• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

We still have time to mess this up!

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

Bark louder, little dog.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

American History and Black History Cannot Be Separated

In my day, never was longer.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / What is Next from the Bullshit Brigade

What is Next from the Bullshit Brigade

by John Cole|  October 4, 20063:45 pm| 116 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

I guess they are finally starting to realize how damaging this Foley scandal is, because my former allies in the right wing are penning numerous pieces ‘warning’ the Democrats not to use the Foley scandal thiselection cycle because it will hurt… the Democrats.

Seriously. Check out Dean Barnett’s ‘advice’ to Democrats:

If that was all that happened that night, it would have been plenty distasteful. But what made the Wellstone Memorial noteworthy was its raw ugliness. Republican dignitaries who attended the event to show their respect for Wellstone were booed when their images were shown on the Jumbotron. Many fevered-swamp type Democrats saw nothing wrong with this. The country recoiled from the spectacle, utterly repulsed and shocked. To many Democrats, though, the unsightliness of the Wellstone funeral apparently remains an obscure mystery.

The Democratic Party seems intent on replaying this mistake with the Foley affair. Let’s temporarily put aside the timing of the release of the Instant Messages and who-knew-what-when. Let’s just say for the moment that while the media currently hounds the Republican leadership, it’s a safe bet that it wasn’t the Republican leadership that plopped Foley’s IM’s into the lap of ABC News. If whoever was the errand boy delayed delivery to best achieve maximum political benefit, then the Democrats’ newfound status as the party of conventional morality will receive a decided blow.

But the real story here is the party’s eagerness to use victimized children as a campaign prop. The Patty Wettering campaign spot that I linked to earlier today tips the Democrats’ hand. Wettering is best known as a children’s advocate. Her own 11 year old son was kidnapped and never found. Thus, Wettering has the proverbial Cindy Sheehan cloak of putative “absolute moral authority” that the simple-minded so admire.

I thought the way certain Republicans and dignitaries werre treated at the Wellstone affair was wrong, I thought it made the Democrats look like idiots, and I still believe that.

But this ain’t the Wellstone funeral. This is the Republican Congressional leadership deciding, despite warning signs and being told repeatedly, to do nothing about one of their own, who was at best soliciting sex from pages over the internet, and at worst- well, who knows. The party that turned a blowjob into high treason knows how bad this is, and they are in damage control mode now.

So over the next few weeks we will have to hear all sorts of advice from sites like Hugh Hewitt’s in which they will be offering helpful tidbits (because they care). What you should understand is that they are scared- the more they squeal, the harder you hit. Dean Barnett may not have figured it out, but teh GOP sure has- this issue is explosive.

Why else would the GOP be trying to tie this to Democrats? Think Katherine Harris’s “What did the Democrats know” was just her thinking on her feet? Think it was a mistake that Mark Foley was labeled a Democrat several times on Fox? There is a reason Fordham, Reynolds, Shimkus, and the rest of them can’t even get their stories straight. Think it is a coincidence that despite resigning today, Fordham still dumped this on Hastert and leadership? Republcians and their spinmeisters know how bad this is- it is why they can’t get a sentence out on the topic without mentioning Barney Frank and Gerry Studds (Red State and Barnett both manage to work Ted kennedy into the equation- BOO! Scary Democrats! Kennedy! Booo!). It is why Reynolds, yesterday, in one of the most pathetic displays ever, wrapped himself in children at a day care center to have a press conference.

The Republicans are scared- and they should be. Think of every bullshit law that has been passed in the past ten years by the ‘values’ party- drug laws, terrorism bills, video game labeling, internet monitoring, porn crackdowns- virtually every right wing nutjob wishlist bill has been passed based on support from the public because it was ‘for the children.’ And with Foley, you have the Republican party, when it matters the most- protecting kids in the most basic sense, deciding to look the other way because it might get in the way of their never-ending pursuit of more and more political power. Or they were just too busy to do anything. You choose.

So yeah. They are scared. They should be. And Dean Barnett’s ‘advice’ should be read for what it is- a plea that you stop hitting Republicans over the head with the issue. Right now, only a fool would stop swinging.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Open Thread
Next Post: No Skills Whatsoever »

Reader Interactions

116Comments

  1. 1.

    Mr Furious

    October 4, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    I never heard of Patty Wettering until I went to check out her ad. And it is good. Rahm Emmanuel should be filming versions of it for every race in the country.

    Here’s my advice to Dean Barnett and any other Republicans. Fuck with Patty Wettering at your own peril. If she had a child abducted and never recovered, there are pretty good odds that it was a pedophile that did it. Yeah, I’d say that innoculates her.

    Keep digging you dumb fucks.

  2. 2.

    cd6

    October 4, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    This is getting out of hand.

    I think everybody involved needs to just slip off their shorts and relax.

  3. 3.

    Pb

    October 4, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    Not to rehash all of this, but here’s what Al Franken had to say about the Wellstone funeral. Note that he was there, and I wasn’t.

  4. 4.

    Steve

    October 4, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    It never ceases to amaze me how the party that has played incredibly rabid partisan politics non-stop since 1992 still manages to clutch its pearls at the very thought that, oh dear, the other guys are using an issue for POLITICAL ADVANTAGE! How dare they!

    There was an interesting discussion of the Wellstone funeral on Daily Kos, back in the context of the Coretta Scott King funeral. A lot of good liberals who were there or who watched it shared the opinion that yeah, it was embarassing behavior. Maybe some of it was understandable, given the emotional context – but that’s not the point.

    Of course, like the Rather memos, the Wellstone funeral is another moment that the Right just keeps trying to recreate with no success. Wasn’t it something, after the King funeral, watching dozens of Republican political operatives complain about how the Democrats had “politicized a funeral”? Hello, what do you think you are doing, Republican political operatives? Trying to use the exact same funeral to score points against Democrats!

    I agree with John. Yeah, it’s fine for Fox News to misidentify Foley as a Democrat, but god forbid the Democrats should actually remind people which party controls Congress and carries the blame for this one. Fuck that.

  5. 5.

    trifecta

    October 4, 2006 at 4:07 pm

    Two years ago Hastert’s office was told. His lies about what he knew about this email, and when are made even worse.

    Why did they fire this guy? They knew he could bury them. This is getting into the criminal area I think. They were basically telling him to run, taking $100,000 checks from him, and they knew all this crap. So, they didn’t know the words on his IM’s. They KNEW what he was up to, and let him molest the pages anyways. They are sicker than he is.

  6. 6.

    Geek, Esq.

    October 4, 2006 at 4:07 pm

    Expect Hugh Hewitt to say something along these lines:

    “Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!”

    On left-leaning websites, we get ‘concern trolls’ like that every once and a while.

  7. 7.

    Demdude

    October 4, 2006 at 4:10 pm

    Well, it is of couse rich for the Republicans to tell us that we need to take the high road, since of course they would need binoculars to see what it looks like anymore. Will they try to turn it around on the Democrats? Sure they will. But I think the saying from Carville, ‘when your opponent is drowning, throw the son of bitch an anchor” is applicable.

  8. 8.

    Pb

    October 4, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    Expect Hugh Hewitt to say something along these lines:

    “Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!Because Ted Kennedy must have put them there!

    Fixed.

  9. 9.

    Mr Furious

    October 4, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    Beat me to it, Pb.

  10. 10.

    Paul L.

    October 4, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    never heard of Patty Wettering until I went to check out her ad. And it is good.

    Wellstone Funeral Redux?

    “It shocks the conscience. Congressional leaders have admitted to covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the internet to molest children.”

    That quote comes from a new campaign ad by Patty Wetterling, the Democratic candidate for Congress in Minnesota’s 6th district. You have to admit, it’s pretty impressive – in two introductory sentences, Wetterling ably and completely misrepresents two of the key facts of the Foley scandal.

    Let’s start with the most egregious example of demagoguery. The ad claims that Foley molested children. If Ms. Wetterling is privy to some news that the rest of us aren’t, she should share it with the world. Short of that, all we know is that Foley sent depraved emails to teens. While disgusting and sickening, this is not molestation, or at least not molestation as the term is understood outside the Democratic fever swamps. Ms. Wetterling’s choice to embellish Foley’s actions truly does, to coin a phrase, shock the conscience.

  11. 11.

    Richard Bottoms

    October 4, 2006 at 4:22 pm

    These guys are drowning. Time to toss them an anvil.

  12. 12.

    Pb

    October 4, 2006 at 4:23 pm

    The ad claims that Foley molested children.

    Actually, it claims that he “used the internet to molest children”. Is that illegal in the legislation that he passed? Statutory Cybersex?

  13. 13.

    matt

    October 4, 2006 at 4:31 pm

    One of the things that sucks is that this mess isn’t contained to right wing blogs. I was watching MSNBC a few hours ago, and the graphic on the screen was something like, “Could this be bad for Democrats?”

    I don’t know how the rightwing gets the mainstream media to buy into their frames, but it’s pretty freaking brilliant.

  14. 14.

    Pb

    October 4, 2006 at 4:31 pm

    Oh, and this is good too:

    While disgusting and sickening, this is not molestation, or at least not molestation as the term is understood outside the Democratic fever swamps.

    You see, outside the Democratic fever swamps, they don’t have dictionaries.

  15. 15.

    sglover

    October 4, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    I hope the Dems are running lots of ads similar to Wettering’s. I hope they’re maybe beginning to understand that they cannot rely on media hacks to carry the story for them.

    Hewitt’s* shilling like mad, Hastert’s ran off to Rush Limbaugh — I think this is evolving kinda sorta as I hoped. The Republicans have to do some major damage control among their own true believers. Not exactly where you want to spend your resources in the last month of the campaign, eh?

    * I might be comfusing him with another right-wing tool, but if memory serves, Hewitt recently spent some quality time with Our Dear Leader, and then published what amounted to an act of printed fellatio. That’s standard for the shills, but in this piece Hewitt actually said something like, “in Bush’s presence, you feel protected — like being with a big brother”. The man needs an editor, I think!

  16. 16.

    sglover

    October 4, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    Oops, damn…. “Hastert’s run off…”, I meant.

  17. 17.

    Steve

    October 4, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    I see, as usual, Paul L. is swallowing whatever they feed him.

    Dude, here’s a clue. When they say “this will be bad for Democrats” (and they always say it), their goal is to intimidate the Democrats, and to try and set a media narrative. But for the love of all that is holy, man, they don’t actually MEAN it!

  18. 18.

    Rudi

    October 4, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    Mr Furious,
    I seen the ad and went to her site and Google for more info. She has the resume and life experience to worry about children. The Wingnuts are attacking the ad as political and worse, yet Hannity and Hugh Hewitt fail to mention this woman lost her son to a predator. She doesn’t whine for our sympathy, while Limpbaugh and the ilk will attack this woman. This is like using Pat Tillman for a recruiting poster and lying to his family – the Party of Values LOL.

  19. 19.

    Richard Bottoms

    October 4, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    Is that illegal in the legislation that he passed? Statutory Cybersex?

    Who cares?

    Drowning. Water. Anvil.

  20. 20.

    Rudi

    October 4, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    Paul L This woman lost her son, Hugh Hewitt has lost his soul to a Republican’s desire to maitain. Who is immoral hacl/politician? Faust meet Hasert and Hewitt.

  21. 21.

    Pb

    October 4, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    Richard Bottoms,

    Who cares?

    I don’t–I ask for entertainment purposes only.

    Drowning. Water. Anvil.

    Much entertainment there too, watching the GOP self-destruct. :)

  22. 22.

    Steve

    October 4, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    “Absolute moral authority” is the new “political correctness.”

    You know the rules, if you want to make a racist joke, all you have to say is “this might not be politically correct, but…”

    And if you want to smear someone like Cindy Sheehan or Patty Wetterling (let’s say, by accusing her of using her kidnapped child as a campaign prop), all you have to do is say that the other side is trying to claim “absolute moral authority.” Then you can be as nasty as you want!

    It’s like Ann Coulter, whining about how unfair it is that no one is allowed to attack the 9/11 widows, right before attacking them. Gosh, apparently it’s allowed.

  23. 23.

    Perry Como

    October 4, 2006 at 4:51 pm

    I was watching MSNBC a few hours ago, and the graphic on the screen was something like, “Could this be bad for Democrats?”

    They need to expand that. “Could a Republican Congressman trying to diddle 16 year olds be bad for Democrats?”

    When put that way it is easy to see how fucking stupid the question is.

  24. 24.

    Pb

    October 4, 2006 at 4:54 pm

    Well it’s better than the Fox graphic that outright lied about Mark Foley’s *political party* — it don’t get more blatant than that.

  25. 25.

    Tsulagi

    October 4, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    So yeah. They are scared. They should be. And Dean Barnett’s ‘advice’ should be read for what it is- a plea that you stop hitting Republicans over the head with the issue. Right now, only a fool would stop swinging.

    Yep.

    You can think of some really nasty/funny political ads you could make using this on everything from family values to national security. For national security, the camera could show the back of a guy facing a monitor with IM text on it busy doing what he’s doing. The voice over could say “While our sons and daughters are over there in harm’s way, shouldn’t we expect more oversight from those that sent them there?”

    Holding up a vote on an Afghan supplemental so he could IM a boy and play with himself is just unbelievable. I would so be using that while happily letting the Deans whine about the Wellstone funeral or any other slight in the past. Let the voters decide which matters today.

  26. 26.

    Geek, Esq.

    October 4, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    The chuckleheads at Redstate have decided to include Roy Blunt in the circular firing squad:

    http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/the_foley_matter_building_a_case_against_roy_blunt

    Hell, they’re throwing each other anchors.

  27. 27.

    BARRASSO

    October 4, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    Now that I know Foley was a Dem, this is starting to make more sense, that is why the Dem speaker Hastert covered this up, It’s Chappaquidick all over again.

  28. 28.

    ThymeZone

    October 4, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    Let’s just say for the moment that while the media currently hounds the Republican leadership

    The main pressure I see right now is coming from Republicans and conservatives.

    What the hell is this guy talking about?

  29. 29.

    ThymeZone

    October 4, 2006 at 5:03 pm

    When put that way it is easy to see how fucking stupid the question is.

    Well, since it’s the question I was asking a couple days ago, I prefer to think of it as a “due diligence” question.

    By the way, crow is quite good in a smoothie.

  30. 30.

    Perry Como

    October 4, 2006 at 5:21 pm

    Well it’s better than the Fox graphic that outright lied about Mark Foley’s political party—it don’t get more blatant than that.

    Heh.

  31. 31.

    HH

    October 4, 2006 at 5:32 pm

    “Think it was a mistake that Mark Foley was labeled a Democrat several times on Fox?”

    Er, yes.

  32. 32.

    Richard 23

    October 4, 2006 at 5:38 pm

    Hell, they’re throwing each other anchors.

    Well I’m more than happy to cheer them on. Jump that shark!

  33. 33.

    Davebo

    October 4, 2006 at 5:38 pm

    Look guys, obviously the error with Fox and the AP’s labeling of Foley as a democrat was a mistake.

    Sort of like that guy who accidently fell on a broken beer bottle.

    32 times.

  34. 34.

    HH

    October 4, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnMcCaslin/2001/09/05/not_hoovers_fbi

    “During one recent open-phones segment, a caller from Big Sandy, Texas, asked the C-SPAN moderator: ‘I’m confused, what party does Gary Condit belong to?’ Moderator (two- to three-second pause, stammering): ‘Gary Condit is, is, what?’ Caller: ‘Is he, what party does he belong to?’ Moderator: ‘Gary Condit is a Republican, isn’t he?’ Caller: ‘You see, that’s what I thought. No ma’am, he is not. He is a Democrat.’ Moderator: ‘Ah, I’m sorry. My mistake.’ (Noise on the telephone line) Moderator: ‘You had something else to say, sir?’ Caller (faintly): ‘I nailed her.'”

    Obviously an evil left-wing plot and not a mistake right?

  35. 35.

    far north

    October 4, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    HH,

    Er,yes? Why, because FOX always is “fair and balanced”. And were making progress in Iraq.

  36. 36.

    Richard 23

    October 4, 2006 at 5:42 pm

    HH Decides!

  37. 37.

    Matt

    October 4, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    There was a post on Americablog, linking to a NYT story where a ABC correspondent is quoted as stating that their sources were actually Republicans, which blows a pretty big hole in this crap:

    it’s a safe bet that it wasn’t the Republican leadership that plopped Foley’s IM’s into the lap of ABC News

    Personally, I suspect the source is someone in the GOP who got fed up with their party’s refusal to actually deal with Foley.

  38. 38.

    far north

    October 4, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    FOX made and honest mistake in descibing Foley as a dem
    There are WMDs in Iraq
    Iraq has reconstituted Nucs
    Saddam has ties to Al Qeada
    The world supports our invasion of Iraq
    Clinton killed Vince Foster

    Every one of those was reported by FOX.

    HH, still wanna argue that “made an honest mistake”?

  39. 39.

    Otto Man

    October 4, 2006 at 5:57 pm

    If it were an honest mistake, they would’ve replaced “Mark Foley (D-FL)” with “Mark Foley (R-FL).” Simple as that. Instead, once they realized they couldn’t call him a Democrat, they just stopped identifying him at all. And then they kept it up.

    If you think that’s a series of honest mistakes, you likely have issues with logic and reason.

    Which, of course, would make you an ideal Fox News watcher.

  40. 40.

    Andrew

    October 4, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    You’d get more intelligent political discussion with a bunch of developmentally disabled deaf mute 4 year olds than you can find over at RedState.

    Dear Lord in Heaven, they are a bunch of fucking idiots.

  41. 41.

    jdw

    October 4, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    Dean Barnett can take his advise and shove it straight up his a$$. I don’t listen to what republican hacks and their group of clowns have to say. Democrats aren’t hurting republicans, republicans are doing that by themselves.

  42. 42.

    Mr. Moderate

    October 4, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    I was listening to Michael Reagan on the topic tonight. He had a caller that said it was all the left wing’s fault and they sprung it at just the right time. Reagan basically gave that guy the smack down. He rightfully pointed it out that sitting on it for several years is nothing but the GOP leadership’s fault and they should pay dearly for it. He believes that anyone, Democrat or Republican, that knew about it and protected Foley should step down immediately. Lastly, with respect to the Democrats using this for political gains, he pointed out that if the shoe was on the other foot the GOP would be doing it in a heart beat.

  43. 43.

    jaime

    October 4, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    You’d get more intelligent political discussion with a bunch of developmentally disabled deaf mute 4 year olds than you can find over at RedState.

    Yes, but their use of the term “Blam” is endearing.

  44. 44.

    chopper

    October 4, 2006 at 6:51 pm

    Sort of like that guy who accidently fell on a broken beer bottle.

    32 times.

    “I took over from the previous electorate when he very sadly accidentally brutally cut his head off while combing his hair”

  45. 45.

    Krista

    October 4, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    because my former allies in the right wing are penning numerous pieces ‘warning’ the Democrats not to use the Foley scandal thiselection cycle because it will hurt… the Democrats.

    Well, yes. Democrats should absolutely listen to the advice of Republicans. I mean, it’s a Known Fact(tm) that they only have the Dems’ best interests in mind, right?

    For chrissakes, that’d like Coke letting Pepsi tell them how to do things.

    Good rule of thumb: If your opponent tells you that doing a certain thing will hurt you, they mean it will hurt them, and you should proceed with great vigour.

  46. 46.

    jaime

    October 4, 2006 at 7:09 pm

    Well, yes. Democrats should absolutely listen to the advice of Republicans.

    Apparently Leaping Lanny Davis is spouting off now, too.

  47. 47.

    Proud Liberal

    October 4, 2006 at 7:12 pm

    TZ glad you are enjoying your crow and smoothie. May I allow myself one big, “I fuckin told you so”? sorry… just had to. Damn that felt good. But TZ I am still quite impressed that you are old enough to have shaken the hand of Eleanor Roosevelt but not yet wearing Depends. I am assuming the latter of course.

  48. 48.

    Proud Liberal

    October 4, 2006 at 7:14 pm

    oh… and Cole, you are on fire. Great post. Insomnia seems to fire up your juices.

  49. 49.

    Demdude

    October 4, 2006 at 7:15 pm

    This is hypnotic. Kirk Fordham is fighting back:

    Here.

    Circular firing squad. Fire….

  50. 50.

    CaseyL

    October 4, 2006 at 7:37 pm

    The Party of Profligacy and Pain is now also the Party of Pederasty.

    It’s really kind of amazing. It’s like, when the GOP was recruiting candidates throughout the 90s, they deliberately picked the most corrupt, craziest, nastiest sick fucks they could find.

    GOP = Pandemonicon.

  51. 51.

    Pb

    October 4, 2006 at 7:46 pm

    It’s like, when the GOP was recruiting candidates throughout the 90s, they deliberately picked the most corrupt, craziest, nastiest sick fucks they could find.

    As if you couldn’t tell from their campaigning, their policies, and their actions from then until now…

  52. 52.

    KC

    October 4, 2006 at 7:52 pm

    Actually, I’ve been shocked that the Dems haven’t been hitting harder. I mean a whole lot of ’em, the Republican Leadership on to Focus on the Family, have been exposed for what they are, authoritarian, power hungry, phonies.

  53. 53.

    ThymeZone

    October 4, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    I am still quite impressed that you are old enough to have shaken the hand of Eleanor Roosevelt but not yet wearing Depends.

    Depends? I’m cheap, I get the store brand.

  54. 54.

    CaseyL

    October 4, 2006 at 8:14 pm

    s if you couldn’t tell from their campaigning, their policies, and their actions from then until now…

    Oh, believe me, I paid attention to that, and despised them for it.

    I’m still amazed at the width and breadth and depth of their corruption.

  55. 55.

    caroline

    October 4, 2006 at 8:20 pm

    Look what’s coming down the pike according to Josh Marshall:

    There have been a number of signals through the course of the day that the last gambit of the GOP House leadership will be to blame the Foley debacle on a cabal of gay staffers who hid and/or enabled Rep. Foley’s behavior for years. The idea being that they are to blame rather than the leadership.

    That may sound like a plot turn out of a bad novel. But with the times we’re living in I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

    Fordham, the staffer who just turned on Hastert, is openly gay, as is at least one other central player in the drama. Fordham’s word now threatens to take down the whole House leadership. So they’re going to throw everything at him.

  56. 56.

    KC

    October 4, 2006 at 8:25 pm

    Caroline,

    That may indeed be what’s coming down the pike, but here’s what Bob Novak is reporting according to Political Wire:

    Reynolds Convinced Foley to Run

    Robert Novak reports that “even after House GOP leaders knew that Foley had written an inappropriate e-mail to a 16-year-old former male page, they were still urging him to seek re-election.”

    Novak writes: “A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running.”

  57. 57.

    caroline

    October 4, 2006 at 8:27 pm

    David Corn talks about a list that’s circulating around DC listing the “gay cabal”. Apparently, (if the list is true) people like Santorum have gay staffers. (horror of horrors/snark)! I guess nothing these people do should shock me but this seems even beneath the Republican leadership. Anyhow, here’s the link for anybody who cares to read it:
    http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/10/the_list_of_gay.php

  58. 58.

    caroline

    October 4, 2006 at 8:29 pm

    KC
    It looks like they are all throwing mud at each other. Your post looks like Hastert trying to blame Reynolds for this mess, which I’m sure Reynolds is to blame along with Hastert.

  59. 59.

    ThymeZone

    October 4, 2006 at 8:34 pm

    David Corn talks about a list that’s circulating around DC listing the “gay cabal”. Apparently, (if the list is true) people like Santorum have gay staffers. (horror of horrors/snark)! I guess nothing these people do should shock me but this seems even beneath the Republican leadership.

    What a circus. They are turning on each other now, which, for a party that engineered itself power by turning on other Americans, is not that surprising.

    But it is fun to watch, I must say.

  60. 60.

    KC

    October 4, 2006 at 8:36 pm

    Caroline,

    Bottom line is it’s all a stupid, ugly, disgrace. Everyday I get home from work and read more about these guys and their exploits, is a day that I’m happier that I switched parties and became a Dem. I want all these idiots out. I just hope the rest of the country feels like me.

  61. 61.

    Demdude

    October 4, 2006 at 8:37 pm

    Fordham, the staffer who just turned on Hastert, is openly gay,

    Oh God, can you imagine what the wingnuts will do with this?

  62. 62.

    caroline

    October 4, 2006 at 8:40 pm

    KC,
    Agreed. I’m glad I left too. I tried to stay and fight for a little while but it was like banging my head against the wall.

  63. 63.

    capelza

    October 4, 2006 at 8:53 pm

    *snicker*

    Okay, I take a solemn vow that if the Dems get any power back I won’t cut them any slack when they screw up..but….

    *snicker*

  64. 64.

    Matt

    October 4, 2006 at 8:55 pm

    I love the ridiculous indirect reference on Instapundit to that Corn article. Glenn Reynolds is such a useless dickbag these days.

  65. 65.

    Steve

    October 4, 2006 at 9:14 pm

    There have been a number of signals through the course of the day that the last gambit of the GOP House leadership will be to blame the Foley debacle on a cabal of gay staffers who hid and/or enabled Rep. Foley’s behavior for years. The idea being that they are to blame rather than the leadership.

    It’s hard to imagine they would actually try this, but I hope they do. What better way to show the world their utter depravity.

    People get this scandal. There is no room for spin, or nuance, or carefully constructed talking points. And the fact that they even try to wriggle out of it in the first place – instead of owning up, taking responsibility, and moving on – accomplishes nothing for them except showing the world their true priorities. Power at any cost.

  66. 66.

    DougJ

    October 4, 2006 at 9:22 pm

    I’m probably the only person here cynical to believe this, but the real scandal to me is that they’re such morons that they can’t get their stories straight.

  67. 67.

    demimondian

    October 4, 2006 at 9:41 pm

    You know what? The MSM is already saying that if Hastert had just owned up and moved on, it might well have been all OK. Instead, the bluster had made a complete hash of their story. There are already enough lies out there that nothing Hastert or Reynolds (or Hastert’s CoS) say is being believed.

    This has stopped being funny. It’s just painful.

    Now, if it will only continue until Nov. 7…

  68. 68.

    Zifnab

    October 4, 2006 at 9:45 pm

    I’m probably the only person here cynical to believe this, but the real scandal to me is that they’re such morons that they can’t get their stories straight.

    I’m probably the only person here conspiracy-theoretical enough to believe this, but the real scandal is that George Bush is about eight seconds from declaring War on Iran and the better part of the country is more interested in gay sex.

    We’ll be cutting and running from Afganastan, pulling troops out of Bagdad, and driving tanks top speed into Iran just in time for Mid-Term elections and no one will lift a finger to stop it because that would distract from where Mark Foley’s wiener was in the past 5 years.

  69. 69.

    J. Michael Neal

    October 4, 2006 at 9:47 pm

    I’m probably the only person here cynical to believe this, but the real scandal to me is that they’re such morons that they can’t get their stories straight.

    That’s not the real scandal, but it is the most surprising part.

  70. 70.

    Jess

    October 4, 2006 at 9:53 pm

    I’m probably the only person here cynical to believe this, but the real scandal to me is that they’re such morons that they can’t get their stories straight.

    Yeah, I know what you mean…I’ve often been accused of being cynical, but ya know I’m always further amazed. Although I’m way past outrage and well into hysterical giggling fits at this point.

  71. 71.

    Steve

    October 4, 2006 at 9:59 pm

    I’m probably the only person here conspiracy-theoretical enough to believe this, but the real scandal is that George Bush is about eight seconds from declaring War on Iran and the better part of the country is more interested in gay sex.

    Well, it’s not like Bush could actually declare war on Iran, he’d have to ask Congress for permission first. Oh, wait.

  72. 72.

    Keith

    October 4, 2006 at 10:10 pm

    John,
    That is one of the most eloquent and effective posts you have ever made.

  73. 73.

    The Other Steve

    October 4, 2006 at 10:14 pm

    I’m from Minnesota, so I apparently need to correct some facts here.

    I didn’t attend or watch the memorial, as I guess I didn’t care. But let me tell you something, the Republicans I knew did… they were somehow encouraged to. So let me explain…

    The Wellstone campaign of 2002 was very bitter. A bit down the road from me the Republicans put up signs calling Wellstone everything from a Communist to a Pedophile. It was pathetic. So it was not surprising to see people who supported Wellstone being angry.

    You have to understand that his supporters by and large loved him. It was as if Martin Luther King, Jr. had died. Wellstone was a smart Senator. He cared about people, and he worked his butt off to do what he could for them. Whether it be farmers, miners, veterans. People he had no connection with, he could talk to and try to understand.

    He stood up on the floor in 2002 and spoke against the Iraq war resolution, calling the whole thing a mistake, voted against it…. and he was going up in the polls as a result.

    The Republicans hated him, because he had character and wasn’t corrupt.

    I never really agreed with Wellstone on a lot of things, but I had a great deal of respect for him, as did most of the people in our state. You cannot say the same for Norm “Mayor Quimby” Coleman, who lost to Ventura in the governor race. If you want an understanding of what Coleman is like… meet his father, and ask where his wife lives.

    The day Wellstone plane crashed, the Republicans were out on their internet blogs and chat sites yipping and yelling, praising the lord the Commie was dead… and they had a plan. I assume it came from the Carnahan death in 2000, but their plan was to immediately start accusing the Democrats of trying to take advantage of Wellstone’s death.

    They were using terms like bloody shroud and so on, it was really quite pathetic.

    The mistake the Democrats made was having that damn memorial before the election. I don’t know what they were thinking, but they played right into the hands of the Republicans.

    I’ve been told by some who were there, that within the crowd were Young Republicans, and it was they who started the booing when Trent Lott entered. I can’t confirm that, but it would not surprise me given the way they were prepared to politicize the event.

    Anyway, as far as the tone goes. Here’s a memorial which is for Wellstone supporters, and someone expected it to be calm? If you’ve heard Wellstone speak, he was no different. He was a fireball, which was why his supporters loved him.

    You’ll note how fast the Republicans were with bringing out their talking points. Within minutes they had declared the memorial was disgraceful and were passing out talking points.

    That was the theme, and they pounded it into the ground.

    As I said, the Democrats made a stupid fucking mistake holding that prior to the election. They should have known that the thing would be turned into a political tool by the GOP. Fucking morons.

    But what is most pathetic is that Dean Bartlett didn’t know Paul Wellstone, did not even have any respect for Paul Wellstone. Yet he thinks he has a right to judge the people who knew and loved Paul Wellstone for the way they behaved at a memorial in his name?

    That I find simply incredible.

  74. 74.

    Pb

    October 4, 2006 at 10:15 pm

    Steve,

    When it comes right down to it, they don’t think they need permission for anything, they’ll just do it anyhow. And if it turns out that maybe they did need permission first, or should have asked first, they’ll just (ir)rationalize it away. Take Cheney, for example (please!):

    Q: The Congressional vote. Do you recall discussing with the President what he would have done if he’d lost the votes.

    Cheney: It was my view at the time [that] we were absolutely committed to getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait one way or the other, no matter what we had to do. We had to have the Saudis as allies in that venture, but if no-one else had been with us if it had just been the United States and Saudi Arabia, without the United Nations, without the authorisation of the Congress, we were prepared to go ahead. I argued in public session before the Congress that we did not need Congressional authorisation. That in fact we had the Truman precedent from the Korean crisis of 1950 that the Senate and all ratified the United Nations charter. By this time the UN Security Council had authorised the use of force back in November saying that we could do it by January 15th if he wasn’t out by then and that legally and from a constitutional stand point we had all the authority we needed.
    […]
    Q: But if you’d lost the vote …?
    Cheney: If we’d lost the vote in Congress, I would certainly have recommended to the President we go forward anyway. Again, as I say, you don’t go back having deployed forces over there and decided it was of strategically vital interest. The worst thing you could do in terms of the situation in that part of the world once you’ve got 500,000 troops out there in the desert is you can’t leave them there indefinitely, you cannot sustain that kind of deployment over time. Then you’re in real trouble if you decide you’re gonna bring them home…

    Q: The President would have accepted that recommendation do you think?

    Cheney: It’s my conviction, that he would in fact have gone forward whether Congress had supported the effort or not.

  75. 75.

    The Other Steve

    October 4, 2006 at 10:18 pm

    Well, yes. Democrats should absolutely listen to the advice of Republicans. I mean, it’s a Known Fact™ that they only have the Dems’ best interests in mind, right?

    Krista pretty much nails it.

    Dean’s advice to the Democrats is designed to weaken the party, not strengthen it. He’s claiming that he is disgusted by the Democrats and it’s because they are criticizing a Republican pedophile he supported.

    Well that kind of makes you wonder.

    Why isn’t Dean Bartlett criticizing the Republican pedophile and the leadership that knew about it and allowed him to remain in the Congress?

  76. 76.

    The Other Steve

    October 4, 2006 at 10:19 pm

    Sorry… Bartlett, Barnett. same difference.

  77. 77.

    Kimmitt

    October 4, 2006 at 11:05 pm

    1) Never listen to advice from a man who hates you.

    2) If you think this: “Er, yes.” it is because you are stupid.

  78. 78.

    Darrell

    October 4, 2006 at 11:12 pm

    The Republicans hated him, because he had character and wasn’t corrupt.

    The truly pathetic thing, is that so many on the left actually believe this kind of thing. It’s not just stupidity, it’s a type of mental illness. More here

    I’ve been told by some who were there, that within the crowd were Young Republicans, and it was they who started the booing when Trent Lott entered. I can’t confirm that, but it would not surprise me given the way they were prepared to politicize the event.

  79. 79.

    Pb

    October 4, 2006 at 11:18 pm

    Darrell Says:

    The Republicans hated him, because he had character and wasn’t corrupt.

    The truly pathetic thing, is that so many on the left actually believe this kind of thing.

    You know, if that statement came from anybody but you, I might consider that point. But since it didn’t, I instead find it totally hilarious and not remotely believable.

  80. 80.

    scarshapedstar

    October 4, 2006 at 11:25 pm

    To many Democrats, though, the unsightliness of the Wellstone funeral apparently remains an obscure mystery.

    Yeah. Kinda like the way that the unsightliness of Bush giving Cheney a reach-around at that one presser back in July never seems to register with your average Republican.

    Wait, sorry. That’s probably because, rather like the Republican fantasy of thunderous boos directed at Trent Lott during Wellstone’s funeral, that never actually happened.

  81. 81.

    Richard 23

    October 4, 2006 at 11:33 pm

    Tom McGuire at Just One Minute is trying to pretend that he read David Corn as having a McCarthy like list that he (or some lefty blogger) is planning to use to out gay Republicans.

    Reading comprehension problems maybe?

  82. 82.

    Steve

    October 4, 2006 at 11:51 pm

    Dunno. From the McCarthy reference, perhaps it was meant as a compliment.

  83. 83.

    Richard 23

    October 5, 2006 at 12:37 am

    From The Hill: Longtime Republican was source of e-mails

    The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

    That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.

    …

    These revelations mean that Republicans who are calling for probes to discover what Democratic leaders and staff knew about Foley’s improper exchanges with under-age pages will likely be unable to show that the opposition party orchestrated the scandal now roiling the GOP just a month away from the midterm elections.

    There’s more. Check it out.

  84. 84.

    Perry Como

    October 5, 2006 at 1:04 am

    Tom McGuire at Just One Minute

    Has a snack box of stupid that he is munching on.

  85. 85.

    Tortoise

    October 5, 2006 at 3:45 am

    Aide-turned-whistleblower: Fordham perhaps?

  86. 86.

    HH

    October 5, 2006 at 7:41 am

    Silly me, I forgot mistakes never happen when you’re involved in vilification.

  87. 87.

    John S.

    October 5, 2006 at 8:15 am

    Silly me, I forgot mistakes never happen when you’re involved in vilification.

    Well, SURE they do.

    Like when Sean Hannity mistakenly said Monica Lewinsky was 19 while working at the White House while he was trying to villify Clinton.

  88. 88.

    demimondian

    October 5, 2006 at 8:19 am

    Silly me, I forgot mistakes never happen when you’re involved in vilification.

    Yeah, it really was shocking to me when they found the connection between Hillary’s removing Vince’s tin-foil hat and the black helicopters mind rays making him kill himself.

  89. 89.

    neil

    October 5, 2006 at 8:56 am

    The Democrats don’t even need to politicize this — they just need to sit back and watch the flames. Attempting to fan them could appear crass.

    I’m not quite tapped into the zeitgeist right now but it does not appear that Dems are getting too far out in front of this one, as well they shouldn’t. The most politically effective thing is to illuminate the contrast: As Republicans try to reap _political benefit_ from the revelation that they shield gay harassers of children, Democrats merely need to give the impression that they care about the fact that there’s something deeply wrong with the system. The Republicans will do a good enough job of showing that their idea of fixing the problem is re-burying it.

  90. 90.

    Mr Furious

    October 5, 2006 at 9:06 am

    Darrell Says:

    The Republicans hated him, because he had character and wasn’t corrupt.

    The truly pathetic thing, is that so many on the left actually believe this kind of thing. It’s not just stupidity, it’s a type of mental illness.

    What the hell do you know about Paul Wellstone, shithead? You got anything to back that up. I mean, seriously, ANYTHING? At this point I’d even entertain a Powerline link, because I don’t think you have anything at all to base that on.

    You’re goddamn right I believe Wellstone had character, and I never heard anything even hinting at corruption about him.

  91. 91.

    Faux News

    October 5, 2006 at 9:19 am

    I’m probably the only person here cynical to believe this, but the real scandal to me is that they’re such morons that they can’t get their stories straight.

    Xenu is protecting Foley! This is what the R’s get for f*cking with Scientology!

  92. 92.

    Ryan S.

    October 5, 2006 at 9:37 am

    Actually, it claims that he “used the internet to molest children”. Is that illegal in the legislation that he passed? Statutory Cybersex?

    Don’t know if this has been answered, but it varies from state to state. In Florida which has very strict laws on the subject, it is illegal to describe performing a sex act with a minor( someone under 18) online, on the phone, or otherwise.

    Florida law prohibits anyone from ”encouraging, offering or soliciting sexual conduct” over the Internet with anyone under 18. Child predators face a minimum of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, with steeper penalties for repeat offenders.

    In Washington DC however the law is quite different. To begin with the legal age for males is 16.

  93. 93.

    chopper

    October 5, 2006 at 9:54 am

    In Washington DC however the law is quite different. To begin with the legal age for males is 16.

    i don’t think the kid was in DC when all this happened.

    note also, there’s a federal law on the books (which foley sponsored IIRC) that mirrors the florida law saying 18.

  94. 94.

    Paul L.

    October 5, 2006 at 10:13 am

    Pb Says:

    Oh, and this is good too:

    While disgusting and sickening, this is not molestation, or at least not molestation as the term is understood outside the Democratic fever swamps.

    You see, outside the Democratic fever swamps, they don’t have dictionaries.

    mo‧lest  /məˈlɛst/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-lest] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
    2. to make indecent sexual advances to.
    3. to assault sexually.

    So you are saying that if a gay person makes a pass at me which I view as indecent, I can say He tried to molest me.

  95. 95.

    Pb

    October 5, 2006 at 10:37 am

    Paul L.,

    You’re learning! It doesn’t have to be a gay person, either. Maybe we should have a ‘word of the day’ around here.

  96. 96.

    Paul L.

    October 5, 2006 at 10:56 am

    You’re learning! It doesn’t have to be a gay person, either. Maybe we should have a ‘word of the day’ around here.

    I think you misunderstand my point.
    What if I am a major homophobe and I view any gay behavior as indecent?
    i.e.
    “Hello you like to come home with me.”

    Is this video of a molestation. According to your definition it is.
    Confronting Fred Phelps Jr

  97. 97.

    Steve

    October 5, 2006 at 10:56 am

    “No me molesta,” my Spanish teacher always used to say to me. I was a real pest in class.

  98. 98.

    Pb

    October 5, 2006 at 11:05 am

    Paul L.,

    Well the question is, who gets to decide what an “indecent sexual advance” is–one man’s flattering proposition is another man’s indecent sexual advance, I suppose. On the other hand, you could probably make a better case for definition 1–“to bother, interfere with, or annoy.”

  99. 99.

    Pb

    October 5, 2006 at 11:10 am

    Heh.

    Remember that crazy lady who made a fool of herself on Fox News?

    Ann Coulter? Michelle Malkin? Could you narrow that down a bit? :)

    Actually I did see that video clip, and it was pretty funny, although both the woman and the anchor looked pretty stupid at times.

  100. 100.

    The Other Steve

    October 5, 2006 at 11:55 am

    The truly pathetic thing, is that so many on the left actually believe this kind of thing. It’s not just stupidity, it’s a type of mental illness. More here

    Another example of why Republicans can’t be trusted about anything.

    The pathetic thing about the Wellstone memorial was how the Republicans tried to use it politically. It wasn’t the Democrats, it was quite clearly the Republicans.

    See, that’s the thing. I never liked Wellstone. I hardly ever agreed with his opinions. I didn’t vote for him in 1990 as I was living in Iowa at the time. I can’t remember if I voted for him in 1996 when I moved to Minnesota. Chances are I did, but I don’t remember.

    It was not until 2002 when he became known to me, and I decided I was definately going to vote for him based upon his opposition to the Bankruptcy bill(otherwise known as Stupid Creditors Protection Act) and the Iraq war resolution.

    Regardless, it was obvious to anybody who was paying attention and didn’t have their head shoved up a partisan ass, that it was the Republicans who turned Wellstones death into a partisan opportunity. They were the ones who tried to use the grief of those who had lost friends and loved ones into something political.

    As I said. I didn’t watch it. Me, a bystander who didn’t care. I didn’t watch it.

    So why did Republicans? Why did highly partisan Republicans who HATED Wellstone watch it, or even attend?

    Simple: Because they wanted to claim those stricken by grief were angry haters.

    See that was the other theme that the Republicans were running about Wellstone. I mentioned the Communist ads and signs. But I forgot to mention the signs claiming Wellstone was a Hater. I can’t remember the specific language now, but it was basically that Wellstone doesn’t get along with the Republicans.

    Again, I simply point out that this Wellstone memorial theme is why I will never vote for Republicans again. Anybody who tries to use the grief of those who lost a loved one against them, has no decency and in my book is an animal rather than a human being.

  101. 101.

    Krista

    October 5, 2006 at 11:56 am

    mo‧lest  /məˈlɛst/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-lest] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
    –verb (used with object)
    1.to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
    2.to make indecent sexual advances to.
    3.to assault sexually.

    You’d think they’d use the word “unwanted” instead, as “unwanted sexual advances” sound a lot more like molestation than “indecent” sexual advances, which may actually be consensual in nature.

  102. 102.

    The Other Steve

    October 5, 2006 at 11:57 am

    The pathetic thing about the Wellstone memorial was how the Republicans tried to use it politically. It wasn’t the Democrats, it was quite clearly the Republicans.

    And I’m sure bleating Darrell is going to come along and say no way, it’s a Known Fact(tm) that it was the Democrats who abused Wellstone.

    But that seems to only further prove my point. If the Republicans weren’t using the Wellstone memorial politically… They wouldn’t keep talking about it.

  103. 103.

    Steve

    October 5, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    If the Republicans weren’t using the Wellstone memorial politically… They wouldn’t keep talking about it.

    Exact same thing with the King funeral, TOS. Within hours, dozens of Republican strategists were going on TV to try and score political points by talking about how awful the Democrats were for using a funeral to try and score political points.

  104. 104.

    John S.

    October 5, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    What if I am a major homophobe and I view any gay behavior as indecent?

    That’s a rhetorical question, right?

  105. 105.

    RSA

    October 5, 2006 at 12:46 pm

    What if I am a major homophobe and I view any gay behavior as indecent?

    Eventually it will become tiresome to hear moral absolutists try to identify gray areas between molestation and friendly advances, between interrogation and torture, between being conservative and being in a persistent vegetative state. . .but not quite yet.

  106. 106.

    Pb

    October 5, 2006 at 12:49 pm

    Krista,

    Well if it wasn’t an unwanted sexual advance, then it wouldn’t be offensive, which is one way to interpret ‘indecent’. But yes, they could have clarified a bit.

    Incidentally, back in 1913, the first definition was the only one for molest in Webster’s:

    Molest \Mo*lest”\, v. t. [imp. & p. p {Molested}; p. pr. & vb.
    n. {Molesting}.] [F. molester, L. molestare, fr. molestus
    troublesome, fr. moles a heavy mass, load, burden. See 3d {Mole}.]
    To trouble; to disturb; to render uneasy; to interfere with; to vex.

    “They have molested the church with needless opposition.” –Hooker.

    Syn: To trouble; disturb; incommode; inconvenience; annoy; vex; tease.

  107. 107.

    Darrell

    October 5, 2006 at 5:59 pm

    Steve Says:

    If the Republicans weren’t using the Wellstone memorial politically… They wouldn’t keep talking about it.

    Exact same thing with the King funeral, TOS. Within hours, dozens of Republican strategists were going on TV to try and score political points by talking about how awful the Democrats were for using a funeral to try and score political points.

    At Wellstone’s funeral, Republican senators were booed. No class. Can you imagine if Republicans booed and harassed Reagan’s Democrat political opponents at Reagan’s funeral? But they didn’t, did they? Then at King’s funeral, Dems took the focus off honoring her, and used it to lambast Bush who was in attendance. That those like Steve defend this type of leftist bottom feeder tendencies says it all about who they are.

    Any equivalent examples from Repubs acting in such a classless way at public funerals? I haven’t seen it.

    One more time:

    The Republicans hated him, because he had character and wasn’t corrupt.

    You libs are like something out of a cartoon

  108. 108.

    Darrell

    October 5, 2006 at 6:04 pm

    But that seems to only further prove my point. If the Republicans weren’t using the Wellstone memorial politically… They wouldn’t keep talking about it.

    They talk about it, because it was a primetime example of classless Democrat behavior. Dems lost a Senate seat over that spectacle.. keep on with your Young Republican conspiracy theories though, it’s showing how unhinged so many of you truly are.

  109. 109.

    Darrell

    October 5, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    But this ain’t the Wellstone funeral. This is the Republican Congressional leadership deciding, despite warning signs and being told repeatedly, to do nothing about one of their own, who was at best soliciting sex from pages over the internet, and at worst- well, who knows

    I’m looking forward to hearing more about who knew what, so that we have a better idea as to how clear or fuzzy those “warning” signs were.

  110. 110.

    The Other Steve

    October 5, 2006 at 11:01 pm

    At Wellstone’s funeral, Republican senators were booed. No class. Can you imagine if Republicans booed and harassed Reagan’s Democrat political opponents at Reagan’s funeral?

    Generally if you had class the first thing out of your mouth would not be “Thank God the commie bastard is dead” upon hearing of the plane crash. But that’s what the Republicans said.

    You aren’t from Minnesota Darrell, so you don’t really know what happened, or any of the context. All you are doing is reporting spin told to you by Rush Limbaugh.

    As I said, I never really even liked Wellstone, but the way you guys tried to use his death politically just shows to me how fucking pathetic you are in your desire to win elections.

  111. 111.

    The Other Steve

    October 5, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    Any equivalent examples from Repubs acting in such a classless way at public funerals? I haven’t seen it.

    Sticking your head in the sand on that one, eh?

  112. 112.

    Darrell

    October 6, 2006 at 1:01 pm

    Any equivalent examples from Repubs acting in such a classless way at public funerals? I haven’t seen it.

    Sticking your head in the sand on that one, eh?

    From your link:

    Phelps’ stated political views and activities are primarily driven by his anti-homosexual beliefs. Phelps’ voting registration in Kansas is Democratic.

    Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries in Kansas five times, but has never won. These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998

    What’s hilarious TOSser, is that you’re too stupid to realize what a dumbass you truly are.

  113. 113.

    The Other Steve

    October 6, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    LOL!

    And Darrell claims Republicans can’t pretend to be Democrats.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Pajamas Media says:
    October 4, 2006 at 4:57 pm

    The Congressional Page Scandal 5: Hastert’s Office Denies He Was Alerted 2 Years Ago About Foley Misconduct

    Foley Follow-up: Resigned GOP Staffer Fordham Says that He Told Hastert about Foley in 2004

  2. RollingDoughnut.com says:
    October 5, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    I guess we can’t legislate vice out of existence

    I haven’t written about the Mark Foley scandal because I haven’t had much to add. What could I really say that isn’t common sense? Bad Congressman. Duh. The interesting parts will develop between now and November 7th, at least. The…

  3. Asymmetric says:
    January 8, 2007 at 4:46 am

    What is Next from the Bullshit Brigade

    Thanks to my compadres at Babalu (Im an official cubiche now. For those of you who dont know Spanish, a cubiche is drop-dead sexy and studly man able to slay a woman with either his looks or his wit), I gazed upon the angelic visage of Americas mom, Ci…

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Traveller on War for Ukraine Day 395: Russia Continues To Pound Away (Mar 26, 2023 @ 6:36pm)
  • prostratedragon on Walter’s Fund – Calendars – Pet Postcards (Open Thread) (Mar 26, 2023 @ 6:27pm)
  • Geminid on Sunday Morning Open Thread: Astro-Science! (Mar 26, 2023 @ 6:26pm)
  • Baud on Walter’s Fund – Calendars – Pet Postcards (Open Thread) (Mar 26, 2023 @ 6:20pm)
  • Gin & Tonic on Walter’s Fund – Calendars – Pet Postcards (Open Thread) (Mar 26, 2023 @ 6:16pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!