AmSpec hearsay: Foley story was supposed to break later this month

posted at 11:42 am on October 10, 2006 by Allahpundit

Another day, another anonymous left-wing source who knows someone who might have overheard something at a party somewhere in DC quoted in the Prowler:

According to one political consultant with ties to the DNC and other party organizations, “I’m hearing the Foley story wasn’t supposed to drop until about ten days out of the election. It was supposed the coup de grace, not the first shot.”

So why the rush? According to another DNC operative: bad polling numbers across the country. “Bush’s national security speeches were getting traction beyond the base, gas prices were dropping, economic outlook surveys were positive. We were seeing bad Democratic numbers in Missouri, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Florida Pennsylvania, even parts of New York,” says the operative…

So how to remedy? “You pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know they care about — national security, anti-terrorism — and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq.”

Does anyone talk like that in real life? He sounds like a James Bond villain explaining the master plan to Bond before he tries to slice his stones off with a laser. One milllllllion dollars.

Anyway. I’ll give you the good news first just because there’s so little of it. Pew’s latest:

pew-foley.png

The bad news? They’re the outlier. GOP insiders reportedly think as many as 30 House seats could be in play now. (The margin of control is 15.) TradeSports currently lists GOP control of the House and Senate at 36.5 and 65.4, respectively; the latter figure is down almost five points from yesterday.

The GOP’s counterstrategy? Shrug and point at Gerry Studds. Barnett is underwhelmed, as am I.

An evangelist I’ve never heard of met with Hastert this morning and told him to do the right thing. Meanwhile, sources have told CNN that former House clerk Jeff Trandahl raised red flags about Foley with Kirk Fordham, Foley’s then-chief of staff, several times before 2005. Trandahl is a bit of a mystery figure in all this, as you may recall. He’s openly gay and “personally close” to Foley, according to the WaPo piece quoted by Tom Maguire. Why did he take his complaints about Foley’s behavior to Fordham instead of to the House leadership? Or did he?

Update: I wouldn’t call this reassuring, either.

Prowler-bashing flashback! A reader reminds me that the Prowler once quoted an unnamed “Republican leadership staffer” as blaming Harry Reid for that Terri Schiavo memo that turned out to have been written by one of Mel Martinez’s staffers. Read the quotes; see if they sound any more realistic to you than the quote in today’s piece.

Update: Hastert said today that if anyone on his staff covered up Foley’s problem, they’re gone. Slublog responds by vomiting.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

AP: Here’s how I see this: Foley’s penchant for sending IMs and e-mails of a borderline predatory nature was known by some and there was notification of the party leadership at some level going back several years. I suspect that had this been a creep who liked young girls, it would have been addressed; as it was a creep who liked young boys, the powers that be were loathe to act as it 1) is seen as a lot worse by the R base and/or 2) could be seen as homophobic–a sort of twisted political correctness.

I don’t see this as the R leadership being evil; it’s more a case of being negligent.

Thoughts?

honora on October 10, 2006 at 12:18 PM

There is still a lot of time, and the Democrats are total morons. They will screw it up again.

Stankleberry on October 10, 2006 at 12:21 PM

I think you’re right, honora.

Allahpundit on October 10, 2006 at 12:24 PM

Does anyone talk like that in real life? He sounds like a James Bond villain explaining the master plan to Bond before he tries to slice his stones off with a laser. One milllllllion dollars.
Are you kidding? Have you seen the new Aaron Sorkin thingy on TV or The West Wing? The world-weary, intelligent & informed cynically pragmatic tone just oozes now from the Leftist apparatchik. Seriesly, this is one of the founts from which they drink their KoolAid. It has gotten them through the Dark Times(2001 – present). This is a genuine cultural phenomenon, an aspect of their we-know-what’s-best-for-you ideology. Now they can vogue to it.

thegreatbeast on October 10, 2006 at 12:28 PM

Anonymous stories and anonymous sources are a fertile field for falsehoods…

Ennuipundit on October 10, 2006 at 12:31 PM

I give the Democrats credit for one thing. From comments I hear on the radio and from co-workers, people have the impression that Foley was physically molesting underage pages in his office. Totally inaccurate, but the message is out there. The Republicans have not countered the message or clarified it, so the Dems have acheived their goal. Ride to victory on the coat tails of a sex scandal. There is a sound basis for governance.

Mallard T. Drake on October 10, 2006 at 12:34 PM

I give the Democrats credit for one thing. From comments I hear on the radio and from co-workers, people have the impression that Foley was physically molesting underage pages in his office. Totally inaccurate, but the message is out there. The Republicans have not countered the message or clarified it, so the Dems have acheived their goal. Ride to victory on the coat tails of a sex scandal. There is a sound basis for governance.

Mallard T. Drake on October 10, 2006 at 12:34 PM

Excuse me?????

honora on October 10, 2006 at 12:59 PM

As election day draws ominously closer, the GOP is fighting for survival. Get ready for the one-two punch of cheaper gas and some good scare tactics. That should be good to retain a handful of seats.

Dems will counter with additional scandalous allegations, empty promises, and prototypical floundering.

Same old, same old.

GregH on October 10, 2006 at 1:08 PM

Excuse me?????

I’m sorry, was I mumbling??

Mallard T. Drake on October 10, 2006 at 1:14 PM

Excuse me?????

honora on October 10, 2006 at 12:59 PM

I’d say Mallard made it pretty clear. I sure haven’t heard any positive agenda from the Democrats.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 1:33 PM

FOLEY AUTOBIOGRAPHY: Real page-turner.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 10, 2006 at 1:33 PM

I’m sorry, was I mumbling??

Mallard T. Drake on October 10, 2006 at 1:14 PM

Republicans accusing the Democrats of trying to ride to victory on the coattails of a sex scandal is just too rich, even for the genetically self righteous right wing. Get thee to a de-programmer!!!

honora on October 10, 2006 at 1:41 PM

I’d say Mallard made it pretty clear. I sure haven’t heard any positive agenda from the Democrats.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 1:33 PM

Sure you have. You just don’t want to listen.

1. Rethink “strategy” in Iraq. (Seems like James Baker is already starting this process. Isn’t that interesting?) Enlist advice of military, on the ground guys. Define winning. If we can’t win, get out. (Senator Warner is already making that argument. Again, isn’t that interesting?)

2. Roll back Bush’s tax cuts to the top quintile.

3. Reform immigration with both border security and earned citizenship.

4. Healthcare reform (Despite the howling from the right, the real mess is Medicare, not SS)

5. Roll back Bush’s anti-enviroment initiatives.

Now you may not agree. But that’s different than saying there is no agenda.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 1:49 PM

Honora:

Try to summarize in a short paragraph the Democrat platform for us all. In case you have trouble, I’ll give you a head start. Rangel will repeal all the Bush tax cuts, and we will have a “new direction” for everything else. Oh, and impeachment proceedings will be initiated. Did I miss anything?

Mallard T. Drake on October 10, 2006 at 1:50 PM

Honora:

Try to summarize in a short paragraph the Democrat platform for us all. In case you have trouble, I’ll give you a head start. Rangel will repeal all the Bush tax cuts, and we will have a “new direction” for everything else. Oh, and impeachment proceedings will be initiated. Did I miss anything?

Mallard T. Drake on October 10, 2006 at 1:50 PM

Not exactly. I don’t think you can impeach someone for being incompetent. More’s the pity.

The environment is not a new direction, it’s rolling back the bad stuff that Bush promoted. Not all the tax cuts, just the ones I mentioned.

You want to know what’s funny? How the Rs have completely brainwashed the country that they are the ones that have the best economic/fiscal policy. Fact: the chasm between the wealthiest and the rest of the country has grown rapidly during the last 6 years. Fact: corporate revenues represent a larger portion of GNP than ever before, profits are at an all time high, productivity is at an all time high, yet wages remain stagnant. Pull out your Funk and Wagnells and analyze that tidbit of info. Trickle down? No, it’s trickle up. This bunch is all for income distribution, it’s just the direction that’s different from the liberals.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 2:02 PM

GregH wrote: “Same old, same old.”

Yep. We know where the DEMOCRATS stand. We know exactly what they will do once they get into power. Here’s what some of the prominent Democrats would do, once they take over both Houses of Congress.

“Speaker” Nancy Pelosi would defund the Ballistic Missile Defense that George Bush built as she promised:

The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile. [Nancy Pelosi, 2003]

Yep. “Same old, same old.”

“House Majority Leader” would redeploy the forces in Iraq back to OKINAWA as a “rapid deployment force” for the middle ease, that is, presuming that “Ways and Means Committee Chair” Charles B. Rangel doesn’t defund the war first.

“Same old, same old.”

Speaking of “Ways and Means Chair” Rangle, he’s already promised to increase taxes, including reinstatement of the DEATH TAX once he is in charge.

“Same old, same old.”

“Chairman of the Administrative Oversight and the Courts subcommittee” Charles Schumer, representing his other state, The Brady Organization, would introduce Brady Law II, the complete confiscation of all privately owned firearms in America.

“Same old, same old.”

“Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee” Jay Rockerfeller and “Chairman of the Judiciary Committee” Patrick Leahy would terminate fundind for the NSA’s “Terrorist Surveileince Program” because it would be violating the Constitutional Rights of Al Qaeda operatives in the middle east.

“Same old, same old.”

“Chairman of the Armed Services Committee” Carl Levin would lead the efforts to shut down the existing Ballistic Missile Defense system in Alaska:

He has called for a common sense approach to development of a limited national missile defense system, supporting funding for research and development, but opposing the decision to deploy a national missile defense system…. [Senator Levin's website]

and instead support The Robert C. Byrd ABM Launcher Station in West Virginia, to protect America from ICBMs launched from our newest nuclear enemy, the Azores.

“Same old, same old.”

“Senate Majority Whip” Dick Durbin would immediately shut down the terrorist holding facilities at Guantanamo base, Cuba and insitute criminal proceeding against all US military guards stationed there for being Nazi death camp guards, Soviet gulag keepers, and associates of Pol Pot.

His second order of business would be introduction of the “Immediate Granting of Citizenship for All Non-Documented Immigrant Act.”

In addition, Senator Durbin (D-Brady Organization) would co-sponsor the above mentioned Brady Law II and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, introduce the “Dissolution of the National Rifle Association Act.”

“Same old, same old.”

Yep. Give the Democrats Control of Congress and we will get the “Same old, same old” policies that have differentiate the Democrats from the Republicans.

MESSAGE TO ALLAHPUNDIT AND MICHELLE MALKIN

Pay attention, this is important.

My son has already fought in Iraq. I know men and women fighting over there now. I know their families. I’ve attended the wake of one of the fallen.

DON’T YOU DARE PULL THIS BULLSHIT THAT YOU’RE EITHER GOING TO SIT OUT THIS ELECTION OR VOTE DEMOCRATIC

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:04 PM

Honora neglected to add:

6. Dismantle the Ballistic Missile Defense facilities in Alaska and terminate the research program.

7. Cancel the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” and SWIFT financial tracking program.

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:15 PM

I give you credit for following my request: that was a very short paragraph. Not very compelling reasons to vote Dem.

As for the economy, is this good news or bad news?

For Nancy Pelosi it is 1984: good is bad and up is down.

Are you better off than you were 4 or 8 years ago? I can say yes I am. My wife who has a small business can say yes she is. BTW, we are middle class. Appears that the rising tide is lifting us up.

Mallard T. Drake on October 10, 2006 at 2:19 PM

Honora’s proposed replacement for the Democratic National Committee’s theme song “Happy Days”:

This is the way we tax and spend,
Tax and spend,
Tax and spend.

This is the way we tax and spend,
We’re DEMOCRATS in office!

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:20 PM

Sorry. Let’s trying again with some competence.
=============================================
I give you credit for following my request: that was a very short paragraph. Not very compelling reasons to vote Dem.

As for the economy, is this good news or bad news?

For Nancy Pelosi it is 1984: good is bad and up is down.

Are you better off than you were 4 or 8 years ago? I can say yes I am. My wife who has a small business can say yes she is. BTW, we are middle class. Appears that the rising tide is lifting us up.

Mallard T. Drake on October 10, 2006 at 2:22 PM

Honora sayz: “Republicans accusing the Democrats of trying to ride to victory on the coattails of a sex scandal is just too rich…”

The truth hurts, eh?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:23 PM

Honora’s proposed replacement for the Democratic National Committee’s theme song “Happy Days”:

This is the way we tax and spend,
Tax and spend,
Tax and spend.

This is the way we tax and spend,
We’re DEMOCRATS in office!

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:20 PM

What’s worse than tax and spend? Don’t tax and spend.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 2:24 PM

The truth hurts, eh?

It’s the hypocrisy that stings.

GregH on October 10, 2006 at 2:25 PM

Thirteen28 wrote: “I’d say Mallard made it pretty clear. I sure haven’t heard any positive agenda from the Democrats.”

Honora replied with an abbreviated agenda of the Democrats, forgetting to mention that the Democrats would terminate ballistic missile defense and the two most effective programs prefenting further terrorist attacks.

I’m still waiting for a POSITIVE agenda from the Democrats.

HOW EXACTLY would the Democrats prosecute the war on terror?

HOW EXACTLY would the Democrats deal with North Korea and Iran. We KNOW what Clinton/Carter/Albright did — allow NK to get nukes, what could possibly change?

HOW EXACTLY would the Democrats deal with gathering intelligence from captured enemy fighters?

Honora and GregH are just mouthing the usual bullshit lies and platitudes that pass for the Democratic Agenda.

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:29 PM

Sorry. Let’s trying again with some competence.
=============================================
I give you credit for following my request: that was a very short paragraph. Not very compelling reasons to vote Dem.

As for the economy, is this good news or bad news?

For Nancy Pelosi it is 1984: good is bad and up is down.

Are you better off than you were 4 or 8 years ago? I can say yes I am. My wife who has a small business can say yes she is. BTW, we are middle class. Appears that the rising tide is lifting us up.

Mallard T. Drake on October 10, 2006 at 2:22 PM

In general, the economy is good if you are well off, not so good if you aren’t. I’m happy that you and yours are doing well, God bless. (My husband and I are very well off, for which we are thankful. You know the old saying, I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. Rich is better. So I see first hand how the Bush cuts have disproportionatly helped the well to do) You can’t argue with the numbers: for the first time since the Gallup polling on this issue began in the 60s, more people say their children will NOT have a better life than they did than say the opposite. Then there is the notion of both the trade deficit and the budget deficit. Two things that can’t be ignored by a country that hopes to maintain its place in the world.

Another worrisome thing is the enormous debt people are carrying. Couple this with the softening real estate market and the fact that most people who need to have already cashed out equity from their homes, and it’s not all peaches and cream.

Is all this Bush’s fault? Of course not. But his policies in general aren’t helping the middle class. If you have any doubt about where Bush’s real allegiance lies (I say with the very wealthy) ask yourself what underpins his immigration strategy?

honora on October 10, 2006 at 2:35 PM

GregH wrote: “It’s the hypocrisy that stings.”

And you Democrats just OOOOZE hypocrisy — that’s when you aren’t openly lying.

You voted for the war before you voted against it.

And then there is Barny Frank (who’s lover ran a WHORE HOUSE out of Frank’s office), and Gerry Studds who turned his back on his censure in the House.

You certainly SUPPORT GAYS, as long as they are DEMOCRATS, isn’t that right? If they’re Republicans, it is OKAY to harrass and humiliate them.

You SUPPORT THE TROOPS, as long as they are CANADIAN!

Did I leave any out?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:36 PM

Honora sayz: “Republicans accusing the Democrats of trying to ride to victory on the coattails of a sex scandal is just too rich…”

The truth hurts, eh?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:23 PM

And now here’s a look at the pretty way our Right Wing friends run a campaign.

http://www.rojo.com/story/ba3yOuO52EBFlSYx

Nasty little pricks, aren’t they?

honora on October 10, 2006 at 2:40 PM

Honora: “What’s worse than tax and spend? Don’t tax and spend.”

A truer and more succinct description of Democrats has never been written.

What’s wrong with letting the PEOPLE keep the money they earn, Honora?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:40 PM

Not knowing anything about Patrick Murphy or what Mike Fitzpatrick alleged said about him, it’s hard to address our comment.

Other than to say, that Honora, LIKE ALL LIBERALS, who when cornered and are about to be beaten senseless on the merits of the argunment, RETREAT INTO A STRAWMAN DEFENSE.

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:45 PM

Honora: “What’s worse than tax and spend? Don’t tax and spend.”

A truer and more succinct description of Democrats has never been written.

What’s wrong with letting the PEOPLE keep the money they earn, Honora?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:40 PM

1) It is Bush who is spending and not taxing. You are aware of the spending record of this administration, are you not? The record number of earmarks? The drug bill that is the single biggest entitlement legislation passed since LBJ?

2) Nothing except in a case like we have today: we are spending the money, just deferring paying for it. How is this a good idea? If you can’t stop spending, you have to tax. Nobody likes to articulate it, but anyone who ever ran a lemonade stand knows it.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 2:46 PM

Oh, wow. Can’t I not type, or what?

What I meant was:

Not knowing anything about Patrick Murphy or what Mike Fitzpatrick allegedly said about him, it’s hard to address your comment.

But the 2nd paragraph stands as is:

Other than to say, that Honora, LIKE ALL LIBERALS, who when cornered and are about to be beaten senseless on the merits of the argunment, RETREAT INTO A STRAWMAN DEFENSE.

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:47 PM

Not knowing anything about Patrick Murphy or what Mike Fitzpatrick alleged said about him, it’s hard to address our comment.

Other than to say, that Honora, LIKE ALL LIBERALS, who when cornered and are about to be beaten senseless on the merits of the argunment, RETREAT INTO A STRAWMAN DEFENSE.

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:45 PM

You really need to do something about that ADD. This discussion started with Mallard claiming that Democrats run campaigns by exploiting sex scandals. I am countering with an example of how Republicans run campaigns: by smearing the military record of the opposition.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 2:48 PM

Honora:

Are you not aware of the RECORD FEDERAL TAX RECEIPTS that are cutting the deficits faster that the spending?

Are you not aware that the current EARMARK program were the creation of the DEMOCRATS when they ran Congress for 44 years?

And YES, I am aware of the drug bill. are you aware that you Democrats STILL claim that there is no Social Security or Medicare funding crisis?

Now you make a most absurd remark: “If you can’t stop spending, you have to tax.”

You don’t have to increase taxes if TAX RECEIPTS are exceeding spending. The Bush tax cuts, just like the Reagan and JFK’s tax cuts have increased tax income.

Why are you Democrats so WILLFULLY STUPID about how this works?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:56 PM

It’s the hypocrisy that stings.

GregH on October 10, 2006 at 2:25 PM

Ahh, once again the liberals reveal what they consider to be the biggest sin of all, bigger than murder, theft, rape, pedophilia, whatever: hypocrisy.

Of course, the homophobia and McCorn-thyism the left has exhibited in the Foley scandal doesn’t count as hypocrisy, does it …

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 3:00 PM

Honora: “You really need to do something about that ADD.”

What’s the matter, are you being a hypocritze? I TouGhT you DemonCratZ did not disCRiminATe against uS disabled?

;^)

In point of fact YOU WERE CHANGING THE SUBJECT in order to attack your opponent on another topic, which not part of the discussion. Mallard’s point that you Democrats are relying on a sex scandal to regain Congress is still unanswered by you.

That’s called relying on the strawman fallacy to bolster a FAILING argument.

Given that you tried to change the subject (which was Democrats rely on sex scandles instead of a substantive agenda), WE ACCEPT YOUR AGREEMENT THAT MALLARD’S THESIS IS CORRECT.

So. Shame, shame, shame on the Democratic Party for being a dishonest, disreputable entitiy.

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 3:05 PM

Well, either the server is overloaded with handling the yelps of pain from Honora and GregH, or they’ve got nothing more to say.

The silence is deafening.

Oh well, I’ll just sit here for a few minutes longer, honing with my Arkansas stone.

[scrit, scrit, scrit]

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 3:18 PM

In point of fact YOU WERE CHANGING THE SUBJECT in order to attack your opponent on another topic, which not part of the discussion. Mallard’s point that you Democrats are relying on a sex scandal to regain Congress is still unanswered by you.

That’s called relying on the strawman fallacy to bolster a FAILING argument.

Strawman arguments are a standard tactic for honora when she’s getting her ass kicked in the debate here (which is a frequent occurrence). And in this case, her link doesn’t even specify what the alleged “smearing of a military vet” was.

Of course, those of us who can remember ’04 recall that “smearing a military veteran” is, to a liberal, equivalent to pointing out said veteran’s defense-related votes in the senate.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 3:18 PM

Did you know that John Kerry served in Vietnam? 4 months!

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 3:19 PM

Did you know that John Kerry served in Vietnam? 4 months!

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 3:19 PM

Yes, but don’t point out that as a senator he has voted against just about every meaningful defense program that’s ever come to the floor for a vote during his tenure. To do so would be tantamount to “smearing a military veteran”.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 3:21 PM

Oh I would never point out that the Senator whose photo is prominently displayed on the Wall of Heros in the war museum in Ho Chi Minh City also voted against every defense program since he became Senator.

NOR would I point out that said same Senator also called the Sandinistas ‘misunderstood Democrats’ OR that he illegally negotiated directly with a foreign head of state.

Nope. Not I.

Did you know that John Kerry also served in Vietnam? 4 months!

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 3:27 PM

Honora:

Are you not aware of the RECORD FEDERAL TAX RECEIPTS that are cutting the deficits faster that the spending?

This statement is confusing: are you claiming that the deficit is declining at a faster rate than spending is increasing?

Are you not aware that the current EARMARK program were the creation of the DEMOCRATS when they ran Congress for 44 years?

Since this has been tracked by the Citizens Against Govt Waste in 1991, the amount of money spent on earmarks has increased by a factor of 9. Visit their site for a history of pork-barrel and earmarking. This practice has been with us since the beginning of the Republic, but grew common in the 1980′s.

And YES, I am aware of the drug bill.

And?

are you aware that you Democrats STILL claim that there is no Social Security or Medicare funding crisis?

That’s ridiculous.

Now you make a most absurd remark: “If you can’t stop spending, you have to tax.”

You don’t have to increase taxes if TAX RECEIPTS are exceeding spending. The Bush tax cuts, just like the Reagan and JFK’s tax cuts have increased tax income.

Yeah, government revenue in 2006 may reach 2001 levels. Tax cuts huh?

First, Reagan cut taxes and then raised them. JFK’s cuts were instituted when the marginal rate peaked at about 90%. So the comparison is disingenuous. Your boy inherited a big surplus. We now have a big deficit and more importantly the future, if no significant changes are made, is grim. No amount of hysteria changes that fact.
Take a look at the CBO projections:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6060&sequence=2

Why are you Democrats so WILLFULLY STUPID about how this works?

Don’t know. The answer appears to be correlated with the cunning use of CAPITAL LETTERS….

Bless your heart.georgej on October 10, 2006 at 2:56 PM

honora on October 10, 2006 at 3:32 PM

Oh, and I’d also not point out that said Senator with a photo on the wall of heroes in Ho Chi Minh city ALSO voted to cut the CIA’s budget in the 1990′s, either.

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 3:32 PM

In point of fact YOU WERE CHANGING THE SUBJECT in order to attack your opponent on another topic, which not part of the discussion. Mallard’s point that you Democrats are relying on a sex scandal to regain Congress is still unanswered by you.

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 3:05 PM

The topic was political campaign tactics: Mallard accusing the Democrats of leveraging sex scandals, I countered that the Republicans smear war veterans. How is this changing the subject? And no, I don’t see the Dems using the Foley scandal in a big way–they don’t need to. Take a look at any poll–it’s all Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.

My initial response was (OK, feigning) shock that the people who brought you all Monicagate, all the time, are now tsk, tsking the idea of using sex scandal to a political end.

Holy mother of God, I grow weary explaining the ebb and flow of discussion.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 3:39 PM

Yes, but don’t point out that as a senator he has voted against just about every meaningful defense program that’s ever come to the floor for a vote during his tenure. To do so would be tantamount to “smearing a military veteran”.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 3:21 PM

Bullshit. Don’t try getting cute. You want to attack anything or everything a man does after his service, fine. It’s attacking his service that is smearing. And isn’t it funny it always comes from people who didn’t serve?

honora on October 10, 2006 at 3:41 PM

“cunning use” — I’ll have to defer to the Anchoress on this one.

Fact is, the deficit is being reduced (cut nearly in half) because tax receipts are up as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Fact is the strength of the stock market and the economy is directly related to increased capital available for investiment because of the tax cuts.

Fact is, the same thing happend after Kennedy cut taxes and Reagan cut taxes. And when the Democrats RAISED taxses, tax receipts went DOWN while the Democrats increased spending at the same time. Why do you Democrats have so much trouble understanding the proper use of the CARROT?

And you are right, it is ridiculous for Democrats to pretend that there is no Social security or Medicare funding crisis. So why did your party do it?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 3:45 PM

I countered that the Republicans smear war veterans.

An allegation you (nor those to whom you linked) never substantiated.

You want to attack anything or everything a man does after his service, fine. It’s attacking his service that is smearing.

When he runs on his service as a rationale to vote for him, then he has effectively invited scrutiny thereof. You guys scrutinized the service of both father and son Bush even though they didn’t run on them, so it’s quite rich for you to whine about scrutiny of Kerry’s (or anyone’s) service when they make it a centerpiece of their campaign.

Nevertheless, whenever someone did question his voting record in the senate, there was always a chorus of whining from your side of the aisle about smearing vets, regardless of what was said about his servcie.

Finally, I love the irony of you defending someone’s service to the country when you have shown a predisposition to proclaim our servicemen guilty for Haditha, etc., in other posts on those subjects.

Your piousness on that subject is as hollow and transparent democrats newfound morality in the Foley scandal. You’re not fooling anyone.

And isn’t it funny it always comes from people who didn’t serve?

Six years in the U.S. Navy, all active duty, thank you very much.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 3:58 PM

Honora: “The topic was political campaign tactics: Mallard accusing the Democrats of leveraging sex scandals, I countered that the Republicans smear war veterans. How is this changing the subject? ”

Did you bother to read the blog entry for this thread by Allahpundit?

FOLEY. In fact the title is “AmSpec hearsay: Foley story was supposed to break later this month”

So. Since you didn’t address Mallard’s point about relying upon sex scandals to win in November, YOU CHANGED THE SUBJECT to an alleged smear of a war veteran.

And since GregH brought up the subject of “hypocrisy,” as it relates to sex scandals, I distinctly remember DEMOCRATS tsk-tsking the story about Clinton’s fellatio (did I spell that right, Anchoress?) and his subsequent PERJURY.

But as PERJURY is NOT the issue here, nor is refusing to resign for using the Oral Oval Office for sexual activities, the circumstances and specifics are clearly different.

Especially as the Republicans did use Clinton’s sexual predatations as their “October Surprise” in 1998.

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 4:02 PM

Finally, I love the irony of you defending someone’s service to the country when you have shown a predisposition to proclaim our servicemen guilty for Haditha, etc., in other posts on those subjects.

Your piousness on that subject is as hollow and transparent democrats newfound morality in the Foley scandal. You’re not fooling anyone.

And isn’t it funny it always comes from people who didn’t serve?
Six years in the U.S. Navy, all active duty, thank you very much.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 3:58 PM

I never, ever proclaimed our troops guilty on any of these incidents. Show me one example or apologize.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:03 PM

“cunning use” — I’ll have to defer to the Anchoress on this one.

Fact is, the deficit is being reduced (cut nearly in half) because tax receipts are up as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Fact is the strength of the stock market and the economy is directly related to increased capital available for investiment because of the tax cuts.

Fact is, the same thing happend after Kennedy cut taxes and Reagan cut taxes. And when the Democrats RAISED taxses, tax receipts went DOWN while the Democrats increased spending at the same time. Why do you Democrats have so much trouble understanding the proper use of the CARROT?

And you are right, it is ridiculous for Democrats to pretend that there is no Social security or Medicare funding crisis. So why did your party do it?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 3:45 PM

Read the CBO reports. Or don’t. There is a very interesting study on this from one of the think tanks. I will find it if I can.

I don’t get your reference to the SS or Medicare crisis and Democrats. Specifics?

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:06 PM

I never, ever proclaimed our troops guilty on any of these incidents. Show me one example or apologize.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:03 PM

I’m not going to search through every single post on here, but I distinctly remember you showing that predisposition on one of the threads pertaining to one of those incidents, even insomuch as another poster called you out on it by asking you if you believed that our troops were innocent until proven guilty. I’ll stand by my statement.

Furthermore, I’ve never seen even ONE word of condemnation of Jack Murtha’s disgusting smearing of servicemen on active duty, where he has for all intents and purposes proclaimed our servicement guilty of war crimes. No, when Murtha was smearing our servicemen on a daily basis, your reaction was one of stone cold silence.

Furthermore, you have never condmemned John Kerry’s smearing of servicemen, both active and former, during his senate hearings in 1971. But when it is him under attack (even after he invited scrutiny of his record), suddenly you pretend to be the last line of defense of a serviceman’s honor.

You’re delusional if you think anyone is buying it. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that apology.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 4:14 PM

The only thing the dems want to do is “undo” what the republicans have done over the last 5 years. I don’t consider that an “agenda” at all, especially in light of the way the economy is rocking and rolling along. Face it. we are in the best economy in 25 years. I know good economic news is hard pill for dems to swallow, but try. See, the way they “win” is for america to “lose.” they are the party of doom and gloom and can’t see good news if it hit them with a mack truck.

pullingmyhairout on October 10, 2006 at 4:16 PM

I’m not going to search through every single post on here, but I distinctly remember you showing that predisposition on one of the threads pertaining to one of those incidents, even insomuch as another poster called you out on it by asking you if you believed that our troops were innocent until proven guilty. I’ll stand by my statement.

Furthermore, I’ve never seen even ONE word of condemnation of Jack Murtha’s disgusting smearing of servicemen on active duty, where he has for all intents and purposes proclaimed our servicement guilty of war crimes. No, when Murtha was smearing our servicemen on a daily basis, your reaction was one of stone cold silence.

Furthermore, you have never condmemned John Kerry’s smearing of servicemen, both active and former, during his senate hearings in 1971. But when it is him under attack (even after he invited scrutiny of his record), suddenly you pretend to be the last line of defense of a serviceman’s honor.

You’re delusional if you think anyone is buying it. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that apology.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 4:14 PM

Just as I thought. Not man enough to admit your mistake. Shame on you. And I never condemned Murtha or Kerry’s actions as you reference above? How do you know that?

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:20 PM

Just as I thought. Not man enough to admit your mistake. Shame on you. And I never condemned Murtha or Kerry’s actions as you reference above? How do you know that?

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:20 PM

You certainly haven’t uttered one word of condemnation of Murtha’s or Kerry’s REAL smears of servicemen in this forum, and I’m quite sure you’ve engaged in debates involving those two and their various commentaries on more than one occasion (hence my original position).

Bottom line is this – you only profess to care about “smearing” servicemen when it is a democratic politician/candidate and will refer to any criticism of them that is even tangentially related to military matters as a smear. But when it’s real, live active duty soldiers that are being accused of war crimes and effectively pronounced guilty even though no charges have been filed, you defense of them is, to use a military term, AWOL.

The truth hurts.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 4:28 PM

Sen Charles Schumer, 2/13/2005:

Our goal, as Democrats, is to keep Social Security the way it is with as few changes as possible…

“Social Security Faces a Challenge, Not a Crisis.”

Washington Post, 7/26/05

While Democrats have debated whether it is in their interest to propose an alternative to President Bush’s plan to add individual accounts to Social Security, Republicans have asserted that the Democrats have no plan. House Democrats say they will not issue a Social Security plan until Bush takes any form of privatization off the table.

Your party has their head up their ass about SS, not just in the sand.

And the tone is the same today as it was last year.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=72831

Reid, Baucus Reject President’s Social Security Privatization Priorities

Democratic Leader, Finance’s Top Democrat Call on President to Focus on Serious Economic Problems after November Contests

9/20/2006 2:44:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939 both of the Office of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, or Carol Guthrie of the Office of Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Max Baucus, 202-224-4515

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ — Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) today called on President George W. Bush to eliminate Social Security privatization from the White House’s post-November agenda. In a letter, the Democratic leader and the Finance Committee’s ranking Democrat reminded the president that the American people have soundly rejected the administration’s efforts to privatize Social Security, which would result in deep benefit cuts and increased debt. Repeated statements from the administration and the congressional majority have indicated their intention to return to the rejected privatization efforts following the November elections. Today, Reid and Baucus reiterated Democrats’ commitment to fight any scheme that would privatize Social Security and jeopardize the benefits American workers have earned.

http://www.democrats.org/a/national/secure_retirement/

We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security.

Nancy Pelosi, at dccc.org:

Democrats are working to strengthen Social Security and address the real concerns of everyday Americans.

George Miller, at dccc.org:

Congress should look for ways to strengthen Social Security, not undermine it

Now, there are just three ways to “strength social security.”

1. Raise taxes.

2. Cut benefits.

3. Privatize.

2 is politically out of the question. Even you ‘Crats don’t have the balls for 1.

What’s left?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 4:43 PM

You certainly haven’t uttered one word of condemnation of Murtha’s or Kerry’s REAL smears of servicemen in this forum, and I’m quite sure you’ve engaged in debates involving those two and their various commentaries on more than one occasion (hence my original position).

Show me. “I’m quite sure..” doesn’t cut it. This sort of hemming and hahing is not at all what I expect in an military man. I have nothing left to say to you, “sailor”.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:49 PM

Now, there are just three ways to “strength social security.”

1. Raise taxes.

2. Cut benefits.

3. Privatize.

2 is politically out of the question. Even you ‘Crats don’t have the balls for 1.

What’s left?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 4:43 PM

georgej: sorry I didn’t copy all your response, it seems to get nuts when you cc a message within a message.

Your references are Republicans saying the Dems have no plan–which even you must admit is hardly an unbiased POV; or specific Dems saying they want the benefits to be untouched or Dems saying they reject privitization. (Think that’s everything?)

First, I am all for privitization. This however does not address the short term problem of the baby boom bubble coming. I support privitization of the system of people in their 30′s and younger. This will not solve the short term problem however.

Second, I support means testing. It’s not the best solution, but we are down to the least bad solution since Bush looted the SS fund.

Third, there may have to be tax increases at least to get us back where we were or til we get over the boomer hump; again, this might be a good place to divert those tax cuts for the top tier.

I have to run. Fun jousting with you. Who the hell is the Anchoress???

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:57 PM

Privatization. Duh.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:58 PM

Show me. “I’m quite sure..” doesn’t cut it. This sort of hemming and hahing is not at all what I expect in an military man. I have nothing left to say to you, “sailor”.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:49 PM

No, what you apparently expect in a military man is someone like Kerry who viciously smears other military vets and then cries like a little bitch when someone raises questions about his own military record … after he’s laid it on the table as a campaign issue and thereby invited such scrutiny.

You have nothing left to say because your transparency on the issue is completely exposed. To paraphrase Bob Dole, you know it, I know it, and the readers of HotAir know it.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 5:11 PM

You have nothing left to say because your transparency on the issue is completely exposed

What the hell does that even mean? Your transparency is completely exposed? My clarity has been exposed? Never use vocabulary over your head, you just make yourself look ridiculous. Transparency, sweet Jesus.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 6:12 PM

What the hell does that even mean? Your transparency is completely exposed? My clarity has been exposed? Never use vocabulary over your head, you just make yourself look ridiculous. Transparency, sweet Jesus.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 6:12 PM

Transparent … as in “we can see right through you”. I thought your superior liberal intellect would have figured that out.

Oh, and nice way to evade the subject yet again. In another life, may you come back as an NFL running back, for with your evasiveness the only thing that will stop you is the end zone.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 6:28 PM

Transparent … as in “we can see right through you”. I thought your superior liberal intellect would have figured that out.

Oh, and nice way to evade the subject yet again. In another life, may you come back as an NFL running back, for with your evasiveness the only thing

Nice try. Try a dictionary. (I realize not everyone is good with language, but doesn’t that just look ridiculous–exposing that we can see right thru you. Say what??)

And as to evasion–some clown has accused me of something and has refused to show any evidence to back up that accusation. When you have that dictionary out, look up evasive.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 6:45 PM

Here you are, defending Murtha, after he had already smeared out troops:

A lot of the posts here very conveniently ignore the fact that this story was broken by TIME magazine. The military began investigations only after the report became public. It’s all well and good to harp on the press–not to mention comforting to always have a scapegoat. The real issue is not the alleged atrocities–this is a part of war, sadly, and was ever thus–but why the military needed the prodding of the press to do its job. As much as he is an old gasbag, it appears Murtha was out in front on this one.
honora on May 29, 2006 at 11:28 AM

My emphasis.

Now, do you still want to lecture us about smearing soldiers service records when you are defending a piece of shit like Murtha, who is guilty of doing just that?

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 7:32 PM