Is anyone getting irritated with this Congressman Foley debacle?

[Perd Hapley]

That was richyoung citing the Democratic misdeeds.  

Stop pretending that you don't get the point.  The point is the intensity of reporting on Democrat vs. Republican scandals.  Of course Jefferson's alleged crimes were reported, but how much play did they get compared to those of Tom DeLay or even the non-leaking of a non-covert identity (Valerie Plame) by those who didn't leak it (Rove, Libby and Cheney)?  You know the answer to that.  You know that the drive-by press decides what we talk about, and that they are the reason why we are talking about Foley and not talking about Jefferson or some other scandal on the Democrat side.  

But there's more to it than that.  Conservatives and Republicans can call for the resignations of leftists all day long, but the press doesn't care.  But let one well-placed leftist demand the resignation of Hastert, Shimkis or Rumsfeld, and the headlines read, "So-and-so refuses to resign."  Just as they read, "Congress refuses to renew Assault Weapons Bill."  

But I'm sure you're not denying the bias of the old-line press, right?

[Darwin]

Question 1: No, I am not suggesting that. I don't really care how much exposure something gets, as long as I find out about it. I don't even care if it's on page one or page eight of the daily paper, because I read all the pages.

Question 2: Again, no, but I learned about these things in the media, so it can be done.

[The Rabbi]

I stand corrected. I am so used to correcting misplaced modifiers that I misspoke and said "modifier" when I meant pronoun. Thank you for correcting me.

Regarding my statement in post 20, I haven't defended it because in spite of your blustery blather, you have said nothing to refute it. If the press hasn't reported all the examples of despicable behavior of the Democrats, how then do you know about them? To prove your point about the press not reporting Democratic deviance you cite example after example of Democratic deviance that you read about.... in the press. I see no reason to try to correct such circular (lack of) logic. I think the matter speaks for itself.

I dont think its an issue of whether they report it but how they report it.  Minimally and as no big deal.  Meanwhile Republicans are out committing the next Watergate.

[The Rabbi]

That was richyoung citing the Democratic misdeeds.  

Stop pretending that you don't get the point.  The point is the intensity of reporting on Democrat vs. Republican scandals.  Of course Jefferson's alleged crimes were reported, but how much play did they get compared to those of Tom DeLay or even the non-leaking of a non-covert identity (Valerie Plame) by those who didn't leak it (Rove, Libby and Cheney)?  You know the answer to that.  You know that the drive-by press decides what we talk about, and that they are the reason why we are talking about Foley and not talking about Jefferson or some other scandal on the Democrat side.  

But there's more to it than that.  Conservatives and Republicans can call for the resignations of leftists all day long, but the press doesn't care.  But let one well-placed leftist demand the resignation of Hastert, Shimkis or Rumsfeld, and the headlines read, "So-and-so refuses to resign."  Just as they read, "Congress refuses to renew Assault Weapons Bill."  

But I'm sure you're not denying the bias of the old-line press, right?

Actually Jefferson was even worse because the press turned him into a martyr for the Constitution, claiming his rights had been compromised and ignoring what he obviously had done.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, I forgot to add that most of the coverage of the Jefferson scandal was devoted to the outrage that the DoJ had invaded the sacred office of a Congressmen.  They should have just invaded his private IM's. 

I could also point out how something embarassing was leaked from a Democratic memo a few years ago, and the press was only concerned with who had leaked the memo, that scoundrel.  Anybody remember the details on that?


Someone's still declining to answer jfruser's defense of Hastert, I see.

[CAnnoneer]

All this bickering is really silly. The dirty little liberal media tactics are nothing new. They LIVE for that, by that, because of that. The bias is so glaringly obvious. Where are the conservative channels and shows to balance out CNN, BBC, Jon Stewart, Tweety, Colbert? They have an entire lineup that vomits liberalism and anti-Americanism 24/7/365.25.  And no, Fox and O'Reily are at best neoconservative and so do not count.

[Antibubba]

Foley is, to use the classic phrase, "Hoist by his own petard".  This is a man who headed a committee to protect missing and exploited children.  An upstanding member of a party that insists homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" (then why bring up the priestly molestation?)  If I were in the media, I'd be all over this one too.

[Lobotomy Boy]

Jfruser, a self-described "fundie," defends the cover up of a sexual predator. CAnnoneer advocates genocide. I need to start hanging out with a better class of people.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Jfruser, a self-described "fundie," defends the cover up of a sexual predator. CAnnoneer advocates genocide. I need to start hanging out with a better class of people.

I've yet to see credible evidence that such a coverup ever occured.  The media is acting as if the coverup was done and proven, in a vain attempt to make their reporting come true by virtue of having reported it.  

But do we know yet, with any degree of certaintly, that Hastert was aware Foley was diddling little boys?  For that matter, do we even know that Foley was actually diddling those little boys, as opposed to just talking about it on the net?  All we really have are some shady and creepy internet text messages.

Let's not put the cart in fron of the horses here, fellas.

[roo_ster]

Jfruser, a self-described "fundie," defends the cover up of a sexual predator. CAnnoneer advocates genocide. I need to start hanging out with a better class of people.

Uh, what cover-up?  Just because folks squeal, "Cover up!" like a stuck pig does not make it so.  Facts matter.

According to all the reports, Hastert's minions had only access to the emails, not the IMs.  Hastert supposedly did not actually read the emails, but relied on his minions for a digest & told Foley to knock it off.  If you know that Hastert & his folks had access to more data, do please enlighten us.

So, was Hastert supposed to get out the pitchforks & torches and gin up a game of smear the queer?  Hey, I'll go along with the policy you advocate (distrusting homosexual men around teenaged boys and assuming the worst given any evidence), but you might want to run your standard by the PC police to see what they might think of the policy.

[LAK]

The decent people that find the Foley affair is upsetting ought to go back and revisit the investigation by Senator John W. DeCamp years ago, often referred to as the Franklin cover up.

--------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[stevelyn]

[tin-foil hat] I have to wonder if the mess with Foley is being used as a diversion to keep the MSM watching populace from taking note of what looks like an uptick in preparation for an attack on Iran.  The USS Eisenhower is set to deploy to Iran ahead of schedule, and IIRC some subs are also headed toward the sandbox.[/tin-foil hat]

I agree that this is a mindless political and media diversion and we need to start watching our flanks. As to the real motive? I have no idea, but I do know that somehow or another we're about to get bent over.

He's resigned, the FBI is investigating if there is possible criminal wrongdoing. Congress pukes need to move on and focus on important issues.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't think this is an intentional media distraction.  It's just a case of Republican blood in the water.  What amazes me is that the conservative outlets can't stop talking about it either.  It just proves that, for all that Limbaugh, Fox News, et al, have changed the media landscape, the old-line media are still dictating what we will talk about.

If this is a concerted effort to distract us, the left and right wing media are both part of it.

[Dannyboy]

I don't know if it's been corroborated yet but it's been reported that the underage former page was actually of legal age and this whole thing was a big "prank."

[The Rabbi]

I don't know if it's been corroborated yet but it's been reported that the underage former page was actually of legal age and this whole thing was a big "prank."

There was more than one page, but one of them was 18, yes.  Won't change a thing.

[Perd Hapley]

I think that point of view is that the page was sixteen when some of the milder e-mails or IMs were sent, and the really nasty IMs came later, after he had left the page job, when he was 18.  At least that's one interpretation of what happened; I'm not saying that's the right one.  

As Rabbi says, I think there were other pages involved.  What's stupid about this (but par for the course) is that this is being tried in the media well before the facts have all come out.

[The Rabbi]

In the court of public opinion Truth is often a stranger in the spectator's gallery.

I dont remember who said that but its still good.

[richyoung]

If the best that y'all can come up with as a defense for Hastert's inaction in following up on the Foley complaints is that the Democrats are scumbags (which they most certainly are), it looks to me like Hastert is sunk. Good luck with that.

Don't give a fig about Hastert either way, other than to see he has due process.  Look at the list again:

Dems: 2 dead, multiple rapes, at least 2 statutory rapes.
Repubs:  asked for sex, asked for sex via IM, asked for kinky sex with own wife.

Now look at the punishments:  only REPUBLICANS are hounded out of office or races for office.

Hmm - mehtinks the punishments don't match the crimes...

[CAnnoneer]

Now look at the punishments:  only REPUBLICANS are hounded out of office or races for office.

Double standards. If married Clinton does an intern in the Oval Office, it is nobody's business. If a repub wants to do his own wife in a social setting, he is clearly a dangerous amoral pervert.

[richyoung]

+1 to the CAboomer...

[richyoung]

Yeah, what happened to "It's just sex, everybody lies about sex, it's nobody else's business..."

I seem to recall hearing that  line from a lot of Democrats, about the time Prez Bill was using Monica's nether reagons as a field-improvised humidor...

[Unisaw]

about the time Prez Bill was using Monica's nether reagons as a field-improvised humidor...

Despite one spelling challenge, that writing is a literary accomplishment of the first order...

[richyoung]

...thanks

[richyoung]

..never could spell well...

[Strings]

Thanks rich... now I have another unwanted mental image to try and clear...

Anybody got the mental Draino?