|
Post by gailkate on Nov 4, 2006 9:36:33 GMT -5
It came through a friend, part of the wide circle of people who want desperately to bring our soldiers home and hope for an end to the Iraqis' pain.
I'd like us all to remember that we're united in that goal. No one is against American troops.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Nov 4, 2006 15:30:23 GMT -5
Actually, Ed, your post is the closest thing to a defense of Foley that I've seen. Democrats do not condone pedophilia, nor do they condone exploitation. The hypocrisy of the whole situation within the party that markets itself as being better than other people while ignoring and covering up what was obviously inappropriate for the sake of partisan politics is what is so very off-putting. I was not defending Foley, I was waitng for the defense that was thrown up so stridently to defend Bill Clinton by the "situational morality crowd" to again use the defense to protect Foley, who is afterall in a "target minority" of the Dem party. Now that the facts have been fully divulged, it seems Foley may not be a pedophile or exploiter after all, just a sexual predator ( more like the Clinton everyday ) _E_
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 4, 2006 18:03:29 GMT -5
Gailkate, I watched and listened to your link - very moving. I've saved it so I can share further with my friends. Meanwhile, maybe we should lessen the divisive rancor and check out something like www.unity08.com. Now over to the show thread...
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Nov 4, 2006 19:27:18 GMT -5
I'm sorry I can't bring up videos with this computer - rats.
I think, much as I love to debate, that it's actually self-deprecating humor of Americans about the USA that's going to prove to be both healing AND a great motivator to clear our collective mind for better things. Jokes anyone?
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Nov 5, 2006 7:59:53 GMT -5
Clinton had extramarital sex with an adult who initiated it. I don't condone it but I don't put it in the same moral category as Foley's Follies. And one would think that unless one were a hypocrite that if they condemned Clinton that their moral compass would certainly condemn Foley. I'd rather wait until there is a democratic majority before we start any chats about me cutting out my divisive rancor, especially given the Republican blame for much of it. Otherwise, it is the rules are for other people game.
From Frank Rich in the NY Times this a.m.:
"While lying politicians and hyperbolic negative TV campaign ads are American staples, the artificial realities created this year are on a scale worthy of Disney, if not Stalin. In the campaign’s final stretch, Congress and President Bush passed with great fanfare a new law to erect a 700-mile border fence to keep out rampaging Mexican immigrants, but guaranteed no money to actually build it. Rush Limbaugh tried to persuade his devoted audience that Michael J. Fox had exaggerated his Parkinson’s symptoms in an ad for candidates who support stem-cell research purely as an act.
"In a class by itself is the president’s down-to-the-wire effort to brand his party as the defender of “traditional” marriage even as the same-sex scandals of conservative leaders on and off Capitol Hill make “La Cage aux Folles” look like “The Sound of Music.” Just in recent days, the Rev. Ted Haggard, a favored Bush spiritual adviser and visitor to the Oval Office (if not the Lincoln Bedroom), resigned as leader of the National Association of Evangelicals after accusations that he patronized a male prostitute, and the Talking Points Memo blog broke the story of the Republican Party taking money from a gay-porn distributor whose stars include active-duty soldiers. (A film version of Mrs. Cheney’s “Sisters,” alas, still awaits.)
"And always, always there’s the false reality imposed on Iraq: “Absolutely, we’re winning!” in the president’s recent formulation. After all this time, you’d think the Iraq fictions wouldn’t work anymore. The overwhelming majority of Americans now know that we were conned into this mess in the first place by two fake story lines manufactured by the White House, a connection between 9/11 and Saddam and an imminent threat of nuclear Armageddon. Both were trotted out in our last midterm campaign to rush a feckless Congress into voting for a war authorization before Election Day. As the administration pulls the same ploy four years later, this time to keep the fiasco going, you have to wonder if it can get away with lying once more.
"Given the polls, I would have said no, but last week’s John Kerry farce gives me pause. Whatever lame joke or snide remark the senator was trying to impart, it was no more relevant to the reality unfolding in Iraq than the sex scenes in Jim Webb’s novels. But as the White House ingeniously inflated a molehill by a noncandidate into a mountain of fake news, real news from Iraq was often downplayed or ignored entirely. It was a chilling example of how even now a skit ginned up by the administration screenwriters can dwarf and obliterate reality in our media culture.
"On the same day Mr. Kerry blundered, the United States suffered a palpable and major defeat in Iraq. The Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, once again doing the bidding of the anti-American leader Moktada al-Sadr, somehow coerced American forces into dismantling their cordon of Sadr City, where they were searching for a kidnapped soldier. As the melodramatic debates over how much Mr. Kerry should apologize dragged on longer, still more real news got short shrift: the October death toll for Americans in Iraq was the highest in nearly two years. Some 90 percent of the dead were enlisted men and nearly a third were on extended tours of duty or their second or third tours. Their average age was 24.
"When the premises for war were being sold four years ago, you could turn to the fake news of Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” to find the skepticism that might poke holes in the propaganda. Four years later, the press is much chastened by its failure to do its job back then, but not all of the press. While both Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert made sport of the media’s overkill on the Kerry story, their counterparts in “real” television news, especially but not exclusively on cable, flogged it incessantly. Only after The New York Times uncovered a classified Pentagon chart documenting Iraq’s rapid descent into chaos did reality begin to intrude on the contrived contretemps posed by another tone-deaf flub from a former presidential candidate not even on the ballot.
"In retrospect, the defining moment of the 2006 campaign may well have been back in April, when Mr. Colbert appeared at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. Call it a cultural primary. His performance was judged a bomb by the Washington press corps, which yukked it up instead for a Bush impersonator who joined the president in a benign sketch commissioned by the White House. But millions of Americans watching C-Span and the Web did get Mr. Colbert’s routine. They recognized that the Beltway establishment sitting stone-faced in his audience was the butt of his jokes, especially the very news media that had parroted Bush administration fictions leading America into the quagmire of Iraq.
"Five months later, a video of Mr. Colbert’s dinner speech is still a runaway iTunes hit and his comic contempt for Washington is more popular than ever. It’s enough to give you hope that the voters may rally for reality on this crucial Election Day even as desperate politicians and some of their media enablers try one more time to stay their fictional course."
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Nov 5, 2006 8:02:31 GMT -5
And, surprise, surprise, wag the dog, Saddam sentenced to death on the eve of elections. What a success story and such uncanny timing!
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Nov 5, 2006 8:13:45 GMT -5
Nattering Negativity
By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 3, 2006; 7:48 AM
I have nothing against negative ads. Politics is a contact sport, and negative commercials can convey valuable information about an opponent's record.
I have plenty against distorted, inaccurate and unfair negative ads, which means that every couple of years, I spend way too much time watching and critiquing them.
I believe I can say, without fear of contradiction, that this year is the worst I've seen in terms of smarmy and sleazy spots that take some little kernel of a fact and twist and pound it out of shape until the opponent is rendered as a sex-crazed, tax-raising, criminal-coddling, terrorist-hugging loon.
Some of these are so bad they seem like "SNL" parodies. They insult the intelligence.
Over the years, both parties have dished out their share of the negative stuff, but this year, most of the truly awful and factually challenged commercials have been on the Republican side. That may reflect their tactics, the fact that they're defending far more seats, or simply a level of desperation. And party strategists haven't made any bones about it, acknowledging to reporters that 90 percent of their ads are negative.
The Democratic attack ads tend to accuse Republicans of being rubber stamps for Bush, in bed with Big Oil and Big Pharma, or diehard backers of the Iraq war. Some question their opponents' business records. Others are of the stop-lying-about-my-record variety. But few are harshly personal in the style of the worst Republican spots.
Slate's liberal editor, Jake Weisberg , is revolted by some of what was on the tube during a trip to Phoenix:
"The first commercial I saw, for Rick Renzi, a vulnerable Republican congressman, was an effusion of pure political poison. In a voice rancid with contempt, the announcer declared:
'Over 100 Democratic elected officials are opposing Democrat trial lawyer Ellen Simon. Liberal Ellen Simon served as the president of the ACLU, a radical organization that defends hard-core criminals at the man/boy love association, a national group that preys on our children. One Democratic mayor called Simon's actions 'utterly disgusting.' He's right. Ellen Simon: radical, liberal and wrong for Arizona.'
"While hearing this, the viewer sees just key terms superimposed on the Democrat's face: 'LIBERAL' ... 'Served as the President of the ACLU' ... 'Radical Organization defends hard core criminals Man/Boy Love Association' ... 'ACLU Defends Child Molester Group' ... 'Preys on our children' ... 'utterly disgusting' ... 'radical, liberal.'
"Dutifully performing the fact-checking function expected of responsible newspapers, the Arizona Daily Sun analyzed the content of the ad. It could not 'independently verify' that 100 elected officials had endorsed Renzi, though 55 are apparently members of a Navajo tribal council whose gambling interests Renzi has championed. Ellen Simon was not the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, but a volunteer lawyer in Cleveland who represented the group in precisely one case. That case had nothing to do with NAMBLA or child molesters. The 'Democratic mayor' who called Simon 'utterly disgusting' is effectively a Republican. Simon, who supports school choice and cracking down on illegal immigrants, is by no means a 'radical liberal.' In other words, not a single claim in the ad is actually true.
"This spot is, however, entirely characteristic of the mud that Republicans are raining on their Democratic opponents in the closing days of the campaign. Buggery is probably the top theme. In California, Republican incumbent John Doolittle has similarly accused his challenger, the unfortunately named Charlie Brown, of being pro-NAMBLA because he's an ACLU member. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican candidate for governor in Ohio, charges that his opponent opposed a resolution condemning sex between adults and children. Sonny Perdue, the Republican governor of Georgia, accuses his opponent of putting 'the interests of the radical homosexual lobby ahead of our Boy Scouts.' "
Who knew America was in such danger from NAMBLA?
. . . I thought I'd heard every possible anti-Bush argument, but no. Shelley Lewis has a new one:
"If you have one chance to convince an undecided Independent or a Republican to vote Democratic this year, I'd like to suggest the following:
" The Bush administration would like to spend your taxpayer dollars on convincing unmarried men and women not to have sex before age 30 .
"Yes, Abstinence Only--if it's good for the 'tweens, it's great for the twenty-somethings. The Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the 50 million dollar program, has issued new guidelines telling the states that they can get funding to teach abstinence to anybody up to age 29."
And at 30 it's okay to do more than lust in your heart?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 5, 2006 9:47:44 GMT -5
Thanks, J*. I know there are those who will rave about your posting these columns, but since I can afford to pay for only a limited number of news sources, I appreciate people sharing.
I'm surprised that in his list of unspeakable ads Kurtz didn't mention the one implying sexy shenanigans between a white woman and African American candidate Ford in TN. A new poll shows that of the people who admit that ad made an impression on them, they'll vote for white Corker 2-to-1. Ford may not be the best candidate; I don't know, because he's being attacked with racial innuendo rather than on his skills. Why doen't Corker just push his own qualifications?
I heard David Brooks, a conservative columnist whom I consider reasonable, say that this election is being called "revenge of the moderates." God, I hope so.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 5, 2006 9:58:54 GMT -5
Oh, I forgot. I signed the petition, DrK. It's refreshing that kids are trying to be heard. Since politicians seem more interested in staying in power rather than getting anything done, maybe they'll pay attention simply because these kids will be voters in a year or two.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 5, 2006 11:13:16 GMT -5
Yup - "from the mouths of babes..." And today's highschool kids are the "echo boom" children of the baby boomers, numerous and bound to have an impact. Let's hear it for revenge of the moderates. I think I am one of many who is tired of manipulation by the extreme fringes, and sick of distorted negative campaigning. I remember thinking back in February: "OMG, nine more months of this?" Little did I know how bad it could get.
As for the Bob Corker ads (or, if you will, Republican National Campaign Committe, operating outside the control of Mr. Corker), as one who grew up in the south with a host of (white trash) racist relatives, the meaning of the ad was plain as day to me. "White folks, this dangerous n***** has his eye on your womenfolk. Lynch 'im." Remember I spent a week in Tennessee earlier this month, as I do every October. Most of the good Tennesseans I know are far from this ugly stereotype. But in a close race if Corker can mobilize some Neandertals, that could be the winning margin. Nothing is too low for that winning margin these days.
And this morning on Meet the Press, Elizabeth Dole had the gaul to say that she didn't believe the ad was racist. What was it I once admired about her? Ditto John McCain, toeing the party line and stabbing his fellow war hero, John Kerry, in the back for putting his foot in his mouth. He may have a tin ear, but I seriously doubt John Kerry feels our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are stupid.
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Nov 5, 2006 13:42:36 GMT -5
While I no longer consider myself partisan, (Last Prez election's mutual vitriol caused me to seek a more reasonable stance) I do still lean to the leftish on many issues.
Yet you wouldn't catch me making excuses for Foley's behavior. What he did was sexual molestation of a minor. Hope people don't forget that.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 5, 2006 15:41:50 GMT -5
While I no longer consider myself partisan, (Last Prez election's mutual vitriol caused me to seek a more reasonable stance) I do still lean to the leftish on many issues. Yet you wouldn't catch me making excuses for Foley's behavior. What he did was sexual molestation of a minor. Hope people don't forget that. Wasn't it actually harrassment rather than molestation? Regardless, hart is right: people should remember. He must not be reelected.
|
|
|
Post by dwarnold on Nov 5, 2006 20:08:07 GMT -5
Just for the sake of discussion, what person does not have some skeleton in their closet? We have become a nation that is very quick to want to remove leaders from their positions based on their inappropriate behavior. I fully agree that "illegal" actions should be prosecuted, and that people with addictive behavioral issues should remove themselves for appropriate treatment, but I wonder.... what do we really know about any candidate's past mistakes or "sins"? I recall a famous passage from the Christian Bible.... "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Is anyone perfect enough to lead us anymore?
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Nov 5, 2006 20:49:35 GMT -5
Surprisingly, joe, the American Heritage Dictionary defines molestation in three levels of severity. Just the same as the levels of sex offenders!
I agree with you, dw, that we all have those closets stuffed full of figurative crap There comes a time when one can't make the door close anymore and I guess Mr. Foley has reached that point.
When people reach that spot sometimes they make changes. Let's hope that's true for Mr. Foley as his particular interest is one of multiple progression. It's contagious in other words. And paedophilia is among the most difficult to control of the various compulsions.
Did he ever bed down with a young man? We don't know. But I have trouble believing he never "got lucky" considering what he could do for a budding career. And we know that his hobby generally exists for quite a while before one is discovered.
Removing "leaders from their positions based on their inappropriate behavior?" Suppose it's a matter of degree of severity/frequency. Did someone get drunk at a party and say something everyone wished they hadn't? Or does this person get drunk at every party and say uncomfortable things?
Is this person improving in attitude and behavior is is he becoming more troublesome to himself and others?
Other than the possible harm caused it matters not to me what he, or anyone, has done in the past. What does matter is what he is doing in the present. And what he did - soliciting a minor for sex - is illegal.
A third concern is the idea that a person can separate their personal life from their public life. If so that person has two sets of moral values. How can you trust someone who consistently functions in that fashion?
I have a feeling we're going to see another of those Rush Limbaugh miracle cures.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Nov 6, 2006 9:28:04 GMT -5
//What does matter is what he is doing in the present. And what he did - soliciting a minor for sex - is illegal.//
pssst ... the guy was not a "minor".
Thanks to you all for clearing up the confusion. I get it now.
A Republican must be vilified and can not be allowed to stay in elected office if said Republican solicits sex but does not actually have a physical sexual relationship.
A Democrat can be celebrated and allowed to stay in office if said Democrat willingly participates in an actual physical sexual relationship with a person they are not married to.
The desire is worse than the deed. Thanx folks, I get it now.
_E_ (heavy sarcasm was used in the posting of this note.)
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 6, 2006 10:17:03 GMT -5
Oh, Eric, I don't understand you. Clinton had a consensual affair with a woman nearing 30. It wasn't right but it sure isn't comparable to Foley's exploitation of young men who looked up to him and knew he had the power to do them great harm or good. First, their relationships with Foley started when they were 16-17, junior year in high school. That was when he began the psychological seduction. Turning 18 doesn't suddenly make one mature. My goodness, the difference between me at 18 and me at 28 is impossible to measure.
I just can't see why you're being sarcastic about what you see as a partisan issue when this ought to be a moral issue we can all discuss thoughtfully, without sneering. Suppose it were your adored grandson who, grown to 16, smart and full of idealistic anticipation, went off to Washington to meet up with a Foley?
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Nov 6, 2006 11:48:24 GMT -5
Foley is not accused of having sex with or physical contact with the accuser. Foley is accused of having "Internet Sex" (whatever that is ) with a man that was 18 years old at the time of the incident.
Clinton did have actual full physical contact with and performed Sex Acts with a woman, not his wife.
In Foley's case, from what I have read, no minors were involved, no physical contact occurred, no vows were transgressed ( but it is sleazy without a doubt.)
_E_
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Nov 6, 2006 13:14:05 GMT -5
Clinton had a consensual affair with a woman nearing 30. Something in this struck me as "off a little bit" so I searched ... Monica was a 22 year old intern at the White House .... Well ... that is no where near "nearing 30" and how, pray tell, can a married man have a "consensual affair" but it was another nice try at "situational morality" and obfuscation in an attempt to cover the lack of indignation by the Democrats over the Lewinsky Affair. Remember, Clinton cheated on his wife, committed perjury while under oath (which is a crime) and use the staff in the White House in a cover-up (which is a crime). Foley was merely sleazy ... but not a crimnal. _E_
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 6, 2006 14:13:28 GMT -5
Maybe gailkate had somebody other than Monica in mind. After all, in Monica's case it was a young woman "who looked up to him and knew he had the power to do [her] great harm or good."
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Nov 6, 2006 14:35:15 GMT -5
Is Monica an abbreviation for an Harmonica - AKA a mouth organ?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 6, 2006 14:42:12 GMT -5
You're quite right that she was 22. I was remembering that she'd been living with a man around 30.
Your ferocity makes me sad. I won't pursue this.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Nov 6, 2006 15:39:58 GMT -5
//Your ferocity makes me sad. I won't pursue this//
I am not exhibiting ferocity in defense of Foley, I could not care less about his fate in life.
I am trying to be fierce in pursuing truth and the topic of this thread which was and is Foley, hipocracy and such. I know the main thrust was supposed to be hypocracy on the Republican side of the aisle, but I was expanding it to include the media, the Democrats and many layers of government, not just Republicans.
Remember to Vote for the candidate of your choice tomorrow, and Happy 77th birthday to my Taxi.
_E_
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Nov 6, 2006 15:42:24 GMT -5
Happy Birthday Taxi!
It's even older than me.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Nov 6, 2006 18:05:07 GMT -5
I don't care what party he belongs to, Foley is a sexual predator, an adult in a position of power preying on sixteen year olds and he should be shunned. That he was coddled and protected for the sake of politics, leaving other young people in harm's way, is pitiful. I'm with gailkate, I can't believe that you want to have this conversation, ed, but have had it, talk to yourself. Blame democrats for a republican, underage, same-sex scandal. I feel sorry for you.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 6, 2006 18:32:51 GMT -5
I don't care what party he belongs to, Foley is a sexual predator, an adult in a position of power preying on sixteen year olds and he should be shunned. That he was coddled and protected for the sake of politics, leaving other young people in harm's way, is pitiful. I'm with gailkate, I can't believe that you want to have this conversation, ed, but have had it, talk to yourself. Blame democrats for a republican, underage, same-sex scandal. I feel sorry for you. I agree that Foley's predatory behavior is intolerable. I also think that to characterize what happened before the story became public as "he was coddled and protected for the sake of politics," exaggerates the fault of the Republican leadership. As I understood the news accounts, he was told to cease his predatory behavior; but since it had not gone beyond words, as far as was known, putting a stop to it and keeping an eye on him could have seemed a reasonable way of dealing with it. Some wrongdoing is worse than other wrongdoing, and when it comes to sexual misconduct, this is less serious than anything involving actual contact. I think edsfam's point is not to excuse Foley but to complain of an apparent double standard: what Studds did was far worse, but he was never shunned; what Clinton did was worse, but he was never shunned. So if Democrats want to complain about Foley on grounds of principle, rather than for political gain, they need to acknowledge that they blew it in the Studds and Clinton cases. If that is edsfam's point, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 6, 2006 19:07:02 GMT -5
Revisiting such ancient history for an apology is unlikely, but in this age of spin, the Democratic line would have to be: "Having learned from the unfortunate sexual misbehavior of Mr. Studds and President Clinton, we now urge quick action against Mr. Foley. That this was not done is inexcusable on the part of leadership." This is a bipartisan problem; Newt Gingrich and others trod this same path.
I think we've seen so much of this hypocritical misbehavior, we may accept it as the norm for politicians. Or maybe we Americans are prudes for getting all upset about a little dalliance here or there (French version perhaps).
What I think is really tragic about Clinton's behavior is that he was distracted by all the legal proceedings from things that were important: opportunities to act against Al Queda and terrorism, or to meaningfully reform healthcare, for example.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Nov 6, 2006 19:28:12 GMT -5
What did Democratic leadership do upon learning of Studds' actions: Censured him for the one-time incident that they learned of ten years later. It was wrong. No one says it wasn't.
What did Republican leadership did upon learning of Foley's actions: Asked him if he was hitting on the kid and then ignored it.
And set all of this in the context of a party that elevates gay-bashing to an artform and was so incensed about Clinton's sins that they impeached him.
----------------
An essay in the blogosphere from R J Eskow:
The real difference [between Foley and Studds] can be expressed in 9 simple statements, based on what we've been told so far about both cases:
1. As far as we know Studds was not forcing his unwelcome attentions on a series of pages, one after the other.
2. No page went to the Democratic leadership asking for protection from Studds, only to be rebuffed and ignored.
3. The Democratic Party did not run on a platform of "righteousness" and anti-homosexuality, while behaving hypocritically in private.
4. The Democratic Speaker of the House did not make statements about the incident that were immediately revealed to be outright lies ... by fellow Democrats.
5. The Democrats did not then begin an orchestrated media campaign to blame the entire problem on ... the Republicans (or the young man, for that matter).
6. Democrats did not take to the airwaves with talking points that were transparent lies.
7. Pro-Democratic writers (there weren't any bloggers then, remember?) didn't violate the privacy of the young man involved and give his name out to the press. They didn't call the young man a "beast" or blame him for Studds' behavior, either. (Have you heard any Republican leaders criticize the bloggers who gave out the young victims' names?)
8. How many times does this need to be said? It's the cover-up, stupid.
9. The Democratic leadership did not protect a predator, conceal his wrongdoing, and allow him to continue his activities in secret.. The Republicans did.
Let me repeat that last point, because it's getting overlooked:
The Democratic leadership did not protect a predator, conceal his wrongdoing, or allow him to continue his activities in secret. The Republicans did . . .
Lastly, a word or two about Bill Clinton:
1. The Democratic leadership expressed its outrage over his behavior. They did not knowingly protect him while he was doing it. Their sense of betrayal should have been a model for the Republicans to follow in this case. Their absence of outrage tells us all we need to know about their party's moral depravity.
2. Monica Lewinsky was an adult - and, by all accounts, sought out the attention she received. Mark Foley forced himself on the young people entrusted to the care of the House of Representatives.
Torture, violation of the Constitution, lies to start a war, widespread financial corruption ... but it took these actions, protecting a predator, to capture the zeitgeist. It encapsulates today's GOP in the blinding light of a single moment, like a lightning flash that reveals the stalker who's been standing outside your door.
----------------
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Nov 6, 2006 21:52:29 GMT -5
doctork writes://What I think is really tragic about Clinton's behavior is that he was distracted by all the legal proceedings from things that were important: opportunities to act against Al Queda and terrorism, or to meaningfully reform healthcare, for example. //
OHMYGOD This is what I do not understand. It is not Clintons fault he had an illicit affair with an intern. It is not Clintons fault he lied to cover up the affair. It is not Clintons fault he was tied up in legal proceedings resulting from the lies he told. It is all the fault of those evil, rascally Republicans.
That shameless predator Clinton had every opportunity in the world to keep his pants zipped up and ignore the intern, but because he didn't or wouldn't all the evils in the world are now the fault of .... The Republicans that wanted to enforce the Constitution.
OHMYGOD this deliberately ignorant partisan hypocritical attitude makes me fear for the future of our country, and worse, makes my head want to explode. I can not wrap my head around anyone blaming someone else for deliberate self inflicted damage.
Remember to vote! _E_
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 6, 2006 21:59:43 GMT -5
What is astonishing and outrageous about R J Eskow's essay is that it shows not the least awareness of the difference in gravity between the actions of Studds, who actually plied a page with drink and seduced him, and Clinton, who entered into an adulterous affair, on the one hand, and those of Foley, who sent unwelcome e-mails of a sexual nature, on the other. Eskow's moral vacuity is epitomized in, "8. How many times does this need to be said? It's the cover-up, stupid." It does not matter to him what the actual conduct nor how unrepentant the perpetrator. All that matters to Eskow is whether there was a cover-up. But to those with a true moral sense, the underlying conduct matters far more than the extent of any cover-up; while to those who merely seek political advantage, "it's the cover-up, stupid." And since the Democrats had no opportunity to cover-up in the case of Clinton and we don't know if any were aware of Studds' egregious misconduct before it became public knowledge, these cases give no basis for claiming that the Democrats would behave any differently in a situation which could be covered up.
My point still stands that what Studds and Clinton actually did was worse than what Foley actually did, and yet the Democrats did not shun either of them as j* demands Foley be shunned. To this day they do not shun Clinton, they embrace him, and they honored Studds at his recent funeral — showing the depth of their depravity. And since the situations did not present comparable opportunities for congressional leadership to handle the matters quietly, any attempted comparison of the parties based on the "cover-up" is inapposite.
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Nov 6, 2006 22:27:05 GMT -5
We truly do still live in a puritan ethos. Amazing - Puritans used to have a practice of peeping through the cracks in other peoples' cabins to see if they might need chastisement or public shaming or other forms of Puritanical attention/entertainment.
Oh, for a scarlet A! and instead of crummy ol' stocks and bonds, let's get back to the basics - the REAL stocks, eh? And then - forget torturing terrorists - for heavens' sake, why aren't we out there burning our witches like we used ta?! Good grief, things have really gotten out of hand.
The above is not party-directed or personally aimed. Just a note that the USA, when push comes to shove, ALWAYS "peeks through the cracks" and "points the shaming finger." Always. What must we do to rid ourselves of this prisoning consciousness?
|
|