Democrats Full Of Hypocrisy, But No Conscience

Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan stated on CNN yesterday on the Situation Room, "What other people have done in the past has no bearing on the current situation. Those that are bringing up the past do so at their own peril. The Republican Party has sold themselves as the Party of Morality. So when we get caught with our pants down, we deserve and must accept swift and damning consequences. If we do anything else, we can throw the Party of Morality out the window."

Not my words, but effective nonetheless.

Peace

"Fisrt, when Republicans do bad things, they feel shame and their own party demands that they leave."

Ben, your party covered up Foley's crimes for THREE YEARS. Nixon only left after it was clear that he would be impeached, forcibly removed, AND convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison. Foley resigned only because he was caught, not because he'd done something wrong. In the eyes of a republican, there is no wrongdoing, except in getting caught.




"But what of Democrats."

A certain congressman named "Jefferson" was forced out of his committee position by his democratic collegues, the moment that he was named as being the subject of an FBI investigation. No indictment. No proof of any wrongdoing. The mere IMPLICATION of wrongdoing brought about the demand for him to step down.

Republicans? When Delay was caught in a conspiracy, republicans changed house ethics rules, to allow him to remain in his position, and even after he was indicted, they fought for him to remain in power. "family values," you know.




"The fact that Foley resigned virtually within minutes of being told that ABC News had copies of his salacious e-mails and text messages indicates he at least felt shame for his actions."

As well he should, along with the rest of the GOP leadership that covered up his crimes for 3 years.




"1. In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page — something Foley hasn't been charged with."

The incident actually ocurred in 1973, and after the investigation, he was censured by Congress.




"In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page — something Foley hasn't been charged with."

Yet. The investigation has just begun, since John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales refused to investigate when the matter came to light.




"Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996."

Name one democrat who supported his actions. I can name dozens of "moral values" republicans who've supported Foley's.




"2. In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie."

1. It did not involve minors
2. Frank was not involved in any way with the prostitution ring.
3. He did NOTHING illegal




"3. In 2001, President Clinton"

I don't think you REALLY want to compare presidential pardons, do you? Certainly not if you're aiming to grab some mythical moral high ground.




"Democrats appear to be OK with Foley's kind of behavior and will protect and excuse it by Democrats, but not by Republicans. "

No, actually democrats immediately excoriated the republican leadership for trying to protect and cover up Foley's illicit, illegal, immoral behavior.




"This is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans."

You got THAT right.


Ben, you're a reasonably bright fellow. Why do you insist upon saying things that make you look like a blathering idiot? Is it really worth it, just to be a shameless tool of this diseased, corrupt, failed republican party? Stop allowing yourself to be made such a fool by a party that has long ago abandoned you, and deserves nothing from you but disgust and contempt.

Again, thank you, Clark Kent.

Interesting that with Studds you do not mention the Republican (Crane, R-IL) who was censured at the same time.

Clinton was impeached for obfuscating having consensing sex with an adult, and his career was not centered on criminalizing behavior he engaged in.

The House Leadership has been like the Roman Catholic Church in covering-up for Foley.

It is the Republicans who are sexual counter-revolutionaries who want to ban abortion, contraception, HPV immunization, etc. It is their hypocricy that warrants special attention.

Studds was re-elected; Foley would not have been, because his backers are Christianists wanting to enforce a code of behavior that they themselves do not uphold on everyone else.

Ben,

Most of your own "respected" conservative Republican commentators, (not the ilk of What a Rush Limpballs and Bill O'Really), and publications like the Washington Times are calling for Dennis Hasterts resignation for either incompetence, stupidity, or the flat out criminal conduct of protecting this sicko for political gain.

Personally I like the idea that there are folks out there like you to show the whole country what values and morals you guys O'Really stand for. And when Bush jumped on your band wagon, well that is just icing on the cake. There is nothing better than a fella that will dig his own grave, and then pull the dirt in around themselves. You're a real pal.

Peace

Stephen,

And yeah, remember when Clinton's poll number actually went up because most people felt it was none of their business? Then they changed their tack and brought out the Righteous Indignation of doing his shameful business in the Oval Office! Now we find out Foley, (one of the critics of Clinton), was having phone sex with a page just before a House vote. Tsk, Tsk. Naughty, naughty.

This is actually really sad. Poor Ben here is so obsessed with his blind allegiance to a failed ideology that he's actually making a case in support of pedophilia and abuse of power, instead of standing up for what's right and denouncing the criminal behavior.

This is what happens when you marry yourself to an ideology, instead of having a set of core values and principles of your own. You wind up having to defend the indefensible, and making a fool of yourself, because you simply have nothing except that blind worship.

Let's take a little look at some of the things that Ben has stepped up in support of, because of his blind worship of a failed ideology:

1. Ben no longer believes in fiscal responsibility. He favors reckless, criminal mismanagement of the budget and destruction of the national treasury.

2. Ben favors massive expansion of federal government.

3. Ben favors the federal government overstepping state's rights and issues, such as presidential elections and personal decisions such as removing life support from a long brain-dead woman.

4. Ben favors a highly intrusive government that brazenly spies on its own citizens without warrant and without cause.

5. Ben favors severe restrictions in constitutional rights, including free speech.

6. Ben doesn't believe in the American system of justice. Ben believes that we are guilty until proven innocent.

7. Ben believes in and supports acts of treason.

8. Ben supports obstruction of justice and lying to grand juries.

9. Ben supports illegal wars of aggression against nations that pose us absolutely no threat whatsoever.

10. Ben supports torture, abuse, rape, and murder of innocent people.

11. Ben believes that a president can violate federal and constitutional law at will.

12. Ben believes that there should be absolutely no accountability or oversight of our government at any time, on any issue.

13. Ben believes that we will end terrorism by murdering innocent people.

14. Ben supports rampant, unfettered corruption and fraud.

15. Ben supports a completely inept, broken government.

16. Ben would rather surrender his freedoms that to have his government actually do something like secure ports and borders.

17. Ben believes that there should be no ethics rules in congress.

18. Ben believes that elections should be fraudulant and corrupt.

19. Ben believes that it's a great idea to destroy our military in a pointless and endless war that we should never have been involved in.

20. Ben supports pedophiles and arrogant abuse of power in order to shield those pedophiles from public scrutiny and accountability.

You see, Ben, this is why so many REAL conservatives have already decided to leave the republican party to die and rot away. REAL conservatives, moderates, independents, libertarians, and thinking persons with values and principles simply cannot allow themselves to support the vile things that you're forced to support, just to remain a staunch republican. These people are AMERICANS FIRST, CONSERVATIVES SECOND, and REPUBLICANS LAST. I respect them for their convictions, and I admire their values and principles. I hope and pray that they can find a way to wrestle control of the party back from the likes of you, those who have no values or principles. I think they're going to win.

Seems as if Ben can't find his way back to this article for comment...

And I thought Chris Reeves died. Right On Brother!!!

Apollyon,

There was nothing on which I could comment. Clark proved my point by agreeing that Dems do not force their people to resign while Republicans do.

Clark then proceeded to destroy the messenger. That is the oldest Democrat trick in the book and one that Clark uses almost every time facts are brought up that besmirch Democrats and reveal their true selves.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

The record is clear, here. The majority of Republicans accused of wrongdoing step down immediately, Tom DeLay and Jeanine Pirro notwithstanding. The percentage goes higher if they are actually guilty of what they are accused of. Democrats have nothing but excuses for their pols, often stretching their credibility. Why is William Jefferson (D) Louisiana running for office again?

Why does "Clark Kent" use a phony (and copyrighted) name and image, while he merrily traipses through Gather, personally disparaging, misrepresenting the words, character, and intent of every Gather member he disagrees with?

It's no wonder that you didn't respond to such foolish and banal comments, Ben.

Appolyon, Buchanan's comment applies to the action, and the assumption of the Republicans as "the party of morality." I can't imagine that you believe that to be true. If you want to cite Buchanan, you should at least believe what he's saying.

What I got from Ben's post was the different reaction to similar bad deeds, by the two major political parties. I didn't see any justification of Foley's actions.

You can't compare the crimes of Mark Foley to Bill Clinton. Regardless of how shameful Clinton's behavior was it was between consenting adults. Mark Foley took advantage of youth - there's a big difference.

Joe,

So far as we know today, Foley had no contact.

Clinton's taking advantage of a 19 year old to have oral sex and some 15 phone sex calls was hardly about two consenting adults. What he did in taking advantage of his position was not something for which he should have been aggressively supported by his party.

My point was that their choosing to do so reflects extremely badly on them and takes away any right they may have had to criticize others.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

"There was nothing on which I could comment. Clark proved my point by agreeing that Dems do not force their people to resign while Republicans do."

Wrong. I proved that you had no point, which is a pretty common theme with your posts, frankly.




"Clark then proceeded to destroy the messenger. "

Wrong again. The messenger destroyed himself. Clark merely pointed out the tragedy of it.





"Why does "Clark Kent" use a phony (and copyrighted) name and image, while he merrily traipses through Gather, personally disparaging, misrepresenting the words, character, and intent of every Gather member he disagrees with?"

A. I can use whatever name I like. There is no fricking copyright on a name. Additionally, there is absolutely NOTHING "phony" about a name.

B. I'm not always this merry.

C. I don't "traipse." This word gives the illusion that I merely troll through the links, post a comment, and disappear. I rarely, if ever do that. I post my comments and stand up to any refutation that is offered, regardless of how weak they are.

D. "disparaging" and "misrepresenting" would indicate that something that I said was untrue. However, that is not the case. You may not LIKE what I say at times, but I do not speak untrue statements, and only "disparage" to the degree that I don't hesitate to point out the shameless hypocrisy and outrageously unAmerican stances of some on this board.




"It's no wonder that you didn't respond to such foolish and banal comments, Ben. "

How could he? He knows I'm dead on.




"Clark, the fact that you believe number 2 of your reply as fact only proves how far left and BLIND you truly are. There is NO reasoning with people like you. "

You really don't know very much at all about this story, do you? I'd suggest you check your facts before spouting off next time. This is why people have such a difficult time taking you people seriously about anything. You parrot your favorite rightwing talking point without ever actually doing any fact checking or research on your own. Lazy.





"So far as we know today, Foley had no contact."

Yeah, because HE says so. You can BANK that comment. After all, he'd have NO reason to lie about THAT, right?




"Clinton's taking advantage of a 19 year old"

What 19 year old? Monica was 22. You've been watching Hannity again, I see.




"What he did in taking advantage of his position was not something for which he should have been aggressively supported by his party. "

What Clinton did, although certainly not a wise nor moral action, was between two consenting adults. That is entirely different from the predatory, pedophilic actions of Foley. To even attempt to compare the two is extremely dishonest, imo.




"My point was that their choosing to do so reflects extremely badly on them and takes away any right they may have had to criticize others."

Yet, you're fine with the republican leadership covering up for and burying the very serious and strong evidence of pedophilia activity by Foley? Unbelievable. This is exactly what I'm talking about with you, Ben. Nothing matters to you except party loyalty, at any and all costs. I feel sorry for you.

Sure, you've got your little buddy Christopher to stick his nose up your anus and defend your defending the indefensible now and then, but at the end of the day, your blind allegiance to your failed ideology will do nothing but expose you as a hypocrite, as we've all seen once again here.

"Why is William Jefferson (D) Louisiana running for office again? "

What was he indicted of again? Oh yeah. Nothing. Btw, his collegues IMMEDIATELY demanded that he step down from his congressional cabinet post, the moment that the allegations arose.

Now, can someone please explain to me why the republican DOJ sat on this story for so long, and why there has been no indictment, if a crime has actually been committed?

As for you wingnuts attempting to pretend that pedophilia and covering up for it are A-Ok, by using the convoluted reasoning that your party is somehow the party of virtue and values, you might be wise to take note that it is precisely that line of commentary that has focused so much attention on Mr. Foley's actions, as well as the actions of the republican leadership to cover up and bury his outrageous behavior.

Nobody should, at this point, pretend that Mr. Foley would have stepped down had he not been caught and had no choice, and nobody should assume that anyone in the republican leadership would've come forward with this information, which they've held for at least a year, without having it been found out elsewhere.

Time and time and time again, corrupt politicians have shown the capacity to be corrupt, regardless of party affiliation. Any attempt by you republicans at this point to try to justify or minimize the seriousness of this latest scandal by pointing fingers elsewhere should realize that it only serves to paint you as ridiculous hypocrites who really don't care at all about the rule of law, when it serves against those of your own party.

Suck it up, and be honest for a change. Admit that what Foley did was wrong, and admit that what the republican leadership did was wrong. You'll feel better about yourselves in doing so. I promise.

The irony is Clinton freed a pedophile and is out to get the republicans even though Foley already resigned.

http://levin.nationalreview.com

Michael Lux is president of a group called American Family Voices, which has both a commercial and non-profit registration. It is now making a zillion recorded phone calls to Republicans telling them to call their Republican House members and urging them to ask for the resignation of the GOP leadership. Numerous callers to my radio show tonight, from different parts of the country, received the recorded phone calls.

It turns out that Lux served at the White House from Jan. '93 to'95 as a Special Assistant to the President for Public Liaison. In 1992, Lux served as the Constituency Director on both the Clinton-Gore campaign and the Presidential transition.

Carol Trevelyan Strategy Group is the registed agent for American Family voices, which is linked here. She is also involved in The Emerging Democratic Majority website and E-newsletter linked here.

The Clintonoids are trying to take out Hastert — for the kids, of course.

Ben, I find your perception of most things extremely odd. Although you have followed most writing rules in this article, I am going against my usual "will rate the writing and disagree in the comments" and rating this low because it isn't honest and it blows my mind to think you would write a hypocritical article about someone else being hypocritical. Kudos for actually writing one. You did write this one, didn't you?

"The irony is Clinton freed a pedophile and is out to get the republicans even though Foley already resigned."

Do you people not see how incredibly ridiculous you look in trying to defend the indefensible here? Rather than simply say "My guys have really screwed the pooch this time...they shouldn't have tried to hide what Foley was doing, they should've removed him from his cabinet position and initiated a full investigation, and now they just look like exactly what the democrats have been saying all along that they were, and frankly, it makes my stomach turn," you righties are twisting, spinning, and finding any justification that you can for what's happened, regardless of how vile and indefensible it is.

I realize that this weak, pathetic display may in fact offer YOU some sense of weak, pathetic solace, but do you HONESTLY believe that by posting this type of thing, you're gaining anyone to your point of view?

Do you think that you're doing anything but further solidifying the fact that most of us already know, that the republican party no longer holds any values or principles, because all that matters to them is retaining power at all costs?

Yes, John, Ben, Christopher, and the rest of you hypocritical, partisan, ideology worshippers, we all know that democrats have historically engaged behaviors that were less than desireable. I fail to see, however, how this fact in any way justifies or excuses this most recent scandal (or any other, for that matter) involving republicans?

Why is it that you people can't just do what's right for a change? Why are you so cowardly that you cannot find the courage to face rightful criticism and condemnation of your political leaders? Is the faith that you have for your ideology really so weak that you cannot allow yourself to even do what's right when the rest of the world sees you as nothing but shamelessly transparent and hypocritical ideologues as a result of your ridiculous comments?

If the faith that you have in your own ideology is really this weak, then why are you even bothering to attempt to cling to it at all? If this is the type of truth-twisting, bending, spinning, and morphing of reality that you have to go through, just to show the world that you're an unwavering ideologue, what's the point?

By doing so, you also show the world that you stand for nothing, except blind allegiance to your ideology. If you cannot even muster the principles and core values required to condemn obviously egregious and inexcusible acts against children, you are nothing, you represent nothing, and you can be nothing. Without values and principles, you are a shallow, hollow human form without meaningful purpose. How sad is that?

Lately I am beginning to wonder if people like Ben are really married to an ideology, or just using Gather to write inflammatory articles to promote their own interests, like this book he wrote.

- Yes, John, Ben, Christopher, and the rest of you hypocritical, partisan, ideology worshippers, we all know that democrats have historically engaged behaviors that were less than desireable. I fail to see, however, how this fact in any way justifies or excuses this most recent scandal (or any other, for that matter) involving republicans?

Let me explain it so even you can understand.
Your party leader commutes the sentence of a convicted pedophile.
Foley quit on his own, nobody is supporting him. Hassart didn't know about the IM's and new nothing about sexual content in emails. Somebody has known for three years and did nothing. That's whom you need to complain about.

- world that you stand for nothing

We stand for truth, justice and the American way. You stand for hanging every republican that gets a finger pointed at them. Shoot first and ask questions later, unless of course they're known terrorists, then they get the benefit of the doubt.

Can you smell that? My favorite scent! It's neocon fear and desperation! YEEEEHAWWWW!!! Gotta love it, huh? Keep spinning, children. You're only making yourselves and your party look worse with every word you type in support of pedophilia.

I would never think of it, Sandy. Wouldn't want to disappoint a fan like you, would I?

"A hypocritical article about someone being hypocritical" - that's great. I could never compete with that.

And Clark's defense of the hypocrites was truly a classic, a classic -----?

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

Clark's right, there certainly was a cover-up and as the reporter who broke the story has stated in an interview that when she approached Foley's Office with teh original PG-13 rated "creepy" email there was little concern and they were ready to handle a situation such as this. SHe released the story about an "inappropriate" e-mail which led to a deluge of information from former pages who while they were on the Hill were WARNED by Party People to not get too close to Foley who was "harmless" but friendly and weird. The damning evidence came from the saved X-rated IMs and parents who had just decided to let it go as long as Foley stopped communicating with their children being Republicans themselves. The reporter re-approached the Office speaking to the same person she spoke to before and we all know what happenned after that. This was no secret to Republicans on the Hill.

So contrary to what you think Ben, there is no honor to stepping down just because you were caught. I really got a good laugh out of the sad sad response that Newt Gingrich had to being asked why nothing was done about this when the leadership knew Foley was sexually harassing minors, which is representative of idiotic ways that righties can respond. It was to the effect of "If Republicans had responded too aggressively we would have been labeled homophobes."

That statement only proves that he IS homophobic if he believes there would be repercussions for outing a PEDOPHILE seeking contact with minors. The only reason he wasn't outed or asked to resign by fellow Republican's who KNEW about what was going on was to avoid embarassment to the Party. Where's the conscience in that Ben? And who's the hypocrite now?

Deen, I have wondered this since the beginning: Lately I am beginning to wonder if people like Ben are really married to an ideology, or just using Gather to write inflammatory articles to promote their own interests, like this book he wrote. I don't think his publications here do much to promote his work, however. I can't imagine anyone trusting what he has published in that book when what he says here is often so far from accurate.

Clark, I'll share my can of disinfectant with you if you promise to give it right back.

"i wonder how nancy pelosi seemed to know or think she knows so much about this?.....already claiming coverup...i wonder....
maybe she plays a young boy page online? "

Wouldn't that be something? I'd love to see you righties try to justify crucifying her for the same crimes that you're literally turning yourselves inside out to justify from your own boy. I think the amount of hypocrisy required to pull that feat off would likely cause all of you to overdose and assume room temperature as a result.

Where is your conscience, Glen, in misrepresenting the facts?

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

"Where is your conscience, Glen, in misrepresenting the facts?"

That's hilarious, coming from you. Funny how you offer nothing to refute anything that he's said, save for your ridiculous comment.

Ben, It is so sad how you see things. You are actually willing to use any excuse in the book to put the republicans in good light even if it means attacking others. this is exactly why the Republicans are in such trouble. Most anyone who is a moderate, left leaning or just looking for honest people will abandon the republicans in November. Mostly they will do so b/c of people like you who support them so blindly that they over look everything else...

"The Bohemian Grove, that I attend from time to time — the (inaudible) and the others come there — but it is the most faggy goddamn thing that you would ever imagine. The San Francisco crowd, it's just terrible. I can't even shake hands with anybody from San Francisco." - President Richard M. Nixon, Bohemian Club member starting in 1953 (Domhoff, p 15);


Bohemian Grove Face Sheet

Bohemian Grove Exposed

From these varied sources, reportedly, notable past attendees have included, from the current administration:

George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Karl Rove
Former American Presidents

George Herbert Walker Bush
Bill Clinton
Ronald Reagan
Jimmy Carter
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Harry Truman
Herbert Hoover
Calvin Coolidge
William Howard Taft
Theodore Roosevelt
As well as,

Jeb Bush
Henry Kissinger
George Shultz
Earl Warren
Robert Kennedy
David Rockefeller
David Rockefeller, Jr.
Nelson Rockefeller
James Wolfensohn
Alan Greenspan
Paul Volcker
Colin Powell
Jack Welch
David Packard
Riley P. Bechtel
Henry Ford II
Prince Philip
John Major
Helmut Schmidt
Lee Kuan Yew
James A. Baker III
Newt Gingrich
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Bob Novak
Malcolm Forbes
David S. Broder
Neil Armstrong
Mark Twain
Francis Ford Coppola
Charlton Heston
Clint Eastwood
Walter Cronkite
Erling Finch Week

Glad to have given you a laugh, Clark. Since you have given me so many, many full belly laughs I owe you.

I know you'll keep it up, Ben

Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

I keep my conscience close always Ben. I keep it right next to my dignity. Where's YOUR dignity?

"We stand for truth, justice and the American way. "

Yeah, you sure do. Repubs are ALL about truth, justice, and the American way, alright.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/gopscorecard.htm

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_presidential_pardons

http://www.the7thfire.com/child_sexual_abuse/grand_old_pedophiles.htm

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/gopcorruption.html




What a dumb argument to use as justification for Foley engaging in predatory victimization, and the GOP leadership engaging in a coverup. Keep spinning. I love what you're doing for your cause. By the time you're through, even Ben won't be able to cast a republican vote.

I am moved to express thanks to - Sandy, Clark, R. E., Kelly and Glen - for commenting. Somehow I knew that you would all visit and give us the benefit of your ---, uh -----, well whatever.

Thanks again, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

The benefit of research and critical thinking skills? You are welcome. My History and American Studies Professors liked that about me too.

Politics and religion.

Church and state.

When opposites attract,

you separate,

propagate,

mandate,

stipulate.

Then annihilate…


The Bush mantra

Just for fun, Clark.

You responded to my article as follows (the quotes are my words, those without were yours) --

"The fact that Foley resigned virtually within minutes of being told that ABC News had copies of his salacious e-mails and text messages indicates he at least felt shame for his actions."

As well he should, along with the rest of the GOP leadership that covered up his crimes for 3 years.

"1. In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page — something Foley hasn't been charged with."

The incident actually ocurred in 1973, and after the investigation, he was censured by Congress.

"In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page — something Foley hasn't been charged with."

Yet. The investigation has just begun, since John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales refused to investigate when the matter came to light.

"Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996."

Name one democrat who supported his actions. I can name dozens of "moral values" republicans who've supported Foley's.

END OF YOUR COMMENTS

Let's review the Studds case. Studds' first year in Congress was in 1973. But it was not until 1983 that he confessed to having had sex with a 17 year old male page back in 1973. The first sexual advance according to the page was when he was 16.

Studds was an admitted homosexual. The House censured him in 1983. He did not resign and was not forced to do so by his Democrat leadership.

So the leadership took 10 years to take action it cost Studds NOTHING. They did not force him out. In fact, Studds stayed in the House for 10 more years and went on to hold a full committee chairmanship, that of the Merchant Marine and Fishing Committee. That's what I call rewarding his performance.

According to Clark's comments, Studds should have resigned and the House Democrat leadership should also have resigned. But none of them did resign. The Democrat leadership not only did not force Studds to resign, they promoted him.

Clark, it is easy to name Democrats who supported Studds. The answer is all of them no matter what they said to the press.

The utter and complete hypocrisy of the Democrats is quite evident, Clark. You could not possibly agree so I will expect more grenades.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

"Let's review the Studds case. Studds' first year in Congress was in 1973. But it was not until 1983 that he confessed to having had sex with a 17 year old male page back in 1973. The first sexual advance according to the page was when he was 16."

So, this excuses today's GOP behavior why again? You're losing me once again, big guy.




"According to Clark's comments, Studds should have resigned and the House Democrat leadership should also have resigned."

I would say so, yes. He admitted to having had a relationship with this person when he was 17, which, last time I checked, was considered a "minor." Perhaps, those laws were different then, but I cannot say for certain, so, using MY values and principles, he definitely should've resigned.

Still, this does nothing to change what's happening RIGHT NOW, does it? Is this REALLY your justification for defending the indefensible?





"Clark, it is easy to name Democrats who supported Studds."

I'd like to see that list. I want to see a list of democrats who stood up in support of him having a gay relationship with a minor.




"The utter and complete hypocrisy of the Democrats is quite evident, Clark."

Because your boy is a predatory pedophile and your party leadership chose to support and embrace him, and cover it up instead of investigating it and putting an end to it? Hmmm. . Nice twisty spin on that one.




"You could not possibly agree so I will expect more grenades."

Grenades of truth, Ben. The sting that you feel is the sting from truth shrapnel.

The spin as usual, Clark, is all yours. You are the master. Your "do as I say not as I do" gang can't complain about you not supporting them in their time of dire need.

If your grenades were truth, they would sting. As it is, they only make me smile.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

Clark, there is nothing to be gained by getting down in the mud with the Republicans. They are whited sepulchres -- who would love to spend the next month or so beating their chests and discussing sex, while the nation goes to wrack and ruin. They are hypocrites -- no news, old, old news. It does not behoove us to join their tactics -- this is like Bush smearing his opponents whether they be fellow Republicans in the primaries or Democrats all the rest of the time. They are sickening -- but I really do not believe that it makes sense to discuss Foley defoliating whatever he may or may not have defoliated, there are too many more important issues confronting Americans.

So difficult to have a discussion on gather, unless you're a leftie.

Dick Morris: And that's going to backfire on the Democrats by focusing on what did Hastert know because you know that some of the Democratic congressmen knew. I had a reporter that told me today that she knows that one very prominent member of the Democratic leadership knew about this for months...

Will they also be asked to resign?

this is for BEN:
we all know why Foley did what he did, many reasons :
# 1 he is alcoholic & chatted with teenagers under the influence of alcohol
# 2 he was molested when he was a teenager.
# 3 he is gay.
But we must all keep in mind that these are NOT excuses.
I like to add another excuse:
# 4 the teenager seduced him.(may be this will be enough to quit him).
Dennis Hastert?
# 1 he knew just on friday
# 2 well, he knew few months ago (about over-friendly e-mail,whatever that means)
# 3 ok ok he knew 3 years ago.
# 4 he asked the dept. of justice to conduct a FULL investigations 3 YEARS after the accident.
George Bush:
dennis hastert is a GOOD man, he is a FTHER.

I'm not a Democrat. Does that mean that I have the right to criticize?

If the Republicans were so "honorable" about their sex crimes, as this article suggests, Foley would have left over a YEAR ago when this stuff was revealed to other people in Congress. Instead, they stuffed it under wraps for a long period of time, trying to keep Foley in office.

That's the real story here.

"The spin as usual, Clark, is all yours. You are the master. Your "do as I say not as I do" gang can't complain about you not supporting them in their time of dire need."

Yes, that's it. Funny how you can't seem to point out my spin though, while I have no trouble at all pointing out yours. Weird.




"Clark, there is nothing to be gained by getting down in the mud with the Republicans."

I disagree. Not only do I get the opportunity to find out just how defective and miswired their goofy "brains" are, but I get to mock and expose them publicly for the foolish, hypocritical bubble people that they are. I find it extremely entertaining. Sort like a cat playing with a mouse, except in this case, the mouse literally walks right up to the cat and tried to tell it off.




"So difficult to have a discussion on gather, unless you're a leftie."

Only if you're either too cowardly to face and discuss facts, or you simply cannot find the words to defend the failures and moral and ethical bankruptcies of your own ideology. If you're so sure of yourself, bring it on. Ben may make himself appear as nothing more than a simpleton and a tool for the wingnut agenda, but at least he TRIES to discuss things. He obviously doesn't come to the party armed with any factual information, so of course, he gets obliterated, but at least he plays the game.




"Dick Morris: And that's going to backfire on the Democrats by focusing on what did Hastert know because you know that some of the Democratic congressmen knew. I had a reporter that told me today that she knows that one very prominent member of the Democratic leadership knew about this for months..."

I've also heard that the FBI has known about it for months. Dare we say that the democrat may have did the right thing, in reporting it to the proper authorities? Nah, can't be. He was helping Foley victimize children, just like the republicans were.

Sure, I'll take the spin of a serial toe sucker and prostitute addict. He sorta fits in perfectly in your camp, doesn't he? The only thing that's missing is a predatory nature and a propensity for homosexual pedophilia, but that's probably hidden away somewhere for the time being.





"Will they also be asked to resign? "

For what? Turning information over to the FBI?





"Ben,

Can you explain/SPIN the two year cover-up of the Foley problem by the Republican leadership???"

I'll take this one. Obviously, democrats were hiding this information from the republican leadership, because they hate America and are unsavory demons from hell.



"And shoud Speaker Denny (YET ANOTHER HYPOCRITE DRAFT-DODGER REPUBLICAN) Hastert resign as Speaker???"

Clinton got a blow job.


There, that outta handle those points. Thank me later, Ben!




"here more....teddy kennedy....robert byrd....
we get rid of our creeps...why don't you?....weres bob packwood? "

You get rid of them? Really? George Bush I, Poindexter, North, Delay (he had to be forcibly removed), Ney, Taft, George Bush II, Negroponte, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowicz, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Yeah, you sure do get rid of them. Lying sack o' shite.

On the Democrat Rant Rate-O-Meter, that one didn't rank so well, Clark. You are slipping.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

Foley definitely harrassed those boys. If that is the extent of what he can be charged with - then - so be it. But, to try to excuse it with these other theories is ridiculous. Foley is the adult here and should have known better.

"Foley is the adult here and should have known better. "

I believe the real scandal is the republican leadership covering up the crime.

Republicans covering up the crime? What?! Foley has confessed and resigned! For heaven's sake people, get a grip on reality! What Democrat do you know who has ever admitted he/she is wrong let alone expunged the public of their presence? Clark, you should know, you're a perfect example.

"Republicans covering up the crime? What?! Foley has confessed and resigned! For heaven's sake people, get a grip on reality!"

Tiffany, some of the Republican leadership knew about his conduct for up to three years. Just because you are caught does not make it any less of a crime.

clark kunt- (forgive me, Tiffany)

I'm at a loss as to what tragedy must have befallen your genes.....

.........why don't you just blow yourself, and save all of us who are beneath you the trouble.......

"Tiffany, some of the Republican leadership knew about his conduct for up to three years. Just because you are caught does not make it any less of a crime.

To most republicans, the crime is not the criminal act itself, but rather the fact that the criminal act becomes public. In their minds, no crime is ever committed if it never reaches a point of accountability.






"clark kunt- (forgive me, Tiffany)

I'm at a loss as to what tragedy must have befallen your genes.....


Mark-John K. commented Oct 6, 2006

.........why don't you just blow yourself, and save all of us who are beneath you the trouble.......


Mark-John K. commented Oct 6, 2006 "

Here's your typical republican voice, people. Vote your conscience in November. You want people like this running the show any longer? Me either. Thanks for showing us all what you and your party are made of.

The comparison here is stark.

Republicans are leading the charge to investigate and take corrective action while Republican Foley knew that he had to resign because of what his own party would do to him.

Democrats, faced with similar circumstances in the past have stonewalled investigations, convinced the media that "it's only sex", defended by calling the whole thing a right wing conspiracy, justified the act by citing what others have supposedly done, sometimes been forced to censure, but NEVER NEVER taking the resignation road and always supporting their person again and again and again.

The majority of Republicans have never been supportive of such violators and have almost always caused them to resign, that being the opposite of what Democrats do.

Quite a BIG DIFFERENCE, one worth deciding your votes.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"