Monday, October 02, 2006
Rallying the troops
Alright, I'm tired of this shit.
Tired of the lot of ya who are willing to hand the keys to Congress over to San Francisco whack job Nancy "The War in Afghanistan is Over" Pelosi and Harry "Stop Sign" Reid and the odious John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry, all because some jerk in Florida has an AOL account and a hard on.
You're falling right into the Democratic trap. They are going to play this to the hilt, because it is their goal to take the election by stripping the base away from the Republicans. It's the hidden ball trick.
Yes, the GOP leadership acted suboptimally. But what do you think they should have done? Expel a Congressman because he is too friendly in some emails with some pages? Well, the Donks are hoping that you'll say "yes." But they're lying to you through obfuscation.
The Donks are going to rely on the press's inability to discern the emails from the IM's. And it's in the IM's that the real damning evidence was found - not the emails. For all the Donk braying, there is still nothing to suggest that the GOP house leadership knew about the IMs. Only a few of the emails. And while I posted when I was aware of only the emails that they certainly rubbed me the wrong way, and warranted some caution, there was nothing in them to suggest a crime. A propensity to one, perhaps. But Foley was voted into office by the people of his district - not by Dennis Hastert. Absent evidence of a crime, Hastert would have had no business trying to strip Foley of his office.
Had he tried, the Donks would have gone hysterical, arguing that the GOP was rotten with homophobia, and was trying to disenfranchise the voters of Palm Beach a second time (but only after the incumbent was removed.)
You think the Democrats would have done any better looking out for kids? The last time a Democrat congressman boinked a 17 year old volunteer, Clinton granted him clemency. Then another Democrat, a former Democrat presidential candidate at that, hired him out of prison - and made him a youth counselor!!!!!!
Barney Frank's tale of scuzziness - his boyfriend was running a prostitution ring out of his home or office - I forget which - is well-known. Frank is still in office, of course. Marion Barry got busted with cocaine and a prostitute and rather than apologize and check into rehab, his first reaction was 'The Bitch Set Me Up.'
Let's take a trip in the Wayback Machine to recall how Democrat congressional leaders handle reports of scandal when they're in charge:
The year is 1991. Democrats control the House and the Senate. Capitol Hill police are investigating a single Capital Hill employee for embezzlement. The investigation begins to spread. Turns out that Dan Rostenkowski, a Democratic congressman from Illinois and a product of the old Chicago Democratic Machine, may be implicated in the scam. So what does the Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley do?
Well, he bucks up like a man.
And shuts down the whole investigation.
That's right. When the Democrats had the Hill, they enforced a code of omerta on the entire Capitol, and quashed the investigation over the objections of the Capitol Hill Police!
Talk about politicizing law enforcement!!!
Well, eventually the information got out and the Donkles were forced to admit to the obvious...they were crooked as Hell.
It took the United States Post Office to conduct the investigation that the Democrats wouldn't allow the capitol hill police to do: prove that Dan Rostenkowski and Joe Kolter, another Democrat from Pennsylvania, were heading up the check-writing scam.
Rostenkowski served more than a year in prison.
Oh, and Clinton pardoned him, too, along with that former Democratic Congressman who boinked a 17-year old.
That is what happened the last time the Democrats held the House.
Oh, and then there was the House check writing scandal, in which dear Senator Barbara Boxer, then a Representative, was found to have written more than 100 bad checks totalling tens of thousands of dollars, against the House bank.
Ms. Boxer has been reelected consistently since then, and of course, elevated to the Senate. The worst of it: The Democrat House leadership tried to keep that from you!
That's right. The Democrat leadership, then in charge of the House, sought to restrict the publicizing of the true extent of the scandal, which involved far more Donks than Republicans. It was Newt Gingrich and "The Gang of Seven" who pushed to let it all hang out. He hung a few Republicans - and got stung himself, when it came out that Gingrich himself had written a few hot ones.
The Democrats only wanted you to know about a few of the hard cases.
Nancy Pelosi, with more than 100 bad checks to her name, apparently didn't rise to the standard of a "hard case" according to the party of Marion Barry and Tedward Kennedy.
Eventually, five Congresspersons were convicted or pled guilty to crimes. Four of them were Democrats. No wonder the Donks wanted to keep the whole thing under pretty tight wraps.
I shouldn't even have to bring up the years of footdragging, obfuscation, lost Rose Law Firm records, and lying that charactarized the Clinton Administration's reaction to the investigations derivative of the Whitewater investigation.
I doubt it would do any good to do so here. (Incidentally, I never thought there was anything to Whitewater, but the law is clear: Clinton was required to cooperate with federal investigators. He did not. Well, I guess he provided the same level of cooperation with Federal investigators as Tom Foley provided to the Capitol Hill Police trying to investigate the check-kiting scandal that got Rosty.
That is to say, he did everything he could to obstruct it - violating federal law in the process (which even provides stiff penalties for a reflexive, exculpatory "no.")
That's the Democrat record on scandal management. They simply don't have one. Were it not for Newt Gingrich and the Gang of Seven, Nancy Pelosi would not have had the opportunity to snag her first national soundbite I can remember: "I'm so embarrassed."
I can remember it clear as day because I was a college student and liberal Democrat in those days and I was embarrassed right along with her.
So AllahPundit and Ace and so many others are willing to walk away from the country and help deliver the keys to the War on Terror to the likes of Representative John "over the horizon" Murtha? All in a fit of pique because Hastert couldn't move to discipline an elected official under charges of being "overly friendly?"
We're constantly accusing Democrats of hysterical, overwrought emotionalism and sensationalism - and the right wing of the Blogosphere has gotten a serious attack of the Sullies.
Hell with that.
Get some perspective people.
Foleygate is a matter for the people of the 16th District of Florida to deal with.
We were Republicans because the Democrats are totally freaking unserious when it comes to prosecuting the war on terror. Pelosi is on record as even denying there IS a war on in Afganistan, while she says it's a disaster. The Donks are fighting tooth and nail to sell out the country so their trial lawyer constituency can discover a new market in Terrorists and open up a traffic ticket and terrorists rights office right outside of the Gitmo gate.
That's right. When you've whored yourself out to the trial lawyer hammer, everything looks like a tort nail.
And none of that has changed a whit.
Foley could have nailed that kid flatter than a hockey rink and none of that changed.
Meanwhile, it will shortly come to pass that Democrats - the party that grants clemency to people who, you know, actually boink their interns rather than just IM them about it - will have sat on the knowledge of those IMs longer than Hastert had an opportunity to. They sat on it for weeks - even months. Certainly they knew prior to the primaries.
And these conservatives are willing to sell the country out to the Pelosis all in a fit of pique?
Hell, no.
I'll be at the polling place in November, and I'll be pulling the lever for people who are serious about killing terrorists.
And so should you.
No, the party's not perfect. Yes, Hastert's a lousy speaker and a weak leader who inspires nothing. So sack him and replace him with someone in the Reagan mold. Republicans can do that, AND keep their majorities.
The issue isn't whether Republicans deserve to lose the election. They probably do.
But the country doesn't deserve to lose in the process, because core Republicans want to stamp their feet and bitch and cry. The time for that was in the primaries.
Don't be weakies. Get to the polls. Vote to put anti-terrorists in office of whatever party.
Don't be distracted by the Donk lies. Most of the good Democrats have been driven out, anyway. Sam Nunn? Gone. John Kerrey, the Medal of Honor-winning former SEAL from Nebraska? A great man. Gone. Pat Moynihan passed away, rest his soul. Lieberman? All but tarred and feathered. The blue dogs, the Reagan Democrats, have been driven from their ranks - me among them.
Fine. Let there be a price. But let it be paid by the party of Cynthia McKinney, Barney Frank, and John Murtha. Let it be paid by the party of Marion Barry and Dan Rostenkowski. Let it be paid by the party of Congressman Reynolds and the surrender monkeys.
Good Republicans are still trying to win the war on terror.
Help them.
Don't get side tracked. Don't get demoralized. Don't give up. Never, ever, ever, ever give up.
This is the election where America, after all the hard-won gains, decides whether it has the stomach to finish the job.
Vote.
Splash, out
Jason
Tired of the lot of ya who are willing to hand the keys to Congress over to San Francisco whack job Nancy "The War in Afghanistan is Over" Pelosi and Harry "Stop Sign" Reid and the odious John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry, all because some jerk in Florida has an AOL account and a hard on.
You're falling right into the Democratic trap. They are going to play this to the hilt, because it is their goal to take the election by stripping the base away from the Republicans. It's the hidden ball trick.
Yes, the GOP leadership acted suboptimally. But what do you think they should have done? Expel a Congressman because he is too friendly in some emails with some pages? Well, the Donks are hoping that you'll say "yes." But they're lying to you through obfuscation.
The Donks are going to rely on the press's inability to discern the emails from the IM's. And it's in the IM's that the real damning evidence was found - not the emails. For all the Donk braying, there is still nothing to suggest that the GOP house leadership knew about the IMs. Only a few of the emails. And while I posted when I was aware of only the emails that they certainly rubbed me the wrong way, and warranted some caution, there was nothing in them to suggest a crime. A propensity to one, perhaps. But Foley was voted into office by the people of his district - not by Dennis Hastert. Absent evidence of a crime, Hastert would have had no business trying to strip Foley of his office.
Had he tried, the Donks would have gone hysterical, arguing that the GOP was rotten with homophobia, and was trying to disenfranchise the voters of Palm Beach a second time (but only after the incumbent was removed.)
You think the Democrats would have done any better looking out for kids? The last time a Democrat congressman boinked a 17 year old volunteer, Clinton granted him clemency. Then another Democrat, a former Democrat presidential candidate at that, hired him out of prison - and made him a youth counselor!!!!!!
Barney Frank's tale of scuzziness - his boyfriend was running a prostitution ring out of his home or office - I forget which - is well-known. Frank is still in office, of course. Marion Barry got busted with cocaine and a prostitute and rather than apologize and check into rehab, his first reaction was 'The Bitch Set Me Up.'
Let's take a trip in the Wayback Machine to recall how Democrat congressional leaders handle reports of scandal when they're in charge:
The year is 1991. Democrats control the House and the Senate. Capitol Hill police are investigating a single Capital Hill employee for embezzlement. The investigation begins to spread. Turns out that Dan Rostenkowski, a Democratic congressman from Illinois and a product of the old Chicago Democratic Machine, may be implicated in the scam. So what does the Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley do?
Well, he bucks up like a man.
And shuts down the whole investigation.
That's right. When the Democrats had the Hill, they enforced a code of omerta on the entire Capitol, and quashed the investigation over the objections of the Capitol Hill Police!
Talk about politicizing law enforcement!!!
Well, eventually the information got out and the Donkles were forced to admit to the obvious...they were crooked as Hell.
It took the United States Post Office to conduct the investigation that the Democrats wouldn't allow the capitol hill police to do: prove that Dan Rostenkowski and Joe Kolter, another Democrat from Pennsylvania, were heading up the check-writing scam.
Rostenkowski served more than a year in prison.
Oh, and Clinton pardoned him, too, along with that former Democratic Congressman who boinked a 17-year old.
That is what happened the last time the Democrats held the House.
Oh, and then there was the House check writing scandal, in which dear Senator Barbara Boxer, then a Representative, was found to have written more than 100 bad checks totalling tens of thousands of dollars, against the House bank.
Ms. Boxer has been reelected consistently since then, and of course, elevated to the Senate. The worst of it: The Democrat House leadership tried to keep that from you!
That's right. The Democrat leadership, then in charge of the House, sought to restrict the publicizing of the true extent of the scandal, which involved far more Donks than Republicans. It was Newt Gingrich and "The Gang of Seven" who pushed to let it all hang out. He hung a few Republicans - and got stung himself, when it came out that Gingrich himself had written a few hot ones.
The Democrats only wanted you to know about a few of the hard cases.
Nancy Pelosi, with more than 100 bad checks to her name, apparently didn't rise to the standard of a "hard case" according to the party of Marion Barry and Tedward Kennedy.
Eventually, five Congresspersons were convicted or pled guilty to crimes. Four of them were Democrats. No wonder the Donks wanted to keep the whole thing under pretty tight wraps.
I shouldn't even have to bring up the years of footdragging, obfuscation, lost Rose Law Firm records, and lying that charactarized the Clinton Administration's reaction to the investigations derivative of the Whitewater investigation.
I doubt it would do any good to do so here. (Incidentally, I never thought there was anything to Whitewater, but the law is clear: Clinton was required to cooperate with federal investigators. He did not. Well, I guess he provided the same level of cooperation with Federal investigators as Tom Foley provided to the Capitol Hill Police trying to investigate the check-kiting scandal that got Rosty.
That is to say, he did everything he could to obstruct it - violating federal law in the process (which even provides stiff penalties for a reflexive, exculpatory "no.")
That's the Democrat record on scandal management. They simply don't have one. Were it not for Newt Gingrich and the Gang of Seven, Nancy Pelosi would not have had the opportunity to snag her first national soundbite I can remember: "I'm so embarrassed."
I can remember it clear as day because I was a college student and liberal Democrat in those days and I was embarrassed right along with her.
So AllahPundit and Ace and so many others are willing to walk away from the country and help deliver the keys to the War on Terror to the likes of Representative John "over the horizon" Murtha? All in a fit of pique because Hastert couldn't move to discipline an elected official under charges of being "overly friendly?"
We're constantly accusing Democrats of hysterical, overwrought emotionalism and sensationalism - and the right wing of the Blogosphere has gotten a serious attack of the Sullies.
Hell with that.
Get some perspective people.
Foleygate is a matter for the people of the 16th District of Florida to deal with.
We were Republicans because the Democrats are totally freaking unserious when it comes to prosecuting the war on terror. Pelosi is on record as even denying there IS a war on in Afganistan, while she says it's a disaster. The Donks are fighting tooth and nail to sell out the country so their trial lawyer constituency can discover a new market in Terrorists and open up a traffic ticket and terrorists rights office right outside of the Gitmo gate.
That's right. When you've whored yourself out to the trial lawyer hammer, everything looks like a tort nail.
And none of that has changed a whit.
Foley could have nailed that kid flatter than a hockey rink and none of that changed.
Meanwhile, it will shortly come to pass that Democrats - the party that grants clemency to people who, you know, actually boink their interns rather than just IM them about it - will have sat on the knowledge of those IMs longer than Hastert had an opportunity to. They sat on it for weeks - even months. Certainly they knew prior to the primaries.
And these conservatives are willing to sell the country out to the Pelosis all in a fit of pique?
Hell, no.
I'll be at the polling place in November, and I'll be pulling the lever for people who are serious about killing terrorists.
And so should you.
No, the party's not perfect. Yes, Hastert's a lousy speaker and a weak leader who inspires nothing. So sack him and replace him with someone in the Reagan mold. Republicans can do that, AND keep their majorities.
The issue isn't whether Republicans deserve to lose the election. They probably do.
But the country doesn't deserve to lose in the process, because core Republicans want to stamp their feet and bitch and cry. The time for that was in the primaries.
Don't be weakies. Get to the polls. Vote to put anti-terrorists in office of whatever party.
Don't be distracted by the Donk lies. Most of the good Democrats have been driven out, anyway. Sam Nunn? Gone. John Kerrey, the Medal of Honor-winning former SEAL from Nebraska? A great man. Gone. Pat Moynihan passed away, rest his soul. Lieberman? All but tarred and feathered. The blue dogs, the Reagan Democrats, have been driven from their ranks - me among them.
Fine. Let there be a price. But let it be paid by the party of Cynthia McKinney, Barney Frank, and John Murtha. Let it be paid by the party of Marion Barry and Dan Rostenkowski. Let it be paid by the party of Congressman Reynolds and the surrender monkeys.
Good Republicans are still trying to win the war on terror.
Help them.
Don't get side tracked. Don't get demoralized. Don't give up. Never, ever, ever, ever give up.
This is the election where America, after all the hard-won gains, decides whether it has the stomach to finish the job.
Vote.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
um, I think Ace and Allah were upset about Frist's remarks about letting the Taliban take part in the Afghan government.
Great work, Jason.
I have been reading since well before you changed your blog name.
Thank-you for serving your country, both in uniform and in print.
I am your number one fan. Keep up the good work.
I have been reading since well before you changed your blog name.
Thank-you for serving your country, both in uniform and in print.
I am your number one fan. Keep up the good work.
# posted by 
: 6:39 AM
: 6:39 AM
I still think it's better to chasten the Republicans now, rather than let them have a comeuppance in 2008. I've had it with their pork barrelling, social entitlement-increasing mostly ignoring-the-war-on-terror slackness.
Two years won't kill us. Or if it does, well, it will be blue staters. You won't have to worry about crystallizing voter opinion in favor of doing what we need to do.
Two years won't kill us. Or if it does, well, it will be blue staters. You won't have to worry about crystallizing voter opinion in favor of doing what we need to do.
Nice rant. Very similar to one I had the other night. I have wanted to punish the Republicans for their lack of intestinal fortitude in dealing with the Democrats. I wasn't going to vote for the first time in my adult life, but helping this group of Democrats gain control of the congress would only mean endless hearings, impeachment, and a result in Iraq similar to that in South Vietnam after congress cut off financial assistance and military hardware in 1975; and these Democrats are less trustworthy than those in 1975. We don’t need to indulge in developing a national suicide pact by giving the present Democratic leadership the reigns of government.
# posted by : 12:21 PM
: 12:21 PM
No One had any software monitoring official
IM traffice looking for obscene materials??
Where is Big Brother Now???
IM traffice looking for obscene materials??
Where is Big Brother Now???
# posted by : 12:43 PM
: 12:43 PM
#1 You are an idiot.
#2 You are a liar.
Let's see how...
""Nancy "The War in Afghanistan is Over" Pelosi"
She said that sarcastically, you sleazy liar.
"Harry "Stop Sign" Reid"
An epithet assigned to Reid for being from the opposition party, but you're so stupid that you think it would be a good thing to have a one party state - like China and the old USSR, you stupid idiot.
"John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry"
Anyone stupid enough to believe that old slogan should have their heads shaved so we can all see the lobotomy scars, you sleazy lying idiot.
"Expel a Congressman because he is too friendly in some emails with some pages?"
So, how long have you been a dues paying member of NAMBLA, Boy Lover?
"The last time a Democrat congressman boinked a 17 year old volunteer, Clinton granted him clemency. Then another Democrat, a former Democrat presidential candidate at that, hired him out of prison - and made him a youth counselor!!!!!!"
Got a link?
Oh, and as for Frank - not his fault - and the people of MA seem to agree. I guess his lover was too old for you, huh NAMBLA Boy?
And then you dredge up Dem scandals from over a decade ago. Why? Because you have nothing. No-thing. Yes, they were corrupt! That's what happens with ultimate power! With a one parttyu state! You idiot. That's why the GOP is so f'd up right now! Because you idiots gave them too much power because you are so incredibly stupid as to really believe partisan rhetoric as if handed down from God!
As for the sleazy moron who talked about Vietnam above - first, there was no "South" Vietnam, you sleazy, stupid, child-killer. That was a creation of the French - French lover. And if you are so stupid as to think that the Dems cost us that sleazy corporate colonial war that we had no right to fight - even though we murdered 3,000,000 Vietnamese, dropped more than all the explosive tonnage than in all of WWII, lost 58,000 Americans, wounded and ruined thousands more, fought for over a decade, and STILL lost! - than you are a lowlife.
JMJ
#2 You are a liar.
Let's see how...
""Nancy "The War in Afghanistan is Over" Pelosi"
She said that sarcastically, you sleazy liar.
"Harry "Stop Sign" Reid"
An epithet assigned to Reid for being from the opposition party, but you're so stupid that you think it would be a good thing to have a one party state - like China and the old USSR, you stupid idiot.
"John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry"
Anyone stupid enough to believe that old slogan should have their heads shaved so we can all see the lobotomy scars, you sleazy lying idiot.
"Expel a Congressman because he is too friendly in some emails with some pages?"
So, how long have you been a dues paying member of NAMBLA, Boy Lover?
"The last time a Democrat congressman boinked a 17 year old volunteer, Clinton granted him clemency. Then another Democrat, a former Democrat presidential candidate at that, hired him out of prison - and made him a youth counselor!!!!!!"
Got a link?
Oh, and as for Frank - not his fault - and the people of MA seem to agree. I guess his lover was too old for you, huh NAMBLA Boy?
And then you dredge up Dem scandals from over a decade ago. Why? Because you have nothing. No-thing. Yes, they were corrupt! That's what happens with ultimate power! With a one parttyu state! You idiot. That's why the GOP is so f'd up right now! Because you idiots gave them too much power because you are so incredibly stupid as to really believe partisan rhetoric as if handed down from God!
As for the sleazy moron who talked about Vietnam above - first, there was no "South" Vietnam, you sleazy, stupid, child-killer. That was a creation of the French - French lover. And if you are so stupid as to think that the Dems cost us that sleazy corporate colonial war that we had no right to fight - even though we murdered 3,000,000 Vietnamese, dropped more than all the explosive tonnage than in all of WWII, lost 58,000 Americans, wounded and ruined thousands more, fought for over a decade, and STILL lost! - than you are a lowlife.
JMJ
Of course I drug up Dem scandals from over a decade ago. It's been more than a decade since they had a majority, genius!
As for NAMBLA, well, I'll have to plead ignorance. You seem to be more familiar with that organization than I am.
And if you're going to claim we murdered 3 million Vietnamese, well, you're dumber than I thought you were at the start of your post.
And that's saying a lot.
As for NAMBLA, well, I'll have to plead ignorance. You seem to be more familiar with that organization than I am.
And if you're going to claim we murdered 3 million Vietnamese, well, you're dumber than I thought you were at the start of your post.
And that's saying a lot.
Jason:
I can't figure out you haven't done with McJones what you did with the last tone-deaf anvil-banger, unless it's because he's a perfect illustration of who and what we *don't* want running the government.
I stopped reading the post at "sleazy liar". (Though "baby-killer" leapt out at me from the body. Pathetic. I haven't even been tempted to use that moronic epithet since I was, oh, nineteen.)
I wondered for half a second or so if he had anything substantive to say, but didn't feel like getting any of the accompanying partisan drivel on me in the process of getting to it.
Yep, that's what name-calling gets from me - posts unread. Or as the old Capellan proverb puts it, "His words are unimportant and we do not hear them."
I can't figure out you haven't done with McJones what you did with the last tone-deaf anvil-banger, unless it's because he's a perfect illustration of who and what we *don't* want running the government.
I stopped reading the post at "sleazy liar". (Though "baby-killer" leapt out at me from the body. Pathetic. I haven't even been tempted to use that moronic epithet since I was, oh, nineteen.)
I wondered for half a second or so if he had anything substantive to say, but didn't feel like getting any of the accompanying partisan drivel on me in the process of getting to it.
Yep, that's what name-calling gets from me - posts unread. Or as the old Capellan proverb puts it, "His words are unimportant and we do not hear them."
# posted by : 6:13 PM
: 6:13 PM
"What we need are people of moderate persuasions in government"
Absolutely. As for the namecalling, that's what a person does when he/she have no substance behind their arguments, or are too intellectually lazy to back them up with evidence.
The only person JMJ made to look bad is himself.
Absolutely. As for the namecalling, that's what a person does when he/she have no substance behind their arguments, or are too intellectually lazy to back them up with evidence.
The only person JMJ made to look bad is himself.
I think you meant BOB Kerrey, former Democrat Senator from Nebraska and former Navy SEAL. He's also noteworthy for declaring Bill Clinton to be "an unusually good liar".
# posted by : 9:07 PM
: 9:07 PM
Foleygate is a matter for the people of the 16th District of Florida to deal with.
This is where your wrong. It's not at all about Foley, it stop being about him five minuets after the scandal broke.
It is about the leadership that did nothing to protect minors under their care. It's about trust.
In today's world where we are all aware of the many dangers that threatens our kids, where you worry about your kids at school, where their in danger from people on the net, when you have to watch them every moment of the day. When you can be charged for walking away from your car for five minuets, or are the fist suspect if your kid falls down, and your take them in to the hospital for a broken arm. In this the world the rest of us live in, the leadership did not think it necessary to carefully protect the pages in their charge.
You have to wonder about their judgment, are they in the possession of all their faculties?
If this had happened at your local high school, and you found out that a teacher had been sending inappropriate messages to a student, you would expect the principle of that school to investigate. You would expect that he would have looked into it to some degree. He should have interviewed other students, checked all the school records, and done everything he could to make sure it was just an innocent mistake, or bad choice of words.
If during that investigation the principle had found prior inappropriate behavior, or any signs that something might not be as innocent as presented, yet did nothing to protect the children in his care, you would mad as hell.
And that principle would be fired, or even charged with a crime.
The same thing applies here. Those pages are vulnerable, and everyone knows it. This guy had priors, yes maybe nothing criminal, but there were questions about his sexuality. I know just questions, but then you see an e-mail like that to a 16 year old page. Bells should have started ringing...He should have looked further into the matter, he should have contacted all the pages who had ever served during Foleys term, and asked. Has anyone ever sent you inappropriate messages. Has anyone ever made an inappropriate request. Maybe he might have learned that pages were warned, "watch out for Foley". At that point called the FBI or the capital police and had them look into any and all communications between Foley and house pages.
It's about trust. or the lack there of.
This is where your wrong. It's not at all about Foley, it stop being about him five minuets after the scandal broke.
It is about the leadership that did nothing to protect minors under their care. It's about trust.
In today's world where we are all aware of the many dangers that threatens our kids, where you worry about your kids at school, where their in danger from people on the net, when you have to watch them every moment of the day. When you can be charged for walking away from your car for five minuets, or are the fist suspect if your kid falls down, and your take them in to the hospital for a broken arm. In this the world the rest of us live in, the leadership did not think it necessary to carefully protect the pages in their charge.
You have to wonder about their judgment, are they in the possession of all their faculties?
If this had happened at your local high school, and you found out that a teacher had been sending inappropriate messages to a student, you would expect the principle of that school to investigate. You would expect that he would have looked into it to some degree. He should have interviewed other students, checked all the school records, and done everything he could to make sure it was just an innocent mistake, or bad choice of words.
If during that investigation the principle had found prior inappropriate behavior, or any signs that something might not be as innocent as presented, yet did nothing to protect the children in his care, you would mad as hell.
And that principle would be fired, or even charged with a crime.
The same thing applies here. Those pages are vulnerable, and everyone knows it. This guy had priors, yes maybe nothing criminal, but there were questions about his sexuality. I know just questions, but then you see an e-mail like that to a 16 year old page. Bells should have started ringing...He should have looked further into the matter, he should have contacted all the pages who had ever served during Foleys term, and asked. Has anyone ever sent you inappropriate messages. Has anyone ever made an inappropriate request. Maybe he might have learned that pages were warned, "watch out for Foley". At that point called the FBI or the capital police and had them look into any and all communications between Foley and house pages.
It's about trust. or the lack there of.
There is nothing about Foleygate -- or Mastergate, if you prefer, that renders irrelevant or overrides the Democratic commitment to pursue frivolous articles of impeachment, to sell out our allies in Iraq and elsewhere in the War on Terror, to obstruct conservative and moderate judges and appoint leftists in their place, to raise income taxes, to hike capital gains taxes, to engage in class warfare, to gut our intelligence gathering systems by abolishing the NSA wiretaps on Al Qaeda cell phone calls, and to hamstring our warriors by applying law enforcement standards to foreign battlefields.
Foleygate is a tempest in a teapot.
In case you missed it, Foley didn't last a day after the extent of his IMs was revealed. (Compare this with Congressman Jefferson, still on the job for the Democrats after being caught with 95k in his freezer in his office!!!!)
If your objection is to Hastert, then let him step down.
Why in God's name do you want to take out your rage against Foley out against Republicans trying to unseat Democratic incumbents, for example?
You think that's going to be productive?
No.
That's petulant.
If you believe in taking the fight to the terrorists, if you believe in the stimulative effect of modest tax levels, if you believe that people basically have a right to the fruits of their own labor, if you oppose redistributionist policies and class warfare, if you support free markets, if you want to stand up to the illegals movement, then Foley ought not to have done a whit to change that.
You have a problem with Foley? So do I. Have a problem with Hastert? Then write your congressman and tell him it's time for a leadership change in the House.
But hand Congress back to people who compare our troops to Khmer Rouge and Nazis?
No way.
Remember what's at stake. Don't sell out the country to the blue state fringe because of your temper tantrum.
Your desire for a leadership change can be addressed without handing the country over to Murtha, Code Pink, and George Soros.
Foleygate is a tempest in a teapot.
In case you missed it, Foley didn't last a day after the extent of his IMs was revealed. (Compare this with Congressman Jefferson, still on the job for the Democrats after being caught with 95k in his freezer in his office!!!!)
If your objection is to Hastert, then let him step down.
Why in God's name do you want to take out your rage against Foley out against Republicans trying to unseat Democratic incumbents, for example?
You think that's going to be productive?
No.
That's petulant.
If you believe in taking the fight to the terrorists, if you believe in the stimulative effect of modest tax levels, if you believe that people basically have a right to the fruits of their own labor, if you oppose redistributionist policies and class warfare, if you support free markets, if you want to stand up to the illegals movement, then Foley ought not to have done a whit to change that.
You have a problem with Foley? So do I. Have a problem with Hastert? Then write your congressman and tell him it's time for a leadership change in the House.
But hand Congress back to people who compare our troops to Khmer Rouge and Nazis?
No way.
Remember what's at stake. Don't sell out the country to the blue state fringe because of your temper tantrum.
Your desire for a leadership change can be addressed without handing the country over to Murtha, Code Pink, and George Soros.
Yep, Bob Kerrey, who is so proud of his MoH he doesn't note it on his New School bio.
# posted by : 1:19 AM
: 1:19 AM
Gee, "JMJ", thanks for the rational, intelligent discourse. Could you toss us at least one more "sleazy" and another handful of "stupids" to make our day complete?
"We've got to improve our image in the world."
You realize that's a pipe dream, right? The most powerful, most affluent nation in the world is ALWAYS going to be despised by weaker, less affluent nations. Buy the world a Coke, and the world will blame you for forcing your culture on them. Don't buy them a Coke, and they accuse you of withholding it.
We have not changed what we stand for as a nation. We have not become more or less consistent in our actions of ideals. And yet, the belief is always that WE need to do something about our image abroad.
Perhaps it's time to start pondering the idea that there may not be anything we can do about it. It is true we cannot ignore how we are perceived, but it's probably also true that bending over backwards to improve USA's "PR" isn't going to make any real difference.
You realize that's a pipe dream, right? The most powerful, most affluent nation in the world is ALWAYS going to be despised by weaker, less affluent nations. Buy the world a Coke, and the world will blame you for forcing your culture on them. Don't buy them a Coke, and they accuse you of withholding it.
We have not changed what we stand for as a nation. We have not become more or less consistent in our actions of ideals. And yet, the belief is always that WE need to do something about our image abroad.
Perhaps it's time to start pondering the idea that there may not be anything we can do about it. It is true we cannot ignore how we are perceived, but it's probably also true that bending over backwards to improve USA's "PR" isn't going to make any real difference.
Dave: Tough decisions, indeed.
You make a lot of sense. Great points. We could debate them, but I think we'd still disagree in the end. But reasonable people can disagree.
That said, I do not believe (and in the end it boils down to belief tempered with reason and informed by experience) that handing control of the Congress to Democrats will improve any of the issues you raise.
As far as 'the Democrats are not quite that stupid', I don't know. Perhaps "evil" is too strong a word, but I've no doubt there are those who will put their political interests ahead of the country's, if for no other reason than they don't see a difference between the two.
They are perfectly capable of inflicting what they think of as short-term harm on the country in order to regain power, believing they can "fix" whatever harm they cause later.
Yes, there was a ot of stupid, vicious partisanship in the 90's, because then a lot of politicians (mistakenly) believed we no longer had to worry about external threats.
It takes a kind of willful blindness to think that we have time for that now; that the threat is overblown and has been unduly manipulated for political purposes; that the threat can be effectively dealt with as a law-enforcement and civil-liblerties problem.
I can buy the idea of two years in the wilderness: the Rs are chastised and the current House leadership shows its' collective ass to the world. (All that pent-up rage and frustration; they won't be able to help themselves.)
But I don't know if that's enough to get me to pull ANY lever with "D" next to it.
I've read a couple of things to the effect that the Clintons don't want both houses to go D, because - under the current leadership - that would probably damage Hillary's chances in '08...
You make a lot of sense. Great points. We could debate them, but I think we'd still disagree in the end. But reasonable people can disagree.
That said, I do not believe (and in the end it boils down to belief tempered with reason and informed by experience) that handing control of the Congress to Democrats will improve any of the issues you raise.
As far as 'the Democrats are not quite that stupid', I don't know. Perhaps "evil" is too strong a word, but I've no doubt there are those who will put their political interests ahead of the country's, if for no other reason than they don't see a difference between the two.
They are perfectly capable of inflicting what they think of as short-term harm on the country in order to regain power, believing they can "fix" whatever harm they cause later.
Yes, there was a ot of stupid, vicious partisanship in the 90's, because then a lot of politicians (mistakenly) believed we no longer had to worry about external threats.
It takes a kind of willful blindness to think that we have time for that now; that the threat is overblown and has been unduly manipulated for political purposes; that the threat can be effectively dealt with as a law-enforcement and civil-liblerties problem.
I can buy the idea of two years in the wilderness: the Rs are chastised and the current House leadership shows its' collective ass to the world. (All that pent-up rage and frustration; they won't be able to help themselves.)
But I don't know if that's enough to get me to pull ANY lever with "D" next to it.
I've read a couple of things to the effect that the Clintons don't want both houses to go D, because - under the current leadership - that would probably damage Hillary's chances in '08...
# posted by : 12:41 PM
: 12:41 PM
Part of me wants very much to rip pretty much all of the existing congress out, and vote new folks in - because I am soooo tired of most all of them. But you had me cheering with you -- whatever one wants to change or keep, the vote this year is as important as the last Presidential election. Maybe more important.
There is a time for "throw the bums out" thinking. But that time is in the primary, not the general election.
Once you get to the general election, you have to look at your individual congressman. Indeed, to judge your individual congressman - who may well be doing his or her level best to represent you and your district in an honest and ethical way - by the actions of someone across the country is an injustice.
Any employee ought to expect to be evaluated on his or her own merits, and not fired because of the actions of another.
Once you get to the general election, you have to look at your individual congressman. Indeed, to judge your individual congressman - who may well be doing his or her level best to represent you and your district in an honest and ethical way - by the actions of someone across the country is an injustice.
Any employee ought to expect to be evaluated on his or her own merits, and not fired because of the actions of another.
Jason, once again you're right on! Just tonight 10/5, I heard Pelosi say that if we'll just vote for the Democrats in November, our troops will be pulling out of Iraq by December, 2006 - that Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. She and a lot of others are dumb as posts! They refuse to be otherwise.
# posted by : 8:49 PM
: 8:49 PM
In this case, that idea is nonsense. Foley is not an agent of Hastert's. Hastert has no authority to hire, fire, or discipline Foley. The House of Representatives has a heierarchy of equals. Seniority has a role, but it does not extend to babysitting. The role of senior Congressmen is administrative ONLY. A committee chair, for example, has no authority to require other members of the committee to show up and vote. The speaker of the House has no authority to require a congressperson to show for a vote - much less discipline them for noncrimes.
All Congressmen are equals. One does not supervise another. Foley is responsible to the voters in his district.
That is all.
Hastert has no responsibility to babysit him or anyone else. This idea that he does is not only absurd - it's unconstitutional.
To claim that Hastert has "supervisory" authority over other members of Congress is to destroy the representative nature of government. If you go by your reasoning, then Congressmen are no longer representing their own districts. They're beholden to a Congressman from another district.
This gives the senior congressman inordinate power not granted in the Constitution, and causes an innate conflict of interest for all members of Congress.
Ditch the "supervisory" model of analyis. It's a legal and ethical blind alley -- which leads to absurd conclusions.
Post a Comment
All Congressmen are equals. One does not supervise another. Foley is responsible to the voters in his district.
That is all.
Hastert has no responsibility to babysit him or anyone else. This idea that he does is not only absurd - it's unconstitutional.
To claim that Hastert has "supervisory" authority over other members of Congress is to destroy the representative nature of government. If you go by your reasoning, then Congressmen are no longer representing their own districts. They're beholden to a Congressman from another district.
This gives the senior congressman inordinate power not granted in the Constitution, and causes an innate conflict of interest for all members of Congress.
Ditch the "supervisory" model of analyis. It's a legal and ethical blind alley -- which leads to absurd conclusions.
