We need a ruling from the Irony Board...
Is it not ironic that the GOP House majority in the Congress might be lost- not only because of a Republican member's homosexual dandling of underage boys- but because it was COVERED UP by the House leadership?
what did Dave Reichert know and when did he know it?
Posted by: testy | September 30, 2006 at 11:23 PM
If the GOP crashes and burns over this in November, it will be the very essence of poetic justice.
Yet more evidence of the danger in giving one political party control over all three branches of government. May we never again see such an imbalance of power. (And don't kid yourselves that today's incarnation of the Democratic Party would be any less arrogant or hubristic or corrupt or reckless or dangerous to our liberties if THEY held ALL the marbles for several years at a time. Those among you who embrace an Evergreen College-Kucinich-Chomsky worldview may bleat otherwise but you're only fooling yourselves.)
Posted by: Oly | September 30, 2006 at 11:53 PM
Well, Oly, I do embrace Kucinich and I think you're wrong. I'd love to find out! If Dems become as corrupt, it won't be the Kucinich wing that provokes it. I can guarantee you that.
Also, I read earlier that Hastert has already been "thrown overboard." I'll try to find it again and link it. My tired old eyes sparkled a bit when I read those words.
Posted by: joanie | October 01, 2006 at 12:01 AM
Oh, and just one more thing . . . honestly, Oly, that's why I want new Dems as well. I'm not tethered to the old Dems just to win . . . I think both parties have sold out.
Posted by: joanie | October 01, 2006 at 12:03 AM
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's a creaky old cliche but it's true. And it doesn't matter whether the wielders of that absolute power happen to hold a reactionary mentality or a progressive one at the moment they assume power. They WILL be corrupted just as surely as the sun rises in the east. They WILL adopt an air of entitlement not much different than that of hereditary monarchs, though they will justify it by virtue of their bigger hearts or brains rather than by the favor of divine providence. And they WILL lose sight of the ideals of public service which launched them on their political careers, and become so grossly focused on the maintenance of their power and privileges that they will act against the best interests of the country in order to stay at the top of the food chain. Give any narrow ideology near-total control of this country and you'll have what we have today.
Posted by: Oly | October 01, 2006 at 12:28 AM
I'm just waiting for a week of Programs by O'Reilly on the House Leadership protecting pedophiles. Let's see if he is fair and ballanced.
Posted by: JDB | October 01, 2006 at 12:31 AM
Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Oly | October 01, 2006 at 12:39 AM
Oly: " Give any narrow ideology. . . "
That's just it. As Norm Ornstein said on Franken's show, it took the Republicans twelve years to do what it took the Dems over thirty years to do - resort to that degree of corrupt behavior.
The Dems do not subscribe to that narrow idealogy . . .
Also, Kucinich lost his job as mayor of Cleveland in his fight against the corrupt business community. But, he was honored for that very stance years later . . . when that constituency realized he had saved their power grid.
Not everybody will be corrupted . . . and if Americans were just more informed, we'd fight that tendency and have a much better democracy.
I still believe it is possible . . . but we have to get big money and corporations out of politics.
Posted by: joanie | October 01, 2006 at 12:46 AM
Agreed on that last point. My original point was that no single party can be entrusted with all the power in this country, just as no single ideology can be counted on to find ALL the solutions to the problems we face. (A monopoly of thought is no less deadly than a monopoly of power.)
And I would argue that the fact that the national Democratic Party was once a place which represented a very wide range of views - as opposed to today's version of the party - may have had something to do with its slower drift - those thirty years vs twelve - toward the sort of unacceptable slime and sleaze and irresponsibility that we see in the GOP today. TODAY's Democratic Party is a good deal narrower - at least in the composition of its movers and shakers on the national stage - than it was twenty or thirty years ago. (It has become another cliche, among the right, to declare that a guy like Scoop Jackson or Harry Truman would have a hard time being accepted by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean - but this cliche, like most others, has a hard kernel of truth at its core.)
My apologies to BlatheringMike for taking this discussion a bit further afield than he probably intended it to go.
Posted by: Oly | October 01, 2006 at 09:19 AM
First: A pedophile is defined as someone sexually desiring children under the age of 13. That information comes from a Newsweek magazine from about 4 years ago.
That would define the ex-congressman as a boylover.
Second: I can't wait til tomorrow to see how Limbaugh and Medved & others try to cover this guys butt. Or at least protect the party. How much do you want to bet that Barney Frank's name will be mentioned numerous times. I will give the congressman credit for resigning. Barney should have done the same. But so what! The spin tomorrow is going to be FUN to hear.
Posted by: Ryder | October 01, 2006 at 05:51 PM
So what happened with Barney? Did I miss something? I don't know of any incidents involving boys and Barney. I always respected the guy.
Posted by: joanie | October 01, 2006 at 05:54 PM
"I will give the congressman credit for resigning."
I don't. He did it only because he got caught.
Posted by: Dana | October 01, 2006 at 06:13 PM
Foley picked minors to play with, Frank hasn't been caught up in underage sex crimes.
Posted by: coiler | October 01, 2006 at 06:31 PM
C'mon, Ryder. Integrity demands that you tel us what you know. Is there something there?
Posted by: joanie | October 01, 2006 at 06:59 PM
Did I miss something? Or isn't it common knowledge that Barney Frank had a relationship with a 16 or 17 year old back around 1989 or so? Maybe I'm dreaming. But I don't think so.
Go Google it or something.
Posted by: Ryder | October 01, 2006 at 07:48 PM
You made the allegation . . . you have the responsibility to back it up. Otherwise, it is rather irresponsible and speaks to your character.
Posted by: joanie | October 01, 2006 at 07:53 PM
If the Dems fail to win control of the House in November - it will be a clear sign of what has become a really pathetic party that is losing steam. Even if they barely win control, that will be like saying "Whoopdee- F-ing doo".
The Republicans have screwed up more than enough to lose the majority. This Foley thing is more about the Internet, than about the actual act. BTW - The Internet legislation that the Republican Congress passed helped hang him out to dry.
Posted by: KS | October 01, 2006 at 08:27 PM
Foley sponsored the bill...definitely makes him the leading contender for the Darwin Awards this year....
Ah KS, I can see you are almost ready to come over to the light....
Posted by: sparky | October 01, 2006 at 08:30 PM
I think that's what he meant but he couldn't admit to it
Posted by: coiler | October 01, 2006 at 08:44 PM
Do you people seriously not recall the scandal involving a small young man prostitution ring being run out of Rep Frank's office by what I think a lad of 16 or 17? The congressman denied any knowledge of it. Now me, I don't believe that anymore than I believe that Rep Foley is a virgin.
In my last Google search I found an article from the Washington Post and the Boston Globe mentioning the incident.
Now you can bury your head in the sand and cry "I won't look! I won't look!"
What are you concerned about? The boys involved were all of legal age.
Either way, I still can't wait to hear the talk radio hysteria on this subject tomorrow.
Posted by: Ryder | October 01, 2006 at 09:45 PM
The Washington Post had a roundup of all the Congressional Sex Scandals. I had forgotten how nasty the Brock Adams scandal was and Sen Inoye, I hardly knew ya!
Anyway, I don't think Barney Frank was involved with an underage page but he didn't cover himself in glory with his use of office to cover up for his then partner. Poor judgement, but if Mass is willing to elect 'Flipper' time and time again to his Senate Seat what can you say about Frank and his Congressional Seat. For the folks of Mass, he does deliver. For the record, the Foley scandal should be looked into and all those involved prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Oly is right about party and power. Too much leads to real abuses. And using your position of power to diddle an intern -even if the intern could legally consent- is showing poor judgement by opening yourself up. Here is the
scandalroundup
Posted by: PugetSound | October 01, 2006 at 09:51 PM
Hear hear Oly. I do NOT want to see the Demoncrats controlling everything after 2008. Nor do I want to see the Republicans controlling everything. I do differ in that I think the Democrats wouldn't screw things up nearly as much as the Republicans would with the same amount of power... but really. I want some political alternatives. Let's get proportional representation or SOMETHING going so we have more of a choice than just R or D.
Speaking of which, I do hear the Libertarians have their best chance ever to pick up a House seat--it's Tom DeLay's former seat in Texas. As I understand it there is no Republican candidate on the ballot--Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is their write-in. (DeLay fought to get his name off the ballot after he resigned, and they were unable to replace him.) Nick Lampson (D) is on the ballot along with Bob Smither (L).
I think it would be GREAT if Smither won and would feel the same if he were a Green or even a member of the Constitution or Socialist Parties.
Posted by: lukobe | October 01, 2006 at 10:01 PM
Demoncrats? Is this you, Lukobe? I must have missed something . . .
I am all for third parties . . . I hope the best candidate wins. I'm for honesty and the good of the commonwealth.
Posted by: joanie | October 02, 2006 at 12:47 AM
"Do you people seriously not recall the scandal involving a small young man prostitution ring being run out of Rep Frank's office by what I think a lad of 16 or 17?"
No, Ryder, I don't. Why don't you post the information for us all to see?
Posted by: Dana | October 02, 2006 at 08:27 AM
About fifteen years ago the House voted to reprimand Frank for using his office to get a staffer off the hook for parking tickets the staffer had incurred. It transpired that the staffer had also run a gay prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment; Frank denied involvement or awareness of the matter, and he promptly fired the staffer. (I don't recall whether or not the prostitutes were all adults.) The Republicans tried to make the case into an earthshaking scandal, but it quickly died.
Posted by: Oly | October 02, 2006 at 10:49 AM
Bla'm I would tip you but I wont do business with pay Pal...Maybe Sweetie and I will show up some Tuesday night at Drinking Liberally and I will donate in person....
Posted by: sparky | October 02, 2006 at 12:21 PM
Yo girl, what is wrong wit Paypal?
Posted by: Shaniqua | October 02, 2006 at 12:25 PM
The fewer times I put my credit card info out on the internet, the fewer chances it has to be ripped off. AND, actually the biggest reason is that the one time i used it on E-bay, they spammed me with so much email crap that I had to put them on my blocked address list. If a business does NOT want my patronage, the quickest way to get rid of me is to send me a gabillion emails.
Posted by: sparky | October 02, 2006 at 01:19 PM
C'mon, Oly, LINK IT...
Posted by: Fremont | October 02, 2006 at 01:42 PM
tIpmEe
What, Robot?!?
Posted by: Fremont | October 02, 2006 at 01:44 PM
pAy40K
Very funny, Bla'M!!
Posted by: Fremont | October 02, 2006 at 01:46 PM
Donating your person would be sublime, Sparkler....and Sweetie, too!
Posted by: Fremont | October 02, 2006 at 01:48 PM
Whoa! "Demoncrats!" I swear to God that was a typo!
I don't engage in that sort of name-calling on purpose and will be voting for Cantwell in the fall, so please believe me--I didn't mean to do that :)
Posted by: lukobe | October 02, 2006 at 02:08 PM
joanie: I am all for third parties . . . I hope the best candidate wins. I'm for honesty and the good of the commonwealth.
That's good! Would you embrace an alternate style of voting, though, like proportional representation or approval voting, to make this happen?
Posted by: lukobe | October 02, 2006 at 02:09 PM
Hey Spark: come on down to DL and bring your everlovin.' it's fun in the crux of the election cycle- you'll see these threads and the bloggersphere come to life. It'd be great meeting you...be sure to let me know ahead of time- I can't always go there.
Posted by: testy | October 02, 2006 at 02:19 PM
I was dozing off in my land-based domocile this afternoon after a weekend out at the yacht, when I heard a Republican dope calling into Ron Reagan. His plodding, prissy voice had the tone of the rightwing religious cretin. . His normally fairly obvious doltishness, was now being revealed to me in a kind of super, hyper clarity by my semi-dream state. Reagan was claiming that now all surely would agree that neither party had a monopoly on morality. But no, the prig was daring to counter Ron- Republicans really ARE more moral! because of their stance in favor of human life, he claimed. I sensed a devotee of Dr. Dobson in his enragingly asinine manner as he continued his offensive little speech (which Ron Reagan was running rings around, with his bemused, ironic retorts). I wanted to reach through the radio and get to this banal, boorish, and bovinely stupid little ass. Yo, to this ass and his legions out there- your control of all three branches of government is now coming to an end. You had your shot with a "born-again", "pro-life" president and you blew it. Now go crawl back under your rocks. You make my skin crawl.
Posted by: Tommy008 | October 02, 2006 at 02:43 PM
sorry,- domicile
Posted by: Tommy008 | October 02, 2006 at 02:53 PM
"bovinely stupid ass"
Excellent!!!
Posted by: sparky | October 02, 2006 at 05:23 PM
Oops....LINK IT, Ryder (my most humble apologies, O'y)!
Posted by: Fremont | October 02, 2006 at 08:45 PM
Bx4blam
Posted by: Fremont | October 02, 2006 at 08:46 PM
Lukobe, I've said several times on this blog that I prefer proportional representation. Gives us all more opportunities for input and, I think, it keeps us more honest.
Two parties creates monopolistic politics and opporunities for abusive tactics just like happened to Hong Tran when her whole campaign was dissed and actually impeded by Dwight Pelz whom I no longer have a whisker of respect for.
Now, give me some details about your thinking. Some depth please.
Posted by: joanie | October 02, 2006 at 09:25 PM
FREMONT! Are you using the "drag and read" procedure yet? Sometimes I don't either and I get ANNOYED! Like right now! :)
BTW, Michael, do you really have a cat named Linda Wertheimer? I like it.
Posted by: joanie | October 02, 2006 at 09:27 PM
Thinking about what, now?
Posted by: lukobe | October 02, 2006 at 09:28 PM
I answered your question so I gather you asked for a reason - no?
Posted by: joanie | October 02, 2006 at 09:33 PM