Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Comment response

kevin23,

What a crock.

He’s a scumbag who has been protected by immoral and incompetentfellow republicans for years now. There’s no debate about those facts.But I’m loving the fact that this gets turned on dems because they areon the attack. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

What on earth are you talking about? Or are you in fact proving my point entirely?

Are you saying that all the homosexual 'scumbags' should be turned out of congress?

Most importantly, Eric, how is it that you can actually feel goodabout taking a strategic political approach to such a universallyunconscionable act? Just because your overly partisan and underly moral“leadership” in congress takes that reprehensible approach doesn’tjustify it coming from you, who doesn’t even have power to lose.

I always feel good about telling the truth. I'm not sure if you actually read my post-- I'm glad Foley resigned. If he didn't resign he should be expelled from office. That said, I think that it's interesting that Democrats suddenly feel that what Foley did was unconsciounable. They keep electing representatives who actually HAVE SEX with pages. All Foley did, as far as we know so far, is send email and instant messages.

But you and I both know that anyone sending these kinds of messages would likely also have sex with pages.

The entire point of my rant is that IT IS the Republicans who punish for this behaviour, and that IT IS Democrats who excuse it.

I’m not calling for resignations quite yet. BUT, I think it would benice to actually see a genuine response rather than seeing congessionalleaders trying to be strategic. Morality should NEVER be strategic.Right, Eric?

That's the whole point. Which response is more genuine? Republicans who punish this behaviour, or Democrats who do not?

Once the congressional “investigation” is complete, the facts willbe so distorted that no one will learn anything from it.

No, you're right. These are judgments which are far too important to make with the facts. We must demonize Hastert before we have any facts which might contradict our chosen disgust at what we want to assume that he did or did not do.

The IM’s wereclearly sicko. First hand reports are coming in from politicians andformer pages about this guy’s reputation for exactly this kind ofthing. How is this defensible?

Who is defending Foley? I'd like to know what Republicans you know of who are making any excuses for Foley's actions, his IM's, or his reputation as a homosexual who like young boys.

Even for you, Eric, this should clearlybe a non-partisan issue that has obvious partisan consequences. Demshave absolutely nothing to do with it. ANY individual who knewsomething and didn’t report it is a scumbag. ANY individual who didn’tthink it was a big deal is a scumbag. Eric?

That's my question to you. You seem to say that someone is defending Foley. I am not aware of anyone who is, but your argument is based on this strawman that he is being defended.

And I think that any individual who points to past acts by dems totake the edge off this set of facts is a scumbag too. That’s just alittle pre-emptive attack, since I know you love them so.

Just so I have your position correct... you're saying that we should judge each scandal as a separate incident taken entirely on it's own without looking to other scandals like this in order to make comparisons.

But then isn't this what Hastert is being accused of doing? Of not taking into account the implication of hints that there could be more evidence?

The argument demonizing Hastert seems to be that Hastert shouldn't have given anyone the benefit of the doubt. In fact, he should have realized that any hint of homosexual or deviant behaviour should be enough to possibly expell Foley from congress.