<p>Some how the thread on Mark Foley has become a thread on homosexuality when it really should be about political power gone awry. Now it turns out the Republicans knew of messages as far back as 2000. </p>
<p>From the Washington Post;</p>
<p>“A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship.”</p>
<p>The whole Republican crew in control in DC has been about power - getting it and keeping it. It has never intended to do anything like “doing the right thing”.<br>
Look at the senior’s prescription drug benefit. It was all about votes and pre-empting a Democratic issue. I guess the RNC never thought through how many of the seniors would fall into the donut hole right before election time.
Or, look at the Delay situation and their shameless move to let him maintain power even if indighted.
Or, GWB’s shift regarding the Plame leak, from “''If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.” to ''If someone committed a crime, they will no longer be in my administration,"</p>
<p>You got your break when your bozos came to absolute power in 2000. Your speculation on the dems is irrelevant, and you know it. The dems don’t have any power, and have not for years. But you use a classic RNC rhetorical trick - our bad guys are no worse than the opposition.</p>
<p>So, I guess you agree with my observation? Good. A point of common ground.</p>
<p>I think all politics is about power. I think Dems and Republicans differ in their policies, but both parties have individuals of whom I disapprove.</p>
<p>I vote for Republicans because I support their policies. I will admit that my time on CC has opened my eyes to the vitriol that the Democrats feel for Republicans, and I could never return to the party of my youth. I have a hard time thinking of an exchange where the liberal point of view has been presented objectively and logically. Most of them seem to devolve into name calling.</p>
<p>The Democrats DO seem to be the party of angry people, whether or not they are in office.</p>
<p>Rudy and Newt were quite open about their sexual peccadillos. We don’t have to look back at the past when we can look forward toward the future!</p>
<p>It’s those memorable Clinton lines - with the finger wagging:
‘I never had sex, with that woman, Monica Lewinsky’ and others.</p>
<p>Also it’s the attempt at rule by judicial fiat. Finely tuned by Democrats to enact policies that should have gone through the legislative process regardless of how long it took. The Democrat Party was my party, originally. They left me. The Republicans are a better fit, for now.</p>
<p>Frankly, that was all easy. Arguing about sex is intramural compared to terrorist states with nuclear weapons and a United Nations that is paralyzed when substance is required. If you think anything Clinton could’ve done would have changed anything substantial I’d suggest you’re mistaken.</p>
<p>If the Dems put forward anything close to a realistic policy most people would buy it. Most look for reasons to agree and serve common goals. </p>
<p>We’re all in this together. The pot calling the kettle black does not help.</p>
<p>The fascinating thing to me in this Foley situation was to see in retrospect how some CC posters were so faithfully repeating the talking points of the Republican Party and their media touts. I don’t follow blogs, and I don’t watch any TV news on a regular basis, so I was just reading about the factual developments in the paper and following up on statements and links here on CC. (Is that one of the archetypes?: “Gets all breaking news from other CC posters?” - probably. I dropped out of that thread.)</p>
<p>But I watched a rerun of the Daily Show last night, and there was Kathleen Harris, saying almost the exact same things that Driver and Zoosermom were posting about how there just had to be some way this was the Democrat’s fault; Gingrich reciting Hereshoping and DRJ4’s lines about how the first set of e-mails weren’t really significant and if the Republicans had done anything about them they’d be perceived as anti-gay. (Great Jon Stewart line on that subject: "and by the way, equating a 52 year old congressman who preys on 16 year olds with being gay may be one reason why the Republican party is accused of “gay bashing”) Hereshoping and Driver echoed Tony Snow’s invitation to look at other scandals instead of the mere “naughty e-mails” involved here. Even more interesting to me is that DRJ4 had the link to the stopsexpredators blog way back at the start - obviously he got it from a source outside the mainstream media. </p>
<p>So my question is this: Where do you guys get this stuff? Who distributes it? Do you accept it uncritically or do you cross-check it against other sources?</p>
<p>scandals, lawbreakers, bribary, jail time, and resignations up the wazoo, and we haven’t even scratched the surface of GOP scandals and ethics problem with the GOP congress, but if standards are soooo low, we shouldn’t be suprised, guess so long as they try and stop flag burning and steriod use and go after HP staff, we are all better off</p>
Kluge, if you can’t make this forum at least a tiny bit challenging for me, I may have to terminate your Being Hit On The Head Lessons in the interest of sportsmanship and common decency.</p>
<p>common decency…I don’t see that common decency was lacking Kluge’s posts…I kind of find his question interesting…while many claim to not listen to Fox, OReilly, etc., the talking points are cookie cutter from the Republican side, and yes, there are Republican Talking Points sent out all the time by the administration and the GOP, or is it just coincidence that the words coming out of mouths simultaneously are the same?</p>