thinkprogress.org— (Audio) Interviewed by Rush Limbaugh today, House Speaker Hastert said Mark Foley?s inappropriate behavior was "a political issue" and promised Rush that "we are going on offense."
Oct 3, 2006View in Crawl 4
@TSK06'...what people are saying is that the Democrats sat on this and did not tell anyone for a long time just like the Republicans did, except the Democrats did it in order to gain a political advantage at the right time.'Wouldn't you say that the Republicans knew about this too, but covered it up in order to protect a political advantage?
> Out of curiosity, why will you still vote Republican? How much further> and worse can it get before you decide it's enough?How much worse? Well, they could be Democrats! I am no fan of the modern Republican party - they need to get back to what's important (smaller government, personal freedom, national defense) and get away from the religious nonsense and the idiocy of trying to win moderate votes by spending like Democrats. The religion obsessed retards in the Republican party are a real problem for me.On the other hand, our only other choice is a party that is ruled by wacky special interests. The Democrats are an unholy alliance of socialists (surely you can live on 40% of your current income if the government makes up for 25% of that loss by giving out more food stamps and piss poor medical coverage), unions (progress is evil - I insist you allow me to fail some more!), enviro-nazis (that butterfly over there is at least twice as important as you are) and the peace-at-any-cost losers (gee, let's just quit fighting - I'm sure the other side will do the same). In addition, I would guess a full 1/3 of the Democratic party has just completely lost their damn mind. Those gullable dip-s**ts watched "Loose Change" and "Fahrenheit 911" and are convinced that Bush was responsible for 9/11. Seriously, how can I in good conscience support these nut-jobs.Yeah, I have a real problem with the Republicans... It's just a fraction the size of the problem I have with the Democrats... It really is too bad the Libertarians are not a viable alternative.
Per kerrie: "Having actually worked at a newspaper, I'd say that, rather than "sitting on it", it's much more likely that the reporter was simply working to get independent confirmation."Going to press with a story that big and evidence or testimony from only one person is professional suicide."Exactly right. Plus I don't see how TSK can say with such certitude that H*a*stert just recently found out about it -- all he has to go on is Hastert's say-so, after all. If we buy into that line of thinking, then Boehner is a liar. If we believe TSK & Hastert, then Boehner is one. As honorable upstanding GOPers, they can't *both* be saying the exact opposite & both still be telling the truth, so the inescapable conclusion is that one or the other is either a liar or has at best semi-competent memory. This being as big an issue as it is, Occam's Razor being what *it* is, it's obvious what the logical answer is. }:)
The correct response here would be reperation and mitigation....not justification and accusation.But then again, id love to see the G(reedy) O(ld) P(erverts) lose the house. So yes, please do go on the offense. Try to tread the political quicksand and watch as you are revealed for the chickenhawk scumbags that you are.
I definitely agree, the G(reedy) O(ld) P(erverts) Republicans should lose the both houses of congress for blowing out national debt and mismanaging the war on terror.
@Marmot,TSK06: See, that's the thing. There's ample evidence that the Republicans knew about it. There's wild speculation that the Democrats also knew about it. If the Republicans thought that the Democrats might know about it, wouldn't they have made sure the information was released at a less damaging time (e.g., when Foley's name could be taken off the ticket)? So, clearly the Republicans didn't think the Democrats might know about it. This doesn't prove that the Democrats didn't know about it, but it does mean that wild speculation is very wild unless there's some actual evidence supporting it.Is there? Other than "convenient" timing? Also, with regards to ABC sitting on it - remember Fox also knew about it far earlier and didn't release it either.
I would be assuming that ABC would be double-checking everything for Karl Rove's fingerprints before going public with this - and if the timing happened to work out, a little "even" along the way ain't a whole lot to ask.
Foley: Gross Old Pervert. May or may not be technically legal - I'm betting not every single convo was, thogh. Still, he's just one pervert. It seems we have a whole bunch of even more powerful panderers - people more than willing to twist a Gross Old Perv's arm to run for re-election when he didn't really want to in order to maintain a safe seat and a very NON-independant vote. Far better to have people in the House that you have dirt on than actual honest politicitions.Shall we rattle a few more closets to see what falls out, in a fine, impartial and non-partisan way? I frankly do not give a crap if the House ends up below a f**kin' QUARUM!
marmotOct 4, 2006
@TSK06'...what people are saying is that the Democrats sat on this and did not tell anyone for a long time just like the Republicans did, except the Democrats did it in order to gain a political advantage at the right time.'Wouldn't you say that the Republicans knew about this too, but covered it up in order to protect a political advantage?
jhelmerOct 4, 2006
> Out of curiosity, why will you still vote Republican? How much further> and worse can it get before you decide it's enough?How much worse? Well, they could be Democrats! I am no fan of the modern Republican party - they need to get back to what's important (smaller government, personal freedom, national defense) and get away from the religious nonsense and the idiocy of trying to win moderate votes by spending like Democrats. The religion obsessed retards in the Republican party are a real problem for me.On the other hand, our only other choice is a party that is ruled by wacky special interests. The Democrats are an unholy alliance of socialists (surely you can live on 40% of your current income if the government makes up for 25% of that loss by giving out more food stamps and piss poor medical coverage), unions (progress is evil - I insist you allow me to fail some more!), enviro-nazis (that butterfly over there is at least twice as important as you are) and the peace-at-any-cost losers (gee, let's just quit fighting - I'm sure the other side will do the same). In addition, I would guess a full 1/3 of the Democratic party has just completely lost their damn mind. Those gullable dip-s**ts watched "Loose Change" and "Fahrenheit 911" and are convinced that Bush was responsible for 9/11. Seriously, how can I in good conscience support these nut-jobs.Yeah, I have a real problem with the Republicans... It's just a fraction the size of the problem I have with the Democrats... It really is too bad the Libertarians are not a viable alternative.
coolwindOct 4, 2006
"It's a downward spiral until they do the right thing vs crying about democrats, conspiracies, etc." BRAVO!
poxonyouOct 4, 2006
This account has been closed by the user
winkler1Oct 4, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hDP9UKyQ7A&eurl=">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hDP9UKyQ7A&eurl=</a> - re-enactment of the IM transcripts.
infoproOct 4, 2006
Looks like a fair assessment to me -- 11.4 out of 10 for clear thinking, good sir!
infoproOct 4, 2006
Per kerrie: "Having actually worked at a newspaper, I'd say that, rather than "sitting on it", it's much more likely that the reporter was simply working to get independent confirmation."Going to press with a story that big and evidence or testimony from only one person is professional suicide."Exactly right. Plus I don't see how TSK can say with such certitude that H*a*stert just recently found out about it -- all he has to go on is Hastert's say-so, after all. If we buy into that line of thinking, then Boehner is a liar. If we believe TSK & Hastert, then Boehner is one. As honorable upstanding GOPers, they can't *both* be saying the exact opposite & both still be telling the truth, so the inescapable conclusion is that one or the other is either a liar or has at best semi-competent memory. This being as big an issue as it is, Occam's Razor being what *it* is, it's obvious what the logical answer is. }:)
piznutOct 4, 2006
The correct response here would be reperation and mitigation....not justification and accusation.But then again, id love to see the G(reedy) O(ld) P(erverts) lose the house. So yes, please do go on the offense. Try to tread the political quicksand and watch as you are revealed for the chickenhawk scumbags that you are.
jazzmetonyOct 4, 2006
I definitely agree, the G(reedy) O(ld) P(erverts) Republicans should lose the both houses of congress for blowing out national debt and mismanaging the war on terror.
benhockingOct 4, 2006
@Marmot,TSK06: See, that's the thing. There's ample evidence that the Republicans knew about it. There's wild speculation that the Democrats also knew about it. If the Republicans thought that the Democrats might know about it, wouldn't they have made sure the information was released at a less damaging time (e.g., when Foley's name could be taken off the ticket)? So, clearly the Republicans didn't think the Democrats might know about it. This doesn't prove that the Democrats didn't know about it, but it does mean that wild speculation is very wild unless there's some actual evidence supporting it.Is there? Other than "convenient" timing? Also, with regards to ABC sitting on it - remember Fox also knew about it far earlier and didn't release it either.
graphictruthOct 6, 2006
I would be assuming that ABC would be double-checking everything for Karl Rove's fingerprints before going public with this - and if the timing happened to work out, a little "even" along the way ain't a whole lot to ask.
graphictruthOct 6, 2006
Foley: Gross Old Pervert. May or may not be technically legal - I'm betting not every single convo was, thogh. Still, he's just one pervert. It seems we have a whole bunch of even more powerful panderers - people more than willing to twist a Gross Old Perv's arm to run for re-election when he didn't really want to in order to maintain a safe seat and a very NON-independant vote. Far better to have people in the House that you have dirt on than actual honest politicitions.Shall we rattle a few more closets to see what falls out, in a fine, impartial and non-partisan way? I frankly do not give a crap if the House ends up below a f**kin' QUARUM!