Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu
  • Mike P.

    I’m convinced – there is literally nothing, nothing, that some of these people will not defend.

    But what concerns me even more are the cockroaches that feed on the excrement they publish or broadcast. The unevolved syncophants that actually buy books touting their “enemies” (that would be the rest of us) as “Godless,” “Unhinged,” “Treason(ous),” etc.

  • Kim Ritter

    How can they claim the moral high ground when they pull stunts like this? (I’m not claiming all Conservative web sites do it, but some really are in denial)

  • Davebo

    Hey, you’ve just gotta have the courage to believe as Rush is always telling us.

    That and a total lack of integrity, intellectual honesty, and the ability to swallow a broom handle without gagging.

  • aisle

    The one from Passionate America is hilarious! Foleygate : Mark Foley emails altered

    The suggestion is that editing the e-mail for capitalization, spacing, ellipsis, and apostrophes is equivalent to being faked. Not one word, or any content was altered. Astonishing.

  • Anna

    Those are blogs (the ones that Andrew Sullivan mentions) I refuse to give the benefit of a page hit to, so I ask those who may have seen their delusions…How many are blaming Clinton for it? (Isn’t that what they always come back to?)

    Besides, Foley wouldn’t have resigned if these things had been fabricated.

  • C Stanley

    The suggestion is that editing the e-mail for capitalization, spacing, ellipsis, and apostrophes is equivalent to being faked. Not one word, or any content was altered. Astonishing.

    LOL, well maybe they thought that Foley was corrupting the kid’s grammar!

  • Pyst

    If these blogs try this kind of deflection tactic, treat them as the members of congress that covered for Foley should be treated. Show them the door.

    Show their links the door Joe.

  • Jim S

    Maybe this will help Michael van der Galien understand why I told him that American Thinker wasn’t a blog that I’d link to.

  • Tommy

    I wrote Andrew Sullivan an email. He remarkably manages to get someone completely wrong in even this short of an article: the American Thinker article he links to makes absolutely no references to “modified” emails.

    He also mentions that Malkin’s site, Hot Air, is discussing the minor differences between two sets of otherwise identical emails. What he fails to mention (besides the important fact that everyone agrees the differences are very minor and in no way exonerate Foley, but may provide some insight into who had the information and when) is that Malkin sharply disagrees with the actual writer of the piece he refers to. Allahpundit actually writes the piece and fails to mention that in another piece Malkin disagrees with Allah and others even getting into it.

    Michelle Malkin’s opinion is here. So you can stop trying to smear Malkin in your reference to “Unhinged,” Mike P.

    It helps to follow the links, especially when Andrew Sullivan is on the matter. Attention to detail is not his strong suit.

  • Tommy

    aisle,

    Not one word, or any content was altered. Astonishing.

    Attention to detail isn’t your strong point either. The header of one of the emails was diffeent. It is a very minor point, but it certainly is more than a correction of capitalization or punctuation.

    One of the emails has a subject line of “email-2” in one version and the other simply says “(no subject)”

    It doesn’t have any relevance as to the content, but there are questions, I think relevant ones, about who knew what and when they knew it. Especially given that the emails appear to have been dumped on some obscure blog that was only started in early September and has posted almost nothing but information on Foley.

    I can’t tell you what I’ve discovered so far, but I have found some fairly interesting indications in the last day that the site “Stop Sex Predators” may have been set up by Jason Leopold. I don’t have enough solid evidence yet to prove it.

  • Mikkel

    It looks like they are going to try to reverse the situation by pointing out Democratic exploitation of the issue for political gains (which I’m sure there was). I agree with C Stanley though, the base will be more upset about the leadership coverup than the fact that the Democrats are going to get political gains.

  • Rudi

    Ah Tommy defending the undefenceable, no suprises there. The Emails have to be forgeries from Rather and Liberal CBS,

  • Mike P.

    My goodness, that’s rich, Tommy. Looks like you might even be one of the… Well, let’s look at your comment:

    “So you can stop trying to smear Malkin in your reference to “Unhinged,” Mike P.”

    Thanks for providing TMV, and me, with an easily identifiable member of the class of “people” that was the subject of my post.

  • Tommy

    Thank you, Mikkel.

    That is all I’m looking for: an admission that the Dems are likely exploiting the situation. Not any admission that Foley wasn’t disgusting, or an admission that the Dems are “just as bad,” or an admission that Republicans should be given a break. Just an admission that the Dems are playing politics also.

    It seems obvious that certain left-wing sources have known about this for at least as long as any Republicans have, and have chosen to sit on the information until now. I think that is pretty damn dirty, especially if you believe Foley was a serious menace to those he was around. I think we have to assume he was.

    If Hastert covered up inappropriate behavior, he should not resign his leadership poistion – he should resign from public office. If he has a good explanation: he should still resign from the leadership position. The same applies to anyone else in this situation.

    Rudi, I’m not defending any inappropriate behavior. I suppose if I were to throw back the Gerry Studds incident, and you were to rebut that it doesn’t matter, I could claim you were “defending the indefensible.” That would be silly. I don’t even want to compare such behavior at this point. I just want to look at this situation on its own merits. However, I do want to know the whole story about who knew what, both Republicans and Democrats. Let the truth land where it will.

  • Tommy

    I have a simple fix for this situation in the future: no pages under the age of 18. Period.

  • Rudi

    The Dems don’t have to exploit this issue, it has a life of it’s own. The Democrats were kept in the dark, even some R’s on the Page Board weren’t informed of the situation. CREW notified the FBI in July, the FBI did nothing like the House leadership. The St Pete newspaper sat on the story because the source, a page that informed them of the emails wouldn’t allow his name used. News sources are now claiming the original page is recieving death threats. (snark I bet he looks better in a bikini than Michele Malkin /snark) The paper has a policy of avoiding unnamed sources.

    Tommy your digging for “shit” from the likes of AmericannonThinker, please cite newspapers or clarify your Wingnut sites for their bias.

  • BeYourGuest

    This stuff is directed at the Republican base. The rest of us don’t really matter. They must mollify the base.

    I listened to Sean Hannity’s radio program for 20 minutes. It was all something not-quite-equivalent that a Democrat did 20 years ago, discussed as if it were still a current event. He’s telling–reminding?–the base that Democrats are at least as bad. If not worse, because they’re such hypocrites.

    How far does each side want to go back to accuse the other of being hypocrites? The great rivals in George Washington’s cabinet were Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton had Maria Reynolds, Jefferson had Sally Hemmings. It goes right down to the marrow of American history.

    And of course Democrats are exploiting this. Wasn’t George W. Bush using that “Mission Accomplished” for political ends?

  • Rudi

    BYG,
    Hate to give Rummy a break, but according to Woodward, Rummy had that line(Mission Accomplished) pulled from Bush’s speech. Remember back at the time, the Bush talking heads claimed the Navy put up the banner. Bush may lie more than Clinton and Nixon, precious.

  • C Stanley

    And of course Democrats are exploiting this. Wasn’t George W. Bush using that “Mission Accomplished” for political ends?

    And haven’t you guys been screaming “stop exploiting”? That’s the point here; I’m not interested in comparing a litany of scandals on each side but some of us conservatives are saying that the liberals can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that you are outraged by political exploitation and then practice it yourself. Or if you do choose to do that, then stop hurling the hypocrisy label at the moral values crowd. If you embrace the value of staying above tactics like that in politics, then you have to actually practice that yourself.

  • aisle

    Tommy, I guess you are technically correct. E-mails often do get re-labled in forwarding. But the Foley scandal is not an issue that can be invalidated with nit-picking.

  • Rudi

    Partisan warning!!

    Clinton lied – BJ Nobody died.
    Bush/Condi Rice lies – Iraq War 2700 US dead 100,000 Iraqis dead

  • Tommy

    Look. To those of you willing to concede that this was a bit of a setup, I’ll concede the same when the evidence points to any future “October surprises” that Republicans may initiate. For those of you who will not concede the same, forever hold your peace from this point forward. I mean, after four years of all these claims of pre-election surprises that were supposedly going to be dropped by Republicans, the only one that has emerged is the one dropped by the Democrats.

    All this sort of reminds of the way it was discovered that all those left-wing bloggers were coordinating their stories with each other a few months back. For all the accusations about right-wing conspiracies and “wingnut” blogger collaboration, it turns out that the only ones engaging in such behavior were the leftists. Sometimes the left is so paranoid of what they think right is doing, they seem to think they need to do the exact same thing. It is kind of funny.

    aisle,

    Nobody is trying to invalidate anything. Glad to see you’re a good sport about things, though. 😀

    Rudi,

    I’ve only got one comment for you for now on: whatever. Lol. Sometimes I think you’re something that has crawled out of the Democratic Sewer Underground. You do make me laugh, though. 😉

  • Rudi

    Tommy – Go back to LGF and RedStates and you won’t be tarnished by us Left of Centers. I don’t read DU, I recomend BallonJuice, it’s entertaining and your brother Darrell misses you.

  • BeYourGuest

    C Stanley–
    You have a block quote from me in your comment decrying hypocrites.

    I wonder if you would be willing to go back and take a look at the comment of mine you’ve pulled it from? I think it’s clear that I’m saying that both sides of the political aisle have had their own sex scandals since the early days of the United States of America.

    I’m not sure why you’re implying that I said something different. I know you only reference “you guys,” whoever they are. But still, those are my words, and you’re taking them out of (the opposite) context.

    By the way, when you put the words *stop exploiting* into quotes–who exactly are you quoting? Aren’t you just making up a lousy argument and putting it into your opponant’s mouth–so you can beat them up for making such a lousy argument?

  • C Stanley

    BeYourGuest:
    You’re misunderstanding my statement about hypocrisy. Go back and reread: it has nothing to do with admitting that both sides have had sex scandals. It has to do with accusing the other side of politicizing and then doing the exact same thing. I don’t really blame the Dems for making hay of the scandal, but don’t cry to me about the tactics used by Republicans if you want to win elections by capitalizing on the scandals of your opponents. Choose one: take the high road or stop telling your opponents that they need to take the high road.

    As to your claim that I’m making this up, that’s just ridiculous. No, I wasn’t using a direct quote, just using a phrase that represents things that are said here all of the time.

  • Pyst

    Damn skippy this should be exploited for political gain, if for any reason the self righteous, gay bashing, fake law and order GOP has got it comming.

    Republicans have done the exploiting for 6+ years with absoloutely no shame, they claim themselves to be gods chosen political party, so screw them blue with this hypocracy till they puke.

    Suck it GOP apologists, and don’t expect fair play after the crap you’ve dished out, just accept your shame with some kind of dignity, afterall your perfect political monsters created the shame for you.

  • Richard 23

    I can’t tell you what I’ve discovered so far, but I have found some fairly interesting indications in the last day that the site “Stop Sex Predators” may have been set up by Jason Leopold. I don’t have enough solid evidence yet to prove it.

    I can hardly wait. It will exonerate Foley and the Republican leadership too, right? Must be some great secret squirrel stuff you’ve found. But stop dropping hints. Just keep working on it in silence and surprise us with your revelations when you’re ready.

    Yet I do hope it’s more significant than merely something about Jason Leopold. I mean, really, who cares about him?

    But thanks for doing this important work. You and Clarice Feldman are great Americans.

  • Rudi

    Nice comment Pyst. The Democrats are suppose to take the high road after a large dose of crap was pushed down their throats. The Repugs were sanctimonious about Clinton, Bush ran on the ABC AnythingButClinton’s. Now we see them as just another corrupt power hungry political group.

  • BeYourGuest

    C Stanley–

    Anyone can read what I wrote. Then they can read what you wrote about it.

    I’m satisfied with that much, at least.

  • Kim Ritter

    Unfortunately, when the Dems stand on principle and take the high road, they usually lose. I read two pertinent articles in the Washington Post:

    One said that the Repubs have raised more campaign cash this year than in the 2004 presidential election year, and plan to spend 90% on negative ads that will saturate the airwaves the weeks leading up to the election.

    The other claimed that negative ads are much more effective than positive ones. Ned Lamont’s ad which morphed Joe Lieberman’s face into George Bush’s may have accounted for his win in the primary. Lieberman’s winning margin in the polls could be due to his negative ad equating a vote for Lamont with enabling the terrorists.

  • C Stanley

    Kim,
    Yes, I know that negative campaigning works and that is why both sides do it. All I’m saying is that it is hypocritical to skewer the other side for doing it while your side is doing it.

    It’s like the argument that Christians are hypocrites because none of them are perfect and they sin just as much as non-Christians. Yes, there will always be some level of immoral behavior, but does that mean we shouldn’t even try to raise the bar?

  • Kim Ritter

    CS- Yes it is hypocritical if both sides do it, but I guess I see it as fighting fire with fire. As long as it works well, I don’t see anything changing. The Democrats seem willing to use whatever they’ve got this election cycle, and while I don’t like it- I don’t know what other options they have. Unfortunately, American voters complain about negative ads, but then allow them to affect their votes.

    I’m not sure how I feel about legislating morality-most of the time it doesn’t work-I guess I’m a realist. I think its better to try to reward and encourage good behavior, than try to punish bad (not talking about criminal behavior here- I believe in tough penalties for crime)

  • C Stanley

    Kim,
    In some cases, though, what one person considers just immoral is considered by others to be a crime (abortion being the most obvious example). I’m conflicted on most of these kinds of issues, to be honest, because I don’t really think legislation works in certain situations, and I also respect the right of the majority to decide. But, to use the abortion example, we really aren’t letting the majority decide because on one end of the political spectrum you have the view that there is a Constitutional guarantee of privacy which somehow implies that the state can’t put restrictions on the “right to choose”, and on the other end of the spectrum you have people who feel that abortion involves taking a human life and therefore isn’t Constitutional even if the majority decides that they want it to be permissible. (I tried to write that as objectively as I could but I know that even in my choice of words you can tell which side I fall on!)

    Generally except where Constitutional issues like that are at stake, I think moral issues should be discussed as a cultural debate (not that we shouldn’t be allowed to do things, but that we should still think about whether we should do the things). In the case of abortion I do feel a bit differently, but even there I’m enough of a pragmatist to say that we should have the cultural debate first before thinking about legislation, otherwise abortion is just driven undergrouund (plus if we’re pragmatic, we can get most people to agree that we should put some limits on abortion, keeping it “legal but rare” instead of the abortion on demand that currently leads to over a million abortions per year in the US)

  • Kim Ritter

    I think the feminist groups see any antiabortion legislation as limiting their right to choose, and tend to fight it with everything they’ve got. I think its comparable to NRA members who go nuts if any limitations are placed on gun ownership. I think both groups are a too fanatic, and support any pragmatic way to limit both. I think, however, that the country is not only politically polarized but culturally. Discussion of these and other “values” issues just raises a firestorm on both sides of the question. Why not go with what the Democrats came up with as a start and work from there? That’s a pragmatic solution, that at least reduces the need for abortion, while keeping the remainder legal and safe.

    On other “values” issues, I favor letting localities decide for themselves. If states want to pass laws restricting gay marriage based on the results of a referendum, I have no problem with that.

  • C Stanley

    Kim,
    On the Dem 95-10 abortion proposal, I seriously doubt it will have any traction because I don’t believe the Dems themselves will support it (too much pressure from the pro-abortion lobby). If I’m wrong, then I’ll think more seriously about whether I could support the plan in good conscience.

    On giving states the right to decide issues, I’m generally with you on that (and if you really believe in that concept, you’d have to support an overturning of Roe v. Wade, no?) With some issues like gay marriage, though, I do think that having wildly different laws in different states would be problematic (is a gay marriage contract going to be legally valid in a state where gay marriage is prohibited, if the couple moves?)

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com