I suspect a planted fake document. :D

You can't tell me that the whole Cheney bang-bang incident wasn't dumbed down. "Heart event" and "peppered"...? C'mon, Leo. You're not obtuse.

To demonstrate our complete polar-oppositeness, I actually thought it was ridiculously overplayed.

I'm talking before that ad nauseum reporting of it. (Which occurred because of the secrecy behind the whole event.) The whole thing was orchestrated. No announcement for 14 hours, the overuse of the word 'peppering', downplaying the heartattack, blaming the victim for the accident... Even the VP said it was his fault, the news was going to blame Worthington for the whole event.

I'd commend them for it, but I would need to see how many of these dems voted for the automatic pay increase they all get in the first place.

They (members of both parties) voted for automatic pay raises so that they wouldn't have to vote on pay raises anymore and have the press about it.

And they can't do anything without a majority, as they are automatic. 40 means nothing, as there is nothing to filibuster. It's done (sad as that is).

The concept of voting yourself an automatic pay raise is sickening.

When did the nicknames "Dems" and "Repubs" become so commonly used?

Don't know but the earliest Washington Post article that uses both phrases is 1954.

The earliest Los Angeles Times article that uses "Dems" is 1887 and the earliest for "repubs" is 1907. Results are similar for the Washington Post. Of course, newspapers are not good places for tracking slang terms.

However, I'm not willing to pay to see the actual articles so the usage could be different.

I see. I thought it was a recent thing...

The lag for "Repubs" seems to be because for a while "Pubs" was more common. But hard to say because all I can see for free are the headlines of articles containing my search terms.

The latest Rush Limbaugh saga is more proof that the War on Drugs is as fvcktarded as any war. Who cares that Rush needs enjoys 4 hour erections when he's visiting the D.R.?


Frees up time for them to vote against minimum wage increases.

Great find Scaeagles...as you probably would have guessed I am a big fan of Walter Williams.

:)

Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are my favorite columnists/authors, and both are simply brilliant men.

Is Walter Williams the love child of Walter/Wendy Carlos and Wendy O Williams?


Sorry.

So, you're saying the minimum wage fight is a non-issue being used by the Dems to rally their base? Like the Repubs did with the same-sex marriage issue and the flag burning issue?

I have no idea what you are talking about, NA.

No, I'm saying the minimum wage is not the issue that the dems and some members of the media mighthave you believe, and that most have no idea what the true impact and effects of increasing the minimum wage are.

Playing politics is playing politics, and I am not so ignorant as to think the repubs aren't doing it as well.

That makes 2 of us.

Minimum wage is a catch 22. Last time it was raised I was running a Baskin Robbins. The day the wage went up so did the prices. There was no reason for the owner to raise the prices on everything by the difference in the wages, but he did, other businesses did too and the difference is still there. Now you're earning $6.75/hr instead of $6.25/hr but that $1.50 scoop of ice cream now costs $2.00.

The amount of money Congress makes makes me sick. They won't be hurting if they don't receive that $3k/yr payraise. Simple math. If only the Senators received a $3k/yr payraise that is $300,000 that could go to after school programs, real programs to get the poor on their feet rather than these quasi programs that just set them up for failure. It could go towards the national debt, it could go into schools. If the House only has 400 members (I know it's more but for simple math sake we'll go with 400), and the Houe and Congress both don't get the pay raise that means it's $2,100,000 that could go into other programs.

They don't need the pay raise. Other places could use that money more.

I cut them a little slack because they must maintain two residences, but when you look at the average net worth of members of Congress, particularly those in the Senate, the little slack gets taken away.

I don't begrudge them their wealth. However, automatic raises are sickening.

I was not taking a stance on either side of the minimum wage debate with my earlier post. I'm merely savoring the twisted hilarity of these cats putting themselves on auto-raise while denying auto-raises to others.

Weak spined fence sitter.

Oh, good. :)

Nanner nanner

Banana Banana?

I say we then go with the Geneva Convention approved field executions for non uniformed combatants. This would solve the problem.

Edited to add before anyone has a conniption - it's a joke.

We should probably, in the interest of thoroughness, also field execute non uniformed non-combatants. Problem solved times 2.

Interesting. After some scathing news comes out in the NY Times another bin Laden tape has been released. This time the tape says bin Laden applauds Zarqawi.

Well, this takes away my focus from the NY Times story and makes me think about bin Laden and ties to Zarqawi and Iraq!

Talk about information that shouldn't be leaked all the time. Bush complains that leaking info about his program weakens his war on terror. But he has no qualms about releasing a bin Laden recording to again strike terror in the American people so that they run to their fearless leader for help as they give him their support.

Man, his tactics are getting old. He must not have got the boost in his ratings that he was looking for with all those pictures paraded around showing dead Zarqawi. Keep trying, Georgie, you're doing a fine job.

I could be wrong on the details, but doesn't bin Laden typically release things to Al-jazeera? If so, and Al-Jazeera aired it, how is that a leak from the administration? Unless, of course, your point is that bin Laden and the administration are coordinating the release of tapes.

Only in the bizarro world of neocon politics can another reminder - coming almost five years after 9/11 - that the man who sucker-punched America is still alive and well and free be politically beneficial to the man who vowed to hunt Bin Laden down and kill him. Hardon terror, indeed.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that it's mighty convenient that a tape comes along anytime Bush needs a boost.
I believe these tapes don't get air time unless our gov't gives the media the okay to air it.

So the government can prevent the media from telling us about the new bin Laden tape playing on Al Jazeera but can't prevent the media from telling us about anything else?

The government has an interesting combination of omnipotence and impotence.

I just have to laugh....protests are fine, but some are so fake they are simply ridiculous.

Hunger strike? OK. That's a serious protest. Some Hollywood stars are participating in a "rolling" hunger strike, where they will go without food for 24 whole hours (gasp!) and then pass the hunger strike off to someone else.

Source

Anyone who wants to do this for real, cool. More power to them. But the concept of the rolling hunger strike is just pathetic.

I think every US Senator should be required to watch 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'.

I'm thinking, what a huge sacrifice! They already get paid a lot of money to stay skinny.
:D

What would be more headline grabbing is if they gorged themselves instead.

It could be an anti-aneorexia strike.

Yeah - we need a real statement. "Slaughter and eat a cow for peace!"

Michael Moore is joining in too, maybe he will opt to actually do a true hunger strike and lose a bit of weight.

But seriously, this is the biggest crock I have ever heard of. Pisses me off. Nothing more then a publicity stunt. I have lost respect(not that there was much there to begin with, but) for these hollweird jokers.

I cannot believe how much these artists are willing to suffer for their causes!!!


:rolleyes:

Self-important wastes of space. They all need a big ol' BSFR.*


* Bitch slap from reality

So, I don't know if any of you West Coasters heard about the news from the, you know, important coast, the East Coast... :D that part of the Big Dig tunnel collapsed and killed a woman who was a passenger in a car the other day.

I am in agreement with Gov Mitt Romney that the Mass Turnpike Authority Chairman should be axed. I agree 100%. However, and this is a big 'however', I can't help but feel that Romney is using this instance to further his bid for the White House. In fact, all of the politicians here are. They are jumping on the bandwagon and crying foul and saying that 'something must be done'... But I can't help but feel that if this was a non-election year that their sentiments wouldn't be as loud.

I've read about it.

Politicians will use a dirty kleenex if it will assist their political aspirations.

From what I know of the big dig, it is an engineering marvel, but there were many shenanigans and substandard materials and palm greasing and all sorts of shadowy things goings on.

I suspect that there will be some sort of fall guy. When was the Turnpike guy hired? Did he oversee the project?

Apparently he was appointed Chairman in 2002. But I'm not sure if he was part of the Mass Transit Authority in any other capacity before that. The project took 14 years to complete.
More on Matt Amorello

From the photos I have seen, I'm wondering why something weighing several tons would be set in place with adhesives and shoddy tacks. From the pictures, it doesn't seem to serve a purpose but to hide a few pipes. (But I'm no engineer.) :D

This whole project was milked and juiced by greed it seems. It took so long that things like substandard concrete and crappy ceilings just got slid in while no one was looking... It's a marvel and a mess at the same time. :(

I'm going to head home to get my broom.

Interesting report published recently about global warming and hurricane intensity.

link

The study focuses not on flawed methodology of linking warming to hurricane srength, but says the data is flawed. Better equipment which more accurately can measure wind strength near the eye is being used. Older equipment was not as advanced or accurate and underestimated wind strength. So the hypothesis is that hurricanes are not increasing in strength, only that equipment is better hat is being used to take measurements.

This reminds me of when the "ozone hole" was discovered. The first time he ozone above the arctic was measured, there was a huge hole. Panic erupted. Problem was that there was no historical data to show if there was previously an ozone hole or not. Growth or shrinkage was immediately reported as good or bad news without any knowledge as to the cyclical growth or shrinkage, if any, before it was even discovered.

Gov. Romney of Mass. apologized for using the term "tar baby" when talking about the Big Dig.

I know squat about Romney except that he has Presidential aspirations. Is "tar baby" really that big of a deal to say? Seems like people are way too sensitive, but I admit to not knowing the whole history of the term. Why does saying something like that automatically make you insensitive or a racist?

Why not wander down to the local gang hangout in your town and yell it out? I'm sure no one would mind.:evil:

What are your thoughs on porch monkey?

Tar baby is one of those sticky wickets. It has a large geographic variation in usage. In many parts of the country it is used primarily to refer to a sticky problem you can't get away from once you're involved. In other parts of the country it is used primarily as a racially derogatory term. Personally, it has enough taint that even though I grew up in one of the former areas I'd probably never actually use the phrase unless talking about a literal tar baby (as seen in Song of the South, for example).

What is particularly bizarre about Romney's usage is that Tony Snow got into trouble for it just a couple months ago during one of his first press conferences as Press Secretary.

Context is everything.

Romney should have steered clear of the term, period. Whether or not it's offensive is up in the air. But who doesn't know that it could potentially piss people off to use it? There are tons of other ways to describe the Big Dig failures...

I just get fed up with it all, really. If I say "he has a chink in his armor", will all the Chinese people be offended? I don't know...I just way too much is made of stuff like this when the context is not racial.

From Mavens Word of the Day:

The tar baby is a form of a character widespread in African folklore. In various folktales, gum, wax, or other sticky material is used to trap a person.
The folktale achieved currency in the United States in written form in one of Joel Chandler Harris's Uncle Remus stories, a collection of stories based on African-American folklore, narrated by the fictional Uncle Remus, a former slave. In the story "Tar-Baby," the character Brer Fox makes a doll out of tar, which he places by the road to entrap his enemy Brer Rabbit. Brer Rabbit talks to the doll, and when it doesn't answer, he hits it, and gets stuck in the tar. The more he struggles with it, the more he is entangled in it.
This story has led to the figurative use of tar baby in the sense 'an inextricable problem or situation', sometimes with the nuance 'something used to entrap a person'. Both the examples cited in the question show the use of this sense, which appears to be first used in the early twentieth century.
The expression tar baby is also used occasionally as a derogatory term for black people (in the U.S. it refers to African-Americans; in New Zealand it refers to Maoris), or among blacks as a term for a particularly dark-skinned person. As a result, some people suggest avoiding the use of the term in any context.

"Chink in the armor" is a different example. While it's a homonym, that use of chink has nothing to do with the racial slur.

How about another example. In high school wood shop, I refused to let one of the other students have a piece of the wood I was using for a project that I was helping another teacher with. He said, "C'mon man, don't Jew me." Now, he didn't know I was Jewish. And I could tell that he probably didn't have much of a connection in his head between the phrase and the religion. Does that make it okay to use the term, just because he didn't intend it to be racial?

I agree for the most part. But part of being a politician is sidestepping the stupid scandals as well as the justified ones. And this is an easy one to sidestep.

There is a spectrum here. Chink has obvious non-racial origins. The origins of "tar baby" are entirely racial even if not originally derogatory. "Jew," as in "to jew down the price" is entirely racial and derogatory in origin.

There is no easy objective basis for determining where words not at the extremes fit into that spectrum.

I was being sarcastic and taking the whole thing to an extreme.

Regarding your other example, GD, I think there is a difference between ignorance and racism. Once someone is educated as to the connotations and still continues to use it, it moves from ignorance into racism.

Edited to add: It isn't that hard to think the "chink in the armor" thing could become a controversy. A while ago, and I don't recall the exact location or context, but I think it was some city council meeting somewhere....a councilman used the word "niggardly", which basically mean stingy or petty in giving small amounts. Some woman who had no idea what the word meant raised all sorts of hell because of what it sounds like and it became a pretty big story and this guy was having to defend himself for a long time.

As an amusing aside. When I first started working at the cannery in Kodiak, Alaska, I was told to do something and then needed directions and was told "it's over by the chinks" and he pointed to where a bunch of Filipinos were at work.

I was appalled and later confessed to a coworker. That is when I learned that the machines they were working with are called chinks for reasons compoletely unrelated to the race of the people operating them. So I forgave the person who said this. It was only later I learned that in his parlance the chinks were operated by gooks (which isn't even a correct use of the term since they were all Filipino). So I had to unforgive him.

And there is no way Romney should have been unaware of the connotations for some since it was so publicly discussed just a couple months ago with Tony Snow (and George Will also got in trouble for it a few years back).

Why? Seriously, just curious. Does it bother you that it's not socially acceptable?

This argument is so gay.

Trifecta!

I was taking the whole thing of being offended to an extreme, specifically "chink in the armor" eventually becoming offensive.

While I am not for intentionally offending people, I am not easily offended. Social acceptance has never been something I am concerned about.

I don't disagree. But unchecked ignorance leads to tacit racism. I absolutely think it's right that we hold public officials to a higher standard regarding these kinds of things. It's their JOB to say the right things, and if we don't hold them to it, than as a society we are implicitly encouraging it.

As someone who has had those kinds of Jewish slurs aimed at me, both in ignroance and in hate, it stings either way. Even if the individual is simply ignorant to the offensive nature, it's a painful reminder that we're still in a society that needs to be educated.

In regards to G2DL's trifecta, I was kinda bugged by a comic strip last week. Zits ran this strip last Tuesday...



I actually ended up writing to the publisher (zits@kingfeatures.com) and asked what they thought about this parallel version of the "joke":

Jeremy: Haha! Billy, your shoes look so Jewish!
Billy: I AM Jewish, Jeremy
Jeremy: I know. I didn't mean "Jewish" as in "practicing Judaism". I meant
"Jewish" as in "cheap".

GD ~ THe cartoon didn't show in your post above...

Poo. Well, try this link instead

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/zi...?date=20060725

(you might have to do a refresh to get it to load the image).

Replace "Jeiwsh" with "gay" and "cheap" with "lame" and you've got the comic strip.

GD, just wondering if you think that the last panel (that you don't quote) is making fun of that kind of speech. At least that's how I read it.

Here's a link that might work.

Interesting. Hmm, Steve and I had a discussion about the very same thing in another thread...
:D

I thought that at first, and expected the strip to take the issue and run with it, showing its offensiveness. But it didn't go anywhere, it was a one-shot strip and comes across to me as, "Haha, isn't it funny that he meant 'lame'." All the last panel says is that it might be confusing, not that it's offensive.

I read it as "isn't it funny that he has no clue why the guy 'misinterpreted' what he said." So I'm reading the intent of the strip a bit differently than you are.

Trying to find a bright side to the strip, 'Zits' has a gay character? Cool. :)

I wrote the creator of 'For Better or for Worse' once when she introduced a gay character to the strip. I told her it would be nice to see the character get married to his partner on her strip. She actually wrote back and said she may just do that in the future. I thought that was pretty neat.
:)

Again, if the strip had continued the thread, I would agree. But as a one-shot, I think it comes across as just, "Isn't funny that he doesn't understand." Whereas I don't think my version would be thought of as humorous in any way. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, I dunno, but it bugged me.

Actually, speaking as a Gay, I'm not offended at all. I hear this use of the word more often than I'd like, and point it out more often than I'd like. I think by gently chiding Jeremy's ignorant use of the word, the strip will probably cause more people to think twice before appearing ignorant themselves. Who knows, a few of them may actually ask their coworkers not to use the word.

Thanks for having our back, GD. Now, could you please roll over, it's hot.

Well, I don't find it funny ha ha but funny ironic. And that would be true of your version as well.

Totally. We should make GD an honorary girthy gay. :)

I think the strip was sending the right message, GD. That you didn't see it that way is no biggie, but quite a few of us did.

I don't happen to agree with that message. I'm a gay man who finds the term "gay" to be very useful in applying to sissifiedly lame things. I say it constantly ... as there is no other single word in the English language that has quite the same meaning. Sorry, it's a fact, and all the fags should just deal with it.

Sorry, this fag disagrees.
;)

Damnit, will you homos just kiss and make up already!

Seriously, Brad, find me another word with that particular meaning. Why are there six words for homosexual, but only one word for - um, that thing I can't describe without using the word "gay" (sissifiedly lame was only skirting the point).

Therefore, queers should drop the term "gay" as meaning homosexual, and use the remaining five. Either that, or stop complaining that "gay" is used for that other thing that's not homosexual but has no other word for it.




of course, if gay stopped also meaning homosexual, then the meaning of the other gay would be irrevocably altered. I do not deny they are linked. And i can see Brad's problem with that.

What word was used a decade ago before the youth of America decided that "gay" provided sufficient coverage for the topic.

Also, I don't see much sign that most people use gay to mean "sissy lame" but rather simply lame (or disliked). The one teenager I see regularly (the son of a friend) uses it to describe anything he doesn't like. Last Thanksgiving he used it to describe mashed potatoes. And playing a lot of World of Warcraft where I have to put up with unbearable hours of watching teenagers talk to each other I see no such limit on the use of gay as a derogatory term.

Retarted was used a decade ago, as gay is being used now.

I'd much prefer to hear things be called gay, then be called retarted.

"Those moon boots look retarded."

Yeah, that sounds about right for my elementary school patois.

Surely, someone with a fine vocabulary as yourself could find a suitable word.
Not only is the usage of that word demeaning, but it also shows the user as being someone who uses lame catch-all words for everything. I'm guilty of that. I overuse the word 'cool'. But at least that word doesn't equate a entire group with being lame...

So Castro has ceded power to his brother. Looks like he's probably going to kick it. The really bad thing, I suppose, is that his brother (or so I've read) has been Fidel's enforcer and is supposed to be even more hard line than Fidel.

I wonder what this all means in he grand scheme of things.

Umm, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that he's "probably gonna kick it" so soon. It's pretty much standard practice for a leader to go through the motions of transferring power to whoever is #2 if they're going for surgery (didn't Clinton do it? Or was it Bush Sr.?).

Of course, he will eventually die, unless the cigars have made him immortal. Will it mean immediate change? Doubtful. But even if his brother's a bigger jerk, the odds of him having the charismatic power that Fidel has are pretty slim, so there will be an opportunity to instigate change (hopefully it will come from within).

Of course I am aware of that. The reports are simply that his health problems are getting more severe. Intestinal bleeding in a man who turns 80 in less than two weeks is not a good sign I'm sure, though I am no doctor. And I would also suppose that any news as to his condition coming out of Cuba would be well watered down.

Maybe you could find a videotape of him in his hospital bed and you could do a Frist analysis of his condition...

:D

I read a book once of CIA intelligence gathering techniques. Some leader from somewhere or another was coming to the US (who and when I don't recall). When it was known where he was going to be staying, the CIA rerouted the pipe from the toilet in his suite so that when it flushed it would go to a special holding tank so they could analyze the contents for any health related issues they were unaware of.

Ewwww!

If nothing else, the CIA has a pretty comprehensive list of world leaders who don't properly chew their corn.

.

A rather interesting day in elections around the country today. I'm not one to typically follow Democrat primaries in other states, but there are two huge and interesting races out there.

In Connecticut, incumbant Senator Joe Leiberman is facing defeat, though he had closed ground in the polls in the last day or two. He is being challanged by a vehemently antiwar candidate. Leiberman will run as an Independent in the general (or so the general concensus is) should he lose. Connecticut has TONS of Independents. I find this race to be really interesting. If Leiberman loses the primary, I see him winning the general as an Independent. If he wins the primary, that has interesting ramifications as well. It could be seen as a bit of a slap in the face to the antiwar left, as the entire campaign run by his challenger is about the war, as they have pretty much everything else in common.

Then good old psycho Representative Cynthia McKinney in GA is probably facing defeat in her primary. I don't think this has any interesting political ramifications, I just think the woman is unstable and her district has had enough of her. I'm glad her challenger is African American so that when she loses she can't cry racism.

I think Leiberman will lose as an Independant. He's coming across as not knowing what he is right now. That's not a good thing. I say good riddance. Get someone in there who is actually a Democrat.

McKinney's weird.

Are you aware of Leiberman's voting record? He votes Dem party line over 90% of the time.

I find that to be amusing in a way that one accusation of the Republican party is that they have to march in lock-step. No independent thinking in the Republican party. However, if you only vote with the Dems 90% of the time and aren't anitwar, you aren't a real Dem.

But we can agree on McKinney.

There are elections?

Lieberman's too hawkish for my tastes. He was pro-Iraq war then and now. Bleh.


edit: fixed the spelling of his name.

That's fine, and it is bascially the entire campaign of his challenger. I just object to the "Leiberman isn't a real Democrat" stuff.

He's a real Dem, Bush's man crust on his chin notwithstanding.

Nice visual

Lieberman in a speech yesterday brought up 9/11 in a speech yesterday. Linking 9/11 with his support for the Iraq war. All this to rally people to vote for him. That sounds more like a GOP tactic to me.

Still, GC, when a republican dares to question the conventional GOP stance on something, like the war or abortion or whatever, they are labelled as "independent thinkers" or "bipartisan" or whatever. Here, Leiberman has an opinion differing from the conventional democrat position. Shouldn't he be called an independent thinker then? Instead, he is labelled as a traitor to his party. Zell Miller? Yeah, he hardly ever voted with the dems at the end. He would probably be described well as not a real democrat.

And the rhetoric right now is nothing compared to what it will be should he lose the primary and run as an independent in the general.

He appealed heavily to the right to get elected in the first place.

And wasn't he also Mr. High and Mighty when it came to wagging his finger at Clinton over the whole Lewinsky thing on the Senate floor, I believe?

So being upset at a President for lying under oath and doing an intern in the oval office makes you not a good democrat? Doesn't what you vote for make a difference? Again, he votes dem party line 90% of the time.

No, but doing it in a public way only gets you positive recognition by your conservative allies. This is why Gore chose him. To appeal to the right.

I could go for a good Lewinsky right about now.

I'll just agree to disagree. We could go around about this for hours and hours without getting anywhere.

We usually do. That's never stopped us before.
:D

They need us. How else would the LoT get a hot air balloon off the ground?

More like a fleet of LoT hot air balloons.

To appeal to the right or to appeal to the center? I think it is safe to say that not a single person on the actual right (of center as opposed to people to the right of the far left) voted for Gore because of Lieberman. It is far easier to imagine a centrist doing so.

Yes, I was seeing it more as appealing to people who were on the fence.

Most congressmen vote with their party the majority of the time.

There are other reasons than the war:

-the cloture vote on Alito
-that insane comment about another hospital being in driving distance in CT
-claiming he'd run independent if he didn't win his primary

Those are 3 off the top of my head.

And just for fun... He's Sean Hannity's favorite democrat.

I never said there weren't valid reasons to vote against. I just said that "he's not a real democrat" didn't really ring very true.

It's getting nasty in Connecticut. Leiberman's website was hacked, apparently, and the accusations are a-flyin'.

Hehehe Looks like their cheap service is to blame. $15 a month to host a crucial campaign site? Bwa ha ha ha ha

Wonder how much Joe's whining and crying will get through to the voters before they learn the truth of what happened.

I thought it was a classy move for Lamont's site to put up a cached version of Lieberman's site 'til they can get their problems worked out. And offered their tech support. :snap:

That is kind of funny.

Of course, I'm sure it's all a conspiracy. Lamont must have hacked it, rigged it to look like it was the cheap web service, and then was able to look good by offering to host Leiberman's site.

Dirty politicians.:)

Of course, you're right. There's no other explanation.

Joe called it a 'Rovian tactic'.

lol! :D

What can I say?

That never seemed to be a problem for Barney Frank in Mass.:)

A subtle hint, €?

Page 333

(I suddenly feel like L. Ron Hubbard)

Murakamology!

Rove would sabotage his own candidate's website and blame the opponent for it. In fact, substitute "break into own candidate's office" for "sabotage own candidate's website" and you'd have a tactic that Karl has already used.

I'm with you - they just started the push for registration for our Sept elections - though it will be interesting to see if William Jefferson (not yet indicted) will get to the run off for his post. I think it'll depend on how many 'I don't live there, have no clue when I'm coming back, but still want to vote there' voters there are.

Well, it is official - Leiberman lost somewhere around 52-48%.

He is now expected to announce an independent bid for the general election as earl as tomorrow.

McKinney got her but kicked, 58-42%

I hope nobody in Conn. falls for Liebowitz's selfish gambit. Last time a Dem lost the primary and ran independent in Connecticut, the Dem and the "Independent" split the Dem vote, and the Republican won.

Bah.

Hail Xenu!

I suppose Leiberman is being selfish. You could say that about any third party candidate, though. Ralph Nadar arguably gave Bush his victory over Gore (no, I'm not really interested in debating again if the election was stolen - I'm just pointing out that without Nadar in it Gore wins). Ross Perot gave Clinton the White House the first time.

Does this mean you are against third party candidates? Honestly, how many have a chance to win? Leiberman, however, has a clear chance to win. In 2000, even while running simulataneously for President, he won 63-37, about 2/3 of the vote. If he takes all that he got in this primary and adds in half the independent voters, he probably wins.

Personally, I think he's nuts to do it. If he loses, he's done politically and won't even get a cushy ambassadorship anywhere. If he wins, he's a man without a party in the Senate, meaning he has no power. I could see him winning and the dems urging him back into the fold, though.

Bah, I don't buy that, especially when it was that close. Addition or subtraction of a 3rd party is NEVER a simple math equation. Changes the whole dynamic. I mean, I know it's just a hypothetical, but you can't just move Nadar voters to their respective sides.

One of these days enough people are going to be annoyed enough with the Dems and the Pubs and vote for the 3rd party "just because" and he'll win.

Is it just me, or does it sound like Lieberman's lost it and thinks he's Ariel Sharon? :p

Are you suggesting that any more than a handful of Nadar voters, without Nadar in the race, would have voted for Bush?

It is true that many would probably opt not to vote, but many would have voted Gore simply because they would vote.

Too many variables. What about the, "I better get out and vote for Gore since Nader's running" vote that Gore got? They wouldn't have shown. And the whole flavor of the campaigns change if Nader's not part of the equation. You never know which side of the fence the Gore-Bush fence sitters would have fallen on without Nader there. It just ain't that simple.

Dick Morris, and regardless of what might think of him personally he is a brilliant political mind, believes that Leiberman can win the three way.

Polls in Connecticut show that in a 3 way race, it is currently a 40-40-13 split (the 13 going to the Republican who is plagued by a gambling scandal).

Morris looked at how Lieberman's loss shapes the Dem Presidential outlook.

Because Hillary is playing both sides of the war, it will be easy in the Democrat primaries for fervently antiwar candidates to paint her in a negative light among the most active and furthest left wing of the Dem party, making it difficult for her to win the nomination. Morris sees Gore, of all people, as the candidate that may have the best chance now.

This does not bode well for the Presidential general, because there is no way for Gore to move to the center in the general.

I thought it was interesting analysis, but I don't know if Gore is a candidate with a legitimate shot.

I thought you didn't pay attention to Dem elections.
:D

With six additional years to reflect on it, if given another chance to vote for Gore, I think I would do so. My rationale for not doing so last time hasn't exactly worked out.

In retrospect and looking at polls, I'm sure a lot of people would have then. Gore was able to look like a centrist in 2000. I don't think there is any chance he could come across as a centrist in 2008, and since the general election is about appealing to the center (after having solidified your base in the primary), I don't think he could win.

Particularly if he ends up a Guiliani or a McCain (of course, I think they may each have their problems winning the Republican nomination, but that's another issue).

I'm not talking about his chances for winning. It is way to early to reliably know that; for example if somehow we are out of Iraq in a year the whole calculus being done now changes.

On most things, Gore is a centrist and I can live with the elements he's not. I could also vote for Giuliani as well but not for McCain.

In politics, perception is reality. I don't think nationally the perception of Gore could be that he is a centrist. Of course, he who frames the question wins the debate, so a lot would depend on what topics are hot at the time (such as your if we are out of Iraq scenario).

The best the Dems have been offering up these days for POTUS in '08 are has beens like Gore and Kerry or divisive people like Hilary......

.....yeah, that amuses me.

Yeah... you can always count on Goodwin for some good 'ol conservative spin. He can be a very good writer, but his views are all-too predictable.

...and if he's right.....

well-I guess we will see.

I would not trust a Democrat to run this country- ever. Especially the left of left- sell our country out.

As if that hasn't already been done by this administration.

Things keep going the way they are, there won't be anything left to sell.

McKinney is claiming "voting irregularities" such as her name not being on ballots and votes cast for her on electronic machines erroneously going to her opponent or not counting at all.

This woman is beyond psychotic.

I'm growing more and more attracted to her by the day.

I'm sure all the fine people of Connecticut who voted for Ned Lamont would be thrilled to be called “Wackadoos”. Because insulting people who don’t vote the way you think they should really wins hearts to your cause.

Oh my God! Shock of all shocks! Ann Coulter is a big (insert word here) liar!

Media Matters decided to actually check the endnotes in her new book.

Here's an example of what they found:
I can't believe it! Why would she knowingly lie?

it's the title of the article- I doubt it had any influence on voters.

I just love stuff like this.

Gore's not so green

Hypocrisy is omnipresent in the political community, no doubt. But for someone who crusades as he does, wouldn't his apocolyptic viewpoints have greater credibility if he were to actually do some rather obvious things in his own life?

Gore is just an example of someone who expects everyone else to change how they live, but is unwilling to give up his extravagances. I do not begrudge anyone their extravagances or wealth, but stop telling me that my SUV (figurative - I don't actually own an SUV) is going to kill the planet while you heat and cool a 10000 square foot home (among other things).

All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

As the great Civil War General James Longstreet once said; "You can't lead from behind".

If Gore wants us to follow him, he better get out in front to lead the charge!

I loved the part where hippies were "thrown into the arms of Richard Nixon"

classic:)

Connecticut poll

I am certain we will be getting polling updates on this nearly daily until November, but early on Lieberman has a lead and is polling better than his opponent.

Prior to any polling I figured he had a shot as an independent. It looks like he may be the one to beat.

I figure that if he stays up in the polls many dems will start to endorse him to look good when he wins, and that will pave the way to them bringing him back in the fold do that they aren't down a senator after November.

George Will said this morning on This Week that he wouldn't be suprised if the Republican Party endorses Lieberman (and since the Republican candidate has some ethical problems they have a good excuse).

From today:Pardon me, but "we" didn't disrupt anything. Why is he taking credit for something that the British uncovered? I've read nothing to suggest that the US played a role in uncovering this plot.

Not that I was that scared to fly anyway, but I'm heartened to hear that SFO is going to start scanning airplane cargo. My non-stop flight to Orlando next week will probably be just a little bit safer than my return flight.

However, I wonder why Bush and co. are making such a big deal about carry-on screening when they're still not checking cargo. 5 years after 9/11 and 18 years after Locherbie, you'd think they'd be on it.

Here's an interesting article about it in today's WSJ.

A coworker from one of our other locations flew into John Wayne yesterday. He loves the new restrictions...couldn't be happier to walk onto the plane and not have to shove past scores of people swinging tote bags and cramming things into overhead bins.

It's a team thing......kinda like if the Dodgers were to ever win the World Series(not happening btw)---all the fans would be saying "we won"

I know, I know.....another awful and painful analogy from sj;)

I have read that the US gave a whole bunch of intercepted communications to the Britishm, but as I am not very informed right now, it is possible that was retracted or changed.

I would be interested in a cite but I know this isn't exactly the best time to ask. You've got a full enough plate. I'll see if I can find one so you don't have to worry about it.

And might I add how strange and ucky it feels to go looking for evidence to back up your assertion for you. :)

As of yet, I have been able to find any mention of anyone but british and Pakistani intelligence uncovering this plot who then promptly turned over the information to the US. All I could find was this ambiguous quote from (surprise) Fox News that a few bloggers insist is proof of US involvement:

But notice that the article doesn't specifically say a "U.S." intelligence agency, rather just some intelligence agency from somewhere intercepted the message. How nice of Fox to let readers fill in their own details about what happened. :)

I'm even more convinced now that we were the last ones to hear about this. If someone elses google skills can prove otherwise, I'm willing to change my opinion.

In the interests of full disclosure, I have also read that British Intelligence was reluctant to share the intelligence they had with us for fear it would be leaked. Can't say I blame them, really.

I'm actually not even starting a new job. I just figured my absence was the only real way to convert you all.:)

Time reports that sharing of British and U.S. intelligence on this matter was vital to uncovering the plot and that, in fact, it was the Bush administration's quite successful no-leak policy that encouraged the British to share with the U.S. as much as they did. Time further reports that it was indeed U.S. communication intercepts that aided this effort immensely.*


So, I'm fine if Bush brags.


It's when certain politicians go further to say that this vote or that will result in your mother dying in terrorist carnage that I have a problem with.






* sorry, no link. I'm an old-fashioned guy with a magazine in my hands ... and I believe you have to be a subscriber to access Time online.

I stand corrected then. Thanks for the info, iSm. :)

You would do something like that.

Detained for 5 years after 9/11 and he's innocent. Yikes!

Apparently someone was just arrested in the JonBenet Ramsey murder. Interesting.

I'm wondering if this will motivate OJ to find Nicole's killer...

Pretty heartbreaking story. One has to wonder how many others there are that are just as innocent, have never been charged with a crime, yet sit and rot in a cell. Here, in America.

Yeah, the next thing you know the entire Ramsey family will be found innocent of involvment with the death of JonBenet.

Yeah, and the guy is already in jail in Bangkok for some kind of sex crime.

What, exactly, do you have to do to go to jail for a sex crime in Thailand?

What kind of theocracy do we live in when the president claims land for the feds for the expressed purpose of keeping a cross on display?

Link

Effing activist presidents.

Well God did choose him to be President. :rolleyes:

Is it me or did the Iraq War drop off the mainstream media's radar?

TERROR THREAT! CEASE-FIRE IN LEBANON! JON-BENET MURDER SOLVED!

There's a war in Iraq?

Quick, look over there! It's Jean Binet's killer!




Jinx

I forgot what I was saying.

Anyway, I'm wondering about this whole JeanBenet thing....

"Air strike mistakenly kills 10 police in Afghanistan"

You'd think we'd hear about this on the news somewhere....
MSNBC is currently doing a piece on Thailand. Ooh, they're breaking in with information from the the Ramsay's attorney...

reality check from Associated Press:

I don't know. Why kind of anal prigs get upset that a predominantly Christian nation has a lot of symbols of that Christianity. You all know my religious views but the sham outrage many of my fellow atheists pretend to feel is just as annoying as the reverse.

As with the "under god" controversy with the Pledge of Allegiance I agree that once before a judge the judge really has no leeway to not strike it down. But the people who bring up the issue are just being annoying pricks. Same here.

The war in Iraq has been back-burnered but I think that may be even more damaging. The news shows are still talking about it but by spending less time they are even more focused just on the fatalities. "In other news lots and lots of people were killed in Iraq today." If there wasn't a lot of time spent on positive or neutral developments before there isn't actually any time for them now.

"Deputy Prime Minister in UK calls Bush 'crap'."

Here's the article.

Here's a quote:

Where in that quote does he call Bush crap?

We have a one person recalling what another person said (that the Bush Aministration's work to produce a Middle East road map is crap), which other people present claim to not recall being said, which is then mischaracterized (in every headline I've seen) as calling Bush himself crap.


That's as lame as the contortions to bash Gore in the other thread.

The headline for the story is "Bush is crap, says Prescott".

While I agree that it's contorted - it's interesting to see the piece on the News pages, as opposed to the Op-Ed, where the Gore piece ran.

Putting it on the news pages just makes it lamer. All it is is second hand hearsay gossip.

That's not to say it isn't true but it isn't news either. And the headline writers screw it up further (and not just them, it is being repeated everywhere I saw the story).

You make a good point, Alex. Since this came from a British paper, it seems the story is more of a piece about Prescott, anyway - trying to separate his public image of being close to Blair with the private feelings which are very different. Such a story must be based on hearsay, because if he were to come out and say such things publicly, the story wouldn't exist. Arguably, it would be a better story, though.

Wikipedia has an interesting and thorough timeline of the controversy.

Some interesting points. The law the president signed passed the House 349-74 and the Senate passed it unanimously. So this really can't be laid at the feet of the president or even the Republican Party. Though he certainly endorses it as well.

In 2004 residents of San Diego passed Proposition A by with a 76% yes vote. The text of Proposition A was "Shall the City of San Diego donate to the federal government all of the City's rights, title, and interest in the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial property for the federal government's use of the property as a national memorial honoring veterans of the United States Armed Forces?"

So this plan fulfills the desire of the people of San Diego. Proposition A was later ruled contrary to the California state constitution. That the city couldn't give the land to the federal government under these conditions.

So they just turned it around and had the government take the land.

And now the process starts all over in federal courts and will probably see the same result. The whole thing is stupid on both sides.

Yep, damn activist judge. I thought this quote from the judge pretty much summed it up.

The Justice Dept is going to appeal the ruling... No surprise.


Mel Gibson sentenced to 3 years probation.

And a stacked Supreme Court will eventually come in very handy.

So the rulings you agree with are obvious but the ones you disagree with are political?

For the record, I agree with this one.

No, I'm simply annoyed by the lack of balance. The republicans hold all of the cards in all three branches of Government and it's impossible to have any degree of fairness in that type of environment. The other two branches can be fixed, and in fact, I would have less of a problem with a republican president and democrat controlled congress (or vice versa) than what we have right now. And with the SC leaning decidedly right, I fear that the abuse of power will continue to go unchecked.

Then again, the supreme court has surprised me before.

I really, really hate civil forfeiture laws. I hate the anti-drug laws but these are even worse especially since they are generally used to further punish crimes that shouldn't be crimes in the first place (such as confiscating the cars of johns in prostitution stings).

I heard about 5 minutes of a Q&A with dear George yesterday and literally had to turn it off. I would rather have listened to Ruth Seymore pitch for funds that hear the President not make sense. When will he get that 9/11 is not justification for the current war?

I'm glad someone understands that terrorism was not just a 9/11 event- and knows that more needs to be done.

I'm glad I'm not so frightened as to be so quick to give up my liberties. Sign away yours if you will, but leave mine the **** alone. As far as I'm concerned, the terrorists win when you give up all that you are supposed to stand for. They point to us and say "See? They are not free- their government spies on them and detains them and withholds all those precious rights they hold so dear". Some role model for democracy we are.

I have not lost a single damn liberty- and have not touched anything of yours.

Thanks

At least he conceeded that Sadam did not have a part in 9/11. About time. But, he still had a fear mongering response.

Oh, and the Katrina discussion was just GROSS! Get off your ass and make something happen! It's been a YEAR for Christ's sake!

He frustrates the living HELL out of me. I've disliked presidents in th past, but I've NEVER felt the complete and total disgust I feel the George W Bush.

Well, if you or anyone in your family ever get detained indefinitely for no given reason by the authorities, or if you are ever under surveillance by the government and your private conversations and records gone through, I'll bet you'll not be so happy about your chosen leader. Maybe by then the next leader will be a lib- would you feel good about them being able to spy on your political activities then? It works so long as the party you belong to is in control, when the leadership changes it may be more problematic, depending what the new leadership is looking for.

Neither you nor anyone in your family was put in an internment camp in WWII, so that must not have been an infringement of civil liberties either, right?

It's all about me.

What Wendybeth says. 'Cause she's got the smart mouth and the intelligence to back it up.

I think we are all intelligent enough to understand that terrorism isn't just a 9/11 event. I would even bet that we all agree that more needs to be done. What we don't agree on is whether or not anything has actually been done to make us safer, or if our methods of fighting terrorism are even remotely effective or just making the problem worse.

How does failing to secure the border make us safer? How did not securing the explosives when we invaded Iraq make us safer? How does turning Iraq into a theocracy make us safer? How does not catching Bin Laden make us safer? How does diverting homeland security funding make us safer?

Just found this gem on the interwebs!

Source
:eek:

Eh, the S.O.B. could use a lesson on free speech. Actually, the episode they should be showing him is the 2 parter about Family Guy showing an image of Muhammed. Now THAT would shock him good.

I'll bet he'll blame everything on Canada in the end...

I just have to laugh.

The UN is so irrelevant. Even when they can agree on something, such as the deadline for Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium (and my point isn't that they haven't the right to self determination - just looking at the UN aspect), the date passes, and the very peoiple that agree to it haven't the balls to do anything. I realize the EU isn't the UN, however members of the EU are on the security council.

From this article:

"Despite mounting U.S. pressure for sanctions against Iran, the European Union said Friday it is too early to punish Tehran for its failure to halt uranium enrichment by the U.N. Security Council's deadline."

Then why the hell even bother to make a deadline?

So what does everyone think of the gas prices falling over a holiday weekend with elections 2 months away?

I don't care why they are dropping, as long as they're dropping. I will not alter my vote in any way, shape or form because they are dropping and I fully expect them to soar again after the election.

It's called diplomacy.

A certain Leader of the Free World should look it up. I'll bet it even has tips on pronunciation.

Diplomacy? I find it so amusing when it is said that Bush doesn't use diplomacy. In reference to Iraq, how many opportunities were given to Saddam to comply with the Gulf War I cease fire? Too many to count.

If you look at how Bush is dealing with North Korea and Iran, that is certainly diplomacy. If you want to turn this into something about Bush, go ahead. The point remains that it is beyond stupid to give a deadline for action and then take none when the deadline passes. This is what has happened now with Iran. Why on earth would anyone regard anything the UN says or does as serious? Don't pass a resolution if you aren't going to back it up.

That isn't diplomacy. That is appeasement and a sign of weakness.

Gas prices almost always drop this time of year due the end of driving season and basic supply and demand. It didn't happen last year because of the hurricanes in the gulf interrupting production and supply. With the hurricane season this year thus far a complete nonfactor, it makes total sense that prices would be dropping. If the Iranian situation heats up, oil will rise in price, but over just the last few weeks it has come down 8-9 dollars from 77 to under 68 today.

I'm glad Rummy mentioned Fascism. It's about time.

Using nationalistic ferver as a justification for the consolidation of government and military power to a single person and restrict liberties. Rallying against a religious group in the name of patriotism and overblown fears of cultural domination. Labeling of dissenting opinion as dangerous, comfort to the enemy, and treason. A populace that turns a blind eye to the errosion of civil liberties because, "I have nothing to hide," and, "My civil liberties aren't being taken away, only the bad guys'."

Yup, I'm glad he recognizes fascism when he sees it, 'cause I sure do.

Border control has all the sudden become important to Frist.

"It's time to secure the border with Mexico," Majority Leader Bill Frist said

I'm sorry....but you suck, Frist. You should have been serious about it when you wanted to be majority leader and the moment you got the position, as should the Senate majority leader before you and before him and before him and....

Control the borders of the US. One of the only specifically mandated duties of the federal government in the Constitution, and you suck at it and are afraid to touch it. While I am all for responding to an angry electorate, but with an election coming up in less than two months, there is no doubt this is a CYA for every flippin senator who has been hiding somewhere afraid to touch the issue.

Chavez of Venezuela made an interesting speech at the UN. While I won't go into what I thought of it, I loved our UN ambassador Bolton's comments about it, which was something to the effect of "He can say that about ou President standing in the middle of central park if he wishes, as could anyone. I'd like to remind him that if someone said those things about him in Venezuela they'd be shot.".

Criticize the President all you want. But at least don't use prison and death sentences to silence your own vocal detractors.

Um, unless Bolton was simply talking out of his ass again, as usual. I'm not the Venezuela expert, but I've heard nothing about Chavez's regime being anywhere near that oppressive and facist.



Please educate me if I'm simply woefully uninformed.

The exact quote I've been seeing ends without anything about being shot, just "too bad the people of Venezuela don't have free speech."

As for how things are in Venezuela, here is the opening paragraph from an open letter to Hugo Chavez by Human Rights Watch in 2004:

That's actually the premise of an old joke, the punchline of which is, "No, no. Anyone can stand in the middle of Red Square and shout "F*** Reagan."

One of the scarier moments shortly after 9/11 was Ari Fleischer's press conference where he said that people needed to watch what they do and watch what they say. Fortunately, that hysteria seems to have faded, at least overtly.

This is certainly an interesting separation of powers question. Nonetheless, I'm always struck by how the argument in favor of unchecked presidential power often dwarfs the discussion about the wisdom of what each side is advocating. I put it down to masculine fantasy. I've talked to a few decent conservative fellows on the subject, and their eyes get all glowy, one leg starts bouncing up and down, etc. It's as if they're imagining themselves as president, or as Hulk Hogan storming out from the dressing room to clean house, or Arnold/Sly/Chuck in the movies, or an all-powerful D & D character.

If the left ever has occasion to argue for an all-powerful executive, I imagine the image will be "rock star god," as no shortage of people viewed Clinton.

I was paraphrasing, and admittedly not very well. However, I will say that considering how he idolizes Castro it may not be that long until he is to such a point.

I love Bolton. No shock that you don't. When he said "I am the US Ambassador to the UN, not the UN ambassador to the US", I wanted to hug the man.

yeah, just wanted to hug him. That's it.

Does Bolton give out small appliances too?

I love how big fuzzy mustaches tickle.

From today's Washington Post:

Thanks for making the world safer, George.

Perhaps if you took off those
Rosenburg coloured glasses :cool:

Well, MBC, as usual, the leaks left out what I consider to be pretty pertinent information.

For example, here is one part that was leaked -
"The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

Sounds bad, and I'll admit it isn't a good thing. However....Here is the next sentence, which was not originally leaked -
"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

This means only one thing, which is that every person who calls for a date for troop pull out or leaving immediately should never, ever hold office where they could influence such a decision.

This is in spite of whether we should have gone in the first place, which is a different discussion all together, and I would not dare to discount those who thought we should not have gone in nor say they should not hold office. Different thing to me. But if that intelligence analysis is to be believed (and why take part of it and not all of it, unless one only wants to accept what they already thought to be true), then that part is probably the most important part of the report.

We can debate strategy and intent and success and methodolgy and whatever, but the point is that winning is a must and withdrawal is not an option. I, for one, think at some point in time a war between radical Islamic terrorists (and their organizations) and the west would have happened. It looks like that time is now, and the battlefront IS Iraq.

And "winning" against a guerilla insurgency is accomplished just how exactly? Can you point to any example in the last, oh, 500 years?

How do you destroy an enemy you can't find?

You either:

A) Kill everyone indiscrimately

or

B) Get the locals to actively oppose the insurgency.


You don't disrepect the locals, tie the hands of your troops and generaly wallow around like a pig stuck in the mud.

Ah, yes, getting the locals to assist will work out just swell in Muslim territory. Uh-huh.



Let's face it, it comes down to killing EVERYONE indiscriminently. And not just tons of people, as just happened in Lebanon - with Hezbollah pretty much unaffected. No, you have to kill EVERYONE.


Who's game?

Rather makes you wonder why we are in Iraq in the first place don't it?

Both Boer Wars were essentially guerilla wars that were successfully suppressed.

The Greek Civil War (1946-1949) saw the government successfully put down a Communist insurgency.

The Tupamaros in Uruguay were successfully suppressed in '70s by the government (which then fell to the military in a coup).

Though the Phillipines presented a long series of different insurgencies a Muslim insurgency in 1911 was successfully stopped.

The original Irish Republican Army was successfully defeated in the 1930s. (this was a political organization essentially separate from the modern IRA which falsely claims continuity with the anti-Treaty branch of the original IRA.)

So being in Iraq makes matters worse but we have to stay in Iraq and beat the insurgents/terrorists/jihadists because leaving is even worse than making things worse, is that it? Perpetual war is FANtastic!


We're going to need a king who can stomach untold losses of our military men and women and remain resolute. If only such a man existed.

I'm mad. Like majorly pissed off mad.

The republicans have a pedofile predator in their leadership in Congress.

Granted no one is responsible for their behavior except themselves. But it looks like it was known for a year. And no one did a damn thing about it. He had a reputation among the pages as someone to stay away from.

Every person in the republican leadership who knew about this prior to it breaking should be kicked out of office. Hastert, whomever. And now Foley has the audacity to blame it on alcoholism? Hastert, who apparently knew about it, now has the chutzpah to say that there should be a criminal investigation.

I can't say I think Hastert is guilty of a crime. But he is guilty of the worst kind of politics, as it looks as if he was simply interested in protecting the seat. I am amazed that some people are crying politics at the timing of the release of this. What? That makes me sick. The politics were being played by republican house leaderhship.

Scum.

Oh and lets not forget to mention that the "preditor" was also a Co-chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus.

Scum.

My Daily Grind troll moment!

Yesterday I saw this bumpersticker:

Grand Oil Party

I thought of Leo.

That is all.

:D :evil:

Here is the text of the emails Hastert may have seen last year.

and

and

and

If he did see them at that time (this is in dispute) it was in the context of the kids parents saying that they didn't want the matter persued but wanted Foley to stop emailing. Foley was told to break contact with the kid and he promised to do so.

Personally, in hindsight of the later, apparently more sexual contacts these emails above become creepy. But based solely on those emails I wouldn't have thought it a big deal. Especially since I imagine that when Representative Shimkus (the guy in charge of the pages) and House clerk Trandahl talked to him he probably said something like "oh that's too bad that he took my interest in his future that way. Boy that's embarrassing. He did some good work for me last year and showed a lot of promise and I just wanted to stay in touch so I could be a good contact for him through college and stuff. But sure, I'll stop emailing him."

Based solely on those emails I probably wouldn't have thought it a big deal. Certainly not enough to destroy a man's career over. So I'm inclined to cut Hastert some slack on this one unless something more damning comes up.

I'm not putting this out ther to in any way exonerate Foley. I just find it interesting, perhaps as a sign of changing times.

In 1983 a House investigation determined that two congressmen had actually had sex with pages. Initially Congress was going to simply reprimand them but Newt Gringrich demanded they be expelled and eventually the House compromised and officially censured both of them.

Congressman A tearfully apologized and lost his next attempt at re-election. He had had sex with a female page in 1980. Congressman B was defiant. He had sex with a male page in 1973. He held a press conference with the former page (both pages in question were 17 at the time of the sex) essentially telling people to mind their own damn business. He went on to be reelected six more times before retiring of his own free will in 1996 (and in 2005, at the age of 68, had one of the homosexual marriages in Massachusetts; not to the former page).

So an interesting comparison. The obvious differences being that Foley's advances were likely not reciprocated. But on the other hand it was nothing but words.

^^^ You've got to be joking.....

ETA I'm refering to #1237, not 1238.

Got to be joking about what? Yes, I agree it is deplorable that a Congressman is so cavalier about punctuation.

I'm with Alex on this one. The first article I read about it didn't even mention the later, more explicit emails that ocurred after the request to sever contact. That first bunch of emails, while not particularly professinal didn't seem to me to warrant much more than a, "Hey, the family asked you to stop emailing, so stop." The later ones (which I haven't seen the content of) sound like they are definitely something to worry about, but, as Alex said, if Hastert was aware of anything, it wasn't those.

I don't think you need the benefit of hindsight to see that the first set were clearly trust-building preludes to the second set. The next step would have been to wind up with his mug on Dateline while carrying a bag full of gifts.

The e-mails posted above are grooming e-mails, and it's difficult to believe anyone can see them as anything other than just that. How on earth does a powerful politican have enough time to 'chat' with very young pages, and in such a weirdly familiar manner?

We jsut went through a similar situation with our (former) mayor. What the hell is wrong with these freaks? Is it the thrill of the potentially enormous damage to their careers? Is it the joy of abusing their power? It's got to be more than just sex, which leads me to believe the pedophile label might be accurately applied here.

Here's the thing. When you get into positions of some power you are bombarded by various groups to take an interest in the lives of young people. To mentor them. To pretend an interest in their lives. To offer connections for advancement.

Besides being a slave employment system to save the House money, this is exactly what the kids entering the program hope to get. They're not doing it because watching C-SPAN live is all excitement.

Yes, with the hindsight of the latter communications the former is obviously a sign of what was to come. But without that hindsight these emails aren't all that different from communications between people in power and young people all the freaking time. My last employer had an official program for connecting senior management with high school students and offered guidelines on trying to connect with them. Making small talk. Being informal. Expressing an interest in what they do and what they find interesting. Just generally showing an interest in them and creating that exposure to "successful" life that will hopefully help propel them to great things.

If that type of communication makes you an obvious pedophile then every Boy Scout leader and Big Brother volunteer and professional mentor is likely an obvious pedophile. That's the difficulty of it: pedophilic interest looks, at least initially, pretty much like the interest of any caring person.

But really, my comments weren't about Foley but rather what Hastert should have done a year ago. There is debate as to whether he ever saw the emails or simply referred the matter to the congressman in charge when told there was an issue. The family expressly said they didn't want anything done in the way of investigation or punishment but to just stop the emailing.

Go ahead an hoist Foley up by his scrotum based on those first emails. I'm just not willing to put Hastert up there with him based on what is currently known.

Foley was talking about boys' bodies. Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, a coach could get away with that, but here it clearly smells. I assume that your prior employer would not have countenanced a male mentor telling a teenage girl, "My, you've really filled out this summer."

In domestic violence cases where the defendant is usually less powerful than a congressman, the prosecutor proceeds on the basis of the police report whether or not he has a victim willing to testify. The assumption, which is probably correct sometimes and probably incorrect sometimes, is that the victim recants out of fear of retribution from the defendant. I would not be so quick to interpret the family's wish not to do anything as making it clear that they felt that there was no harm done. Since, as you say, these kids become pages to grease the skids of their ambition (or that of their family), they may not want to upset the apple cart by getting a congressman in trouble.

Just for the sake of accuracy, a person who preys on teens isn't a pedophile, but rather, an ephebophile.

Oh come on. He said another boy was fit. There is a difference between that and commenting on a girls' boobs.


Yeah, if there was a crime committed. There is currently no evidence that a crime was committed in those emails. The only ones of which Hastert may have been aware. And beyond knowing that they said they didn't want it persued we don't know why they said that to the Congressman looking into it.

You say it is obvious without hindsight. I strongly disagree with that. But then we live in a society where any adult male that takes an interest in children is viewed as a likely criminal (except by the people who actually know him). And this leads to the parents who ask their children be reassigned in school because they don't want a male teacher.

I'm not denying that in hindsight these email were indicators. But I do argue that if you put those emails in a pile of 100 emails from similar relationships where there is no sexual interest involved you would not be able to point to them and say "those are from a guy trying to get his freak on."


I agree. But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that such a statement was from the parents trying to sell out their kid to maintain connections. And in the face of that request, with arguably innocuous but misinterpreted emails, would you destroy a man's career? Or would you just say "stop emailing the kid?"

Not if fit boys is what you're into and are hoping the other kid is, too.

Well, there's interest and then there's icky and, like obscenity, we know it when we see it. But you're right, it is sad to always have that stuff in the air. I coach a kid's soccer team, and one of the key pieces of advice at the orientation was never be alone with someone else's kid without another adult present.

Does not compute.

This isn't some kid with undeveloped impulse control who never learned appropriate boundaries. Like all the scandalous priests, he destroyed his own career.

It all doesn't matter. He's an alcoholic and all responsibility is removed from him. :rolleyes:


(I know. I know. I just "like" the fact that that was mentioned.)

I presumed bonking the paiges/interns was a time honored tradition on Capital Hill, much as the Casting Couch is here in Hollywood - I fail to see why this is so surprising.

Obviously. But we're not talking about a situation where it is known that the guy is into young boys. Foley knows it is an attempt at building a relationship out of sexual desire. Hastert has no way of knowing that and these emails are hardly strong evidence that it is true.


But how do we know we can trust you to be alone with your kid? Incestuous child molestation is more common than all the other kinds.

You say this is sad but at the same time apparently feel that it should be assumed by Hastert, a presumably trusted colleague, is depraved on the basis on these emails.


It doesn't compute that an adult can express interest in a young person without it being sexual? As I said, these emails aren't all that different from dozens I've seen written (and written myself on a few occasions) and yet there was no sexual interest. I will stand by my statement that if you put these emails among those emails you wouldn't be about to pick them out.


Yes, he did. That's the point. He destroyed his career. Those emails would have been a pretty flimsy basis for another to destroy his career. And can you think of anything more damaging to a Congressman's career than the speaker of the house issuing a press release that he has asked the police to investigate you because you sent one former employee an email asking for a picture and said another former employee was fit?

Yes, in this case it would have turned out to be right, but it would have been an overreaction reminiscent of the trumped up child abuse cases of the late '80s.

Only in hindsight of the later letters are these emails obviously insidious.

I want to be really clear that I am in no way defending Foley, just the idea that Hastert should have called out all the dogs a year ago.

Well, if he could put the same laser-like focus on this issue as the media has, then yes. However, he has 434 other scoundrels to worry about, plus himself, and he has a country to ruin, so I imagine he spends a lot of time wishing/hoping/assuming that a lot of s*** will just goes away.

There is another angle I've heard to this as well now, being that the dems have known about this for months as well and wished to have it times for release closer to the election. If so, that is as despicable as what I believe Hastert is possibly guilty of.

It is all conjecture, of course, except for the Foley part. I would not put it past republican leadership to try to hold the story until after the elections and the dems to try to hold the story until weeks before them.

Assuming Hastert did what you accuse him of earlier in this thread, do you really find using political dirt at a politically opportune time to equally as bad as protecting the career of a politician making inappropriate advances on children to avoid scandal?

The left wouldn't have a political football if Foley weren't a scumbag and either side would have used it if it dropped in their lap.

No, I'm saying if they knew 6 months ago they had a responsibility to disclose it at that time, the same as Hastert had the responsibility to disclose it. Hastert didn't want it to come out prior to the election. If the theories I have heard regarding the dems knowing as well are true, they should not have waited until now.

Anyone who knew this was going on and did not do anything about it in order to maximize political advantage in terms of timing is despicable, whether it was to protect a seat or damage a party. There was a something sick going on that needed to be stopped immediately.

The left has a political football, and in this case I really don't mind if they use it. A predator and the leadership protecting him deserve all they get. I just hope the dems weren't sitting on it for months the same as Hastert (allegedly - I could be wrong). Politics is politics, but this goes beyond some fund raising scandal or some other such thing.

It is always possible I am jumping to conclusions about Hastert.

From the reports I'm seeing, it looks like a lot of people share your thoughts Leo. I really think this points to a disconnect between the republican leadership, their promotion of family values, and the people. I really feel like it's coming as a shock to some of these politicians that good people like you really believe in the message and not in the politicians who are just giving it lip service.

I just heard this on the radio this morning and I haven’t had time to verify it… Apparently Foley's "interests" have been common knowledge on Capitol Hill for the last 5 years, and some staffers have been warning pages to avoid him. If this is true, so much for the “Haslert didn’t know the emails were sexual” defense.

According to this timeline, from a right-leaning source, the story was first given to the press in November 2005 but the St. Petersburg Times did nothing with it (presumably because they felt those early emails weren't sufficient or perhaps they were protecting a local politician). It also has the emails being provided to the FBI (though it isn't clear on which ones) in June of this year.

So it sounds like there were attempts and opportunities for this to hit the press much earlier than now.

The source on the pages having been warned about Foley is Matthew Loraditch, current president of the page alumni association. He says he was warned that Foley was gay and not to get too involved with him.

Loraditch has also, on some blog of his said that the Associated Press overstated his quote into a bigger warning than it was.

I wonder what we would think if presented with a warning from a Republican staffer to avoid someone because they were gay.

ah but what about this stuff?

-Foley is scum- but the Dems faked outrage is an insult.

Politics in general are making me sick right now- bleaugh!

Both parties show a base contempt for the voters.

No kidding. But I am commenting on this case-

Wow. Didn't take long for this to be the Dems problem, did it?

Just blame it all on Clinton and get it over with.:rolleyes:

LOL Don't you know it all comes back to the Clenis?!?!?!?

I think deflecting the blame is just reflex by now.

Do you actually think this crap happens in a republican vacuum?

Good lord- that takes a naive view and some serious blinders.

Swear to God- you guys drag Clinton up more than anyone else here does- and HEAVEN for freaking forbid that that article has a good point. :rolleyes: <----indeed.

Oh, stop this nonsense. I am not going to get into a silly-assed blaming match yet again. He did what he did, and that's that. Here's some more of what Foley did, fresh from CNN:

Former Rep. Mark Foley allegedly interrupted a vote on the House floor in 2003 to engage in cyber-sex with a former page, ABC News reports.
cnnPreloadImages('http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/ceiling/nav.rt.end.bg_over.gif');

I hearby announce that the 2 party system has been changed. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are no more. Instead, politicians will be placed in 2 new parties.......The Corrupt Party and The Evil Party. It just makes more sense this way.

Wouldn't that be more of a one party system?

Well, you can come up with better party names. ;)

Dems-
The Cut & Run Party
The "It's America's Fault" Party
The Doom & Gloom Party
The Class Warfare Party
The Race Card Party
The Dead Voter Party

Repubs-
The Head in the Sand Party (especially on illegal immigration)
The Coward Party (for never standing up for their beliefs)
The Turn-Coat Party (for running as conservatives and changing stripes in office)
The Big Gov't Party (wait- that would be both parties)
The Big Spending Party (yea, that is both too)
The Wilting Party (because they always lose steam when you want more from them)


Meh!

No one's asked the most important question of all:
Will Mark Foley be at Gay Days at Disneyland or not?






:evil: :D

Probably not- he's too busy figuring out who else to blame. (Right now it's Alcohol and Catholics, but I'm sure there will be yet another excuse shortly).

What ever happened to personal accountability? :rolleyes:

In truth, this is an inappropriate-acts-with-minors incident, but I can't help feeling there would not be as much gut-level outrage if Foley had been flinging the innuendo and sexual come-ons to teenage girls.

I agree with that. The opening line in today's San Francisco Chronicle article today was (approximately) "the last thing the Republican Party needs right now is a homosexual pedophilia scandal."

My first thought was "is the homosexual part really all that relevant?" Would it be less of a problem if it had been a heterosexual pedophila scandal. I'll leave to others to argue whether sexual interest in 16/17 year olds is really pedophilia (I know clinicly it isn't, but most people don't use the word clinicly).

I also caught The Daily Show last night and while it was pretty funny, I thought it was also unfair in its deregarding of Studds as a relevant precedent (where a 37 year old Rep actually had sex with a page and ultimately nobody really that it that big a deal).

Having now seen some of the explicit stuff I was also surprised to learn that the boy seemed to be at least somewhat participating in the banter (not that this makes it any more appropriate).

Actually, I would personally be more outraged if it were teenage girls, but that comes from my own experience of having been a teenage girl and being aware that sex was a particularly potent (har) way for girls to gain or lose power.

And I assume the homosexual part is relevant because it's a hot political issue. It's hard to argue that it's true love and pure and you'll get married and live together 'til death do you part when you're advocating legislation prohibiting that marriage because such relationships are unnatural and leading to the destruction of society.

Also, there's the delicious irony of his co-chairmanship of the exploited childrens' caucus. It's the salaciousness of it that is fueling the story, and I think if he were on the fishing license caucus sending messages to girls about their bra-cup size, this would be accepted as the usual Congressman philandering.


But, hey, I'm all for this blowing up in the Republican Party's collective face just before Election Day, and hopefully being the 88th monkey of criminal scandal this season that will tip the voting scales against them.

To me, yes, it's simply a political issue ... and I really don't have much concern for those 16 and 17 year-old boys who - oh, the horrors - had to deal with emails about their dick size. While it was absolutely wrong and innappropriate, I don't think any children were actually harmed.

I'm hoping Foley's antics bring a zillion times more harm to his party than they ever did to ex-pageboys.

Foley apparently voted against the gay marriage ban and was generally considered one of the more pro-gay members of congress.

Just a month ago, writers at the Daily Kos were defending Foley against charges that he was too liberal on the issue.

If no children were harmed, why was it wrong and inappropriate?

Does everything inappropriate cause harm?

To clarify my last post after a bit more poking around. Foley did vote for the Defense of Marriage Act (but so did a lot of people who were supposedly "pro-gay") but has voted against the various constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage.

Most people don't attention to individual votes - he's associated with the DOMA party and guilty by association, so to speak.

Although I think that taking a noticeable stand on an issue opens one up further. Maybe it's because he's not "our" congressman, but up here the mayor of Spokane got way more vile than Foley's getting because the mayor had such a public anti-gay stance.

There is not "DOMA party." It was introduced with sponsorship from both Republicans and Democrats, passed with broad bipartisan support in both houses of congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-64 in the House), and was then signed by a Democrat president.

I should have said the constitutional amendment and not DOMA. (I think I was thinking of the state version.) Or am I totally out of touch and the dems starting supporting the amendment while I wasn't looking?

No, the Republicans are mostly responsible for that, though four Democratic senators did vote for it and six Republicans voted against it.

Of course not. It was more a sort of philosophical question for ISM. Let's focus more on wrong than inappropriate. I realize ISM wants harm done to the republican party, and I'm OK with that (I'm all for harm done to the dem party myself). I am wondering, though, if no harm was done, does ISM think a crime was committed worthy of prosecution?

ISM has long been someone who disagrees with victimless crime, as do a lot of people. So if he thinks no one was harmed, was a crime really committed? Let's say the guy was an independent rather than a republican....should he be prosecuted for anything?

Please understand I do think there was a crime committed. I regard the man as a predator.

I would actually be more offended if it were a female page rather than a male page, to refer to something earlier in the thread. Not exactly sure how to express why. Probably some chauvinistic view of the male being more able to protect himself, but that's not always the case necessarily.

Not one of his shining moments. I wrote Clinton as this was taking shape, and his letter back was cynical fence sitting; basically, I hate discrimination, but I will sign the bill. I had written him several years earlier to tell him to stop his cynical pandering (Christian benediction at the 1992 Democratic convention), but I guess the first letter didn't take.

When I wrote Dianne Feinstein about her support for the flag protection amendment, she wrote back forthrightly that we would have to agree to disagree. She's still obviously full of S***, but it was a better letter.

Yep, that's why I feel there's no harm in this case. Totally mysogenistic of me ... but I think most teen boys can handle the emotional trauma of being asked to measure their dick size.

And I don't see anything wrong (or rationally criminal) in dirty internet talk with teenagers of either gender. But where to you draw the age line? 15? 11? 9? At some point, and I don't know where, it becomes much more wrong to me. So, I guess the arbitrary "adult" line of 18 makes some sense.

Besides, the criminal element is, I believe, trying to set up meetings for sexual purposes ... which I feel is wrong with anyone lacking full maturity and judgment skills. That would make the age limit 25, by the way. So I actually agree with the criminal statue that outlaws luring teens via the internet to sexual rendez vous in the real world. Of course, I'd rather it only be a crime if the meeting takes place, but I understand it's the luring itself that is criminal. (However, can luring take place if no one is actually lured? Is that like a tree falling in the woods?)


I haven't read the emails myself ... so I can't form a coherent opinion on how much luring there was vs. how much gayspeak.

* * * * *

Oh, and to counter something posted earlier ... at least according to various reports I've heard, incoming pages were warned to stay away from Foley because he got a little too friendly, not because he was simply homosexual. I don't find it credible that pages are warned about every gay member of the House.

Other pages may have come forward with other warnings by now, I didn't watch or read the news at all yesterday. But when I posted it, the source of that story was one specific page who was reported to have said one thing but in his own writing space claimed the warning he had received was informal, from one Republican staffer and simply said "he's gay, don't get too involved with him."

Definitely not any kind of official warning, which is what the initial reports suggested, more like backroom gosisp. But maybe that story has changed again.

How about "He likes underage boys" Or "he's been known to be inappropriately forward" or how about "he's a lecherous old man, watch out".

Gay or straight isn't really the issue other than it was the male pages who were the desired as opposed to female pages that are the desired the other 90% of the time.

How about them? Have other pages said that they were given those warnings? Who were they warned by? Staffers or other pages? In high school we all had several teachers that we warned each other were lecherous or gay or taught P.E. so he could watch the girls run in sweaty t-shirts. Not quite the same thing as if the principal had come to us and said "stay away from Mr. Belding, he'll be thinking about your crotch."

All I was commenting on was the state of things yesterday morning when all the stories about pages being warned were from one specific source (whom I detailed) and that source said it wasn't really the warning that the news was making it out to be.

I realize that was not yur personal comment, but a quote of a warning given to a page.

This just in!

Paris Hilton Gets Punched in the Face

"Haw haw!" ~ Nelson Muntz

:D

The California Attorney General race is shaping up to be one of the ugliest in recent memory. I was in the other room, so I don't have full context, but I heard a TV ad for Poochigian that said, more or less, "There's good and evil in the world. Jerry Brown support evil." I'll have to scour You Tube later to see if I can find it.

Attorney General is one race where I am completely comfortable with my choice. Jerry Brown has matured in many good ways since he was governor and I thought he did a very fine job as Oakland mayor so I have no qualms in voting for him.

So far the only ad I've seen, though, has been for Brown and it was utterly forgettable.

Every single ad for Poochigian has been "Jerry Brown opposes the death penalty and doesn't want killers to die. Isn't that eeeevil?" or "There have been [some number] of murders in Oakland since Jerry Brown became mayor. Can you believe he's killed that many people?!"

She also got a DUI last week. She's so cool!

As a yellow dog Democrat, I will probably vote for him. However, like Arnold, Jerry Brown ran scary and inaccurate ads opposing the Three Strikes reform initiative that initially had strong public support.

I also have the nagging but unconfirmable suspicion that the federal judge who rejected the lethal injection challenge I handled did so in part out of loyalty to Brown the AG candidate who first appointed him to the municipal court.

Interesting....I have now read reports (on the Drudge Report, unconfirmed elsewhere) that the only published exchanges between Foley and the page were when he was over 18. ABC says they happened before and after, but the only ones that have been made public were when he was over 18.

And ABC gacked. They accidentally released the kids idenity on their website. Oops.

Jerry Brown's running? He's the only candidate I ever felt comfortable voting for.

There's a reason for that.

I think that's what everyone was saying about Monica when he broke the story about that, too.

Have I ever told you that you remind me of Drudge?;)

Yes... way too many times. But you seem to enjoy it, so carry on.

How do you feel about Drudge publicizing the name of the young man allegedly involved in the first reported IM session with Foley?

Do you consider that honorable behavior?

The party of 9/11 is upset that the Dems are trying to make political hay with the Foley situation. Maybe Rove's October surprise will cheer them up.

(Or are we in the middle of the October surprise right now but we don't know it yet? I, for one, have forgotten all about the occupation of Iraq.)





Oh, and Drudge felches young boyz*.



*According to unnamed sources.

There is buzz that Hasert will resign this week. Interesting...

And the award for biggest over reaction to a statistically insignificant threat goes to....Frank Lasee of the Wisconsin state legislature! Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of schools in this country with millions of students. 2 or 3 schools have shootings. The obvious next step is to start arming teachers! Hooray!

"Underage" page was 18

Huh- sounds more and more like a dirty October surprise to me.

Gee- I wonder what party to blame for that? :rolleyes:

Unless the initial reporting has been wrong and these explicit emails and IMs are over three years old then this (if true) has to be a different page than the one over which the story broke.

That's certainly the spin Rush and Drudge are putting on it. It's complete garbage but I guess they will just keep throwing stuff at the wall and hope something sticks.

First, he's an alcoholic, then he's a victim of molestation, then he's gay, then, according to Fox, he's a democrat, then it's an evil democratic ploy, then it was just a prank, then he wasn't really underage. Not to mention, first Hastert remembers hearing about this, then he doesn't, then he does.

C'mon, you guys can't even get your story straight. The republicans own this problem and they can try to push it off on the dems but I don't think people are going to be so gullible this time. I could be wrong, of course.

Thank god y'all signed that "Contract with America" to bring ethics back to washington. With 4. soon to be 5 indicted representatives of your party, it's obviously going quite well.

Spin?

So, if it turns out the page (not another one- but the one everyone has been talking about-but nice try Alex)was 18 or over- we are supposed to call that spin?

Sorry- but it is the dems who are throwing shyt until something sticks. The party of "it's just sex, it's private" expects to destroy the republican party with this increasingly fabricated story about what else? Sex.

pathetic....but typical of a political party with NOTHING to offer.

The dem party doesn't know diddly about ethics- :rolleyes:

It was definitely a timed October surprise. A blog is created out of whole cloth, posts a few plagiarized items, gets this material, posts it, spams all the news channels, and hasn't been updated since.

But then, there is nothing wrong with October surprises, really. That's the game they're all playing and there is a wonderful defense against them:

Don't do stupid ****ing ****!

That's the response to all the politicians who do some stupid ****, have it used against them to their opponents advantage and then tries to call shenanigans. I may not like the people who pulled the trigger but that doesn't get the politican off the hook.

You know, if BOTH rebublicans AND democrats would stop spending so much time trying to concoct stories that make them look good maybe we'd actually have politicians who have time to THINK about getting us out of the current mess we're in. But, no, it's more productive to spend 90% of the time pointing fingers at the "enemy" and trying to b lame someone else.

WHO CARES whose fault it was, just get on with it and deal with the actual PRESSING issues. IDIOTS!

heh- are you running for anything? maybe we should vote for you ;)

Hell no!I shoot myself before I'd get into politics.

so- not running on a gun control platform then ;)

No, the "A Cat in Every Home" platform... ;)

LOL :D

back on another note- Claim that IM's were prank

Curiouser and curiouser- this is going to unravel in big ways.

Don't see how that unravels it if Foley still thought he was having a real conversation. Sounds like it could be the kid wants to stay in the closet or he really did goof it so that all his friends could laugh at Foley. Either way, Foley still looks bad.

No doubt- but I don't think this is the huge OMG scandal that was originally thought.

Bad yes- criminal? Maybe not. Worth the cries for the entire republican leadership to resign? That was ridiculous.

It's as if the dems thought they could throw this out there- the media ran with it- and they seemed to think the entire leadership on the other side would just say "oh gee, we quit" and roll out of town.

It's laughable.

We'll see where all the trails go. I find it almost amusing to see ABC scramble- they were all on the front of this- then the news comes out that the guy was 18, now they have screaming headlines "3 MORE Pages come forward" blah blah blah....but NOTHING seems to be what they say it is anymore.

Meh- I'll just be interested in the end result- what actually comes out when the hysterical shrilling is done.

Well, at least ABC gets the comfort of knowing that within one month they were condemned as shills for both the Republicans and Democrats.

*snort* fair's fair?

Damn... you're right!

three more pages come forward, one from the 1998 page class

These rotten dems have been setting this up for 8 years!

Bastards!

Considering that some of them aren't even clear on what the internet is, I'm going to take it as a sign of enlightenment that Foley was using AIM or ICQ easly as 1998.

So, which democrat was it that "threw this out there"? And the media ran with it so quickly that the Miami Herald and St Petersburg Times (?) sat on the story for a year?

No matter how you slice it, this particular man engaged in inappropriate conversations with minors. Foley did that. Not the democrats. To blame them for the current problems is ridiculous. Are the democrats saints? Of course not. Are they just as bad? Probably. But, even if there is any merit to this being an October surprise, and I have yet to see any piece of evidence that is convincing, so what? Nothing wrong at all with the republicans getting a taste of the same medicine that Karl Rove has made a career out of dishing out.

Here's my disconnect with what you're saying, MBC.

Foley deserves to be gone. He may deserve to be prosecuted.

If republicans were hiding this to protect a seat, the leadership deserves to be gone.

If dems were sitting on it to use at a poilitically opportune time, their leadership is just as guilty of a coverup as are the republican leadership.

October surprises are October surprises. The drunk driving thing was an October surprise, and there was no problem sitting on that to use. The Geaorge Bush senior flying to Iran to tell them to wait to release hostages was an October surprise (though somewhat stupid if you ask me). Politics. But this needed to rise above politics on both sides. I am assuming, of course, that these were minors. If they weren't, what I'm sayong about the leadership on both sides and using this as an October surprise changes.

All they have to do is hire ugly pages and interns. Then there'd be no problems.

Your theory is disproven with the whole Bill and Monica thing.:)

That was really mean of me.:D

lol! :D :evil:

I am not blaming them for Foley's behavior. I am blaming them for blatant hypocrisy. I am blaming them for their obvious double standards. I am blaming them for their over reaching attempts to take out more people than just Foley. I am blaming them for being who they are- and frankly I am not going to pretend to respect any of them.

No matter how you slice it? The guy they made a huge deal of- with the nasty IM's- was over 18. I don't know other ages. So no, I don't know that slice.

As I've said before, I'm not much for the arbitrary age-line of 18, but I suppose it has to be somewhere.

But the link Neph has to the Drudge Report's take on the former page's age says, and I quote ...
So, um, I don't see how Foley squirms out of it. Perhaps that really bad incident of I.M sex during a house vote was post-18 (so sinfully remincent of the under-desk BJs of one former PotUS) ... but there were plenty more emails and IMs and other pages. And a reputation for years. And warnings given by Foley's chief of staff to Hastert's chief of staff over 2 years ago, and warnings from other Congressmen directly to Hastert over a year ago.

What's your problem Neph? Are you purposefully wearing blinders?





oh. yeah.

sometimes i forget.

Interesting... That's exactly how I feel about the Rebublicans in Congress! :rolleyes:

This is a Republican problem, this is a Republican issue. They should own up to it. They're in control of everything. How can it be anyone else's prob?

Double post... uh... go NE Patriots?!
:D

:rolleyes:

There's that republican vacuum again.

Suuurre.....Dems did not have anything to do with it. Is that naive or what?

String up the guy who did it, sure- if he is truly guilty of anything criminal (btw- innocent until proven guilty DOES still exist in this country)- but the head in the sand act about the part Dems have played is just......well, willfully blind.

WTH are you rolling your eyes. I don't give a shyt if you respect them- just like I will not apologize for loathing the dems.

So what? You act like I said a bad thing.

I'm listening, Nehp. Plus reading everything about it in four newspapers. Sorry if I'm not up on internet news and bloggers. Please, by all means, point me to some legitimate news about Democrats' involvement.


Oh, and I have zero problem attributing sleaze and slimy motives to the Democrats, so it won't take much to convince me. Show me any legitimate reporting on the subject.

Nope just missed the line....

Take the blinders off your own party side before launching at me...thanks :rolleyes:

I have said he should be held responsible for anything he did wrong-never said he would SQUIRM out of anything- but this attitude that says the Dems knew nothing is the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la- I can't hear you!"

Sad.

But where are the reports of Dems knowing and holding on to it? Assumptions are useless. To be frank, I assume the worst of everyone in Congress. But where's the actual news of specific events and individuals?

Define legitmate for me. I refuse to waste my time looking for diddly knowing you will toss it out at will if it doesn't suit your parameters.

I suspect what you call legitimate and what I call legit are too far opposite to ever met.

Though this is interesting.

Heh- and every now and then we agree. I don't think much of congress either.

It's always the Dems fault, GC- you know that!

Oh, and innocent until proven guilty? That's news to a few hundred detainees!

Again, this is Foley's mess- he created it and he owns it. Who gives a flying **** if the Dems had the info? I hope they did. I'd like to see them get off their asses and start fighting fire with fire.

On the Daily Show, the other day, when Stewart was talking about Foley, a picture of Foley came up with the caption "Foley Erect". That was pretty dang funny. :D

I'm always amused when people try to put on party as being somewhat morally superior to the other. The sad fact is political parties are made up of politicians.

Unless it is the democrats that you all are trying to blame this on. I agree with iSm. Sway me, I'm listening. Where is your evidence that the democrats sat on this? Where is your evidence that they had anything whatsoever to do with the release of this information? Show me anything remotely compelling and I just might change my mind.

The credible information out there is that it was a house republican aide that provided Foley's emails to the media. This was confirmed by The Hill newspaper, The NY Times, and by Brian Ross of ABC.

I have no real interest in protecting democrats but I'm certainly not going to believe something just because Rush and Drudge say it is true. Drudge's track record is by no means pristine when it comes to accuracy and Rush will lie through his teeth if there is any chance that it will keep his boys in power.

So, again, I'm listening. Show me this compelling information.

Absolutely. Just as a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.

I love Clinton and I miss Bubba a great deal. But this is the shape of his library:

:D
I find that to be hysterical.

Shouldn't it have a slight curve to it? ;)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. ;)

meh-

I still have not gotten a voter booklet- hmmm, I wonder what actual issues there are to vote on?

More stuff

Using the term unraveling and connnecting to dems.....hmmmm

Well, there is the Iraq war, which is going splendid. :)

Well, I'm convinced.

There is zero need to be so damn snarky. I am not on some massive quest here- I just posted a couple things as I found them.

The side comment was just that- an aside....nothing more.

FYI-This is not a battle I have with anyone here. I am frankly finding politics and pols in general to be repellant these days. Not the norm for me- I usually enjoy this stuff.

Bleaugh-sorry I snapped at ya MBC.

If you want to convince us, you need to do better than the American Thinker...

Found this to be interesting. Of course, it was released on late Friday afternoon, when hopefully the least amount of people would be paying attention.

Yeah, I saw that too. It'll be interesting to see how the 'Six Degrees of Clinton/Democrat' blame game gets applied to this one.

They'll find a way... Afterall, Republicans are never responsible for their own mistakes!

A trait not unique to republicans, I might add. There has been the cry of "the vast right wing conspiracy" for some time now.

The results of which we have been living with these past six years.

So, WB, you accept the cries of the vast right wing conspiracy creating problems for the dems, but deny that the left would have done anything such as sit on the Foley story to use it at a more politically opportune time (understanding that as a whole I do not object to that in the world of politics, but some things should be above politics).

Not to speak for Wendybeth, but I don't think anyone's denying the Dems would be above such a thing, merely that there's zero reporting or evidence that such a thing happened. It's all been about ridiculously changing the subject ... when ALL the reporting has been about a Republican perve/idiot Congressman and warnings by his Republican staff to the staff of the Republican leadership, and warnings by his Republican colleagues directly to the Republican leadership.

I have asked for any legitimate news source of any Democratic involvement in this particular incident and have as yet seen none. Don't take that to mean a claim that Democrats are rosy-cheeked innocents.

But if you're going to completely change the subject so that we can talk about Democrat malfeasance ... then, yes, we will discuss the vast rightwing conspiracy that has used the 9/11 attacks on our country to attack and damage America far more dangerously and tangibly than a million such terrorist strikes could ever hope to do.

Bravo! :snap:

iSm, with posts like that, you can speak for me anytime!:snap:


Scaeagles, show me where I said the Dems are above this sort of thing. I said I hope they did sit on it and waited for a politically opportune time to release it, as I am resigned to the fact that we have to fight fire with fire if we want to get these assholes out of office. Which is worse- the Repubs trying to cover it up, or the Dems waiting for the best time to attack? (Something that is mere speculation and has yet to be substantiated, either here or in the press). Until there is proof that they did, I am going resist my attention being diverted by such a non-issue.

I don't see where I've changed the subject in the least. I'm the one who started this particluar point in this thread because I believe there was a republican cover up. All I did was say that if the dems knew and covered it as well to use politically then they are as despicable in this instance as the republicans hiding it to protect a seat. Honestly, I think they are equivalent because we are talking about holding onto info about a predator in their midst. Playing politics with it is playing politics with it regardless of the motive.

I don't think anyone should sit on info like this. For whatever reason. It's beyond sickening.

From what you are saying, WB, you support the dirtiest of dirty politics if the dirty politics are on your side. You would want to allow a predator to stay in office to use that info at a more opportune time rather than exposing the predator when you learned of it? That's something I can't subscribe to.

1,000,000 X 3,000 = 3,000,000,000(or half the population of the entire Planet)

Is the murder of half the population of the Planet(and since the US is target 1, I guess the entire pop. of America) really "tangibly" better than the Presidents efforts to avoid such attacks:confused:

I am very confused by this commet.

At this rate, elimination of half the population of the planet is exactly what the aim of the War on Terror aka War on Islam is. Just what is the ratio of the muslim population to the entire population?

In any event, the random number "million" was a hyperbolic expression, and not meant for numerical accuracy. But if we're speaking numbers in relation to the number killed on 9/11, why don't you perform the ratio math with a comparison to civilian deaths in Iraq, and see who comes out ahead as most murderous terrorist?

^Fair enough.

About 20% (1.2 billion). Not taking any kind of position on what has recently been said, just answering the question.

I don't really have a problem with what you are saying here. BUT, you are the one that suggested that the democrats might have been involved. Right now, all evidence suggests a republican cover-up. There is nothing remotely fact-based that supports the idea of an "October Surprise" and the only reason it is even a part of the discussion is because of a lame attempt by some on the right recently to muddy the waters with baseless speculation for the purposes of taking the focus off the real issue.

So, I suppose it is ok, for discussion purposes, to consider the hypothetical, as long as we remember that it is only hypothetical, and has no basis in fact, whatsoever.

That's cool, MBC. But a question....if this was common knowledge among the pages, then how would the republican leadership have known if the democrat leadership did not?

Foley deserves to be gone. I was originally pissed at Hastert, but not so much anymore. Really, I don't think the dems knew. I am upset with a few media outlets (a couple papers I think) that had the storey months ago and did nothing with it.

Scaeagles, I would think you knew me well enough to not have to ask the question whether I support dirty politics or not. I am really just tired of the usual Repub response to any trouble they get into, which is "Oh, looky at what the Dems are/aren't doing!" Right now Cheney is going around delivering the same old 'Dems are evil and we are doomed if they get into office!' speech that would be laughable if there weren't so many people buying into it. Dems turn the other cheek and get sucker-punched, and it is getting very old. Truly, if the Dems did sit on this one I wouldn't be happy with them, but we already KNOW that the Repubs have, so that's where I'm going to direct my ire.
So, you don't have a problem with Hastert- will that hold even if he is found to be culpible in this?

They turned the other cheek? How? Not trying to be rhetorical or snarky....

I currently have no problem with Hastert. I did at the start (obviously), but I really am not sure of his knowledge. Granted, I am way out of touch currently and don't know a whole lot about it. If it's found that he had full knowledge of predatory behavior (and not all of the IMs or emails publiches in volve predatory behavior) then that of course goes back to my original outrage. Someone, though, knew. Probably a lot of people. I just don't understand how something this continues.

I have never been a Hastert fan. He's the Speaker of the House, where all spending bills originate, and there is way too much money spent.

Maybe you should learn more about the subject before you start making accusations and deciding where you stand. I don't know much about it, but I do know that no one has yet to produce any proof regarding the Dems and whether or not they knew beforehand. I think the FBI should be allowed to conduct their investigation before we all get our panties in a twist about who knew what and where and .....bleh.


We're still dealing from the fallout from our ex-mayor and that whole scandal. People knew about his activities for years, yet no one did anything until our newspaper got aggressive and went after him. Of course, they endorsed him during the election, even while they were investigating him. I think they set the whole damned situation up to get a good story. Is that wrong? Hell, yes. But it couldn't have happened if Mayor West hadn't committed the misdeeds.

Exactly, WB. And Foley is thie one ultimately responsible.

To quote your first sentence and the start of the next....

You are making accusations without knowing much about it. The only accusation I have made was in my first post when I was so ticked at Hastert. I have stepped back because it is unknown exactly what his knowledge was. Yet you now portray that as a bad thing?

Just for the record, the papers that apparently sat on this were the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg...Times (I think it is the Times, St Petersburg something or another).

The liberal media once again protects the republicans. ;)

And to finish the part of my quote that you left out..."I don't know much about it, but I do know that no one has yet to produce any proof regarding the Dems and whether or not they knew beforehand."

Again, all I am saying is that I don't know enough about this (I am a Dem, after all) to really say how I feel about Hastert, etc. By your own admission, neither do you. So, wtf are we arguing about here?

Scaeagles, it would appear that the good Senator in your home state has know about this for about 5 years.

From the Washington Post:

Kolbe is a Representative, not a Senator. Our Senators are McCain and Kyl. When I read your opening, I was hoping it was McCain that had known. Kolbe is actually retiring after...18 years, I think?....and his seat is open this election.

Because you're a freakin' lib and therefore must be up to no good!:p

At least our pervs are loud and proud, baby! ;)

Well, if you're going to get all technical about it...

I should have just used the more generic, "right wing fascist scum", moniker. :)

Hey - If Barney Frank didn't know his boyfriend was running a male prostitution ring out of his house, I can believe Hastert didn't know about this.:)

Just another example of a lib who doesn't know what he's talking about and can't get his facts straight.:)

Says the guy whose trusted news source keeps labeling Foley as a Democrat.

It's too late to edit my last post but here is a link if you want to see for yourself.

Lol- now, that's what I'm on about! They'll do anything to blame this on the Dems!;)

Hey- when something is that easy (and likely correct) why not ;)

besides that- the dems have their own sexual predators they do nothing but protect. I guess it's ok if you are a predator of women- at least if they are over 18. (and no- I am NOT just talking about Clinton)

No denial there. Not even an attempt to blame the Repubs. It is amusing to watch everyone scurrying around trying to sever ties and send money back to Foley's office. Rats deserting the ship.

No doubt-

Frankly I am sick of the double standard they all seem to hold. Their moral outrage is a joke.

Foley is a democrat. He used to represent a district in Spokane, WA. Just ask WB;)

Yup- he was House Speaker for a number of years. Worst thing he did was some stupid post office scandal that involved his wife. Actually, he is a family friend- my mom worked for him and Scoop Jackson in the Sixties and Seventies.

Really, WB? We must talk more...

Foley was the last Democratic Speaker of the House; it would be quite ironic if another Foley contributed to the return of a Democrat as Speaker:eek:

NSFW, so I'll put it in spoiler tags


:evil:

Now that time has allowed for more comprehensive reporting on the Foley scandal, let me reiterate that the Republicans own this one and the Democrats had absolutely nothing to do with it.

And about the canard of shifting blame to the Dems ...
Can the Republicans among us please just man-up and stop casting blame where none lies?

Remove the plank from your own eye before complaining about the splinter in your brothers eye. ;)

If the dems had ever been a party who owned up to things- I might be willing to take this castigation seriously. But come on- they are as inclined to blame anyone but themselves for their failings and scandals.

"It's a right wing conspiracy"

"it was a stolen election" (the dem answer when they lose)

etc etc.....

Might not be dirty tricks- but I don't believe for a MOMENT that ranking dems did not know. It's ridiculous to think that they were clueless-

But . . . but . . . but it was a stolen election. They both were. Of course, if Ohio had somehow been given to Kerry, it would have been worse than 2000 in terms of the popular vote winner losing the electoral college.

And the Democrats probably stole 1960.

Election day is coming up. Vote early and often.

I'm surprised that you would find it ridiculous to think that the dems were clueless. Isn't that a standard talking point? ;)

The great thing about the political game is that both sides label the other as hypocrites. Then use that hypocrisy in the other side as excuse for their own hypocrisy. And then when power flips between parties on many issues both sides simultaneously flip positions while calling the other side hypocrites for doing so.

It's the way the game is played. It, to a large extent, is the way the game has always been played. I suspect that in five thousand years, assuming republican democtratic (small r, small d, not the parties) politics still exists it will be much the same.

I have no idea who was behind it, but the blog that sparked this whole thing was obviously an attempt to get this story broken. Whether that was an angry page, a disgruntled Republican, or a Georg Soros lackey, I have no idea.

Nor is it important. Don't do stupid ****, and you won't get in trouble for it.

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Motorboat Cruiser again.
:cheers:

Clueless in knowledge, no. Clueless in application of knowledge, yes.:)

All I've said is "if". I have not claimed a vast left-wing conspiracy. I will again point out that I am the one who brought this up and was beyond angry about it. I have calmed down a bit, obviously.

I will point out, though it doesn't really metter, that quoting from Time to me is like me quoting from Fox News to you.:)

Source

For Leo: ;)
Source
Bold emphasis is done by Fox"News".

Whoa, deja vu. (In the sense of a high death toll number, that time in relation to the sanctions following the first Gulf War gets the press while the more legitimate methodologies don't get much play.)

I know counting the excess dead is hard to do, but I find it hard to believe that the organizations that actually try to count bodies are missing 13 out of 14 of them.

And there are obvious methodolical concerns with establishing how many people have died based solely on interviews rather than hard counts so I'd be interested in seeing the nitty gritty details on their methodologies.

And if, as the CNN version says, the study authors in a previous version admitted to doing it with specific political goals, then they aren't doing research, they are engaging in activism which should rightly cast a pall over their result.

Hmmm competeing body counts, reminds me of Vietnam...