blaming the victim

GaryC · October 5, 2006

Clinton Front Group Behind Foley Phone Banks

Phone calls are going out nationwide to Republicans from a group called American Family Voices, the group is run by Mr. Mike Lux, who was in the Clinton WhiteHouse from 1993 - 1995 as aide to President Clinton and former political director of People for the American Way. So the Clinton war room is in full operation, smear smear, destroy destroy, it's the Clinton way. The group asks the call recipient to call their Republican member of Congress and demand that the Republican leadership resign for covering up the Foley affair.

So the plan is to try and convince citizens that the Republican leadership knew about the emails. The only problem, the leadership knew about the largely innocous emails, but had no knowledge of the much more salacious IMs(text messages). The same strategy as was used with the Plame lies about the non-secret agent. Forget the facts, spread the lies.

Dirty tricks, you bet, over reaching, just watch. Looking more and more like the whole Foley thing was a setup from the start. Why else would this group go on the air within a few days unless they were all set to go. I doubt they got the database of Republican voters, put together the website, and employed all those callers overnight, don't you?

The Clintons are back, the game plan is the same, the only problem is the Internet is available to find the facts, and spread the word.

http://breakingnews.redstate.com/blogs/10k...ley_phone_banks

AnaAndDaniel · October 5, 2006

Clinton Front Group Behind Foley Phone Banks
Phone calls are going out nationwide to Republicans from a group called American Family Voices, the group is run by Mr. Mike Lux, who was in the Clinton WhiteHouse from 1993 - 1995 as aide to President Clinton and former political director of People for the American Way. So the Clinton war room is in full operation, smear smear, destroy destroy, it's the Clinton way. The group asks the call recipient to call their Republican member of Congress and demand that the Republican leadership resign for covering up the Foley affair.

So the plan is to try and convince citizens that the Republican leadership knew about the emails. The only problem, the leadership knew about the largely innocous emails, but had no knowledge of the much more salacious IMs(text messages). The same strategy as was used with the Plame lies about the non-secret agent. Forget the facts, spread the lies.

Dirty tricks, you bet, over reaching, just watch. Looking more and more like the whole Foley thing was a setup from the start. Why else would this group go on the air within a few days unless they were all set to go. I doubt they got the database of Republican voters, put together the website, and employed all those callers overnight, don't you?

The Clintons are back, the game plan is the same, the only problem is the Internet is available to find the facts, and spread the word.

http://breakingnews.redstate.com/blogs/10k...ley_phone_banks

ummm look at the source where you are getting this info. :secret: not at al unbiased.

and even if this group is calling up folks,,,, what does that have to do with the 'thruth'? what if the repub leaders did know about this before hand? are you going to let them slide? please don't respond with what the dems are reportedly doing.

Daniel

:energetic:

GaryC · October 5, 2006

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

The New Democrats [Andy McCarthy]

It's more than a little precious to observe the feeding frenzy and recriminations over Foley's salacious internet chats with former pages — the ones that Speaker Hastert did not see and yet is accused of consciously avoiding by failing to do follow-up upon learning of creepy but not sexually explicit emails.

I am no flack for the Speaker — I thought he and other leading Republicans exhibited very poor judgment in coming to Rep. Jefferson's aid when the Justice Department was trying to investigate him for corruption. But the current critique of Hastert smacks of suddenly changing the rules on a guy half-way through the game.

It wasn't so long ago that Democrats were horrified not by the specter of middle aged pervs seeking — indeed, having — sex with the young people placed in their care for mentoring purposes. What bothered them was what they regarded as the preternatural interest in it shown by those stuck-up, straight-laced Republican bible-thumpers like Judge Starr. After all, he could have just dryly given us the bottom-line details, but ohhh noo, Democrats cried, he had to linger on graphic detail after graphic detail.

Like here's one: phone sex — which I think is a pretty good 90's analogue of Instant-Message (IM) sex. According to Monica Lewinsky, she had President Clinton had phone sex some FIFTEEN TIMES. We don't have transcripts of these, er, sessions of course. We don't know what the President of the United States was precisely saying, or squealing, like we do with the comparatively tame Foley (who, for all we know, was not actually having a physical sexual relationship with the objects of his virtual sexual attentions). But we do know that at least some of these phone-sex sessions took place on non-secure phone lines — creating the possibility that they could be eavesdropped on by foreign agents, compromising Clinton and our national security.

Although they are evidently sudden converts to family values and robust national security, Democrats did not seem very interested in such matters not so long ago. What we heard back then was that Starr was too obsessed, that it was unseemly to go into all this icky stuff. This critique, called "Sex and the Starr Report" from the University of Missouri (Kansas City) Law School, was typical:

One of the most common criticisms of the Starr Report was that it had too much sex in it—far more than necessary to serve legitimate prosecutorial goals.... The Starr Report ... went far beyond establishing that the President lied when he denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky, and included sexual details of various encounters that suggest the Report also had as its purpose to embarrass Clinton and thus limit his effectiveness as President. Perhaps no detail revealed in the Starr Report better illustrates this prosecutorial overkill than the decision to include a description of Clinton putting a cigar in Lewinsky's #######, then putting it in his own mouth and saying that it "tastes good" (3-31-96). The cigar incident would inspire countless jokes by late-night comics and greatly weakened the ability of the President to ever again be seen as "presidential." The same good be said of the Starr Report's description of the President masturbating in a sink in his bathroom, its description of Clinton taking calls from members of Congress while receiving oral sex, or its mention of a more traditional form of "phone sex" between Lewinsky and the President. [ME: "A more traditional form of phone sex"?] ... The American people—most of them, anyway—learned far more about the President's private behavior from the Starr Report than they ever wanted to or needed to.... [The] details "are a distraction to anyone who wants to understand and evaluate Clinton's Presidency or the role and function of the President in American government and society." [Quoting Judge Richard Posner.]

Oddly, under circumstances where Foley is now gone because he could not last 30 seconds as an elected Republican once his conduct was revealed, we are now observing a frenzied call for Hastert's head for not doing enough to investigate behavior that actually pales in comparison to Clinton's. That frenzy, without a hint of irony or embarrassment, is being stoked by some of the very same people who affirmatively minimized conduct that was orders of magnitude worse than Foley's in order to close ranks around a much more consequential public official who, far from being gone in 30 seconds, was enabled by this support to cling to office for years, finish his term, and remain the Democratic Party's top star.

Indeed, the Foley scandal is now said to be a rationale for shifting power from those who avoided learning tawdry facts to those who well knew tawdrier facts and said they were private matters that, in any event, were no big deal.

What's wrong with this picture?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N...2Y3ZTZmMjIwMGE=

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress

Information compiled from the Washington Post, “Congressional Sex Scandals in History,” and other sources.

10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.

http://www.humanevents.com/lists.php?id=17357

Edited October 5, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

Carol&Marc · October 5, 2006

Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The New Democrats [Andy McCarthy]

It's more than a little precious to observe the feeding frenzy and recriminations over Foley's salacious internet chats with former pages — the ones that Speaker Hastert did not see and yet is accused of consciously avoiding by failing to do follow-up upon learning of creepy but not sexually explicit emails.

I am no flack for the Speaker — I thought he and other leading Republicans exhibited very poor judgment in coming to Rep. Jefferson's aid when the Justice Department was trying to investigate him for corruption. But the current critique of Hastert smacks of suddenly changing the rules on a guy half-way through the game.

It wasn't so long ago that Democrats were horrified not by the specter of middle aged pervs seeking — indeed, having — sex with the young people placed in their care for mentoring purposes. What bothered them was what they regarded as the preternatural interest in it shown by those stuck-up, straight-laced Republican bible-thumpers like Judge Starr. After all, he could have just dryly given us the bottom-line details, but ohhh noo, Democrats cried, he had to linger on graphic detail after graphic detail.

Like here's one: phone sex — which I think is a pretty good 90's analogue of Instant-Message (IM) sex. According to Monica Lewinsky, she had President Clinton had phone sex some FIFTEEN TIMES. We don't have transcripts of these, er, sessions of course. We don't know what the President of the United States was precisely saying, or squealing, like we do with the comparatively tame Foley (who, for all we know, was not actually having a physical sexual relationship with the objects of his virtual sexual attentions). But we do know that at least some of these phone-sex sessions took place on non-secure phone lines — creating the possibility that they could be eavesdropped on by foreign agents, compromising Clinton and our national security.

Although they are evidently sudden converts to family values and robust national security, Democrats did not seem very interested in such matters not so long ago. What we heard back then was that Starr was too obsessed, that it was unseemly to go into all this icky stuff. This critique, called "Sex and the Starr Report" from the University of Missouri (Kansas City) Law School, was typical:

One of the most common criticisms of the Starr Report was that it had too much sex in it—far more than necessary to serve legitimate prosecutorial goals.... The Starr Report ... went far beyond establishing that the President lied when he denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky, and included sexual details of various encounters that suggest the Report also had as its purpose to embarrass Clinton and thus limit his effectiveness as President. Perhaps no detail revealed in the Starr Report better illustrates this prosecutorial overkill than the decision to include a description of Clinton putting a cigar in Lewinsky's #######, then putting it in his own mouth and saying that it "tastes good" (3-31-96). The cigar incident would inspire countless jokes by late-night comics and greatly weakened the ability of the President to ever again be seen as "presidential." The same good be said of the Starr Report's description of the President masturbating in a sink in his bathroom, its description of Clinton taking calls from members of Congress while receiving oral sex, or its mention of a more traditional form of "phone sex" between Lewinsky and the President. [ME: "A more traditional form of phone sex"?] ... The American people—most of them, anyway—learned far more about the President's private behavior from the Starr Report than they ever wanted to or needed to.... [The] details "are a distraction to anyone who wants to understand and evaluate Clinton's Presidency or the role and function of the President in American government and society." [Quoting Judge Richard Posner.]

Oddly, under circumstances where Foley is now gone because he could not last 30 seconds as an elected Republican once his conduct was revealed, we are now observing a frenzied call for Hastert's head for not doing enough to investigate behavior that actually pales in comparison to Clinton's. That frenzy, without a hint of irony or embarrassment, is being stoked by some of the very same people who affirmatively minimized conduct that was orders of magnitude worse than Foley's in order to close ranks around a much more consequential public official who, far from being gone in 30 seconds, was enabled by this support to cling to office for years, finish his term, and remain the Democratic Party's top star.

Indeed, the Foley scandal is now said to be a rationale for shifting power from those who avoided learning tawdry facts to those who well knew tawdrier facts and said they were private matters that, in any event, were no big deal.

What's wrong with this picture?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N...2Y3ZTZmMjIwMGE=

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress

Information compiled from the Washington Post, “Congressional Sex Scandals in History,” and other sources.

10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.

http://www.humanevents.com/lists.php?id=17357

I find it funny when a Democrat doesnt like what they read they site that the origination of the story is biased! But they all get their news from "mainstrem media sources" scratches head!

I'm Gone · October 5, 2006

Kirk Fordham, the former Foley aide, said in an interview with The Associated Press that more than three years ago he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene." He declined to identify them, but officials said Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff, was one of them. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

http://tinyurl.com/mmj6q

I wouldn't put it past ABC to wait until now to drop this story and of course the Democrates are running with it, but this is not some made up October surprise, so if top Republicans knew about Foley and didn't do anything they have no one to blame but themselves.

ieldanth · October 5, 2006

Kirk Fordham, the former Foley aide, said in an interview with The Associated Press that more than three years ago he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene." He declined to identify them, but officials said Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff, was one of them. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
http://tinyurl.com/mmj6q

I wouldn't put it past ABC to wait until now to drop this story and of course the Democrates are running with it, but this is not some made up October surprise, so if top Republicans knew about Foley and didn't do anything they have no one to blame but themselves.

That is 'if'. We don't truly know one way or the other. Foley is out, and should be given the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge, which means he gives up all the perks and benefits of office, if not outright imprisoned. As for the others, we will hopefully find out exactly how much they knew and what the circumstances are. Once that happens, then we hang them from the proverbial tree if they deserve it.

Widge · October 5, 2006

Actually he isn't out as such he is hiding in rehab paid for by the taxpayers! don't get me wrong if he needs their services fine but if it were anyone else who came out with the list of excuses he has given then they would be hung drawn and quartered. His behaviour over years seems despicable and if he was making those judgement calls in his private life (and leaving himself wide open to blackmail to boot) it makes one question his political decisions (nothing in this life is in isolation).

And could someone please explain to the media here the very enormous difference between a gay and a paedophile :yes:

rclouse · October 5, 2006

Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress

Two wrongs don't make a right. What might have happened in the past does not excuse the crimes and misdeeds of the present.

/take your medicine like a man!

Carol&Marc · October 5, 2006

Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress

Two wrongs don't make a right. What might have happened in the past does not excuse the crimes and misdeeds of the present.

/take your medicine like a man!

I dont think its about two wrongs,its more about the blatant hypocracy!

AnaAndDaniel · October 5, 2006

Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress

Two wrongs don't make a right. What might have happened in the past does not excuse the crimes and misdeeds of the present.

/take your medicine like a man!

I dont think its about two wrongs,its more about the blatant hypocracy!

of course.

but are you letting the repub leadership slide?

Daniel

:energetic:

Mirorgate · October 5, 2006

Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress

Two wrongs don't make a right. What might have happened in the past does not excuse the crimes and misdeeds of the present.

/take your medicine like a man!

I dont think its about two wrongs,its more about the blatant hypocracy!

of course.

but are you letting the repub leadership slide?

Daniel

:energetic:

hell no! he got to go!

:yes: :yes: :yes:

Fuzzness · October 5, 2006

So it's ok for republicans to want Clinton out for f*cking an adult woman but it's not ok for democrats to want Foley and Hastert (who knew about this) out for Foley f*cking a minor. Talk about blatant hipocracy...

Carol&Marc · October 5, 2006

Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress

Two wrongs don't make a right. What might have happened in the past does not excuse the crimes and misdeeds of the present.

/take your medicine like a man!

I dont think its about two wrongs,its more about the blatant hypocracy!

of course.

but are you letting the repub leadership slide?

Daniel

:energetic:

Of course not! but when you got every dem. in the country fanning the flames (right before an election) is very telling! Foley's life is totally ruined ( deserved) to me it shows dems. truly are losers in the war of ideas thats why you see this kind of thing from them over and over again!

AnaAndDaniel · October 5, 2006

Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress

Two wrongs don't make a right. What might have happened in the past does not excuse the crimes and misdeeds of the present.

/take your medicine like a man!

I dont think its about two wrongs,its more about the blatant hypocracy!

of course.

but are you letting the repub leadership slide?

Daniel

:energetic:

Of course not! but when you got every dem. in the country fanning the flames (right before an election) is very telling! Foley's life is totally ruined ( deserved) to me it shows dems. truly are losers in the war of ideas thats why you see this kind of thing from them over and over again!

wait a minute. here we have a public servant committing some bad stuff and both of us agree that the leadership should pay a price for covering for him and you go off on the dems? :huh: shouldn't you be venting at the repub leadership?

Daniel

:energetic:

Carol&Marc · October 5, 2006