Blogs @ Augusta.comLooking for photos? Check out Spotted

Recent comments

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Please sign in to post or comment.

brb…the media is yelling

Posted by gimpel on October 06, 2006 - 6:38 AM

The very lightness of bleating…
Cause the media is a pack of sheep, crying the same thing over and over again so much– Foley is gay Hastert must pay Foley is gay Hastert must pay Foley is gay Hastert must pay Foley is gay Hastert…- that it just reduces to so much bleating.
A gossip mill. Where is the real reporting?
Has anyone actually read the text messages?
Kind of gross- here’s a link- but may I say it? Darn, no innocence on either end.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/story?id=2509586&page=1

Creepiness on both.
Foley is gone, never to be elected as a Republican again. He is disgraced, shamed, shunned.
Rightly so. All Americans should thoroughly reject such behavior.
Some of the bleating is promising more such Foleys. Let us see.
Ahhh… the media does love sex. But just in case we think they are making Congressmen adhere to some media imposed morality “standard,” this was an ad in a Washington gay newspaper:

"Exceptionally good-looking, personable, muscular athlete is available. Hot bottom plus large endowment equals a good time."
Guess who answered? And paid $80 (illegal) for the use of the “endowments”?
Barney Frank.
Not that there’s anything wrong with… oh, wait… there is.

Oh, and the “kid,” at the time of the Foley messages, was 18. He wasn’t a kid. He wasn’t a page. He was an adult, by law free to mix with all the creeps he wanted.

This is from his family:

We would like to express our support for our congressman, Rodney Alexander, whose office sponsored our son's position as a House page. As far as we know, Congressman Alexander's conduct in this matter has been beyond reproach. He has tried his best to do what we have asked him to do from the very beginning: Namely, to protect the privacy of our son and family from the intense media scrutiny we are now having to endure.
In the fall of 2005, as soon as Congressman Alexander became aware of the e-mails received by our son, he called us. He explained that his office had been made aware of these e-mails by our son and that while he thought the e-mails were overly friendly, he did not think, nor did we think, that they were offensive enough to warrant an investigation.

Or, apparently, to warrant a call to the local newspaper.
Foley did try to entice 16-year olds. When they were pages. When they worked for him. When he had power over them.
But no pages were, apparently, so much as touched. What more could the media do if some page was actually molested? There seems to be a lack of proportion here.
What if he actually molested someone? Would they call for Bush to resign? For all records of Reagan to be purged from official documents, history books, newspapers, and memories? Overthrow the government and put Jerry Springer in charge?
Hastert did not know the extent of Foley’s actions. The emails were creepy, Foley is creepy, but under what grounds could Hastert have acted? Congress isn’t a big sleepover at Hastert’s mom’s house.
The story is about Foley. Anything extra is politics.
What Foley did to that boy, the media does to us. They deceive us into accepting and acting upon their own juvenile desires.

But at least the Democrats finally have a platform.

Submitted by mydtwc on October 06, 2006 - 11:51 AM.

gimpel since I am pushed for time right now, I borrowed the following from BUZZFLASH.COM
-----------------------------------------------------------------

With a poll revealed by none other than FOX News showing that if Hastert stays on as House Speaker, the GOP could lose up to 50 seats in the House, it was time for Karl Rove to come in and start organizing a classic divert, diffuse and delay strategy.
Hastert is staying on for the moment as GOP House Speaker for three reasons only. Internal Republican polling must show that the potential GOP losses in the House might be even greater if Hastert resigns – given that it would be an admission of culpability (as it should be), and given that anyone who might replace him would have skeletons in his closet that might come tumbling out just days before the election.

The third reason is – given the first two reasons – that the White House is backing Hastert’s cover-up of a GOP Internet sexual predator of house pages. And if Rove has made the decision that they have to gamble with Hastert staying on as House Speaker, then Hastert is going to stay on, unless the voters elect a Democratic Congress and the position of House Speaker then belongs to Nancy Pelosi.

What we are seeing now are classic Rovian media control strategies to start to diffuse the crisis and repackage it is a "proactive" GOP "investigation." The press is already falling for it.

First, Hastert claimed that he was taking "responsibility" while saying that he didn’t do anything wrong. In short, he hasn’t taken any responsibility whatsover; he just said that for television. This is exactly what Bush did after Katrina, and then appointed himself to investigate the gross negligence he was responsible for. Did you ever read a report from Bush about his "self-investigation?" Exactly, are you starting to see the Rovian touch?

Then Hastert announces that he is asking the so-called House "Ethics" Committee, which has been virtually dormant in the face of massive GOP corruption in Congress, to investigate the Foley scandal, which Hastert calls the "page scandal." This was like Bush saying that he would have the Plame leak investigated, even though Bush and Cheney were at the center of the leak.

Such a Rovian strategy works if it can kick the ball down the field (stall until after the election). It also makes it appear as if Hastert wants to get to the bottom of a scandal that he is central too. If he wanted that, he would just have to tell the truth.

In the Plame case, Rove had Bush say that the Justice Department was investigating, and, therefore, he couldn’t comment. Then the Justice Department sat on the case and did nothing until Ashcroft had to recuse himself from "controlling" the "investigation" for reasons that have not yet been disclosed.

Already, Republican congressional candidates across America have been given the message point to respond – when asked if Hastert should resign: "I want to wait until the outcome of the investigation to make a judgement."

Of course, no investigation will make any report before the election – if ever. And the FBI is moving as fast as mice on valium.

And if the House Ethics Committee does start leaking to the press prior to the election, you can be sure it will be with little tidbits such as that they have discovered that some unnamed Democratic congressmen might have engaged in the same behavior as Foley.

In short, they will use the phony "investigation" process to throw the press off of Hastert’s – and the Republican leadership’s – betrayal of young people for the purpose of maintaining power by diverting attention, tossing up "anonymously sourced" diversionary muddying up of unnamed Democratic Congressmen, and running out the clock.

This is classic Rove. They will make it seem that the GOP wants to find out the truth, when it is using a sham "process" to hide the truth.

It’s worked for Rove before over and over again, because the press loves to report on "process," since it takes the responsibility of actually investigating stories off their hands.

This time, it may not work with the voters, because the chickens have come home to roost for the GOP.

Come to power on the basis of the demagogic use of "moral values"; then you die by the revelation of immoral values.

Rove has just a few weeks to use "process" to somehow make the Democrats seem responsible for l’affaire Foley.

Will his Machiavellian dishonesty and cynical betrayal succeed once again?


Submitted by mgroothand on October 06, 2006 - 12:11 PM.

When Clinton claimed that Bush had done nothing to thwart Al Quaida or Bin Laden in his eight months in office before 9/11, he and the Dems threw out the time gauntlet. Clinton had eight years and did nothing.
Perhaps (and only perhaps) the Dems will regain the control they so desperately want in November. They'll then have two years to wave their magic wand and make everything better and make America one big smileyface. If by chance they can't make that happen in two years (and they won't), a Republican president will be a shoe-in in 2008.


Submitted by mgroothand on October 08, 2006 - 11:14 AM.

It is well beyond my comprehension how leaders of both political parties can presume that American voters (the ones with ID's) will change their minds over a cybersex expose. Certainly there is a lot more at stake than one individual's immoral behavior. While I understand the national political math of what could happen in Florida, the voters there are held out to be stupid and I hope they resent the hell out of that come November 7.