October 4, 2006 1:30 PM
More Foley fallout: aide resigns, Justice turns up heat
A Congressional aide who was accused of trying to keep the racier instant messages from ex-Rep. Mark Foley from becoming public resigned Wednesday as the Justice Department turned up the heat on its investigation into the electronic correspondence.
The New York Daily News and Los Angeles Times have background pieces on Kirk Fordham, who quit as chief of staff to New York Rep. Tom Reynolds.
Fordham was previously Foley's chief of staff and best friend; he counseled Foley to resign last week.
Meanwhile, the first Democrat campaign commercial to touch on the Foley scandal is this one from Stacey Tallitsch, candidate for the 1st District seat in Louisiana.
If you're a Democrat wouldn't you be tempted to let the Republicans batter themselves on this one?
Meanwhile, some of Foley's friends and former colleagues expressed doubt that he had a drinking problem. Foley checked into rehab in the wake of the scandal and also said he had molested as a child by a priest.
Do you buy it? Are they excuses for his behavior? Can Dennis Hastert survive as Speaker of the House?
October 4, 2006
2:37 PM
Anonymous writes:
It is just hysteria fueling the whole mess. Foley is a sick homo and will lie like Clinton to avoid responsibility.
In the spirit of Rather and Plame, Dems are shooting for the moon to make this an excuse to shoot ducks in a barrel.
They need to be careful....
October 4, 2006
2:46 PM
Sick of hypocrisy writes:
This is just another example of the religious hypocrisy by the Republicans. This is disgraceful - and they tried to cover it up.
October 4, 2006
2:51 PM
Anonymous writes:
This whole thing is a conspiracy on the part of the liberals to ruin our government.
October 4, 2006
3:10 PM
Anonymous writes:
It is time the sick puppy repugnants were kicked out to save our country from Bush and the forces of evil.
October 4, 2006
3:15 PM
838 days to go writes:
Just like the Republicans to spout personal responsibility then when one of their own turns out to be a pedophile they blame everything from alcohol to religious institutions. Hastert was probably covering up just so they could find a scapegoat. Next he will be saying the devil made him do it. Any road the rats can scurry down and not one iota of personal responsibility.
October 4, 2006
3:17 PM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
Someone help me out here, who in the last 12 months (celebrity or guvmint) has checked into alcohol rehab for media protection beside Mel Gibson? I know there has to be more. For $50. Bueller....
October 4, 2006
3:25 PM
am 760 writes:
2:51 I think your republican party is doing just fine ruining the country. What do dems have to do with a different republican being charged w/ various crimes week after week? Are the dems making them commit crimes? Should we not hold criminals responsible for their actions? In your sick world view no republican can do wrong apparently. Man you people are warped.
October 4, 2006
3:29 PM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
I only wish that all the hypocrites within both parties would go down in flames.
October 4, 2006
3:31 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
TDH -
Wasn't Rush in rehab this year?
October 4, 2006
3:35 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Let's not forget Robin Williams and Steven Tyler either...
October 4, 2006
3:40 PM
Anonymous writes:
There you go Hogar, again dismissing the Republicans cover up as being hypocritical instead of just unethical. It would take a small miracle for you to try not to shift the buck to someone other than the perpetrators huh.
October 4, 2006
3:40 PM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
8D-
Steven Tyler............ah, I thought he was clean since Run DMC kick started his career again back in '84. What happened?
October 4, 2006
3:41 PM
Anonymous writes:
This is not a liberal conspiracy as this situation was brought to the public light by a REPUBLICAN.
October 4, 2006
3:41 PM
Anonymous writes:
At the end of the day this is going to be one or two people who made bad decisions and should not be leaders (in any party).
I'm sick of the excuses as well and firmly believe those involved need to be held accountable by first resigning and then possibly being prosecuted.
If Hastert knew, and did nothing to stop Foley, that should be one count of child endangerment for each contact Foley had with minor.
That said, if we held the entire Democratic party accountable for the conduct of a select few, they wouldn't have a party anymore.
October 4, 2006
3:42 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
I think he's got a long-term family plan at Betty Ford's place...I want to say it was only a month or so ago. R&R is definitely not an industry with an old age pension plan.
October 4, 2006
3:48 PM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
Why go to the Betty Ford clinic when Eric Clapton has a clinic on a his private Island. Sober up, beach volly ball and beach fires at dusk and story telling with the have's and celebs, makes me want to go drinking. I see Paris Hilton making Clapton Clinic reservations early.
October 4, 2006
3:50 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
TDH -
Check out CNN today, apparently PH got into s catfight with some other young'un over some dude. I can agree about the rehab plans...
October 4, 2006
4:02 PM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
8Dude-
This election season is getting exciting. I wonder what my A-hole dad is thinking now? I spare him from the "I told you so" about the R party. We just don't talk.
October 4, 2006
4:05 PM
Anonymous writes:
"I told you so" became banned language during my family holidays about 2 years ago when it was apparent that the Republican majority couldn't do any worse.
October 4, 2006
4:11 PM
This is what Republicans think writes:
Here is the typical Republican Excuse . Tune in folks and hear the Sec. of Excuse making start.
"You see Clinton was too busy with Monica instead of getting Bin Ladin..
Thats why Foley decided to become a Pageboy Rapist...
And Dennis Hastert had to cover this up in the interest of national security"
October 4, 2006
4:13 PM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
4:05-
That was 2 years ago. They got worse.
October 4, 2006
4:16 PM
Anonymous writes:
4:11 - You forgot to also invoke 9/11.
TH - I can agree, which is why the family and I stay away from anything controversial. I think we are limited to salads and kleenex as subject matter...
October 4, 2006
4:16 PM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
I will gladly widen my comments to include unethical and illegal behavior, I just wish there was consistency on both sides of the isles. I am not trying to stand up for any wrong behavior by anyone. All those who engage in blatant hypocritical, unethical or illegal behavior should be drummed out of government.
My question is why was Studds (D) and Crane (R) not convicted of a crime when they had sex with pages?
October 4, 2006
4:17 PM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
8dude-
Did you hear/see Faux News last night was showing pictures of Foley with a "D" for democrat under his picture?
What do you say about the Hogar? U don't have to answer, but you have morals and will. Still think Faux News had nothing to do with the Florida 2000 election fraud?
October 4, 2006
4:19 PM
Anonymous writes:
I never knew that Stubbs and Crane did anything illegal. If Foley used the internet for sex talk with a minor...which is a crime. Regardless, the bigger issue here is the cover up by Republican leadership. But damn nice straw man argument Hogar....you're excellent at it.
October 4, 2006
4:42 PM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
Hogar, I can't resist buddy. Studds, Crane, Never heard of them.
http://www.slate.com/id/2116389/
October 4, 2006
4:49 PM
history buff writes:
What is this about the Stubbs scandal? I remember Phil Crane. He once said he had sex with a thousand women, and apparently a pretty page. The guy was total media candidate. Good looks, charm, womanizer. Somehow it didn't seem so bad.
The LibHyp dude says Stubbs had a homosexual affair with a page. I thought some other poster said it was consensual hetero coupling. Also, in Stubbs the page was 17. In some states 17 is old enough to consent, but it is raised to 18 in colorado, for example, if the older person is in a position of trust.
I like the facts. If LH has a point, I wish it would clarify it without spewing acrimony and vituperation.
October 4, 2006
5:02 PM
Shivas Irons writes:
The issue is the coverup. This guy resigning is not the final answer. Joe Scarborough (actually one of the reasonable Republicans) reported that Foley was a big money generator. He recently donated $100K to the general fund for re-electing Republicans. The guys in charge chose money and power over doing the right thing. They should all resign.
October 4, 2006
5:04 PM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
HB-
I went to a State funded college, you just sent me to dictionary.com for those 2 tricky words.
FYI, jeopardy question: every state college has this program. ?? Bueller....Bueller....
October 4, 2006
5:09 PM
Shivas Irons writes:
Tree Hugger, Bob Ney one of the Republicans taking money from Abramoff checked into alcohol rehab after resigning. I guess the need to get drunk caused him to become corrupt and take money, plane tickets and golf trips. Who knew? I think checking into rehab is a way to avoid any kind of media contact when you can't give an answer to your behavior
October 4, 2006
5:16 PM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
Shivas, tune into am760. That was a topic this morning with added humor by Al Franken, caveman eccentric at large.
Everyone has checked in. It's become a sanctuary.
October 4, 2006
5:25 PM
Shivas Irons writes:
I always listen to Al when I can. He is a hoot. Unfortunately he is usually on while I'm at work. Love his books too.
October 4, 2006
5:29 PM
history buff writes:
TH -- actually I went to state college, too. Then to a very Jewish grad school. My final answer is: education program.
October 4, 2006
5:41 PM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
TDH
I am not a huge fan of Fox news, though I certainly like them better than all the Left leaning outlets. I did not see any attempt by Fox news to say that Foley was a Democrat, nor did anyone try to support him.
With regard to Abramhoff, let him and all others who broke the law with him go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I will never support anyone convicted of a crime. But I strongly believe in innocent until PROVEN guilty.
October 4, 2006
5:57 PM
Shivas Irons writes:
Hagar: It was on the Bill O'Reilly show. You can check it out at the "Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly" website. They also have it on the Huffington Post site
October 4, 2006
6:01 PM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
Shivas Irons
I think those are doctored, as I watched O'Reilly and he had nothing but criticism for Foley and definitely identified him as a Republican.
October 4, 2006
6:07 PM
Shivas Irons writes:
REally, you think they are all doctored? You watch O'reilly? Have you read the transcript from his lawsuit? He is a real nut
October 4, 2006
6:14 PM
Liberal Hypocrisy writes:
One more time for HB:
Studds had a homosexual relationship with a teenager, who was subordinate to him as a Congressman. He was allowed to serve his term by his party.
The incredible outrage, which is now shifting away from the obvious double standard that isn't even a complete double standard in the sense that Foley's interaction was limited to internet chat, has been turned to the idea of a coverup of inappropriate internet communication.
It would seem that Dems are trying to nail someone with something only for political gain, and their past track record of tolerating a Congressman's homosexual relationship with a teen age page is frankly incredible considering that most ethicists will point out that such a relationship can never be consensual since the Congressman was in a position of power and the partner was a child - above the age of consent like the current 16 year old but every bit a child for argument's sake.
That is the
October 4, 2006
9:16 PM
just sayin' writes:
Maybe we would be able to find out all the information if we tortured Hastert, Reynolds and some of these other Congressmen. They just voted to make it legal.
October 4, 2006
10:43 PM
Anonymous writes:
Damn LH, I hope you don't have kids, because people as downright hillbilly dumb as you are should be making dumb babies.
1. Foley's actions were outed by a Republican...stop trying to make this out to be a Democratic conspiracy. It isn't one.
2. The problem main issue isn't Foley's actions. Despicable acts have been committed by members of both parties. The problem is the Republican leadership's efforts to COVER UP THE ABUSES IN ORDER TO SAVE THE SEAT.
Do you understand or do you need a couple of days to absorb this info?
October 5, 2006
12:31 AM
David Hakala writes:
A lot of people are tossing the term "pedophile" around, wrongly.
Pedophilia, according to the American Psychiatric Assn., consists of being exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to prepubescent children or children close to the average age of puberty's onset. Sexually undeveloped kids, in other words.
None of the high school students who served as pages seem to fit that description. At least one of them seems able to pass as an adult with a fake ID.
Some of these pages are true-blue heterosexual teenaged males, and were turned off by Foley's advances.
Others, judging by their published dialogues with Foley, were quite obviously gay and not uncomfortable with it.
So far, we haven't seen any evidence that Foley turned an innocent straight kid into a debauched deviate.
Foley broke the law. He lied his ass off for many years. He betrayed the trust of everyone.
But he's not a pedophile, by all accounts.
October 5, 2006
8:41 AM
JS writes:
Foley is not, by definition, a pedophile. The media and a lot of people like to throw that term and the "preditior" term around to include everyone who isn't having "missionary sex". The 16 year olds are old enough to say yes or no to sex, irregarless of the Christrian rights laws pushed down our throats. And some said "no" and some said "yes". So what! If you don't want you 16 year old to have sex, then start being a parent to the kid instead of letting the government do your job! Its the media and the democrates that are making this a "temepest in a teapot" situation. It only deserved a sound bit in the first place. I really quite tired of having it throwed in my face every day for the last two weeks. There is a lot more important issues that congress needs to deal with than Foley's sex life. Its no wonder that congress hasn't gotten any thing done for the last 10 years.
October 5, 2006
8:46 AM
Tree Dirty Hugger writes:
HB-
State College jeopardy question- Every state shool has an agriculture program.
Not a bad program at Michigan State, 35,000 undergrad kids to feed. We never ran out of fresh beef, milk and veggies. That's what I call home grown.
October 5, 2006
9:02 AM
Anonymous writes:
DH
What law or laws did Foley break?
October 5, 2006
9:06 AM
Liberal Hypocrisy writes:
10:43
I made an analogy to how the Dem party has covered up for Patrick Kennedy and his abuses and gave him special treatment. Just because the R's chose not to mount a huge witch hunt about "who knew what, and when" doesn't change history.
This is a politically driven flail - at least Foley quit Congress unlike Dems who have committed worse acts and were sheltered.
October 5, 2006
9:07 AM
Anonymous writes:
No way Jose' JS. Sex scandals are worth time and money. The topic sells books. Clinton-Lewinsky, did you get tire of that? I believe the Republicans spent millions of our tax dollars investigating over a years time and got nowhere. The Dems aren't pushing the buttons right now, it's the media, they need some food and found a fresh bloodied road kill to feast. And, it's only been 2 days, not 2 weeks. More to come and more people to hang.
October 5, 2006
9:15 AM
JW writes:
Looks like Foley might have broken a few laws, but from what I've seen, it will be pretty hard to make it stick.
The whole soliciting a minor for sex over the internet thing would be one, but most of what I've seen says they only bust people for that if they set up a meeting, and go there, which Foley didnt do.
Sexual harassment in the workplace, but again, hard to make it stick. Reading those messages, the kid doesnt seem to be protesting too much. If Foley quit doing it when the parents asked, its gona be tough to call that harassment.
If the reports are true, and the Republicans have been warning pages about Foley's behaviour for years, that may be something. Creating a hostile work environment, etc.
But people are forgetting something. Foley resigned and checked himself into rehab before any investigation got started. That being the case, there was no reprimand or anything. He did this all on his own.
Now it is an issue of did he break laws. If not, then he is in the clear.
The only people with their heads REALLY on the chopping blocks are the Republicans who may, or may not, have covered this up. From there it becomes and issue of did they break laws? If not, are they going to be reprimanded by their peers? If not, are the people that voted for them in the past going to continue to do so? Or will they lose their jobs because they are not re-elected?
Mostly this looks like scandal that will cost people their jobs not because they did something illegal, but because they wont get re-elected. The funny part is that its all Republican driven. The Dems are pretty much letting the Repubs cut their own throats.
October 5, 2006
9:18 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
I would like to traverse back into the highly politically incorrect realm of some more measured responses to this whole thing for a moment:
1. Foley was clearly in the wrong, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to describe him as targeting "children" and as a pedophile. Certainly trawling for teenage meat is morally and legally wrong, but these are teenagers we're talking about, not adolescents. If I were a 16 year old boy and an attractive, powerful 45 year old woman was coming after me, I bet I'd be flattered, even tempted. By no means am I excusing Foley here at all, I just wanted to put in perspective that in my book he's not "sick" just WRONG.
2. It appears to be clear that: (a) prominent members of the GOP knew about this a long time ago and covered it up, which was WAY wrong; (b) if we can believe Sean Hannity (a big stretch, I know), a gay blogger knew a few of the details of this case awhile ago and sat on it in order to score political points, which was WAY wrong; (c) the Dems may have known something was up early on, but were unsure how to handle it, and are now spinning it for their political gain, which is...not way wrong, but certainly poor form.
3. Why in the SAM HILL are we talking about this? I still haven't read one post from someone who's upset about the new detainee bill, or about the prospect of Net Neutrality being killed as soon as Congress gets back in session in January, or anything else of actual meaning and substance. By engaging in this debate over salacious gossip, we're doing the bidding of the corrupt and powerful. We're all engaged, voting citizens, right? We should act like it.
Incidentally, JW, NPR and the Pew Research Center have polling that indicates this hasn't effected the votes of GOP and moderate voters at all for their House reps, because everyone believes "their guy" has little to do with this scandal. Which, actually, is in most cases a pretty likely and reasonable assumption.
October 5, 2006
9:37 AM
Anonymous writes:
Classic:
It is noted that Foley has not broken any laws but acted inappropriately. So no harm done as is defined by the laws we all have to live by......
But that is not enough. Dems quickly realized that this non-event would have to be re-defined in order to have traction. Out comes the calls for repub leadership to resign because they are part of a coverup....Sound familiar?
Dems have nothing else to offer the American public except one manufactured crisis after another. And all of this as the economy continues to push ahead during a time of war and continued threat to the homeland - low unemployement, tax relief for everyone (yes I know you libs will want to point out that the rich got more back, but then again they paid more in) no recurrent terrorist attacks on our soil despite an energized network of islamofascists pulling out their hair over it......
The only way it would seem for Dems to convince voters to give them a chance is to avoid discussion on what is important and try to divert that attention with media saturation of yet another non-scandal. It's not the message, its how hard you push it to the exclusion of everything else.
This is your Democratic Party.
October 5, 2006
9:40 AM
Liberal Hypocrisy writes:
So JW, apply the same review of laws to Rep. Studds who engaged in a homosexual relationship with a teenager who was his subordinate. Which laws did Studds violate? Why wasn't he thrown out of Congress by Democratic leadership?
October 5, 2006
9:51 AM
Anonymous writes:
LH, what part of ITS THE COVER UP THAT IS THE ISSUE do you not understand???
October 5, 2006
9:55 AM
JW writes:
"So JW, apply the same review of laws to Rep. Studds who engaged in a homosexual relationship with a teenager who was his subordinate. Which laws did Studds violate? Why wasn't he thrown out of Congress by Democratic leadership?"
I've already looked over the Studds thing. I know what I need to know about it. And Frank. And the Repub that was censured at the same time Studds was, for the same reason.
Why dont you go learn something LH? Im done doing your research for you.
October 5, 2006
9:56 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
LH and friends:
You know what, you're right--those Dems you list should have been thrown out.
But you know what else? That doesn't help the cause of your beloved GOP members one iota. In the here and now, anyone responsible for a cover-up should lose their job, or at least be censured. All of this is dispicable, broken laws or no.
9:37: Manufactured crises? Jesus holy hell and crimony, I'm flabbergasted. Iraq, dwindling wages, a laggard DHS, imminent energy crises, envrionmental degradation, the slashing of Pell Grants, hot lunches and the Headstart program all for your precious tax breaks, the granting of executive power and privilege to indefinitely and arbitrarily detain American citizens....These are all manufactured crises? Christ, I wonder what you think a real crisis is. Things are just peachy, eh?
I grant you I haven't heard substantial Democratic alternatives to this, but at least none of these are agendas they actively pursue. What the GOP hasn't "manufactured" to be a shitty deal for most folks, they have dropped the ball on. I'm no fan of the Dems, but I can't abide by the direction the GOP has taken this country.
October 5, 2006
9:57 AM
JW writes:
"Dems have nothing else to offer the American public except one manufactured crisis after another."
Terror threat: ELEVATED
every two years.
October 5, 2006
10:11 AM
Anonymous writes:
How ironic is it that the Republicans finally manufactured a crisis that is going to actually hurt their election chances. LH, you do know that a Republican broke the story about Foley right?
October 5, 2006
10:15 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Tree - I would rather be beaten with a plank for an hour before I watched faux news, even just for laughs...Not surprised at the creative party affiliations though. Isn't history written by those with the most bux?
I've been wasting most of my evenings learning languages anyway. Next week we're off. Sayonara until then...
October 5, 2006
10:23 AM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
Shivas Irons
I will grant you that Bill O'Reilly is crazy on many counts. But he attacks as many Conservatives as he does Liberals. He also will have just about anyone on the show to tell their side. He does occasionally go off the deep end, but it is almost always when the guest will not answer his questions but simply wants to read their prepared script.
He attacked Foley, clearly identified him as a Republican, and said that if Republican leadership was involved in a cover up they should pay according to their involvement.
He is a Liberatarian and he is very consistent with those biases. He has no love for either Democrats or Republicans.
October 5, 2006
10:25 AM
Tree writes:
8D- Nice. I'm learning the language of Oregon as I plan on traveling the coast there in the near future. Heard it absolutely beautiful. Any recommendations for points of interest? Maybe I'll stop off in N. California and try the harvest on the way.
October 5, 2006
10:26 AM
Anonymous writes:
Hogar are you drunk today? Did you just say Bill doesn't have a right wing slant?
October 5, 2006
10:42 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Hogar, Bill O'Reilly is not "balanced" in any aspect of his entire life. He will only VERY OCCASIONALLY not run through the GOP talking points, and he's clearly a right winger. He's the worst kind of faux libertarian--the kind who are libertarian about everything except when it offends their personal moral sensibilities, then they are, as you say, off the deep end.
That guy is the most incredible ass ever to have his own show.
Keith Olbermann's bias is incredible, slanted, and often irritating. But at least he's civil and doesn't spout pure nonsense just to hear himself talk. Bill is, as Maddox would say, a "sock sniffer".
October 5, 2006
10:47 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Dirk said :
"That guy is the most incredible ass ever to have his own show."...
I can go you one better, do you remember in the 1980's there was a show hosted by Morton Downey Jr....? I have to say the HE was the most incredible ass to ever have his own show, though Bill O'Reilly runs a VERY close second...
Do a google search, and I think you'll agree. It's also likely why Robt. Downey is such a strikingly balanced person today...;)
October 5, 2006
10:53 AM
JW writes:
I just can't stop laughing!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15137796/
BTW, LH, notice that Pelosi is the ONLY Democrat quoted in this artice. Sure, Hastert BLAMES Democrats (including Clinton, they just cant get over that guy) but other than that, its ALL REPUBLICANS screaming about this.
And all Pelosi is asking for is inquiries under oath. Surely, if you can ask Clinton about his bj under oath, these guys should be questioned the same way. Or... perhaps... we are seeing.....
Republican Hypocrisy!
October 5, 2006
11:05 AM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
Dirk,
The show should be called Bill's World. My point was that he supports issues which are outside both the Democrat as well as the Republican camp.
Olberman is far more polished, but he is a far left idealogue whose venom is camouflaged in flowery prose. I would rather deal with O'Reilly than Olberman, though I would not volunteer to talk to either.
October 5, 2006
11:36 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Hogar, fair enough. It's an interesting choice between O'Reilly and Olbermann (who is certainly left, but I would hesitate to say far left).
O'Reilly is a douche who will cajole, name call, shout down, etc. You can't argue with him at all, because there's no point. I've fantasized about going on his show and getting him so angry that he does something stupid and beyond the pale (like beat my ass down--I'm younger and quicker, but he's three inches taller and I'm guessing 50-70 pounds heavier).
Olbermann, I think, respects reasonable discourse. He is at least wedded to the idea that argument is something other than a points-scoring shouting match (he has his cheap shots, but they're clearly jests). That said, at least on O'Reilly's show there is something resembling debate, however tortured, whereas Olbermann has no debate at all and calls on "experts" who uphold his viewpoint.
And you know, Gr8fuldude, I DO remember Morton Downey. Yowza. But at least his arrogance stemmed more from the actual belief that he was invincible, whereas O'Reilly thinks he's awesome, but clearly has insecurity issues. And other ISSUES.
Oh, and for once the Dems are wise enough to keep mum. Even Pelosi hasn't really stepped in it this time, which is unusual for her. That Botox-ing, idiotic harpie.
October 5, 2006
12:24 PM
history buff writes:
TH -- agriculture was going to be my second guess. I said education because it was the most prevelent major at Illinois State.
I still haven't seen the Black Dahlia, or the John Lennon movie.
I'm trying to think of a metaphor for the scandel de jeur. Maybe something about a powerful man who owns a sheep ranch, whose lust for power consumes his better judgment and turns into an obsession for....no. Let me get back to you.
October 5, 2006
12:52 PM
Anonymous writes:
I see ever since the news broke that the age of the Page was 18 you crazy libs have gotten off the topic.....Too funny, deep down your just racist gay bashing christian hating lunatics. You are still not taking back Congress. Cherry-O
October 5, 2006
1:09 PM
JW writes:
"the age of the Page was 18 you crazy libs have gotten off the topic"
I havent seen this. Link please
October 5, 2006
1:36 PM
PW writes:
12:52
I was wondering where the incessant cheerleading was today and up you show with a good one for your boys. Us "liberal" hypocrites know to let this scandal run through the Republlican ranks like a California wildfire. Remember, you Republicans taught us how to sit back and watch the other side cannibalize one another by lying and denying their way to crushing defeat with the whole Slick Willy depositgate thing.
With Hastert not resigning but flatly stating he will remain the House leader, it shows absolutely perfect "orchestration" by Howard Dean and all the Democratic strategists. The buck stops with him, and the buck says that the Democrats are the ones really to blame. LOL
But, you are right, this hole thing will blow over and all you cheerleaders will actually have something to cheer about again, next presidential cycle.
Please, please. Nominate Frist. Frist is THE MAN!
October 5, 2006
1:38 PM
Tree writes:
HB-
Sheep Ranch plot....you're sick and twisted like the rest of us, keep it up and blog the dirt. Ed Schultz just talked with a former page on the air. Nothing we already don't know.
October 5, 2006
1:46 PM
Anonymous writes:
Check out DrudgeReport JW, breaking news is now the entire thing was a prank.
October 5, 2006
1:57 PM
Anonymous writes:
The prank thing makes no sense. If it was all just a prank why resign so quickly and admit what a sick SOB he is? If it was a just a prank than he's a stupid sick SOB. So this is what it takes for the Republicans to take out one of their own, a sex scandle. Its ok to lie about causes that lead us in to a war that cost us 3000 US lives and gutted the military, thats ok. Causing more division in this country than has been seen since the 60s, free pass on that. Dirty gay IM post on AOL, string him up! But don't misunderstand, the Democratcs would do no better.
October 5, 2006
2:13 PM
Liberal Hypocrisy writes:
Pretty typical of you to cherry pick one of hundreds of articles that seem to support your point.
Dem leaders are on record immediately coming out and shifting the outrage from Foley to the Repub leaders because there was no political traction in harping about a sick homo.
You guys are the gift that keeps on giving.
October 5, 2006
2:19 PM
Anonymous writes:
"I've already looked over the Studds thing. I know what I need to know about it. And Frank. And the Repub that was censured at the same time Studds was, for the same reason.
Why dont you go learn something LH? Im done doing your research for you.
Posted by JW on October 5, 2006 09:55 AM"
Pretty funny since you tend to parrot talking points and then do the research to discover you were wrong. You have never done research for me - you continue to duck the issue, as illustrated above.
Hypocrites hate it when their errors are repeatedly pointed out for them.
October 5, 2006
2:21 PM
JW writes:
"Check out DrudgeReport JW, breaking news is now the entire thing was a prank. "
You mean breaking new is now the one page's part was a prank. They said nothing about the rest of it.
Kinda weird the guy not only quit, but checked himself into rehab, came out of the closet to the entire nation, and told us all how he was molested as a child....over a prank.
October 5, 2006
2:29 PM
Tree writes:
LH-
You've lost the battle to whatever you are denying. And the sick homo comment, I'm willing to bet your R party has more gays in office than the Dem party. Have fun dying with hate since you live with it. Keep trying tho, you'll never have it your way Burger King.
October 5, 2006
2:33 PM
JW writes:
"Pretty funny since you tend to parrot talking points and then do the research to discover you were wrong. You have never done research for me - you continue to duck the issue, as illustrated above.
Hypocrites hate it when their errors are repeatedly pointed out for them. "
Dude, I have wasted way too much time talking to you already. Feel free to post your inane drivel at will.
October 5, 2006
2:33 PM
PW writes:
LH
I will give you credit, you stay true to your convictions no matter how badly you get your backside handed to you. Good for you. Us "liberal" hypocrites are just wrong, wrong, wrong and you are gonna stick to your cap guns no matter what.
Aint ya watchin your own Fox News channel? This bitch has legs up to her ears and EVERYBODY can't help but gawk and stare with mouths agape.
Talking points? Hell, us hypocrites don't need no stinking talking points when your guys are feeding on each others livers. Watch the bile run free my fellow "liberal" hypocrites, this dog is gonna hunt all the way to the next presidential cycle. TOO FUNNY!
October 5, 2006
2:46 PM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
Dirk,
O'Reilly has Al Sharpton on all the time, and he lets him spell out what is a very Left position with no hassle or problem. O'Reilly does not react to ideology, he reacts to plain rudeness and refusal to answer questions.
O'reilly is a traditionalist, but not a conservative. He is also a megalomaniac, and I suspect a sexual predator.
October 5, 2006
2:57 PM
Liberal Hypocrisy writes:
You shot from the hip tree. Homo is short for homosexual. And Foley is sick. I think even you could agree with that.
So predictable that you guys will attack the messenger instead of the message when you lose a debate.
Hate is in the eye of the beholder, ya think?
October 5, 2006
3:01 PM
Anonymous writes:
LH dude has hit a major nerve with the libbie crowd. They are blogging fire now that they have returned from laying out nails at ODonnels campaign HQ's.
October 5, 2006
3:14 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
LH, I fear you suffer not merely from delusions, but delusions of grandeur. You haven't ever "won" a debate on here (if such a thing is possible with all the flaming, anyway), except in your own mind.
You continue to ignore/miss the point about the cover-up. Nobody's defending the sins of the Dems, yet you seem to think that's the case. It's a straw man that you really need to let go of.
You also seem to imply that Foley's "sickness" (which I contest only somewhat) is due to him being homosexual, not preying on the young. Do we really need to hash out all that crapola again?
You are a very tired mouthpiece, friend. Get over yourself and learn to think beyond the talking points.
October 5, 2006
3:19 PM
history buff writes:
This scandle has legs, as they say in the biz. The WSJ reports this morning that in the Minnesota 6th CD, according to a Reuters poll, the Dem challenger has pulled even over the weekend in a District that went 57% for Bush in 2004.
The WSJ also notes on its editorial page that a host of cultural conservatives have called for the resignation of the enablers who made the Foley affair possible. This issue definitely has traction.
And this morning the Guvernator said this is very serious and it will ruin many political careers. When Arnold speaks, people listen.
October 5, 2006
3:23 PM
Anonymous writes:
HB - What was that, I wasn't listening...
October 5, 2006
3:23 PM
Liberal Hypocrisy writes:
Dirk, try reading my post about the double standard in hush-ups that have recently occured with Patrick Kennedy. Just because the repub's chose not to pursue a program of blaming the Dem leaders for his continued bad behavior and demand to know the whats and whens doesn't make it any different, other than the timing with an election.
My point has always been that this is purely motivated by politics and not some fresh desire to uphold morals in Congress. When the Foley aspect of the story lost traction, the Dems shifted into conspiracy mode, since the vast right wing story still resonates among liberals.
You guys can continue to convince yourself that there is merit to the feeding frenzy, but thinking people put it into a context and realize the score is still 0 to 0.
October 5, 2006
3:30 PM
Go LH! writes:
You go LH! You've riled all the closest liberals with points that make sense and don't crumble against the name calling and crap those idiots spew.
October 5, 2006
3:40 PM
Anonymous writes:
The mean girl wannabes are joining together. Or is it one poster using different names?
October 5, 2006
3:41 PM
PW writes:
Poor LH
Posting under a new pseudonym to try and give himself some credence. Dont ya get tired of the pretending Kevin? I mean, what do you get out of all these multiple personalities engaging themselves/yourself in dialogue?
Are all of your names really talking to each other as though they are separate entities? Or are you completely aware that you are simply trying to win the argument for argument's sake? For your own mental health, I hope it is the latter.
October 5, 2006
3:41 PM
JW writes:
I love how the polls didnt change much over things that mattered; the economy, the war, civil liberties, lying administrations, etc.
They changed over this crap. Just goes to show what the average American is really interested in. Also funny that the speaker is refusing to quit, saying it would bring down the party. The polls are saying the reverse. One conservative pollster was saying if he doesnt resign, it will be the difference between losing 20 seats, and 50.
WOOOOHHHHOOOO!
Get those dems in there! Put a check on Bush so we head back to the center and maybe, just maybe, we can get this turned around. Even if we cant, it will limit the damage he can do over the last two years of his presidency.
October 5, 2006
3:51 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
I don't think it's gonna break that way, JW, not over this scandal. If that's the case, it's the straw that broke the camel's back, and it's a really, really stupid straw at that.
But there are suddenly signs that the Dems could take the House, which would surprise me. I fully expect them to tie or retake the Senate. It would be pretty interesting to see what happens if they control both chambers of Congress.
At this stage I just want someone (not insane) to do SOMETHING about all the problems we have.
And again to LH and friends: you people are delusional. I'm not upset, but bemused. LH continues to harp on points that we don't even care about, and evade on points on which we do. And he (and you) think he's WINNING. That to me explains a lot about how you folks can believe things as you do.
October 5, 2006
3:54 PM
history buff writes:
Tree --
I listened to Ed Schultz at lunch. He sounds just like Rush Limbaugh. In fact, I switched back and forth, and they both were doing commercials about owning gold bullion.
The Mountain has Clapton on the top today. I need to get a turn table so I can dust off my old vinyl.
I got a rock and roll heart.
October 5, 2006
3:58 PM
history buff writes:
LH? Have you ever seen the movie, Million Dollar Baby? You remind me of the character Danger that works out in the gym.
October 5, 2006
4:00 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Dirk - I agree with everything in your most recent post, but don't you think the Dems have been their own worst enemy in being so fragmented and not coming up with hteir own agenda other than "We're not W"...
I am an indie, I am disgusted with both parties: The Rs for getting us into this mess, but the Dems for not getting their own unity and agenda together.
October 5, 2006
4:08 PM
JW writes:
Dirk,
I was just repeating what Fox news is posting. Polls are saying if Hastert doesnt resign, they stand to loose 50 seats instead of 20. Polls also indicate the majority of Americans now feel Democrats are more able to deal with corruption than Republicans.
All straigh from the Elephants mouth.
What a flip flop world we live in. LOL!
October 5, 2006
4:08 PM
Tree writes:
You mean you don't own gold? Nixon didn't like it either.
October 5, 2006
4:30 PM
Tree writes:
HB-
Rhandi Rhodes is going to have Jeff Gannon on her show coming up soon, she's talking about it now. Should be good, he hates Dems and let's see if he answers her questions about the current events.
October 5, 2006
5:06 PM
jay writes:
Actually the whole mess stinks on both sides. Dems can't expect to take the high moral ground so close to an election for the obvious implications. While I generally disagree with most of what LH posts, he has made solid points in that regard.
October 5, 2006
5:14 PM
S. Freud, MD writes:
As predicted the reversal of personalities would manifest if provocation triggered a breakdown in the multiple identities being tenuously balanced by the subject who now reverts to his original moniker.
A sudden return within minutes of said provocation, with the cover story of being away on vacation was predicted.
This is a disappointing but not unanticipated downturn.
October 5, 2006
5:20 PM
Anonymous writes:
Wassmatter jay - tired of posting as PW and JW and accusing others of your own schizophrenia?
What a maroon......
October 5, 2006
5:21 PM
Ed Gallagher writes:
How many posting names do you own jay?
October 5, 2006
5:24 PM
Anonymous writes:
Just don't try to give yourself any pats on the back with my screen name their Dorothy. I know you don't win any arguments on this blog, but jesus man, that's low.
October 5, 2006
6:33 PM
JW writes:
Man these Freud posts crack me up.
Go to college, at least then you can use the right words when you make the guy roll over in his grave.
October 5, 2006
11:23 PM
PW writes:
Poor Kevin Jones/Liberal Hypocrisy/Howard Dean/Dr. Fraud/Rong Wing no name
Yes, JW and I are the same author; and we are both Jay. Notice how we have such similar writing styles and engage in the exact same topics of discussion?
It takes a tremendous amount of talent to vary the use of diction and sentence structure, and to deliberately misspell the same different words again and again in the proper posts, then have command of various subjects in the proper posts, and lastly, insult our punk ass Rong Wing friends in different styles in the proper posts.
I, Jay, am so good at these varied writing styles that a trained professional would never come to the conclusion that all these different posts are being written by the same person. You certainly caught me, I mean us, pretending to be different people so that I, I mean we, can make it seem like there are more of us than just me. Other people surely must be doing the same thing you are, right? You cannot be that crazy, can you?
TOO FUGGIN FUNNY!
October 6, 2006
9:36 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
HB, you're right about the Dems and their lack of vision. I'd like to hear something on the order of a Contract With America. Perhaps they're just waiting a week or two so that the counter-spin is not very successful. But I doubt it. Freakin' pussies.
It kills me how people try to lump allied opinions on this blog into one person, as if there's some sort of posting conspiracy. Why might that be, do ya think? ;)
Also, Jay's right about LH (which makes that aspect of LH's posts correct): the Dems are better off just staying out of the way, because at best they are the folks on the outside looking in. At worst they are the hypocrites the rightwing media is trying to make them out to be.
October 6, 2006
12:03 PM
S. Freud, MD writes:
The subject variously known as jay, JW, and PW was discovered using aliases which has escalated his anxiety which causes him to react impulsively.
We gain insight to his techniques which he reports as a means to discount their reality and desperately try to save face (or faces).
Jay is a talented ghost in these posts. The test post borrowing his name produced an immediate effect due to the fact that he was always here, and not away on vacation as was predicted he would say - he cannot help himself when cornered.
Given the recent event, it is not clear whether jay will remain visible or simple create additional aliases in order to try to blend back into the community. We should all be vigilent in identifying self-destructive behavior or worse yet, aggressive behavior towards other community members by jay.
The prognosis remains very poor.
April 22, 2008
6:28 PM
replica and fake rolex replica writes:
rolex mens watch [url=http://relojes-rolex.kickhighest.net/rolex-mens-watch.html]rolex mens watch[/url] http://relojes-rolex.kickhighest.net/rolex-mens-watch.html rolex sub-mariner watches [url=http://italian-rolex.kickhighest.net/rolex-sub-mariner-watches.html]rolex sub-mariner watches[/url] http://italian-rolex.kickhighest.net/rolex-sub-mariner-watches.html lowest price new rolex submariner [url=http://explorer-rolex.kickhighest.net/lowest-price-new-rolex-submariner.html]lowest price new rolex submariner[/url] http://explorer-rolex.kickhighest.net/lowest-price-new-rolex-submariner.html replica watches rolex [url=http://replica-rolexes.kickhighest.net/replica-watches-rolex.html]replica watches rolex[/url] http://replica-rolexes.kickhighest.net/replica-watches-rolex.html rolex oyster watch band serial number [url=http://explorer-rolex.kickhighest.net/rolex-oyster-watch-band-serial-number.html]rolex oyster watch band serial number[/url] http://explorer-rolex.kickhighest.net/rolex-oyster-watch-band-serial-number.html
April 22, 2008
6:58 PM
lady masterpiece rolex writes:
collectible rolex watches [url=http://rolex-wimbledon.kickhighest.net/collectible-rolex-watches.html]collectible rolex watches[/url] http://rolex-wimbledon.kickhighest.net/collectible-rolex-watches.html gold replica rolex rose watch [url=http://replica-diamond-rolex.kickhighest.net/gold-replica-rolex-rose-watch.html]gold replica rolex rose watch[/url] http://replica-diamond-rolex.kickhighest.net/gold-replica-rolex-rose-watch.html europe replica rolex [url=http://repair-rolex.kickhighest.net/europe-replica-rolex.html]europe replica rolex[/url] http://repair-rolex.kickhighest.net/europe-replica-rolex.html discount prices rolex watches [url=http://man-rolex.kickhighest.net/discount-prices-rolex-watches.html]discount prices rolex watches[/url] http://man-rolex.kickhighest.net/discount-prices-rolex-watches.html rolex replica reviews [url=http://president-replica-rolex.kickhighest.net/rolex-replica-reviews.html]rolex replica reviews[/url] http://president-replica-rolex.kickhighest.net/rolex-replica-reviews.html
April 22, 2008
7:28 PM
rolex sub mariner watches writes:
vintage rolex divers watches [url=http://used-rolex.kickhighest.net/vintage-rolex-divers-watches.html]vintage rolex divers watches[/url] http://used-rolex.kickhighest.net/vintage-rolex-divers-watches.html replica rolex part [url=http://cellini-rolex.kickhighest.net/replica-rolex-part.html]replica rolex part[/url] http://cellini-rolex.kickhighest.net/replica-rolex-part.html rolex repair [url=http://rolex.kickhighest.net/rolex-repair.html]rolex repair[/url] http://rolex.kickhighest.net/rolex-repair.html rolex gmt master 2 [url=http://rolex-part.kickhighest.net/rolex-gmt-master-2.html]rolex gmt master 2[/url] http://rolex-part.kickhighest.net/rolex-gmt-master-2.html reloj replica rolex [url=http://replica-rolexes.kickhighest.net/reloj-replica-rolex.html]reloj replica rolex[/url] http://replica-rolexes.kickhighest.net/reloj-replica-rolex.html