Here's another aspect of the Foley mess I hadn't given a though to:


And just to correct some misconceptions on the right side of the aisle - the loudest voices calling for Hastert's head are coming from YOUR SIDE, not the Democrats.

Allright to repeat what CW has said many times. The source that is reffered to is the source of the e-mails not the evidence that brought Foley down which was the Instant Messages.

Its just very suspicous that they were released a month before the elections if the person had them all this time saved in their history. Sort of like a wham bam you can thank me Democrats man. Of course it could have been the teenager held a grudge (but why the emails and not the IM's?) or CBS.

Just to clarify, by "information" you mean the emails, right? Not the online sex IMs that no one seems to have seen before last Friday? Or do you just mean the kind of rumor and hints that were swirling about the guy?

If just the emails or the rumors, don't you think they could have been treading on thin ice (politically) in investigating a gay Congressman for being 'overly friendly' to male pages? That is the purported reason why the newspapers in Florida didn't run the story.


Amen to that. Sadly, it's already made it into Pelosi statements and at least one campaign ad intimating that the Repubs covered-up for a child predator.

Since Catholics don't vote Republican, how can this be an issue? Catholic voting trends

Sure Catholics are more likely to vote and beginning to vote more and more Republican, but it isn't as if the Republican base is Catholic.

Catholic Opinion By the Numbers

It would seem that aside from the obvious wrongness about Foley’s emails and IMs to pages, he is also guilty of cheating.

I found this an interesting take on the situation, and it has a lot of merit. As long as conservatives continue to classify certain behaviors as evil, debacles like the Foley mess are bound to recur.

And as long as we’re digging up examples of pervert Congressmen of the past, I give you John G. Schmitz, former Republican Congressman from California.
(his daughter is Mary Kay LeTourneau )

I never said it was; I merely observed that it was something I hadn't thought of.

Is talking now considered cheating? I guess this is one more reason for me not to enter politics.

There are lots of reasons people choose to reveal their homosexuality, or not. Having read those IMs, conservatives classifying him was the least of Foley's problems.

By your definition, if only "conservatives" redefined every beharior as "not evil" all our problems would be solved. Just remove the stigma, and no more problem!

(Sigh) Is this intentionally obtuse? If a husband/boyfriend was chatting sexually online, I am sure that person’s wife/girlfriend/boyfriend would consider it cheating.


Good lord, where do you come up with this stuff? I said no such thing. I did, however, say that if conservatives didn’t condemn certain sexual behaviors as evil, then maybe, just maybe, they wouldn’t feel they had to sneak around to indulge themselves in said behaviors, hence MAYBE scandals like the Foley incident wouldn't occur. Jeeminy christmas...............

I see what you mean, but maybe, just maybe, you are too quick to blame perverted behavior on conservative oppression?

For example, there is certainly no stigma from conservatives in being a heterosexual married man. Given this, why do so many married men feel the need to sneak around and 'indulge themselves' extramaritally? They aren't being repressed by judgemental conservatives, after all.

I can't resist commenting on this.

Amlord you are a worthy debate opponent 99% of the time, but I think your decision not to enter politics is a wise one.

Do Ohio voters want someone more Texan than Buckeye in their approach representing them?

Sorry, but I couldn't vote for you in Texas or, if I lived there, Ohio.

Getting back to political fallout, it is hitting the fan big-time. 3 more pages are accusing Foley of propositioning them link, and Time magazine has "1/4 of voters" saying this will affect their votes. link



Republicans are toast if they can't get ahold of this story. Hastert is probably gone.

Edit - just re-read my own post...naturally Time polled "voting-age Americans" not voters, and asked them about voting, so the effect will be much less than they project. I forget how the media does these misleading polls...and then is surprised when Republicans do better than they expect time after time.

I'm kind of stunned people are still talking about this story. The only way I see this having long legs is if Folely had tried to keep his post. Since he immediately resigned without protest as soon as this story broke I'm not sure this will have much of an impact on the elections. Look at the all the bad press George Allen has receive the past two months and there's a poll today showing him opening up a double-digit lead.

It seems like ever bit of bad news is covered like this by the press:

“Downturn in housing market could decide control of Congess…”

While this is excited for political junkies most Americans are tuned out. I sense a lot of cynicism in the country right now. Americans are just in a sour mood. There are any number of reasons why this has happened, but I’m not sure it’s going to amount to anything come election time.

Since Amlord was voted the Member We Would Appoint to the Supreme Court he must possess some degree of clear-thinking and the ability to see both sides of the argument. If these are qualities we would want to see in a judge being handed a lifetime appointment, why would it make him a poor choice for the House or Senate?

I'm not saying I agree with Amlord on most issues. I don't. But I do think he's a fair-minded guy and not a blind ideologue.

Most of the time anyhow.

It's just not a real good year to be a Republican in a state that has had 16 years of Republican control. In four weeks we'll know if that reign of error is coming to a close.

Back on topic, I found it comical to hear Denny Hastert try to lay the blame for this Foley mess on Democrats and George Soros. PUH-LEEZE! That dog won't hunt. Take ownership of the problem, Denny-0. The Republicans have made the decision to close Democrats out of the governing process in the House and therefore have no way to spread the responsibility of shutting Foley down earlier upon their shoulders.

Additionally, even if the Democrats and Soros ARE jumping all over the issue and fanning the flames, so what? That's just hardball politics and there is no doubt if Foley were a large "D" for "Democrat" instead of a large "R" for "Republican" the other side would be all over Nancy Pelosi like a bad rash.

I think you'd be very hard pressed to see the Southern Catholics voting for a liberal, but north of the Mason-Dixon line, who knows. But as a general rule, Catholics will vote more conservatively (hence, Hispanic trends towards the right).

Of course there are Republicans (or RINOS-Republicans in name only) calling for Hastert's head. It's politically prudent to have a scape goat. In my opinion, most politicians, regardless of affiliation, are pretty well concerned about their careers as opposed to the good of the party and/or America.

That's an interesting comment, that those Republicans who are calling for Hastert to resign, or at least some form of sanctions are not 'REAL' Republicans.

Am I the only one who has notices that the primary tool of the Republicans recently seems to be the 'No true Scotsman' Argument? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman)

If you want sanction on Hastert, you are no True Republican. (God forbid there might be some Republicans who take the whole moral family value thing seriously, and are calling for his head because his actions smack of serious impropriety, and they are not willing to take chances with the welfare of a teenager.)

If you Oppose Bush Jr. on the War, you are No True American. And so on.

Of course, to be fair, the Republicans are certainly not the only ones to use this tactic in the past, but they really seem to be beating it into the ground recently.


And another rant. Has personal responsibility slipped so far that even the concept of it is antithetic to politics? I swear, the Smart move for the Republicans would be to take a stand, admit the wrongdoing of Foley, promise investigation and if guilty sanction against those who failed to act in the past. Promise this will never happen again.

Some Republicans are doing just that, and good on them. Others are flailing around like a drowning man, desperate to lay blame anywhere else. In an interview last week Hastert blamed the specific of the scandal on a conspiracy involving, among others, Bill Chinon and Soros. I mean come on here.

So what exatly did Hastert do to break the "moral family values" Vermillion?

No one has explained to me why Hastert should step down. He had access to an email that said "Hi how are you doing, how did the hurricane effect you, can you send a picture"

O M G breaking family values he must step down for not seeing this OBVIOUS CHILD MOLESTER WITH THIS CRUCIAL INFORMATION!!!!

I've got it.
I finally realize why this isn't sinking in for some people on why it is wrong and a failure on the part of Hastert

Hastert acted wrong because he didn't investigate a member of the GOP who was acting like BILL CLINTON!
He was acting like a Democrat for cryin out loud!

The gall.

and since BILL CLINTON is very clearly the Anti-Christ of the GOP, surpassing EVEN Hilary

HAstert's level of failure is beyond comprehension and clearly shows he is incompetent to hold the post.

We must keep in mind that there are always politics involved, even within political parties. Remember that Hastert was not the unanimous choice as the House leader. This could be an opportunistic attempt (however flimsy) to get Hastert to step down for incompetence that isn't really related to the Foley scandal at all.

For the most part, House Republicans (and Republicans in general) have come to the decision that there was no gross negligence on the part of Hastert. I guess the House Ethics Committee's investigation might change that, but unless there is something that has been missed, I doubt that will be the case.

HUH???????

If Hastert saw an email that seemed relatively benign..... why on earth would he investigate it?
OH- because reason and reality are out of the question, while rhetoric and partisanship comes to light. The fact of the matter is... HE DIDN'T KNOW.
NO ONE CAN PROVE IT.
PEOPLE ARE RUNNING OUT OF ARGUMENTS. It's true.

Vermillion runs attacks on "scotsman" notions, NT makes comments about "Republican Scum", etc.

Seriously- no one has argued that the guy even knew. It's a stretch. A long one. Please start arguing the facts, true merits, and quit spewing rhetorical remarks borne from anger and/or partisanship.

I don't know at this point what Dennis Hastert knew and when he knew it and neither do you aevans176. Hopefully, an investigation will answer that question.

Most of the finger pointing at this point has been Republicans pointing at other Republicans - what I heard called a "circular firing squad" yesterday.

Hastert's decision to stay and Bush's endorsement was based on one question. Would Hastert's going or staying be most beneficial or perhaps less damaging to the Republican Party? Apparently Karl Rove determined that Hastert's staying would cause less damage than his going.

You are mixing up two debates Vampiel.

I am not stating Hastert knew Foley was a child predator, I am not saying he was aware years ago. Frankly I don't know. I DO know there are a LOT more questions than your last post conveys. I do know that we now realise aides and people working with Foley were coming forward as much as three years ago and complaining, so it is not as cut and dry as you pretend. In the end, this is still unfolding, and I dont know wheither Hastert made a judgement call that turned out wrong ( to do nothing in the face of innuendo) or a horrific breach of ethics (do do nothing in the face of evidence).

What I am STRONGLY objecting to however, is the absurd notion that any republican who is asking for investigation and sanction is 'not a real Republican', which is pure hogwash.

There are a LOT of republicans protesting, and they are protesting because they see enough evidence of impropriety (in a moral situation they take very seriously) to warrant investigation and possibly censure.

To call them 'Not real republicans' because of this is a blatant insult, and quite a revealing comment about how the person who made it wants party politics to work in the US.

Aevans176, if you are really interested in "arguing the facts, true merits and quit spewing rhetorical remarks borne from anger and/or partisanship" why do you persist in trying to attribute to me things I've never said?

The only comment I've made using "Republican" and "scum" in the same sentence was in replying to your original remark. You have convinced yourself I started this when it was you all along.

There is no doubt that I am neither a conservative or a Republican. No news flash there. Yes, I am tougher than a $2 dollar steak on the GOP. But you will have to wade through over three years and 1800 posts by me to find the post where I wrote "Republicans are scum". Happy hunting and here's a fine tooth comb and a flashlight. Good luck in trying to find something that isn't there.

YOU were the one that took umbrage at my first post in this thread where I pointed out acts of GOP malfeasance and (here's that word again) hypocrisy. http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=197635. Go back and read it. I did, and while it calls Republicans on the carpet, at no point do I compare them to something nasty growing in a swamp.

If you are in pursuit of "direct and legitimate statements about this topic," "no spin...just the facts" and "objective factual statements" then you need to step up YOUR game and stop trying to bait me into debating something I never said. I have no fear or reluctance to defend what I actually do write to you or anyone else.

But I'm not going to play this "neener, neener, neener" game where you make rash and unfounded allegations that draws us into engaging in a sideshow debate that has nothing to do with the central issue which is the impact of the scandals of Mark Foley upon the Republican Party. This is a distracting and annoying tactic a few others have tried in recent weeks.

To paraphrase Adlai Stevenson, I'll stop telling the truth about the Republicans just as soon as you stop telling lies about me.

Vermillion,

The RINO arguments were popular here before last election season, and then the state legislature went Democrat. Today, some very powerful Republicans openly support Demo moderates, while those with less armor do it privately.

Could be that the rest of the country is figuring out what Colorado discovered in 2004, namely that the Republican Party is going through an identity crisis. Moderates want the party back from the, um, to put it in a nice way, those who don't like moderates.

Overall, I think the Republican Party will get back in its track, eventually, but for now a moderate or conservative Democrat is better than the, uh, you-know-whos.

To bring this into focus with Foley's situation, no Republican can support his actions. That leaves attacking Democrats and attempts to shift blame. Trouble is, the attacks aren't making sense and the blame shift is failing. What next? Okay, call Republicans against Foley's actions RINOs to do something, I guess energize the RR (Real Republicans, aka, Religious Right).

Well, that didn't work in Colorado. Will it work in Florida? Across the nation?

Time will tell, but the RINO argument is, and always will be, weak. It rests on ideology and identity, two things that are separate in people who actually think about things rather than respond on script.

In the long term, Foley might become the force the pushes the Republican Party back on its track, which would be good for the party. In the short term, Foley is the nightmare before the wakeup call.

Well, I guess the answer is "yes" to the posed question- according to my morning paper- 5 seats that were a "lock" are now in play due to , directly, the Foley scandal, another aide has corraborated Fordham's testimoney that hastert met with Palmer- and had knowledge of Foley's issues as early as 2003.

So I guess this question is already answered?

Ya, I think the hypocrisy of the republican leadership is definately creating voter apathy among the social conservative "base" that are actually consistant in thier values- I give an example on our board here as DR- if you read his debate on issues- he is staunchly social and fiscal conservative- and has disavowed his party because of it. At some point, to be consistant, if you label yourself as a conservative on the side of social or fiscal issues- you will have to abandon the Republican candidates as they stand today- and I think this next election cycle may see a low voter turnout among the social conservatives, while galvanizing the left who is pretty galvanzied to "throw the bums out" at this time.

Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

Since people keep pointing fingers at Democrats, I'll tell you how we should handle the matter.

First, stay out of the way, while Republicans chew each other up.

Second, when the matter starts to simmer down, Democrats should call attention to the matter - stir the pot - by saying it isn't an issue. Remember the 2004 presidential election. While the Swifties were hammering Kerry, Bush took the "high road" and announced periodically that Kerry's military record wasn't an issue.

The analolgy seems obvious. Keep the issue in play by denying it is an issue - ah, straight out of Karl Rove's playbook.

I believe it will really hurt them, but it really didn't have to had they taken the right course and dumped Hastert as soon as they could. We first heard that communication was "overly friendly" though I don't believe that anyone would seriously argue that it is benign when a 56 year old man requests a picture of a minor or refers to one as "my favorite young stud." On top of that, this explanation was clearly shot down as other Republicans responded rightly with indignation and calls for resignation. The next line of reasoning went along the lines that democrats were behind, a contention also without merit.

What should've been done? It would've been easier for them to ask Hastert to resign so that the conservative movement could keep going and not be impeded by him. Thank him for his service and ask for him to get help. Once you take care of that, then the republicans could say: "See, we take care of problems as they come up and we'll do that for the next four years when our majority is re-elected." Instead, they rallied behind a speaker whose reasoning and excuses are piling up, though not sticking. If they don't change this in the hurry, the democrats will keep it up. Now Foley's money is being used by the NRCC and the democrats are pointing that out. What will voters think when the NRCC uses money from a disgraced representative and potential sex offender? I think this is one situation where republicans are taking the wrong angle.

Well, this question was mostly answered in a Newsweek poll released yesterday, which painted a mightly black picture for the Republican party on many issues. On the issue of Foley:

Do you believe that House Speaker Dennis Hastert was aware of Congressman Mark Foley's inappropriate messages to teenage Congressional pages and tried to cover it up?
Yes: 53%
No: 24%
Undecided: 23%

Which party do you trust to do a better job of handling moral values?

Republicans: 36%
Democrats: 42%
Uncertain: 22%

Which party do you trust to do a better job of handling the war on terror and the war at home?

Republicans: 37%
Democrats: 44%
Uncertain: 19%

Both the two above polls are a complete reversal from the same question a year ago, and the first time the Democrats have led the Republicans on the two republican core issues, moral values and the war on terror.

It gets worse for the Republicans:

-Bush Jr. dropped to a low of 33% approval and an all time high of 59% disapproval (fewer undecided)

-A whopping 67% were 'dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time', only 25% (all time low of this President) were satisfied.

One of the most telling questions in the poll:




The Poll asked, in random order, a series of issues and then which party did the respondants think would do a better job: the list included: The war in Iraq, Health Care, the Economy, Federal Spending and the Deficit, Gas and Oil prices, Immigration, and the War on Terror.

In every single case, the Democrats polled better than the Republicans, in some cases, like the Economy, FAR better.


And what has this to do with Hastert? The poll also asked a series of questions about the issue, and its effect on voters. The most important one being:

"Has the Mark Foley matter and the way Congressional Republicans have handled it made you more likely or less likely to vote Republican for Congress this year - or has the Foley matter not made much difference either way?"

Total -- Rep - Dem - Ind
3 - More likely - 7 - 2 - 1
27 - Less likely - 9 - 42 - 27
65 - Will not make much difference - 81 - 49 - 69
5 - Don't know - 3 - 7 - 3
100 - 100 - 100 - 100

Notice the column for the all-important Independent voters.

The rest of the poll is just as bad, including for example, 64% of Americans believing the US is losing in Iraq, and so on.

Read the rest for yourself here.
http://www.quote.com/qc/news/story.aspx?sy...55_PRN_84065313


So, in the question of the effect on the Republicans in the November elections, the answer is a definite negative effect, compounded with everything else the Republicans have weighing against them right now. The question becomes not 'Bad or not', but 'Just HOW bad'...

There is no doubt that the Republicans have bad PR this week. Of course, the election isn't being held this week, the North Koreans just detonated a nuke, etc. Things can change.

What won't apparently change is that we are asked to draw conclusions about voters, when our "news" magazines ask questions of the general public. Not voters. I did the same thing you did in an earlier post, where I quoted Time magazine's poll before reading the fine print. If they aren't going to actually spend the money to screen for "likely voters" would it absolutely kill someone at Time or Newsweek to insert the following into their screener?

1. Are you a registered voter? [if "no" thank and terminate survey]

Here is the base for the survey you cite. Why not call up and ask why they didn't survey likely voters?

Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Deservedly or not it already has. Republicans were rebounding with the immigration and detainee bills showing unity and resolve. Foley has seemingly undid what they gained through those votes, and whilst undeniably a few weeks is a lot in politics, things wont change unless they can somehow find something new to do in order to get voters back. I read today that Foley actually had sex a page...even with something new, if this ghost wont get off the headlines their stuck.

First of all, your post had nothing to do with this debate, which is what I've been saying all along. I did use the word "republicans are scum-esque". Basically what I was implying is that your arguments all center around finger pointing, and have nothing to do with constructive debate.

Again, I employ you to show how:
1. The Republican party is responsible for this. We have no real knowledge of Hastert's or anyone else's understanding.
2. Why this isn't exactly the same, if not nearly as bad as the Studds and Clinton incidents, and why Dems are up in arms about something they ordinarily turn a blind eye to???

I've already, in numerous posts, argued that this is pure partisanship and nothing but a wedge in American society. The problem I have with this is that it's basically what liberals have defended for YEARS. What's the big deal?
I personally see it as sick and abnormal, but not a party issue. The dude resigned. He's gone. From what I can tell, no one really knows... and ABC can't even get their facts 100% straight.

If Democrats, historically as a party, feel that these kinds of impropriety are negligible, why do so many liberals care???

Please respond with arguments that discuss these notions.

EDIT: removed a clause which does not conform to the Rules. --AMLord

aevens176,

The IF part of the question has problems. I don't know of very many liberals, none actually, who condone man-on-boy sex. Man-on-girl sex, if the girl is actually a young woman, is a little more accepted, but face it: Plenty of Demos were ticked off for what Clinton did to Lewinski. Not only was it politically stupid to give the opposition that sledge hammer, it had plenty of ick to it too.

Nobody condones sex with the underaged.

The second part of the question has an obvious answer. Foley gave over a sledge hammer, and now it's being used. One might frame this question as to how come so many Republicans are acting surprised that some Democrats are using the sledge hammer handed over?

The answer is equally as obvious: This is how politics works. If you can hang the idea of sexual deviance on the opposition, that's quite an advantage. Being Democrat and/or liberal is being sexually deviant in some, if not most, conservative minds. So the ick factor intensifies when a Republican is deviant.

Liberals care because more seats in Congress will go Demo than before. It's pretty straight-forward. There's also the emotional level of finally seeing the king of the moral hill get knocked down. Meanwhile, future pages might be more aware of the things that go on, and maybe for a while more politicians will try to keep their sexual appetites in check. There's an element of progressiveness in this, although I'd call it the weak force. Winning is the strong force.

While left unsaid, perhaps aevans176 was referring to liberal icons such as Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, long-time counsel for the ACLU and practicing supreme court justice. She has written, and never publically disavowed, in a report authored along with Brenda Fasteau, that the age of consent for purposes of statutory rape be lowered from 16 to 12. Click link and go to page 69. She was also for legalization of prostitution and against "Mother's Day" among other gems. When Bill Clinton, given his proclivities, nominates someone of those beliefs to the highest court in the land, why would we think them anything but ambivalent on such moral matters?

If my post FINALLY got you to admit you were "implying" I had said something that I never had, then it had everything with this debate. It's a total waste of time trying to enter into "constructive debate" with someone who fabricates statements of our thin air.



1. The Republican Party is responsible for this because Mark Foley was a Republican congressman and as we have learned his behavior was setting off alarms in the House as far back as 2000. The Republican Party is responsible because the party has designated itself as the defenders of morality and family values and this scandal flies in the face of all that hype. And finally, the Republican Party is responsible because IF it proven that Hastert, Reynolds, Boehner, Shimkus and anyone else in the GOP leadership knew of Foley's predatory proclivities and did nothing but nod and wink, then they enabled Foley to engage in his sleazy behavior. And no matter how much you want to dismiss it as "finger pointing" SOMEONE is responsible and most of the polls assign that responsibility to the Republicans.

2. What does exactly the same, if not nearly as bad really mean? The Clinton comparison is a particularly bad one. Bill Clinton, a married man, cheated on his wife with a adult female in a consensual/i], if illicit, sexual relationship. How does that have anything to do with a closeted gay man in his fifties engaged in explicit instant messenging sex with a 16 year old kid?

Regarding Gerry Studds, the Democratic-controlled House did censure Studds (and voters returned him to his seat five more times). But explain to me how the perverse behavior of Studds justifies the perverse behavior of Foley? You've trying to have it both ways, Aevans176. In one breath you say how repulsed you are by what Foley did and then in the next say, "Oh, but what the Democrats have done is just as bad, if not worse."

That line of thinking is not flying with the American people. Republicans blaming others for their own failures of character is not going to make people forget which party Foley belonged to and how long they allowed him to get away with cruising for boys in the halls of Congress.

QUOTE

I've already, in numerous posts, argued that this is pure partisanship and nothing but a wedge in American society. The problem I have with this is that it's basically what liberals have defended for YEARS. What's the big deal?

I personally see it as sick and abnormal, but not a party issue. The dude resigned. He's gone. From what I can tell, no one really knows... and ABC can't even get their facts 100% straight.

If Democrats, historically as a party, feel that these kinds of impropriety are negligible, why do so many liberals care???

The big deal is despite your slander to the contrary, "liberals" do not advocate middle-age men engaging in sexual acts or X-rated conversations with underage or teen-age boys or girls. That's the Ann Coulter-style of "debate" where you first slime your opponent and then feign surprise when they protest. You've tried that style several times in this thread. The only people it convinces are the incredibly stupid or the extremely naive.

Despite what you may think, "liberals" and "Democrats" don't want to see their kids served up as treats to child molesters and perverts with sick imaginations and a Congressional pension. This kind of ad hominem attack is a wildly exaggerated ploy to excuse the incompetence of GOP leadership in the House.

If there's anyone who's having a hard time getting their facts 100 percent straight it's Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, Shimkus and other Republicans who can't remember who told them what when and who knew anything about what was going on with Foley and the pages.

[i]Gaps and inconsistencies in the public accounts include such basic matters as when House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and his top aides first learned of concerns about Foley's relationships with male pages, and what they did about it. Also unclear is which GOP officials decided that only two members of the six-person House Page Board should confront the Florida lawmaker.

link

Liberals are not monolithic. However I feel fairly safe in answering "why do liberals care?" by saying liberals care because liberals want to believe our elected officials are motivated more in trying to carry out the will of the American people and look out for their interests than they are in lining their pockets and working out their sexual fantasies. Liberals care because most of them probably would be honored to have one of their sons or daughters serve as a Congressional page and hope they could send their child off to Washington without them becoming chum for two-legged sharks cruising for a tasty snack.

I have, though I'm sure you will predictably reply that I haven't. How unfortunate for you that I don't feel a need to tailor my response to suit your need to determine what is and what is not a credible response.

So... using your logic, why did the Democrats re-elect Studds numerous times? He was actually HAVING SEX with a page. YES- sex with the page. Then, the democrats re-elected this guy...
Clinton was having relations with an intern. Yes- sexual relations with an intern.

I'd suppose that most liberals would be honored to have their sons or daughters be pages/interns with these folks too? ? ? ? ?

Why the contrast in ideology? Is it because of the party??? hmm...

You can't disavow what you never said. I'm surprised you haven't caught on to this too-good-to-be true proof of liberal immorality. It's an example of conservatives making the worst possible assumption about liberals because we don't take every opportunity to grandstand moral issues like conservatives do. Ginsburg was arguing for removing gender bias favoring girls/women in sexual assault legislation. She wasn't addressing age, but because she quoted a piece of legislation that demonstrated some of her concerns it's too tempting for some to pass up an opportunity to characterize liberals as sympathetic to NAMBLA. It's a long explanation but worth the read:


The added irony of Graham's libelous charge is that statutory rape laws may never have gotten off the ground without the feminist movement arguing for them along with Christians on the basis that it was waste of resources to blithely accept 13 year-old girls getting pregnant, marrying, and contributing little intellectually and economically to the society in which they lived. There are newspaper accounts of girls as young as 12 giving birth in colonial times. But don’t let any of this get in the way of saving America.

See now carlitoswhey, here might be a reason why people are no longer trusting Republicans.

I searched the whole PDF for the phrase lowered from 16 to 12. It's not in there. I did this search after carefully reading page 69. This isn't even part of the theme.

On the Mother's Day thing, the proposal is to replace both Mother's Day and Father's Day with a single observation, Parents' Day, which is hardly being against "Mother's Day", as claimed.

On legalizing prostitution, that's in there.

So, one out of three. Guess that's what people are thinking: Two lies for every truth, and then it's hardly ever the whole truth either. The next thought is, if the Republicans have to make up things about the Democrats, how come the Democrats do not have to create nonfiction fantasies about the Republicans?

Then comes, maybe we want those Democrats running things. They don't have to make up things about the Republicans. Maybe they'll be more truthful with us.

Not fully truthful, mind you. We are talking about politicians and elections.

Why? Uh...because it's not true, despite your implication that it is? Thanks anyway though for yet another example of "guilt by association" and passing the buck, carlitoswhey.

So Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a champion of legalized prostitution, opposed to Mother's Day and wanted to lower the age of consent. Wow. How did such a dangerous radical ever get on the Supreme Court?

By a vote of 96 to 3, that's how!

Ginsburg's "yea" votes includes such "liberal icons" as Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, Al D'Amato, Phil Gramm and Strom Thurmond. Guess they didn't know what kind of dangerous moonbat they were handing a lifetime appointment to.

Ginsburg's wide margin of support from Democrat and Republican senators isn't as impressive as John Paul Stevens (99-0) Antonin Scalia (98-0), or Anthony Kennedy (97-0), but it is better than David Souter (90-9),
Steven Breyer (87-9), John Roberts (78-22), Samuel Alito (58-42) or poor Clarence Thomas (52-48).

Despite your extremely selective reading of Ginsburg's judicial philosophy and wild leaps of logic that her positions mirror those of the president that nominated her and by extension, the senators that voted for her, this STILL does nothing to establish an aberrant modus vivendi peculiar to Democrats.

Mark Foley is still the poster boy of immorality, decadence, depravity and perversion. You still can't explain what he did even on without censoring the vulgar details.

And this time the stink of it all clings to the Republican Party.

All the apples and oranges polemics doesn't alter that sorry fact.

It seems the Republicans just keep shooting each other. Rep. Jim Kolbe dropped another bombshell, a top Republican cancelled a meeting and Rep. Tom Davis called for the resignation of anyone involved in a cover up.

All this on a day when I thought news of events in North Korea would overshadow everything else.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2543551

Is this one of those, "When did you stop beating your wife?" kind of questions you enjoy so much, Aevans176?

The longer you keep posting in this thread the less sense your posts make. When you use mulitple question marks like that does that mean you don't understand or you really, really don't understand?

Regarding Big Gay Gerry Studds, why are you asking me why he got reelected five times? He's not my Congressman. I didn't live in his district, so I'm not going to try and explain why the voters in his district kept sending him back to Washington. I still haven't figured out why supposedly intelligent people voted for George W. Bush twice.

The rest of your post? It's just another dogmatic tirade. Not a particularly well-reasoned tirade at that and designed to incite a knee-jerk reaction instead of reasoned debate.

Thanks, but I'll pass.

This has what do to with the republican party?
No one can pin this on republican leadership. Please post otherwise if you can.

You perpetually use words like "polemics in order to avert the ideas that I've put forth. The fact of the matter is that you can insult the number of question marks used, you can use "holier than thou" verbiage, or whatever other ploy you'd like.... but you still haven't debated the notion that in very contemporary history, the Democrats of this nation have allowed actions this deplorable or worse to slide.



So... using contemporary liberal logic... should he be re-elected? You can't sit on both sides of the fence here. You either say that democrats shouldn't have supported Clinton's philandering in the white house and Studd's having sex with pages, or you can say that sexual exploits of this nature are just peachy. Which is it?

She criticizes the statutory rape law making it illegal to have sex with a girl under 16, cites the penalty of 15 years as too harsh. She then favorably cites the Senate bill as "conforming to the equality principle" and that Senate bill contains the 12-year-old reference. She is basically for that bill, with the exception that it replace "female" with "person."

In the paper, she advocates that 18 USC S. 1153 and 2032 be changed "to conform to Senate Bill 1400." Which uses gender neutral language and features an age of 12 not 16.

Moreover, she dislikes the Mann Act, saying that it is "an invasion of privacy," which is a direct parallel with today's Democratic Party position that taking an underage girl (whom an adult man has likely impregnated) across state lines for an abortion. Pelosi et al refer consistently to this young, pregnant girl as a "young woman" with "reproductive rights guaranteed by the Constitution."


Are you saying that liberals aren't sympathetic to NAMBLA? Ginsburg was general counsel of the ACLU, and the ACLU defended NAMBLA in the Curley case. Pelosi was in the San Fran gay pride parade along with Harry Hay... Wait, you were just kidding, right?


Just curious, if Lindsey Graham leveled a libelous charge at a Supreme Court Justice, him being a lawyer, ex-Judge Advocate General and all, why hasn't that charge been pursued, you know, by the libelee? The idea of removing age of consent laws has been around for a while since the sexual revolution. I had heard this somewhere before, but can only find this link to a Christian site due to limited Googling. If you want the original FBI site, click here, then go to part one, then scroll to page 51 of the PDF...


I mean, it was the sexual revolution, baby. Ginsburg was just hip, that's all. She's no square.




This particular PDF doesn't search by text. It's a scanned image of a typed document that has not gone through OCR software.

Mmm Hmm. Tell that to my mother. If I want to replace Christmas and Hanukah with "festivus" am I against Christmas - yes or no?



Interesting that you don't have time to debate substance of this debate about 'who knew what and when' as you continued to conflate emails and IMs, but when a liberal ox like Ginsburg is gored, it's chum in the water.

Well, Clinton had problems keeping his hands off the ladies. He nominated a judge for SCOTUS that was all for gender equality, and who was morally affronted with protecting the 'virtue' of girls. I'm just sayin'

As for the senators who voted for Ginsburg, I actually agree with them. She's a competent jurist, and I disagree with her philosophy. It's the President's prerogative to set the tone with judicial nominations. When she was nominated, the Senate took "advise and consent" to mean just that. Other than Bork, that's how it was supposed to work. Even if the judge believes, like Ginsburg, that the Constitution is the "story of the extension of Constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded" or that we should use international law for guidance, or that men and women are really the same, etc.

edited for bad linkage

How do you know AM didn't mean a manual/visual rather than an electronic search? Up until a few short years ago, that was the only way to do it.

Actually, if carlitoswhey read what I had actually wrote, I did both kinds of searches. Maybe he didn't scroll to the beginning of the PDF and see the electronic search part of the document. Well, maybe that electronic search feature doesn't work on his machine, or maybe he doesn't have the whole Acrobat application, just the reader. I don't know and I don't care. The fact of the matter is that he implied a quote when there was none. Lesly mentioned that the quote came from a reference, which I didn't find either. Whatever, I have the whole Acrobat app and I did the electronic search, and after nearly thirty years in this bidness, I don't need a tech lecture.

So, the proper way to refute this finding is to give the accurate page number of the alleged quote, not do the attack-on-the-person type of argument.

Regarding the Mother's Day argument, so what if Christmas becomes Winter Holiday or whatever? Everyone knows by now that Jesus was not born on December 25th, except for those who cling to mythology. Meanwhile, religions (not government, knock-knock) can celebrate whatever whenever.

And I might add that the feeling of one mother doesn't mean anything in this debate. My mother doesn't care, she's long gone. Lydia is a mother, and she doesn't care. There, I just doubled my sources in regards to this silly line of argument.

I think this kind of reaching argumentation is definitely turning people away from Republicans.

It's maddening, like a schoolyard fight. Just admit to being wrong, misleading or whatever obvious thing is going on. The example given is an extremely weak sample of low Democratic morality. The PDF, searchable on my superior system , does support the true Democratic value of legal equality among the sexes and the realistic movement away from treating women as objects.

How does Mom feel about that? Lydia's all for it. My Mom is agreeing through silence.

Edit add: Just FYI, the search icon in a PDF is a pair of binoculars. If you don't have the icon, then you need the full Acrobat application. Mine is Version 7. I use it often in freelance tech writing gigs.

I summarized what the case was in my earlier post last night.

I don't understand the complaints here. I attacked no one. I was merely alerting you that the document I linked was not electronically searchable. If you click the binoculars and search for "the" it will come up empty, so it would be pointless to search for "age of consent". Not OCR scanned. Geez, I was trying to help here.

My arguments and page references are in my post responding to Lesly. 69 - 72.

I'll make this as simple as possible for you. Mark Foley was a Republican representative. The leaders of the House of Representatives are all Republicans. Mark Foley resigned in disgrace (and one step ahead of a FBI investigation). Since then it's the Republican Party that has been defending themselves from Mark Foley's bad acts.

How much simpler can I make this for you?



Are you going to ask and answer your own questions? If you are, then don't let me interrupt your monologue. Using your contemporary conservative logic, Republicans can excuse their sleazy behavior by pointing the finger at Democrats. Still playing the blame game and ducking taking individual responsibility, Aevans176?

To the heart of the matter, there are Democratic sex scandals (Clinton, Studds, Condit) and there are Republican sex scandals (Foley, Packwood, Crane). This is a Republican scandal. That doesn't make Democratic sex scandals "clean" and Republican sex scandals "dirty." The difference here is Democrats never tried to pass themselves off as the squeaky-clean guardians of morality and family values.

The Republicans did and now the chicken have come home to roost. Sucks for them.

carlitoswhey,

Okay, apology accepted. However, I don't need help using the full version of Adobe on the downloaded document. You are right that the PDF on the site is not electronically searchable, but if one downloads it and runs Adobe V 7, not the simple and highly useless reader, the document can be searched.

Let's see, seems your argument involves the notion that lowering the age of consent for any reason is immoral.

Therefore, Democrats are immoral.

Why? Because one has brought up the idea on handling a particular abortion issue. Okay, by your definition, bringing up this idea is immoral and sticks to all Democrats.

I, and maybe a lot of other people, don't accept this line of argument. I, and maybe a lot of other people, think it's reaching so far out as to be nearly meaningless.

Back to Foley. I guess because he likes sex with young boys, all Republicans like it? Naw, that's really stretching, isn't it. So I won't go down that path.

So be careful. Pushing this type of argumentation just might make all Republicans stick to Foley in the minds of too many lazy thinkers who also vote.

Just trying to help out here