted event organizers about it. The teenager was then told by her principal that she would have to write letters of apology to Brownback, the school’s Youth in Government sponsor, the district’s social studies coordinator and others.

Keep in mind, we’re talking about a high-school student with just 60 followers on Twitter. It’s a personal account, unaffiliated with the school or school programs, and didn’t even use the student’s full name. The tweet was written among other messages about “Twilight” and Justin Bieber’s holiday album.

Why on earth would a governor’s office care?

If the student had said something threatening, sure, take it seriously. If she’d raised the prospect of violence, it makes sense to take it seriously.

But this makes it sound as if Brownback and his team have such thin skins, that they take random, largely-unseen, mildly-snarky tweets from teenagers as worth their time. That’s just sad.