I disagree... in that the statement has a point. It's hard to take crticism from anyone involved with a party that has made a history centered around bad behavior. For "Drunk driving Murderer" Ted Kennedy to still be a part of politics says something in itself.

Well, first let me preface this by saying that there's not one Senator I dislike more than Ted Kennedy...That having been said, he isn't a murderer, and bringing up Chappaquiddick makes Shays look desperate and mean-spirited. Ted Kennedy being a disgraceful human being doesn't take away from the fact that Mark Foley is a disgraceful human being. The Republicans should not be trying to take lemons [inappropriate relationship between Foley and a page] and make lemonade [attacking Democrats], they should be defending Hastert and making it clear that they had no prior knowledge of Foley's hijinks, if that is the case.

CP

I won't be able to give Carlito's post the attention it deserves. Too many reading assignments is deleterious to writing. God may also be against me. It seems the college accidentally ordered Apple computers in the new labs. I hate these things. Sorry if this sounds disjointed.


How far do you have to dig to reach the creatively damning conclusions smattered across your entire post? Even the link you provide isn't as far reaching as your insistence that Ginsburg wants to lower the age of consent to 12. Maybe that's because even Eugene Volokh admits Graham's parsing of Ginsburg's paper doesn't add up.

Why is it you're not inclined to make the worst assumptions about Bush's intentions but you give your bias free reign here? Page 69 has more to do with 18 U.S.C. 2198 than S. 1400. 2198 relates to "penalties for seducing a female passenger for on an American vessel by employees of the vessel." Then Ginsburg mentions S. 1400:


I'm not sure what to add in part because I don't think anything more needs to be said. I don't want to sound like a frothing moonbat but your assumption honestly makes me wonder what kind of crack conservatives smoke to fan the paranoia that mentioning S. 1400's gender-neutral language in the context of a gender-nuetral discussion is the same as a full endorsement of the bill unless Ginsburg makes the distinction loud and clear enough for people already inclined to make the worst assumptions to support their perception of liberals. I mean you undermine your own point by admitting "...she advocates that 18 USC S. 1153 and 2032 be changed 'to conform to Senate Bill 1400.' Which uses gender neutral language [snip]". I don't see where she criticizes the legal age of consent (16) and the time served for statutory rape, but you need more than Ginsburg's "See S. 1400" reference to demonstrate Ginsburg's full endorsement of S. 1400 and if Volokh is right, quoting S. 1400's lowered age requirement was a mistake.


Let me start responding by congratulating your innocent distortion of the Democratic Party's position on taking underage girls across state lines to get an abortion. And furthermore let me congratulate you on linking the CCPA to the Mann Act. Frankly I'm not surprised Ginsburg is against it. The "white slavery" act of 1910 was so broadly worded the Supreme Court ruled adults traveling across state lines to engage in consensual sex outside of marriage was illegal. I didn't notice moral outrage in Congress when McCain got everyone to posthumously pardon black boxer Jack Johnson who was convicted under the righteous legislation in question.


The ACLU stepped in to support NAMBLA's free speech rights, not endorse NAMBLA's agenda. (Say Carlito, why don't you change your signature and send copies of Columbine to NRA headquarters? Some lunatic could access the NRA's website and go on a killing spree, after all. Don't you care about the children?) I can defend my prejudices by throwing around crazy conspiracy theories too. Did you know the ACLU defended a Pennsylvania couple's right to display pro-life signs on their lawn in violation of a borough ordinance? This means the ACLU endorses the pro-life agenda!

No, it means the ACLU support's the couple's free speech rights and it supports NAMBLA's free speech rights. But that's an inconvenient fact when you choose to ignore.


By that reasoning everyone and anyone who participates in a gay pride parade believes what NAMBLA believes. Well, if you believe this is reason enough to call liberals immoral it's not hard to see why you'd think three words in Ginsburg's paper amounts to full endorsement of S. 1400.


I don't know, Carlito. Maybe the Justices don't want to help politicize the Court any more than it already is for political gain. I wonder why the Justices have a habit of speaking past one another. I wonder, too, why Ginsburg waits until she's in Africa to reveal she and O'Connor have been threatened by fringe right-wing groups. I'd be curious to know if the threat had anything to do with O'Connor's decision to step down.


Sure, the idea of changing statutory rape laws have been around for a while. Sure, a few groups want to repeal the age of consent. I don't know why posting a 1972 gay rights platform should be understood as an idea fully endorsed by the liberal establishment but if you've proven anything it is you have an imagination capable of accommodating your aspersions. I mean to think that Ginsburg prefers changing Mother's Day with Parent's Day. Some sick father advocacy group might cheer wildly at the thought. Worst yet, she agrees with the libertarian view, and some posters on , that the government should not make prostitution between adults illegal. What a dog, that Ginsburg.

You're really starting to bore me Aevans176 with the blanket statements. Why don't you just say you hate Democrats and get it off your chest?

What's this "we" stuff? Are you part French? Please spare yourself the embarrassment of still clinging to the GOP jive about standing for "morals." Strom Thurmond conceived a out-of-wedlock black love child and he was hardly "divulged" from the group. Ask Trent Lott when he was singing "Happy Birthday" to the old fossil.

If you bother to follow and actually read these links before you rant, you'll find that in most cases when politicians on both sides of the aisle get caught in compromising situations they either fall on their sword or leave it up to the voters to forgive them or fire them.

Congressional Sex Scandals 1

sex scandals 2

In the case of Bill Clinton, I have always believed he was the victim of a politically motivated witch hunt led by the Far Right including Tom DeLay and Richard Mellion Scaife. In the case of Gerry Studds, he proves Tip O'Neil's observation that "all politics are local." While he might have deserved national scorn, apparently, the majority of voters in his district thought he was doing a fine job. The will of the people and all that...



Ugh. I used to think Chris Shays was a pretty good guy, but to drag Chappaquiddick up is really a no-class move. As the elections get closer, the politicians get stupider.

What's next? Demand an investigation into whether John and Bobby Kennedy knocked off Marilyn Monroe?

Good job with skirting the truth. Go ahead and put the tin foil back on your head and paying homage to the Clinton idols in your 1 bedroom abode.... because there's one common theme with Clinton and Studds that you continually negate (aside from making Conspiracy theory notions).
BOTH WERE/ARE ACCEPTED BY THE GENERAL LIBERAL POPULATION. Studds continued to be re elected until 1996.

This also doesn't discuss our friend Barney Frank-D, who reportedly was running a gay house of ill repute and the nation knew about it... then was re-elected on numerous occasions as well. He was almost kicked out of Congress, but then Democrat voters just turned a blind eye on election day... what do ya know...

Something you will not find with Republican voters is a sex scandal followed by re-election...

It's not that I hate Democrats, but moreover that I despise partisanship among a group known for it's forgiveness of people who behave poorly in this light.

I don't believe that the hypocrisy seen on this board, and furthermore on the national scene is anything but political SPIN. The facts are that Republicans, even on the link you provided, haven't re-elected someone like this. We don't idolize people cut of this cloth. It's inevitable that you'll have bad apples... and if you throw them away it's no big deal... history has shown that at times American Democrats the bad apples...over and over again.

You mean this Eugene Volokh?



I distort, you decide.

H.R. 278, H.R. 748.
Vote on Passage of a Bill to Prohibit Anyone From Transporting a Minor Across State Lines to Seek an Abortion for the Purpose of Avoiding State Parental Consent or Notification Laws.
- - - - - - -aye - nay
Republican 216 - 11
Democratic 54 - 145

On the Mann Act, I acquiesce to your superior position. My bad for throwing it in there.

As for this, you are on your own. NAMBLA and their free speech were dispicable. Their publications on how to 'groom' and to escape detection were criminal, and the ACLU was wrong.


No, by that reasoning, anyone seen in a public parade three floats away from Harry Hay is a gay-vote pandering idiot. The most innocent explanation is that she didn't know, despite Harry "NAMBLA walks with me" had this position since 1986. The most sinister is that she vacuously believes in their "free speech" or whatever. In either case, it's a tough argument for why you should be Speaker of the House.


The 1972 document was contemporaneous to the Ginsburg publication. I thought it was relevant. I don't think that Dems want to change age of consent laws; they are probably quite happy legally diddling 16-year-olds when they are in Washington DC.

Still repeating yourself. Still boring....



....and still not reading before you rant.

(1993) Rep. Ken Calvert (R. CA) was discovered by the police, in his home town of Corna, naked in his car and in the company of a local prostitute performing a sex act on him. He tried to flee when police confronted him, but was caught. For months he stonewalled, insisting that "nothing happened." When a court order forced police to release their report of the episode, Calvert acknowledged the incident, but claimed he was not aware the woman was a prostitute. He said he had not paid her. He explained his behavior was triggered by the fact that his father had recently committed suicide, and his wife had left him. It worked. Congressman Calvert squeaked through his primary. Nothing more became of the matter, and he remained in Congress.

(1998) Placing himself ahead of a story that was about to break in the media, Rep. Dan Burton (R. IN), one of President Clinton's harshest critics about Monica Lewinsky and other perceived problems, confessed that in the 1980s, he had caused three marital separations and a near-divorce, with one of his affairs producing an illegitimate child whom Burton had supported for years. Notwithstanding his hypocrisy, voters returned him to Congress with an overwhelming vote of confidence.

(1998) "I believe that personal conduct and integrity does matter," Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R. ID) said in calling for President Clinton's resignation following the revelation of his affair with Monica. Chenoweth’s home state newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, quickly called her on her hypocrisy, revealing that she had earlier had an adulterous affair. This right-wing, family values advocate, was forced to admit that she "was involved in a relationship that I came to regret, that I'm not proud of." The relationship had occurred some 14 years earlier, and voters merely chuckled as they returned her to Congress.

(1998) House Judiciary Committee chairman Henry Hyde (R. IL), as he was leading the impeachment drive against President Clinton, was forced to offer his resignation from heading up the impeachment effort, when Salon.com reported that he'd had an extended extramarital affair. Salon editor David Talbot received a call from a 72-year-old retiree, Norman Sommer, who said that Hyde had been a home-wrecker in his affair with Cherie Snodgrass, an attractive young woman with three children, which lasted five years, 1965-69. It caused a divorce. When confronted, Hyde admitted that he and Cherie were "good friends" but claimed the statute of limitations had passed on his "youthful indiscretions." Speaker Gingrich advised Hyde not to resign, and the matter blew over. Hyde, a widower, was unaffected politically, other than by the tarnish of his hypocrisy.

(emphasis added for the partisan)

Reading is Fundamental

Time and time again, self-described liberals and/or Democrats have condemned sexual scandals by Democrats in this thread. But you're so desperate to rationalize Republican sleazeballs, all you can do is blindly ignore those posts and throw mud at the other party. That's cool though, because the more mud you throw, the more ends up sticking to you. Or is that "we?"



"American Democrats (blank) the bad apples...over and over again."

WHAT do American Democrats do with the bad apples over and over again, Aevans176?

Can you hook a brutha up with a verb?

Almost. I meant this Eugene Volokh, the one with the headline: IT LOOKS LIKE JUSTICE GINSBURG LIKELY WAS THE VICTIM OF A DRAFTING ERROR after all; and it looks like I erroneously failed to recognize just how likely this was to be an error, because you know, some people are capable of admitting they jumped to the wrong conclusion later on. Nine days later in Volokh's case, to be precise. You didn’t have to force me to prove you wrong again, but thanks for the opportunity.


No kidding. Why do you think I was referring to how Democrats voted? Vote tallies are so helpful when it comes to putting perspectives in context that Ohio residents should get bombarded with idiotic campaign commercials recalling how Democratic and Republican senators and congressmen voted 365 days a year.

It’s been nice playing shooting fish in a barrel with you.

Please define the "general liberal population."

Studds was reelected by the voters of Massachusetts. Are you assuming that he would have been relected in other blue states - Minnesota and Michigan, for example.

BTW: Please let up on the all caps; it's harder to read. We now have a highlight tool that works well.

You are en fuego today!

OK, so my characterization of Ginsburg was two out of three - no Mother's Day, and legalized prostitution. I'll shut the hell up now.

I don't understand your response here, but shall I infer that the Democratic party supports the meaningless slaughter of fish? Firearms?

Here's the basic thing, provided to us by AuthorMusician in the other thread. Very sensibly put, if I may say so.
So, shame on the Republicans for holding themselves out as holier-than-thou, since it sets them up for a disaster like this. The Democrats know this, and they themselves are a tad more relaxed about such things, and they smartly exploited the hypocrisy by orchestrating the email release at election time. Good for them, but I don't think it's curtains for the Senate or House just yet. If I were the RNC, I'd run "Speaker Pelosi" "Committee Chair Rangel" "Military sub-committee head Murtha" ads in all 40 tight races for the next month.

Back to the debate question, the impact is being completely overstated. Those polls cited by Time, The New York Times, and Newsweek aren't worth the newsprint they are printed on. I'll give details when I get more time to study the samples, but they aren't likely (or in 2 cases, even registered) voters, they oversampled Democrats, they don't apply to the districts "in play," etc. Rubbish polls, designed to print the headlines that the liberal newsrooms want out there in October. Nothing more than transparent efforts to drive down Republican turnout.

Sure... but you'd probably spin it. make fun of typos... because your post lacks other substance.

Is a man cheating on his wife a scandal? Should someone be removed from Congress for an affair? Is it the same as having an affair with an intern in the oval office, then lying under oath about it?
Maybe you'd say so, but I wouldn't be surprised.

I will concede that the 93 example of a man in a car with a prostitute was a good example about Republicans. That one is pretty shady, and embarrassing to boot. I don't see affairs as that cut/dry.

However, the point I've made time and time again is that you can't pin this on the Republican party any more than I can pin crimes made by other black men on the race.... it's just fundamental.

I also have said plainly that I find it interesting that the press and DNC have made such a big deal of sexual relationships (albeit not physical) with Pages/Interns, etc... considering Democrats track record.

The funny thing about this subject in general is that there could be a number of implications, partial truths, and even an opportunity for some people to take the high road and act like adults. However, all it's turned into is a name-calling and adolescent witch hunt. What does this have to do with Republicans? Nothing more than crack dealers in prison have to do with those they happen to have associated with... of course unless you have that little tin conspiracy hat on your head.... (i.e. Clinton was framed and it was a conspiracy.. blah-blah-blah....)

Is this really the debate we want to be having ladies and gents? Which party has more sexual indiscretions? Can't we just agree that a 60-something year old man talking about things that would make Ron Jeremy blush with an underaged page is something that will most likely reflect badly on those who may or may not have known about it beforehand? Does this really have to turn into "Yeah, but look who you're guys had sex with"? I just don't see what point you're really making Aevans? Sure, Dems have done some messed up things in the past, does that alter the fact that Republicans who may or may not have known about Foley's sexcapades will take a political hit for it? I don't get it.

CP

You are correct, any party that would have as a leading member a person convicted of murder is abominable, and based on that alone the Democrats should be censu...

Oh, you mean he was never convicted of murder? OK, well even so, anyone who was charged with murder, or even a lesser charge of the same ilk...

Oh, you mean he was never charged with murder? In fact he was never even investigated for murder, nor was he ever charged with Drunk driving, in fact the police on the scene reported that the incident was clearly an accident?

Gee Aevans, that doesn't quite dovetail with your open comment about him being a 'drunk driving murderer'. Should we assume all the rest of your comments about the Democratic party and its members have the same loose affiliation with the truth as this one?

I hope you don't get caught in another obvious factual distortion like that one, it might ruin your rep entirely.



Yes, absolutely. Any man found guilty of running a gay-brothel should be censured and removed from politics immediately...

Oh wait, you mean he was never accused, let alone convicted of ANYTHING of the sort, and in fact it was his PARTNER that was running a telephone escort service? And both Frank AND his partner told the police that he had no knowledge of this whatsoever?


I'm beginning to wonder just how much we can trust ANY of your anti-democratic distortions here Aevans. Have you been hanging around with Ted lately?



Is that even close to what is happening? Is anybody at all claiming that is what is happening? The Foley thing is bad, and probably lost the Republicans a few voters and one seat, but according to the polls (all of them) and the analysts, its the cover-up that is killing the party. Thats where the actions of one man suddenly get reflected on the leadership of the party, which seems to be exactly what is happening.


Nightimer has already destroyed your emphatic (and bolded) pronouncement that Republicans would NEVER allow such a person to stand again and be re-elected: that turned out to be about as accurate as your two previous statements above.


And I would still like to hear your comment on my previous point. If the Democrats have 'no right to be outraged' about this sex scandal because they had some of their own a Generation ago, does EXACTLY THE SAME argument not also apply to the hypocrisy of the Republicans facing Clinton's wanderings, given the chequered sexual past of their own party?

In the end, the reason this is having SUCH a negative impact on the Republicans now is simple. The Republicans have had several bastions of strength in the last few years, and one has been their eternal insistence on being the party of moral values. Now Foley's actions, and far worse, the coverup (however extensive it turns out to be) have knocked that out from under them. As I said, if this had happened in isolation it would not be so bad, but the number of bad-news-events and policy failures the Republicans are facing in the last year (or 5) have mounted to a spectacular number, and facing that is a list of policy successes that is pretty close to zero.



Firstly, I have always wanted to ask you: why the extra H in your name?

More importantly, I must question your dismissal of these polls.

Firstly, we are talking not one, but many polls saying exactly the same thing. Now your only valid criticism of them is that they are not district specific, but then they never claimed to be, so I’m not sure what your point is.

As for them not necessarily being registered voters, so what? Unless you have some evidence that shows that NON-registered voters favour one party or the other, this has no bearing at all. Polls of registered and non-registered voters have always shown remarkable, often exact similarity in the past, because one can safely assume the sampling of non-registered voters also affects the smaller sampling group of registered voters. That’s what basic maths tell us anyways.

Besides, even if we were to accept your criticisms of those polls, when in doubt I always go to Gallup, the single most respected polling agency on planet earth, which neither side in decades of polls has ever managed to slander or dismiss:

http://www.galluppoll.com/ELECTION2006/

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=24913

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24931

Note the bottom paragraph of the last page, where they dissect the unregistered/ registered/ likely voter differences. Gallup asks if people are registered.


Hard to argue with the impact here. Now of course, this cannot be attributable entirely to Foley and the cover-up, the fact of the reports on policy failures of the last 6-months (Senate Report on no link between Iraq and Al Qaida, Intelligence report stating the War in Iraq made the US less safe, etc), and the substantial and increasing body count in Iraq are all massive factors.

In the end, I think it seems pretty likely the Republicans are heading for a nasty fall, losing control of both Houses, and a large part of that is the Foley scandal and cover-up.


It seems the American people are not buying the ‘Oh yeah, well THEY did the same thing 33 years ago” Argument…

I conflated the movie with the dairy product.


There are only 40 districts in play. If 99% of the voters in the other 395 districts chose incumbents, yet 51% of voters in the key 40 choose Republicans, the poll could still be accurate, yet completely misleading.


Well, in the Times poll, 41% of respondents didn't vote in 2002, yet 86% of them claim they will vote this time. This poll also sampled 35% Dems to 30% Republicans, which is oversampling. It oversamples young voters, who never turn out in numbers. It significantly oversamples (20% to 14%) people who never go to church, who vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

That's just one poll. I don't have time for others just now. My issue here is that the polls are being mis-used to generate sensational, misleading headlines. Evangelicals and conservatives are not deserting the Republican party in droves. Most engaged Republicans shudder at the idea of a Speaker Pelosi ... Yes, Democrats are angry and motivated, and "this time" they are actually going to show up and vote. It could happen, but I've heard that before.

Your Gallup points are good ones, I can't fully digest the generic ballot idea, but they look reasonably accurate for aggregate, directional data. Key ® races to watch are DeWine, Talent, Webb and Corker, and they all seem to have momentum right now, despite current events.

The news cycle moves so fast now, I bet Harry Reid doesn't even remember when the "culture of corruption" was going to be the big issue.

I thought the sarcasm in the second half of my last post wasn’t clear. I was obtuse. Ohioans are being bombarded with 15 – 30 second infomercials about candidates by other politicians and non-profits. The commercials almost always go from something the politician said s/he stands for to a bill the politician voted for (or against). All the commercials make the same point: candidate x doesn’t care about issue y. They can only appeal to party loyalists. Anyone with two brain cells knows Senate and House voting records alone can’t demonstrate a Democratic candidate doesn’t support the troops and a Republican candidate wants to send jobs overseas. Likewise the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act voting record fails to put Democratic nay votes in perspective. They were against it partly because no exception was made for the minor if she was raped by her father (Republicans refused to grant other family members immunity from the law), and partly because when Democrats did insert their amendments, the Republican-led Committee on the Judiciary “rewrote all five amendments” to make it appear Democrats wanted to exempt rapists from prosecution.

You were taking issue with Ginsburg’s stance on moral issues. I was defending Ginsburg’s positions and liberal (as an ideology) morality. You brought up Ginsburg’s objection to The Mann Act and juxtaposed it with Pelosi’s vote on the CCPA/CIANA. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, I don’t find anything immoral about making life easier for victims of sexual abuse. Yeah, estoy en fuego porque I’m pricked by conservative rhetoric on liberal immorality facilitating sensible people like you to make frightening conclusions about liberal justices and liberal causes!

As for the highlighted text if that's your personal take that's fine. I haven't read anything to suggest Dems are behind it. That's as good an explanation as the cabal of gay staffers getting back at Reps for the marriage amendment. It’s early in the FBI’s investigation. If you want to assert that’s the truth, however, please back it up with something.

As for Dems having an easier time weathering sex scandals because we espouse a more laid back attitude, there's merit to that, but I think the backlash has more to do with Reps resorting to hyperbole like changing amendments. Reps have set themselves up on such a high pedestal that they, being human like everyone else, can’t live up to their own standards. Like I asked on my blog:


For the media and the public watching the GOP play pin the tail on the donkey, some follow what they believe is the end of political careers and find the drama is bigger bloodsport than a Texas execution.

But not a verb.



Y'know, that's a real nasty habit you have there. You have a marked propensity to interject race where it isn't remotely relevant. I used to think it was accidental. But it's happening way too often to be an accident.

You're so fond of throwing questions at me, I hope you won't mind if I return the favor.

Are you always interjecting race in your posts because you are a racist or you just enjoy being provocative making racially-loaded statements?

While you're grappling with that brain-twister, here's another one for you.

Do you disapprove of Mark Foley's inappropriate sexual advances toward a teenager or do you think it is more important to defend the Republican Party from criticism?



Personally, I think there's an over reliance upon polls. Both parties are madly in love with them and often to their own detriment. There is no question that the Mark Foley issue hurts Republicans and helps Democrats. But is that the issue that tips a undecided voter from one party to the other? Does Foley and the fumbling way the House leadership has mishandled the situation discourage a Christian conservative voter to the point that she stays home? I have my doubts.

Right now, things look good for Democrats. But it looked good for Democrats when Kerry squared off with Bush and we all know how that turned out. I'm a skeptic by nature and a pessimist by experience. All it takes is something external and uncontrollable (like North Korea and Kim Jung iL acting a fool) to push the pendulum back to national security and that plays to a GOP strength. I don't know about the political ads in your area, but in mine, the Republicans are going after the Democrats on guns, not butter issues.

My advice to the Democrats is you don't have the luxury of over-confidence. Keep running like you're five points behind and not five points ahead. Run hard and run scared.

The risk for the Republicans is they can overplay their hand in trying to scare voters just as the Democrats can pimp the Foley story past it's "sell by" date. I think the story has crested and by this time next week will have faded from the first two or three pages of the newspaper to back to Page 10 or not at all.

As regards the Senate races, there are a handful of toss-up races such as DeWine vs Brown, Talent vs McCaskill, Allen vs Webb and Kean vs Menendez. Other matches involving Conrad Burns, Maria Cantwell and Debbie Stablenow are close and bearing watching.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/

The independent variable for me is why is Karl Rove being so quiet....

Why are you so hung up on what party the guy belonged to? This is the perfect opportunity for folks to look beyond labels, to the quality of a human being and his actions. It's high time we start looking at getting outside the box of partisanship and actually questioning what we really want from our representatives? Do you want a man championing the rights of children in one breath while he does something to exploit them in the next?

If this current political situation isn't a wake-up call to all of us, then quite frankly I don't know what is.

True dat. The only thing I would add is that this is most definitely a political season, and therefore, as with most things political, it is being taken full advantage of by the opposing party (heck, even by those with the party itself...I think it was Cokie Roberts that used the term circular firing squad....appropriate, perhaps?). Would this be the case if the situation were reversed? Absolutely. So, I'm not going to try and cast any stones here. But pretty much no one involved in this is 'thinking about the kids', much as some of them might try to make that claim. They all have their eye firmly focused on the upcoming elections. Just something we should all be aware of as we watch and listen to all the posturing, from both sides.


Whoops...looks like Nighttimer was ahead of me on that as well....



I would add that it would have been a bit refreshing if at least some of the Republicans would have 'manned up', and simply handled this story as it deserved to be handled...a random incident that was going to be fully dealt with. Guess that circular firing squad made getting everybody on the same page a little difficult.

Update:

Since former Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds has become a big part of this and the other Mark Foley thread, I think it might be worth reporting that Studds passed away today at age 69.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/con...n-apconnecticut

I interjected race in this situation because it seemed as if your distaste for the Republican party overrode logic for the majority of the debate. I wanted you to see that this, as many other things in the world, have little or nothing to do with association. I figured that if I hit your "hot button", which we all know is race, that my analogy might just sink in. The Foley situation has nothing to do with our party or conservatives in general... just as crimes committed by black people (or anyone for that matter) aren't a reflection on those that share similar skin tones. Point made.

Mark Foley, as I've put in numerous posts, is sick and inappropriate. If I were the father of the young man that Foley attempted to lead astray I'd be extremely upset and probably would've paid a visit personally to Mr. Foley if for nothing more than to give him a piece of my mind.

The problem with this debate is that this has been a sad attempt at rhetoric, spin, and partisanship. I've argued time and time again that it has nothing to do with the Republican party or conservatives in general. Unfortunately, that's not really what people have wanted to hear.

Aevens- I will break it down for you like this- this is my view of the repubican party since Reagan came to power- very, very different from the conservative of libertarian bent of the early 70s.

So this is my take on this scandal, and the many other un-investigated and swept under the rug and pooh-poohed by the right issues,

1) Republicans were all about morals when it came to Clinton. Lot's of outrage over everything from sex to "unethical behavior"- and promised to clean up washington- AS A PARTY

2) Republicans have not done this- in fact, they have given GW a "pass" on about every issue.

3) It wasn't that Foley was gay- it is that the republican party is so hateful to gays- a big difference. And not only was Foley gay- he was a closet gay, and a predator to boot- yet, they didn't do anything about this, and turned a blind eye- simply because he was republican. While this is going on- you guys have nothing good to say about Barney Frank, and, in fact, are very hateful towards him.

4) It is the thought that those in Glass houses should not cast stones syndrome. For all the complaints about "situational ethics"- the repubs have even been worse with this than the dems- but at least the dems were not on a soapbox condemning gays like the repubs!

5) The entire "holier than thou" smarminess of the republican party, while being even worse than the dems on most of the ethics issues.

Listen Aevens- for me, I have always respected the old guard Barry Goldwater conservative, I would even like to hang out and meet Daytonrocker- he stays true to his morals, even though his party does not, and condemns his party for it's lapses- something most repubs not only do NOT do, they actually just like to say "oh, but DEMS did it to"- but the dems didn't position themselves as the party of god either!

That is where the disgust for the current crop of the majority of conservatives come from for me- conservatives are simply NOT true to thier stated values. In fact, that actually makes the repubs stronger than the dems IMHO- because the liberals will eat thier own for transgressions against thier basic core beliefs, while the neo-cons just lets the transgressions happen, makes excuses for thier behavior, or claims someone else was worse- basically, the entire movement fits the model of the "hypocritical preacher"- or, what I call the "Jimmy Swaggart" syndrome- he is condemming others while doing naughty things with hookers.

I guess, for me personally, I am outraged that the moralists of this country are NOT outraged with this regime and thier movement.

Many of us on this board have enough respect for nightimer, a skilled debater, that we avoid hitting his alleged '"hot button."

I'm sure he would have understood any analogy you are capable of framing.

Beware! As the old saying goes, "he who rides the back of tiger ends up inside."

But funny enough... it worked. I wonder if I'll get hit for a "one liner" after your post had nothing to do with the debate... hmm...



This is where my disgust for many liberals and/or democrats comes from. Often times, just as in this case, we've proven that it had NOTHING to do with the party, the culprit is gone (which he did himself, but he wouldn't have lasted on his own), and everyone openly admits this was a sickening act. No one knew ahead of time that this was going on, and there are still people on a national stage attempting to lay blame on a political party and philosphy.

I've asked 1/2 dozen or more times for someone to prove that Republican Leadership knew about this. No one can do so.

Foley is sick. Everyone knows it. My problem lays in the notion that Democrats have an argument here. He did something completely out of line, left congress immediately, and the issue should be "how can we stop this from happening again"... not a witch hunt against republicans, as it seems that the party and America dealt with it swiftly.

It's not Jimmy Swaggart syndrome. The Bush administration had nothing to do with this. It's almost as if liberals in America will stoop to new levels to find fault in a party as opposed to taking steps to make our country better. We move more towards juvenile behavior on a daily basis as a nation. Partisanship has seemingly permeated all levels.

While we're making absurd statements... what if I said "the Democratic movement seemingly embodies a whole nation of whiners, losers, and apathetic lazy panderers. They believe in a welfare state, worry more about the minority homosexual couple and their rights than people that really need help, spend millions helping illegal immigrants suck our communities dry, and have no plan but to malign those in power because they've never had any in their lives and never will."

Would those be productive statements? Of course not. Why? because I have no backing for them. If you choose to make anti-Republican statements, please tie them to the debate or at least factual information. Making negative comments without factual information is useless.

I could use terms in this debate like "neo-losers... I mean neo-liberals", but what does that help? I believe that there ARE good bleeding heart liberals, and that this nation NEEDS liberals. However, in this debate all I've seen are posts by those who really badly loathe republicans, but have posted nothing that would lead an un-biased party to believe that Republicans should be to blame for this fiasco.

While we're making absurd statements... what if I said "the Democratic movement seemingly embodies a whole nation of whiners, losers, and apathetic lazy panderers. They believe in a welfare state, worry more about the minority homosexual couple and their rights than people that really need help, spend millions helping illegal immigrants suck our communities dry, and have no plan but to malign those in power because they've never had any in their lives and never will."

Well, if they had positioned themselves as actual champions of those causes, then I would be right there with you-

but do you deny that Repubs had championed THEMSELVES as "the party of ethics and morals"?

I mean, if you yourself call yourself this, and don't deliver- makes a big difference!

If Dems had positioned themselves as this champion of "American traditional values, family values" etc, as the repubs have- then they would deserve the same scorn-

and, on top of that- several posters have posted evidence that hastert did cover this up, along with some other key leaders.

You have simply chosen, through YOUR OWN partisanship, to discount it.

The only point you made is proving you just enjoy being provocative by making racially-loaded statements. Thank you for removing any doubt that you try to bait me by using Black people as a ploy. Thank you for illustrating how ineptly you play "the race card."

It speaks to your inability to debate me one-on-one without having to resort to total irrelevant references to race. You cannot argue the merits, so you think, "Well, he's Black. I'll hit him with that." If I were to stoop to your level I would make a crack about your "Southern gentleman" roots, but I don't need to go off-topic to turn your Republican apologist talking points into so much mush.

You've convinced yourself that the Republican Party is being demonized. Your solution? Demonize the Democrats and liberals and then cry crocodile tears over the "partisans" ruining the political process. This, from a man who wrote about Ted Kennedy as a drunken murderer and then whines about other posters straying from the debate.

When you think you're being glib you're really only being shrill.

Your problem Aevans176 is you don't see me as a poster who happens to be Black, but a Black poster. That makes you think you can push my "hot button" by playing head games. It takes a debater better than you are to take me there.

You have answered my question but it does make me wonder this; since you can't argue on the merits of the topic, but instead on what category you can pigeonhole someone into, would you employ the same tactic with a poster who is a lesbian or Jewish or speaks with a foreign accent?

Or do you just employ this device with Black men when you can't debate any other way?

NT, if you would like to prove that you're a poster that happens to be black, and not a black poster, please debate my argument. I simply used this idea to get you to understand what I was saying, as it appears that you would prefer to make anti-republican statements as opposed to debating my ideas. I hear a lot of personal attacks as opposed to arguments of my ideas. I feel almost as if I hit a nerve at times by asking questions that pursue the truth.

I have made statements about Ted Kennedy, Gerry Studds, & Bill Clinton. However, I simply use these to illustrate that it's tough for a party that has ordinarily turned a blind eye to things of this nature to start a witch hunt... as they surely live in glass houses and are throwing plenty of rocks.

I'll ask one more time. What does Mr. Foley's party affiliation have to do with this situation? Why are Republicans responsible for any of this?

Most of the finger pointing on this has come from Republicans accusing each other. John Boehner did say he told Denny Hastert, then he didn't, then changed back to the original story. Under which shell is the Boehner? There is currently an investigtion going on in the ethics committee. I think we need an independent investigator. At any rate, we may need to wait for a report. Hopefully, we'll get a straight answer. Don't think there aren't Republicans who will be willing to throw Hastert under a bus, if as Craig Crawford pointed out, they can locate one with enough clearance.

I think Bush is supporting Hastert beacuse he and Karl Rove have determined that Hastert's ouster would cause more damage than his staying.

This is a great example of a case when the 'excuse' is worse than the 'accusation. When accused of overplaying the race care, Aevans responded with the excuse that he likes 'pushing the hot buttons' of another poster on the board, who happens to be black, by bringing irrelevant racial comments into his posts as often as possible.

I'm sorry, is that you trying to defend yourself?


ANYways...



Yes, you have repeated this. people have answered you, and you ignored them and kept repeating this. Aevans, you must be the only person around who still thinks there is NO evidence of deceit or coverup in this scandal. Even Hastert Himself has admitted he 'made missteatements' and has admitted his party handled the situation badly. So why do YOU still pretend he is as pure as the driven snow?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6093001265.html

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/...FOLEY_1001.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2512011

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/The...0506/news2.html

Oh, and by the way, in the DEFENCE of the Republicans, all these accusations and revalations came from OTHER REPUBLICANS, not the Democrats. But then again, you have already stated your opinion that any Republicans who dares have a problem with covering up the acts of a pedophile is 'not a real Republican' right?

Do you read your own sources?
From your article...


Vermillion,
It's not that people didn't know about the emails, but mostly that it seemed benign. Multiple people, including the parents wanted to leave it alone...

Got anything better?

I have a question.

Are you going to take umbrage at “angry liberals” if the House Ethics Committee (controlled by Republicans) finds that Hastert, Boehner and Reynolds, or some combination of the three, lied about what they knew and when they knew it?

I haven't been involved with this topic at all, but I would like to add my opinion on this. One thing, is ofcourse it will affect it a little bit. I dont think there is any debate about the legitamacy of this, just because everyone knows this isn't right and is a terrible behavior, HOWEVER, when Clinton had his run in with Monica, why Republicans took the same standing on the subject as Democratics are on this issue now, Democratics said that "Its only Sex", or "Its his personal business". Now, they are jumping all over this like a bat out of hell so to speak, and I just find it interesting how its switched, and now with this situation they are acting like they've never had a political representative of their own have a problem with the same type of action.

Well, firstly, I think part of the difference can by summed up by three critical little words: "Age of Consent".

Secondly, why does everyone keep yelling at the Democrats for 'making such a stink' when since day one the main actors in this scandal, from first revalations to calls for investigations, have been other Republicans?

In the end, all that matters is the polls of the American people, which say that they don't by Aevan's tale of persecution and woe any more than the rest of the people on this board.

If they're in fact guilty of what they're accused of, then they'd deserve a negative reaction even if they didn't claim to be a party of "family values". However distasteful they'd have been if they didn't practice what they preached, they'd have been far worse if they had actually preached what a certain one of them practiced .

This can’t possibly be a serious post.

What political party is going to preach having members of Congress send salacious emails to pages?

Unless, that is, the party's objective is to lose elections. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this one to show up in any major or minor party platform.

If the members of Congress, especially the party in power, did not pay attention to warning signs and warn the man in charge, then they deserve to incur the fallout, but I think we'd all better start focusing on the issues at hand, and let this scandal play itself out without our continuing participation.

Last time I checked, there were a couple of wars going on with an overabundance of American casualties, not to mention the latest published figures of the estimated Iraqi war dead.

Last time I checked, we were having a problem of jobs leaving the country while illegals continue to stream into it.

Last time I checked, our educational system needed improvement.

Last time I checked, the health care record for the "most powerful nation on earth" was incredibly abysmal for millions of our inhabitants, when compared to the records of other major, industrialized nations.

We have an election coming up, and there are many Congresspeople who should be voted out on the basis of their records apart from anything Foley did. What, other than a deficit that boggles the mind, a "war" that we do NOT appear to be winning in any sense of the word, diminished personal civil liberties and a climate of out-and-out disdain for those on the "other side of the aisle" is there to show for this Congress?

I am just sorry that Foley chose this moment to "out" himself as a gay man. He certainly did a disservice to his fellows by helping to perpetuate a myth about homosexuals being more prone to pedophilia than heteros, and the so-called "Religious Right" will be tsk-tsking this for years to come. Never mind the fact that the majority of documented crimes against children are committed by self-avowed heterosexuals...

Aevans, what makes you think beyond your inane affinity for interjecting race where it has no place, that I have to prove anything to you?

The sorry fact that you see me as a part of a category first and not as a member in good standing of aptly illustrates the degree to which your own racial animus renders you incapable of reasoned debate.

I've got nothing to prove to someone like you. The burden is on you since you readily admit to deliberate distortions and engaging in good ol' boy games of race-baiting.

I'd debate your argument if you bothered to read the responses. You don't. I'd debate your ideas but you would have to have one first.

You don't ask questions to pursue the truth. You repeat the same question like a slow five-year old and then no matter who answers the question and regardless how much detail, you only response is they have evaded the question and you repeat the question again. Since no answer that establishes how the Republican leadership and by extension the Republican Party has been damaged by the Mark Foley scandal will satisfy you perhaps you should list what answers you would find acceptable. Maybe someone will even entertain such a nonsensical gimmick.

It's not that you "hit a nerve." Only someone I respect can do that. It's just stunning to see such duplicity and insincerity on display.





Who do you think is going to take lessons in moral superiority from someone who makes sleazy remarks like the one you made about Ted Kennedy? It's equally hard to take criticism from anyone involved in a party that revels in demonizing gays and lesbians, but enables a repressed, self-hating homosexual like Mark Foley, turns a blind eye to his predatory nature, but tolerates it as long as he's raising money and occupying a safe seat. It's tough to try and advance such a specious, sanctimonious fraud, but that's what Republican apologists like you are trying to pull off.





Apparently not simple enough.