The Mid-Term Elections

jdobbin · September 2, 2006

Republicans having recruiting problems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14584844/

jdobbin · September 2, 2006

Newsweek columnist says that Bush will whip up supporters on attacking Iran to help win mid-term elections.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14623879/site/newsweek/

jdobbin · September 8, 2006

The latest Cook Report.

It says they will lose the House, barely hang on the Senate and lose many governorships.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14703848/

jdobbin · September 30, 2006

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/29/con...ails/index.html

Ick. Republicans are going to have a hard time winning seats if their Representatives do stuff like this.

sharkman · September 30, 2006

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/29/con...ails/index.html
Ick. Republicans are going to have a hard time winning seats if their Representatives do stuff like this.

So the MSM is once again trying to 'help' the Dems, eh? Typical, probably still ticked off that one of their own went down (Rather) when trying to ruin Bush during the last election.

Oh, and this just in: Bob Woodward has a new 'tell all' book coming out with less than two months before voting day. And it's critical of the Bush administration!!! (No duh) Hoping to sway public opinion and get those idiot Republicans out of power, no doubt. The anti- Bush books dovetailing with the MSM reporting anything they can get their hands on to smear the administration hasn't worked since before 2000, but there's still hope! I wonder if Larry Flynt has any ads in The National Enquirer offering to pay for dirt on Republican politicians this time?

What a pathetic thing politics has become.

jdobbin · September 30, 2006

What a pathetic thing politics has become.

I hope you're not trying to defend this guy. I wouldn't care if he was a Democrat or independent or what.

sharkman · September 30, 2006

What a pathetic thing politics has become.

I hope you're not trying to defend this guy. I wouldn't care if he was a Democrat or independent or what.

No, but Bush haters in the media will be repeating this slime until election day in hopes of manipulating voters. It has nothing to do with voting day. Like I said, what a pathetic thing politics has become.

jdobbin · September 30, 2006

No, but Bush haters in the media will be repeating this slime until election day in hopes of manipulating voters. It has nothing to do with voting day. Like I said, what a pathetic thing politics has become.

What's this to do with Bush other than what might have been a safe incumbent seat is now is now an open seat?

The Democrats can't run against a guy who isn't there. However, the man's name will appear on the ballot and cannot be changed according to Florida law.

It means that this is a seat where both parties will be on an equal footing where there is no incumbent in place. And for Bush supporters, they will have to vote on a ballot that has the name of someone who makes people ill.

Incumbency is one of the leading ways to be being re-elected. The Republicans need as many safe seats as they can get and this must be a dissappointment in many ways because this man was a leader in the House.

sharkman · September 30, 2006

No, but Bush haters in the media will be repeating this slime until election day in hopes of manipulating voters. It has nothing to do with voting day. Like I said, what a pathetic thing politics has become.

What's this to do with Bush other than what might have been a safe incumbent seat is now is now an open seat?

The Democrats can't run against a guy who isn't there. However, the man's name will appear on the ballot and cannot be changed according to Florida law.

It means that this is a seat where both parties will be on an equal footing where there is no incumbent in place. And for Bush supporters, they will have to vote on a ballot that has the name of someone who makes people ill.

Incumbency is one of the leading ways to be being re-elected. The Republicans need as many safe seats as they can get and this must be a dissappointment in many ways because this man was a leader in the House.

What this has to do with Bush? He, along with all Republicans will be slimed by this one story. Some in the media and all Dems running will try to use this story to swing soft votes their way. Don't you know how the game is played now?

jdobbin · September 30, 2006

What this has to do with Bush? He, along with all Republicans will be slimed by this one story. Some in the media and all Dems running will try to use this story to swing soft votes their way. Don't you know how the game is played now?

Haven't heard Bush mentioned yet. In fact, the Democrats have not made any statement on this except to accept the Republican initiated investigation since this might involve House operations.

The only ones being slimed is the Democrat running against Foley. They are blaming him for the leak although there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that all. So who's playing politics now?

sharkman · September 30, 2006

What this has to do with Bush? He, along with all Republicans will be slimed by this one story. Some in the media and all Dems running will try to use this story to swing soft votes their way. Don't you know how the game is played now?

Haven't heard Bush mentioned yet. In fact, the Democrats have not made any statement on this except to accept the Republican initiated investigation since this might involve House operations.

The only ones being slimed is the Democrat running against Foley. They are blaming him for the leak although there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that all. So who's playing politics now?

Maybe they won't use this directly on Bush, but there is over a month to go. They want him weakened at all costs. Losing seats in the senate and house is what will get to Bush.

You haven't heard the Dems use it? Yes you have. There are Dems in the media.

jdobbin · September 30, 2006

Maybe they won't use this directly on Bush, but there is over a month to go. They want him weakened at all costs. Losing seats in the senate and house is what will get to Bush.
You haven't heard the Dems use it? Yes you have. There are Dems in the media.

The Republicans are using this against the Democrats by saying that the Democrat leaked this information. Pretty sleazy accusuation that doesn't seem to have any evidence to back it up.

However, now it looks as though Republicans may have known about these accusations since 2005. If they had acted then, this wouldn't be putting them on the spot now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216846,00.html

sharkman · October 1, 2006

at any rate, Foley is a sick puppy, preying on underlings at work. Just out of curiousity, would this be illegal in Canada? I mean, the boy in question is 16 I heard. Was it consentual?

jdobbin · October 1, 2006

at any rate, Foley is a sick puppy, preying on underlings at work. Just out of curiousity, would this be illegal in Canada? I mean, the boy in question is 16 I heard. Was it consentual?

FTA would probably know.

I think there is a general consensus among all parties that pages are to be respected because of their public service and their age. It seems a terrible betrayal of this basic principle. Most of the most sternest attacks have come from Republicans.

Just as infuriating is that if a Republican wants to support the party this coming election, they have to write an X by the name of a man that might turn their stomach. It's the law in Florida and the ballots are already in place accordingly.

geoffrey · October 2, 2006

at any rate, Foley is a sick puppy, preying on underlings at work. Just out of curiousity, would this be illegal in Canada? I mean, the boy in question is 16 I heard. Was it consentual?

FTA would probably know.

I think there is a general consensus among all parties that pages are to be respected because of their public service and their age. It seems a terrible betrayal of this basic principle. Most of the most sternest attacks have come from Republicans.

Just as infuriating is that if a Republican wants to support the party this coming election, they have to write an X by the name of a man that might turn their stomach. It's the law in Florida and the ballots are already in place accordingly.

It'd be illegal in Canada, not because of age, but because of the congressman's authority over the page.

It's not neccesarily illegal for say a 30 year old to be sleeping with a 15 year old in Canada, but it is illegal for a 30 year old teacher to be sleeping with a 15 year old student for example. The Congressman has a position of authority over the page, so it's illegal.

Section 153 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or

(b ) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.

(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

(b ) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

(1.2) A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including

(a) the age of the young person;

(b ) the age difference between the person and the young person;

(c ) the evolution of the relationship; and

(d) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

(2) In this section, “young person” means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 153; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1; 2005, c. 32, s. 4.

Remiel · October 2, 2006

Actually, now that the law has been changed, I believe it is completely illegal for a 30 year old to sleep with a 15 year old. It would be legal for a 20 year old though, since they were within 5 years in age. Or hasn't the law been changed? I'm pretty sure they got that through months ago...

Anyway, in certain circumstances, isnt it even illegal for people with authority to sleep with adults under them, Like professors and students? Or is that just a professional convention?

sharkman · October 3, 2006

Actually, now that the law has been changed, I believe it is completely illegal for a 30 year old to sleep with a 15 year old. It would be legal for a 20 year old though, since they were within 5 years in age. Or hasn't the law been changed? I'm pretty sure they got that through months ago...
Anyway, in certain circumstances, isnt it even illegal for people with authority to sleep with adults under them, Like professors and students? Or is that just a professional convention?

The thing is, there wasn't any sleeping around going on from what I've heard. At any rate, Foley resigns and checks himself into rehab, removing himself from democrat target practice, so the dems change tactics and come up with the strategy that ALL republicans knew SOMETHING was going on. Like I said ealier, they are going to ride this thing until election day hoping to squeak some more seats out of it.

And damn the kid in question. They've obviously had this information too for some time, waited until it would do the most for their election chances. If it was a Dem, they'd circle the wagons using the Clinton Denial Strategy.

sharkman · October 4, 2006

And here's a short history that demonstrates what I'm talking about with Dem Double Standards:

1983: Democratic Rep Gerry Studds of Massachustts has sex with a male teen page. He rejects Congress' censure and continued to represent the district until 1996.

1989: Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a bevy of male prostitutes out of their apartment. It was later discovered Frank used his position to 'fix' 33 parking tickets for Gobie. The House reprimanded him and today he's a member of Congress on the Dem side.

2001: President Clinton commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16 campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it.

Foley didn't have sex with anyone, resigned right away and has entered himself into rehab, and the Dems are astonished and astounded at this evil man, and continue to threepeat it whenever they can. Foley might not even get charged for what he did.

Again, if the 16 year old was in danger, and I believe the known world would agree that he was, then why didn't the Dems, who admit that Republicans knew about it earlier but change the subject when they are asked, protect the page and report Foley earlier. I'll tell you why, because they could get more votes if they held on to it until now.

jdobbin · October 4, 2006

Foley didn't have sex with anyone, resigned right away and has entered himself into rehab, and the Dems are astonished and astounded at this evil man, and continue to threepeat it whenever they can. Foley might not even get charged for what he did.
Again, if the 16 year old was in danger, and I believe the known world would agree that he was, then why didn't the Dems, who admit that Republicans knew about it earlier but change the subject when they are asked, protect the page and report Foley earlier. I'll tell you why, because they could get more votes if they held on to it until now.

The Republicans have been more outspoken about this than the Democrats so far. Many have been accusing each other of knowing about this in 2005.

While there is repugnant things that Democrats did in the past, it is a little hard to blame the Democrats for this incident. This is owned by the party in power right now. And as I said in the past, the Republicans could have investigated this in the past when they first heard about it, removed the offending Congressman and shown themselves to be looking after the pages and other young people at the same time. What Democrat is responsible for them now acting?

Unfortunately for them, they may have put a safe Florida seat in jeopardy and tarred their own party with the mud that that they was exclusive to Democrats.

Riverwind · October 4, 2006

I'll tell you why, because they could get more votes if they held on to it until now.

I agree with the substance of your points, however, I don't have much sympathy for the Republicans after the ridiculous spectacle of Monica and Clinton. Live by the sword, die by sword....

Liam · October 4, 2006

And here's a short history that demonstrates what I'm talking about with Dem Double Standards:
1983: Democratic Rep Gerry Studds of Massachustts has sex with a male teen page. He rejects Congress' censure and continued to represent the district until 1996.

1989: Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a bevy of male prostitutes out of their apartment. It was later discovered Frank used his position to 'fix' 33 parking tickets for Gobie. The House reprimanded him and today he's a member of Congress on the Dem side.

2001: President Clinton commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16 campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it.

Foley didn't have sex with anyone, resigned right away and has entered himself into rehab, and the Dems are astonished and astounded at this evil man, and continue to threepeat it whenever they can. Foley might not even get charged for what he did.

Again, if the 16 year old was in danger, and I believe the known world would agree that he was, then why didn't the Dems, who admit that Republicans knew about it earlier but change the subject when they are asked, protect the page and report Foley earlier. I'll tell you why, because they could get more votes if they held on to it until now.

1. Gerry Studds. The Democrat-controlled Congress censured Studds (Speaker Tip O'Neill wanted him ousted, but couldn't get that done). Studds rejected his censure and took his case to the voters. They continued to re-elect him.

2. Barney Frank. Frank claimed lack of knowledge of Gobie's activities and, whether or not that's believable, he was punished by the Democrat-controlled House. Like Studds, Frank took his case to the voters who continue to re-elect him.

3. Mel Reynolds. Reynolds served four years in prison for the scandal surrounding him and the 16 year old; Clinton commuted his sentence for unrelated financial charges and Reynolds served out the remainder of his prison term in a half-way house.

In each of the cases you cite, the Democrat was fined, censured, reprimanded or imprisoned. What is it about those punitive acts which indicates to you that fellow Democrats were not equally horrified by the criminal and/or unsavory acts of their colleagues? It is pure supposition on your part.

Why is the Foley scandal just as bad as any of these if not worse?

1. By IM'ing his perversion, he left evidence of his depravity. In the other cases, we are left in the dark as to the degree of communication, but here we have Foley's words laid out in black and white.

2. He is a hypocrite. He authoried the law which is designed to protect kids against the very things he was doing to them.

3. The House leadership knew there was something fishy going on with him and the pages and yet decided to not take action against him. Not only that, but the head of the House Ethics Committee learned of this and the only person he did not tell was the one Democrat on the Committee. Clearly, those within the GOP knew this was explosive and decided to make it a political thing by not exposing and punishing the guy. Rather, they decided to protect one of their own Republicans rather than protect the kids upon whom Foley routinely preyed. In none of the Democrat scandals you cite did the Democrat leadership move to protect or hush-up the scandals. HUGE difference.

sharkman · October 5, 2006

And here's a short history that demonstrates what I'm talking about with Dem Double Standards:

1983: Democratic Rep Gerry Studds of Massachustts has sex with a male teen page. He rejects Congress' censure and continued to represent the district until 1996.

1989: Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a bevy of male prostitutes out of their apartment. It was later discovered Frank used his position to 'fix' 33 parking tickets for Gobie. The House reprimanded him and today he's a member of Congress on the Dem side.

2001: President Clinton commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16 campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it.

Foley didn't have sex with anyone, resigned right away and has entered himself into rehab, and the Dems are astonished and astounded at this evil man, and continue to threepeat it whenever they can. Foley might not even get charged for what he did.

Again, if the 16 year old was in danger, and I believe the known world would agree that he was, then why didn't the Dems, who admit that Republicans knew about it earlier but change the subject when they are asked, protect the page and report Foley earlier. I'll tell you why, because they could get more votes if they held on to it until now.

1. Gerry Studds. The Democrat-controlled Congress censured Studds (Speaker Tip O'Neill wanted him ousted, but couldn't get that done). Studds rejected his censure and took his case to the voters. They continued to re-elect him.

2. Barney Frank. Frank claimed lack of knowledge of Gobie's activities and, whether or not that's believable, he was punished by the Democrat-controlled House. Like Studds, Frank took his case to the voters who continue to re-elect him.

3. Mel Reynolds. Reynolds served four years in prison for the scandal surrounding him and the 16 year old; Clinton commuted his sentence for unrelated financial charges and Reynolds served out the remainder of his prison term in a half-way house.

In each of the cases you cite, the Democrat was fined, censured, reprimanded or imprisoned. What is it about those punitive acts which indicates to you that fellow Democrats were not equally horrified by the criminal and/or unsavory acts of their colleagues? It is pure supposition on your part.

Why is the Foley scandal just as bad as any of these if not worse?

1. By IM'ing his perversion, he left evidence of his depravity. In the other cases, we are left in the dark as to the degree of communication, but here we have Foley's words laid out in black and white.

2. He is a hypocrite. He authoried the law which is designed to protect kids against the very things he was doing to them.

3. The House leadership knew there was something fishy going on with him and the pages and yet decided to not take action against him. Not only that, but the head of the House Ethics Committee learned of this and the only person he did not tell was the one Democrat on the Committee. Clearly, those within the GOP knew this was explosive and decided to make it a political thing by not exposing and punishing the guy. Rather, they decided to protect one of their own Republicans rather than protect the kids upon whom Foley routinely preyed. In none of the Democrat scandals you cite did the Democrat leadership move to protect or hush-up the scandals. HUGE difference.

Interesting response, but you have no link to back up your opinions. The House leadership knew little, and confronted him. Had he broken a law at that point even? How in the world is it made a political thing by not exposing and punishing him? He no doubt said he's stop. Have any of the kids who were preyed upon been raped? Even had sex with him? No. I love how in the media they are repeating Foley had computer sex with the one teenager. They weren't in the same room, and this is the same media that earnestly reported that Clinton didn't have sex with Monica, stained dress and all. Foley's a sicko, no doubt, but no charges have been laid to this point. The latest? ABC claimed the kid in question was 16, now it has been proven he was 18 at the time. Nothing like reporting the wrong facts to get a higher market share.

Liam · October 5, 2006

I stand by my post 100% with one edit: it wasn't a Democrat on the Ethics Committee who was kept in the dark it was the sole Democrat on the Page Committee (Dale Kildee from Michigan) who was not told of Foley's inappropriate contacts with the page.

Why would the Republicans know about it, but the one Democrat on the committee not be told? For some reason, shortly before the most hotly contested election in years, the GOP leadership decided to keep this one in the closet (so to speak) rather than allow the one Democrat on the committee to learn of this problem. I'll let you draw your own conclusion.

sharkman · October 5, 2006

I'll agree that Republican leadership screwed up on this one. But to see the feeding frenzy in the media and among Dems, I stand by my earlier statement that politics is getting sick.