Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

October 2, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

MOYERS ON ABRAMOFF....One reason that the Foley scandal probably has more legs than the Abramoff scandal (besides sex, Sex, SEX!) is that it's nice and simple. The Abramoff scandal, by contrast, is mind-numbingly complex.

But now there's a way for you to catch up. Bill Moyers is returning to PBS and the first episode of his new show is "Capitol Crimes," a 2-hour roundup of the Abramoff scandal and its related web of corruption. It'll be airing Wednesday at 9 pm and it's probably worth watching. A 3-minute preview is up on YouTube here.

Kevin Drum 12:56 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (189)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

If Moyers really wants to discuss capitol crimes, he should air excerpts of "Path to 9/11" and discuss Clinton's criminal negilgence in actively declining to capture Bin Ladin. ("We have him in our sights!". "Eh, forget it. I'm bussy getting a blowjob from an intern!").

By the way, it's nice to see that the Democrat party is not-so-secretly homophobic over Foley. You stood behind a president who actually screwed an intern, but condemn a who wrote emails that were overly friendly. Do Democrats really hate gays, or is it just election year politicking?

Posted by: American Hawk on October 2, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas-- There's no evidence that there was acutal sexual contact, unlike with bill and monica.

Posted by: American Hawk on October 2, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, it's nice to see that the Democrat party is not-so-secretly homophobic over Foley.

Good point AH. Republicans didn't investigation Foley because they were afraid of being called homophobic and gay bashers by the libs. So it's really the Democrats fault Foley wasn't investigated.

Posted by: Al on October 2, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas-- There's no evidence that there was acutal sexual contact, unlike with bill and monica.

Don't forget Barney Frank's prostituion ring he ran in his room and office.

Posted by: Al on October 2, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Spin baby spin.What do a R congressman and a Catholic Priest have in common.Yea baby you guessed it.

Posted by: ebay on October 2, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Woah ... I've never seen a thread trashed so quickly.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 2, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

The preceding comments are proof that sex scandals are more noteworthy than financial crimes to the (sub-)average citizen.

Posted by: Matt on October 2, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Hastert's omissions and inactions, continued:
http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/200610021?pt=0

E-mail case disgusting, says Capito
By Scott Finn
Staff writer

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., says she was not told about suggestive e-mails that a Florida congressman sent to a 16-year-old former Capitol page, even though she is one of three representatives who oversee the page program.
That's how a cover-up works, folks. Hastert and other members of the "leadership" should have forwarded those emails to Congresswoman Capito. Failure to forward the emails probably isn't illegal, but it's unethical and contemptible. (And that's why Hastert welcomes a CRIMINAL investigation but fears an ETHICS investigation.)

Anybody here from West Virginia? If so, please write and/or phone Congresswoman Capito and ask her whether she still supports the current House Republican "leadership".

Posted by: sysprog on October 2, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

!0 troll posts so far - Feels so good, feels so fine to be with the boys over at InstantPundit once again.

Boy, oh boy, an all boy party.

Posted by: stupid git on October 2, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Repubelicans are sexually repressed. What a bunch of pervs, covering up for each other and all.

Posted by: razorboy on October 2, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

too bad NO ONE would join rdw and me

The US military wants your children and grandchildren to join Bush's mission to fight in Iraq. Your children and grandchildren will earn respect and affection in the armed services. Congressmen will court them and treat them to fabulous dinners before transfer to fight for liberty in Afghanistan or Iraq. Congress' members eagerly anticipate your children's service to the country's leadership.

Posted by: Will on October 2, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

What's complex about the quid pro quo corruption of the republican party?

Posted by: klyde on October 2, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas-- There's no evidence that there was acutal sexual contact, unlike with bill and monica.

People so disgusting they won't distinguish between sex amongst consenting adults and a 50 year old man cyber stalking a teenager.

Posted by: klyde on October 2, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

How does the Abramoff scandal rank compared to the Billy Sol Estes scandal, the "Wilbur Milk" scandal, the Wayne Hayes scandal (not the sex, the manipulation of a relatively unimportant committee chairmanship into dominating power), and the Dan Rostenkowsky scandal?

I don't mean to make light, and I think that Abramoff and some Republican congressmen probably belong in jail (I could, I suppose, believe that they might all be acquitted, and they should at least be tried and convicted before I am certain).

It ranks high on the list, but I think that Wayne Hayes did more actual harm to the country. That opinion could change with new revelations.

Posted by: papago on October 2, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrat on the operative oversight committe was not notified of the emails (he read about them for the first time last week.) Five years ago Republican pages were warned about Foley while Democratic pages weren't. One of the first people called about Foley was Rep. Reynolds who heads the campaign committee and is not in anyway involved with the relative house leadership structure.

The people who did talk to Foley a year ago simply accepted his characterization that his "overly friendly" emails were innocent and that he wouldn't sin any more. They didn't do any further investigation. (The other Republican member of the page board claims she didn't know of the matter, but if she had whe would not have simply accepted Foley's word that he hadn't sinned and he would sin no more.)

When you look at the Cunningham, DeLay and Abramoff scandals you see a similar pattern of Republican leader putting the party ahead of the institution and ultimately the nation. Apparently anything is OK with Denny Hastert and the rest of the Republican leadership so long as the party isn't hurt. When it is he is shocked and appalled.

What we are witnessing is the downside of the Gingrich revolution that put the Republican party ahead of the institution of Congress. If Hastert were operating as Speaker of the House instead of Republican boss the Foley scandal would never have happened. Instead when the emails first came to light, a full investigation would have occured and Foley would have been thrown out. No great loss for the Republicans who would have looked responsible, and who would have had plenty of time to find a replacement for Foley in a very Republican district.

We didn't elect Hastert, Blunt and the rest to be Republicans. We elected them to be congressmen. It is time they figured that out.

Posted by: Ron Byers on October 2, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Ah yes, GOP morality:

A 52 year old congressman tried to seduce and have internet sex with a 17 year old page, but because no actual sex occurredd, its really no big deal.

Really, the gender of the page is irrelevant. The issue here is the age of the victim and the respective position of power employed by the predator.

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh on October 2, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

From the earlier thread, I think I've said my peace on the subject..

... then WTF are you doing here, talking about it ?

Posted by: cleek on October 2, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Doug-E-Fresh: A 52 year old congressman tried to seduce and have internet sex with a 17 year old page, but because no actual sex occurredd, its really no big deal.

Right, and for those banking on a lack of actual physical contact between Foley and pages: It will be very interesting to see whether in coming days we'll hear reports of such contact having taken place. People like Foley don't do this stuff once or twice. He'll have had a long and horrifying history of coming on to teenagers, and odds are he'll have succeeded at some point.

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Young adults can learn to use the internet, email and instant messaging in the US Military. Think of all the differnt kinds of people they will come into contact with while serving in Iraq.

Posted by: Will on October 2, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Really, I'm finding this whole thread hard to swallow.

Posted by: craigie on October 2, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

I hope Bill bitchslaps Tim Russert, who maintained as recently as yesterday that Dems took a third of "Abramoff's money."

Posted by: Mimir on October 2, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Arrgh -- it's on opposite Lost!

Posted by: Rob S. on October 2, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder, will there be any discussion of the links between Abramoff and Harry Reid? What about his link to supporters of massive_illegal_immigration, as discussed at that link?

I have little doubt that to Bill Moyers, as to the Democrats, some forms of corruption are OK. With the latter group it's the forms of corruption that they seek to profit from.

Posted by: TLB on October 2, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

I say that EVERY homosexual child molester...

So it's only the homosexual child molester, eh, ThomASS? So which parties are the homophobes, chickenshit/

For the record, chickenshit, Lewinsky was of age, Mark Foley's victims were not. Get the diff?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on October 2, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

TLB, wake us up when Harry Reid starts trying seduce 16 year old boys.

Posted by: cleek on October 2, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Probably because no one believes you, Whack old buddy.

Posted by: CN on October 2, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone ever notice that American Hawk and Al were kindly absent this weekend? Maybe they were trying to cover their behinds in Foleygate...or were they busy torturing alleged terrorists for the heck of it. It's hard to tell which they would prefer doing more, given their penchant for spreading hate and lies and spreading it wide.

Posted by: parrot on October 2, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

People like MeLoseBrain? keep asking me about it, that's why.

poor trolly... forced to reply to something about which he's already said all that he has to say.

Posted by: cleek on October 2, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

It's fairly simple: you're either with us or you're with the pedophiles.

We've now seen which side the House GOP leadership comes down on....

Posted by: nova zembla on October 2, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK
From the earlier thread, I think I've said my peace on the subject

If you've said your "peace" [sic], isn't it time to STFU on the subject?

Posted by: cmdicely on October 2, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP is objectively pro-pedophile.

Posted by: nova zembla on October 2, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK
By the way, it's nice to see that the Democrat party is not-so-secretly homophobic over Foley.

"Homophobia" would be the issue if the condemnation was of adult, consensual gay sex.

Apparently, the defenders of the Republican party here have a problem distinguishing between adult consensual sex and sexual exploitation and attempted seduction of minors.

Posted by: cmdicely on October 2, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

GOP: Guarding Our Pedophiles

Posted by: cleek on October 2, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Poor thomas is going absolutely batshit crazy trying to protect his pedophile pal, isn't he? Show's how damaging this really is to the GOP.

Posted by: nova zembla on October 2, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 why are your defending perverts?

Posted by: razorboy on October 2, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

T1: join rdw and me in a bipartisan effort calling for EVERY child molester, and anyone who covered up those crimes (regardless of party), to be driven out of town on a rail

so you weren't against child molesters until foley was discovered?

Posted by: mr. irony on October 2, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Well, this thread was dead on arrival.

I'm off.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 2, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

The Abramoff scandal, by contrast, is mind-numbingly complex.

That's twice, now, that you've made this assertion, Kevin. What's so hard to understand about quid-pro-quo corruption?

Posted by: Gregory on October 2, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Same thing as Clinton no diffrence.Clinton had sex with an adult, Foley seducing underage boys yea same thing.What a Bush.

Posted by: ebay on October 2, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

'pubs are perverts - I'm sure not defending them.
Unlike the underpaid trolls here.

Posted by: razorboy on October 2, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Show me ONE post where I am defending Foley, bitch?

Wooah! He's gone deranged! The wheels are coming off the wagon! Heee heee! Careful, dearie, you're sounding a bit wild and unhinged there. Need some mental health counseling for that anger-management problem?

Posted by: nova zembla on October 2, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK
It's not "peace" as in absence of conflict?

No (first entry, def 33).

You may be generalizing wrong from an idiom with an opposite meaning (first entry, def 14).

Posted by: cmdicely on October 2, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Is kevin really thinking Bill Moyers is going to influence anyone on PBS? He hasn't done it in 20 years and now it'll work? With even fewer people watching? The kool-aid already runs thru the veins. If you are watching Bill Moyers you've got French DNA. You've got that vote Kevin. The idea is to increase your vote.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

No, Th1, it's not "peace." You've said your "piece." Ask Foley to define that for you.

Posted by: G on October 2, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

GOP-Got Open Pants?

Posted by: American Idiot on October 2, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Show me ONE post where I am defending Foley, bitch?

i'm still waiting for you to show me one post where i said i wanted Bush assassinated, bitch.

Posted by: cleek on October 2, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK
Show me ONE post where I am defending Foley, bitch?

In every post on the subject you have been defending Foley by trying to switch the focus from his actual attempted to discussion to either (a) actual or alleged wrongdoing by Democrats, in the distant past, or (b) speculative ongoing child molestation for which you present no evidence by other current members of the Congres.

Posted by: cmdicely on October 2, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if they would just read everything I already wrote and take it to heart, cleek, maybe I wouldn't have to respond . . .

Posted by: Thomas1

Speaking of reading everything you're written and taking it to heart T1, are you still claiming to be a 67 year old ex-Democrat who just happens to have a thing for the Matrix? Or are you just Charlie's sock-puppet?

    I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version. The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection . . ." Posted by: Charlie on November 12, 2004 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK
Compare to a recent post by T1:
    The first Political Animal I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being; thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another -- an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of Political Animal, Kevin would undoubtedly be its mother. Posted by: Thomas1 on September 28, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Posted by: cyntax on October 2, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

I have to go got me a young one here who needs a spanking.You dems are just jealous little boys like repugs better then dems.

Posted by: Thomas on October 2, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, thomas is getting as excited as a GOP congressman in a playground....

Posted by: nova zembla on October 2, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK


the abramoff culture of corruption line-up..


GOP MICHAEL SCANLON, Top aide to Tom Delay - Pled guilty to felony conspiracy. Cooperating in Abramoff and Delay investigations.

GOP Tony Rudy, former DeLay deputy chief of staff -- convicted felon.

GOP JACK ABRAMOFF, Republican Lobbyist - Pled guilty to 3 felony counts; conspiracy to commit fraud, fraud, and tax evasion.- Sun Cruz Casinos: Found guilty of fraud. Appeal pending.

GOP DAVID SAFAVIAN, Bush appointed former head of the White House Office of Federal Procurement Policy - Convicted on 4 of 5 felony counts of lying and obstruction of justice
in the Abramoff case.

GOP BOB NEY U.S. Representative (R-OH) - pled guilty.

GOP NEIL VOLZ Chief of staff to U.S. Representative Bob Ney (R-OH) - Pled guilty to one felony count of conspiracy, including wire fraud and violating House rules.

and there's got to be more...

rove's secretary susan ralston worked for abramoff ..

and..

The House Reform committee was able to document 485 contacts between White House officials and Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team from January 2001 to March 2004. - Roll Call 9/28/06

485....yeah...gotta be more good stuff there...

Posted by: mr. perspective.. on October 2, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

We have the most moral administration ever. America's pastor, Billy Graham personally blessed it. The question is what is moral?

Is moral keeping the 6th commandment while forsaking all others? Abramoff, Iraq, Delay, Plamegate, a few of many violations of the other commandments. 5-don't kill, 7-don't steal and 8-don't lie must not count. Only the sixth counts for morality. The others is a matter of interpretation no doubt.

Our perception of morality springs from our training, what we are taught as children. There must be something wrong. There is. The children are being taught lies and that is reflected in the most moral administration of all time. The curator of the prove hoax 'shroud of Turin' said is as well as possible I think. Let me paraphrase. Lies that cause people to believe, have faith are moral.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/learninglies

There really is 10 commandments but only the sixth counts in the present, most moral administration.

Posted by: BGone on October 2, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1, much fear I sense in you. Fear is the path of the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

Posted by: master yoda on October 2, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. cleek -- we're tied then.

'fraid not, liar.

Posted by: cleek on October 2, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

It seems cyntax thinks no one besides Charlie and I have ever seen it.
Posted by: Thomas1

Haven't met too many 67 year-old ex-Democrats who were all that enamored of the Architect's speech. That's quite an anomaly Charlie.

Posted by: cyntax on October 2, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Irony

I'm all for Foley getting trashed and prosecuted for the emails and barred from Congress but let's hold off on the child molestation charges until we find out if he actually touched anyone. He's a dirtball but Child molestors are an even more detestable class. His public life is over and he'll do whatever time is demanded for whatever crime but lets wait for the facts before we define the crime.

This post is nothing more than a lynch mob. That takes real balls from behind a firewall.


Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK
P.P.S. Chris -- that's not "defending" Foley.

Sure it is; its defending by minimization and distraction. Admittedly, its not a convincing defense, but then no one ever accused you of that.

Posted by: cmdicely on October 2, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

stop responding to Charlie.

Posted by: for pete's sake, people on October 2, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

This post is nothing more than a lynch mob. That takes real balls from behind a firewall.

i'll just bookmark that one, if ya don't mind.

Posted by: cleek on October 2, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

I'm all for Foley getting trashed and prosecuted for the emails and barred from Congress but let's hold off on the child molestation charges until we find out if he actually touched anyone.

Via Atrios:

In another message, Foley, using the screen name Maf54, appears to describe having been together with the teen in San Diego.

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: :)
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yetbut likely Friday
Teen: okill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun

So the question is what did they do in San Diego? And what were they planning to do on Friday?

Posted by: nova zembla on October 2, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

In every post on the subject you have been defending Foley by trying to switch the focus from his actual attempted to discussion

Illogical and silly. B has nothing to do with A. We've already agreed in other posts Bill Clinton is a pig. That says nothing about Foley being a pig or not ot abot you being a pig. They are separate issues.

Foley is in fact a piece of garbage. That has no bearing on Bill Clinton being a pig. Bill Clinton being a pig has no bearing on Foley being a piece of garbage. They are mutally exclusive facts.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I'm all for Foley getting trashed and prosecuted for the emails and barred from Congress but let's hold off on the child molestation charges until we find out if he actually touched anyone.

thomas1 is the one who brought up child molestation charges...

Posted by: mr. irony on October 2, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

So the question is what did they do in San Diego? And what were they planning to do on Friday

And do we know the answer? If it's what you think it is the Congressman will be going to jail for a long time. If it isn't you are just another chickenshit behind a firewall.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

thomas1 is the one who brought up child molestation charges

I didn't see him use my name. That was you.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

my favorite abramoff quote:


"I have more pictures of [Newt Gingrich] than I have of my wife." - Jack Abramoff 3/7/06


Posted by: mr. irony on October 2, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

rdw..

you are mistaken

again...

Posted by: mr. irony on October 2, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

So rdw, whould you at least say that being a piece of garbage is much worse than being a pig?

Posted by: American Idiot on October 2, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK


rdw:So the question is what did they do in San Diego? And what were they planning to do on Friday

And do we know the answer?

gop leadership was warned 5-years ago of the problem...

but...

like fighting terror before 9-11...

looks like they weren't interested..

Posted by: mr. irony.. on October 2, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: "That takes real balls from behind a firewall."

Just like the steady stream of lies and slander that you post all the time, you simpering, snivelling hypocritical little coward.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 2, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

here's another abramoff favorite:


"Tom Delay is who all of us want to be when we grow up." - Jack Abramoff speaking to the College Republican Conference 2002

Posted by: mr. irony on October 2, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

The Foley scandal is nothing but a distraction from the revelation in Woodward's book that Condoleeza Rice comitted perjury in her testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

Foley wrote in some emails that he wanted to fondle boys.

Condoleeza Rice lied to the American people, the US Congress and the 9/11 Commission about vital matters of national security, and continues to lie in the faces of the public today.

Which is more important?

Which one will get a longer discussion thread on Political Animal?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 2, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Yea, we had info that al-queda was determined to strike. yeah, we saw the bulge in rep. foley's pants as he followed young pages into restrooms. But thats not good intel, thats not actionable, but thanks for second-guessing...next question?

Posted by: Tony Snow on October 2, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK


s.a.....good point...

she lied about the use of planes being used as weapons...


she was with bush in milan for the g-8 in july-2001...

airspace was closed twice due to threat of planes being used as weapons...

rice has a history of lying...

Posted by: mr. irony on October 2, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1, get your lies straight:

Thomas1 on October 2, 2006 at 2:48 PM: I'm not an ex-Democrat (yet)

Thomas1 on October 1, 2006 at 3:55 PM: As an ex-Democrat I must advise you that it will be a grave mistake.

Posted by: cmdicely on October 2, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

whould you at least say that being a piece of garbage is much worse than being a pig?

Yes, Foley was hitting on kids. There's no comparison between him and Clinton.

I suspect if what he did is limited to what I know of, text mail and email, charges will be minor although I'm not a lawyer. If this was more than words he'll get and deserve serious time.

Bill is still the sleeze-bag but he's not in that league.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

sa...she was probably coached by the decider/uniter.

Posted by: American Idiot on October 2, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

UM have you seen 60 minutes, These guys did not touch these young boys and girls,But when they walk out the door the cops handcuff and haul them away and charged with a crime.So lets not try the (well he may not have even laid a hand on these youg boys).It is still a crime.

Posted by: Thomas on October 2, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

"Rep. Fred Richmond (D-N.Y.); Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.); Sen. Brock Adams (D-Wash.); Rep. Jim Bates (D-Calif.); Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.); and Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.)"

they are not in public office now, are they?

are the repubs too stupid to learn from other peoples' mistakes??

Posted by: just askin' on October 2, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

The Foley scandal is nothing but a distraction from the revelation in Woodward's book that Condoleeza Rice comitted perjury in her testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

Gossip is not revelation. This isn't even very good gossip. How ironic Woodward, The Washington Post, 60 Minutes, the NYTs and the rest of the MSM all time the release of this book for the day the Foley news hits. You would think ABC would time it better. It seems Bob isn't owning the headlines as much as expected.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Well, The Pubs in Florida have moved swiftly to nominate a replacement for Foley - His E-mail handle of JoN54 is probably just a coincidence.

Posted by: stupid git on October 2, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

rdw..hypothetically, if I was put on camera after a political witch hunt and asked if I had sex with a woman not my wife, I believe I would lie. If that what makes him a pig, than I'm a pig. If the affair makes him the pig, well, we got a shitload of pigs male and female in this country. Don't you really feel kind of funny including Clinton's life in a discussion of Foley's alleged overtures to minors?

Posted by: American Idiot on October 2, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

didn't I read you stating that your kids had "other priorities" while damning another poster whose children are breaking a tradition of service? Wasn't that you? If I have the wrong troll, my appologies.

No, I did not damn GCs son for breaking the families military tradition. This is America and as I made abundantly clear we are ALL free to pursue our own goals. When mama suggested mama and papa stopped the son because of GWB I told them the Army wanted men not mama's boys.

I also pointed out that just because I served it doesn't mean you are a coward because you didn't or my vote should count more. I pointed out the entire chickenhawk charge was braindead because this is America, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

November 8 2006, Headline Dems take super majority in the House and Senate.Americans send Neocons message We are taking are country back.

Posted by: Thomas on October 2, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Get a ruler out and measure it for me, Thomas1.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on October 2, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

just askin'-It was Thomas1, I believe, who keeps putting those damming names up there. He is a lifelong democrat..uh, today anyway.

Posted by: American Idiot on October 2, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Let's clarify that one rdw - after a man-to-man with his father, our son opted to not join the Marine reserves. He listened to the voice of experience, yes, but he is certainly not a "mama's boy." So take your "we need men not boys" crack and insert it somewhere painful.

Had he joined the USMC-R he would have been deployed. He would not have finished college beore deployment and he would not be a linguist today, and he would not be teaching Arabic to officers while he pursues a grad degree. I think he is contributing in a very real and necessary way.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 2, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

If Moyers really wants to discuss capitol crimes, he should air excerpts of "Path to 9/11"...

I'm sure this has been observed already, but Moyers' baliwick is journalism, not fiction.

Posted by: Gregory on October 2, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

If that what makes him a pig, than I'm a pig. If the affair makes him the pig, well, we got a shitload of pigs male and female in this country. Don't you really feel kind of funny including Clinton's life in a discussion of Foley's alleged overtures to minors?


Clinton is a pig on many levels and cheating on hillary is not at the top of the list. Their marriage is their business but we know for a fact he cheated throughout their marriage with amazing frequency and she probably knew about most of it. She certainly knew about Genefer Flowers and their decade long affair.

The thing about Monica that was so sleezey was the nature of the relationship. A true feminist would define it as abusive. The turds parading as feminist of course gave him a pass. Monica Lewensky was an exceptionally pathetic figure in the shadow of the President of the USA in terms of age and position and anyone who can defend him as engaging in consensual sex is a bigger pig than he is. The enablers are often worse and this is no exception.

It's obvious Bill's marriage was not the 'normal' marriage and that was by mutual consent.

In terms of someone taking a marriage vowel and then chearing on their spouse they are a pig. That goes for you and anyone else. I don't think we have as many pigs among us as you do but that doesn't change anything.

Clinton has nothing to do with Foley nor were his actions as reprehensible. I just love bringing up Slick Willie and Monica. It reminds liberals of how much they've had to compromise with their values to support the turd.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Woah ... I've never seen a thread trashed so quickly.

Just shows how desperate the trolls are, Bob. In fact, I use what I call the "Charlie Factor": The more Chuckles the Clown (today posing as "Thomas1") tries to distract with his mendacious tomfoolery, the more damaging the issue to the GOP.

Posted by: Gregory on October 2, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

I think he is contributing in a very real and necessary way

And as I've already said to you, May God Bless him for doing so. Conservatives are not the ones using this braindead chickenhawk theme. That's the libs. I did not being it up and I characterized what I said accurately.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

but Moyers' baliwick is journalism,

Moyers is a bitter political hack from the LBJ administration. He's no more a journalist than you are.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

I am on record that we need to have a serious discussion about some form of mandatory national service. It needn't be military, though some would undoubtedly take that option. It could be service with the Red Cross, or with Americorps or the National Health Service or a medical corp of some sort.

None of my conservative counterparts have stepped up to have that discussion however - but if you want to do so, I will be back in an hour - young minds await indoctination by this particular liberal academic. I will check back in after class, or you can feel free to send an email - it works.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 2, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: In terms of someone taking a marriage vowel

I'd like to buy an A, Reverend Sajak.

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

The more Chuckles the Clown (today posing as "Thomas1") tries to distract with his mendacious tomfoolery, the more damaging the issue to the GOP.

Word. You don't even need to follow the money anymore to find the corruption, just the shrill tone.

Posted by: cyntax on October 2, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Moyers is a bitter political hack from the LBJ administration. He's no more a journalist than you are.

Thanks for proving my point of 3:47 pm, Wooten.

Posted by: Gregory on October 2, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

"In terms of someone taking a marriage vowel and then chearing on their spouse they are a pig. That goes for you and anyone else. I don't think we have as many pigs among us as you do but that doesn't change anything." I think you meant vow and cheating but I make typos all the time, I forgive you. I'm retired military, grew up in the military, married a child of life-long republicans, I am a son of life-long republicans, and I live in very red state. So when you "say pigs among us" are we talking about the same people? I really didn't plan on defending slick W but I am always bothered by the lets blame Clinton crowd...

Posted by: American Idiot on October 2, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

With this E, I thee wed.

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

The ABRAMOFF scandal was quite simple.

Tom Delay and Jerry Fallwell went to the Mariana Islands, held helpless women captive, raped them and forced them to abort the resulting children.

In return, some Republicans in Congress got a lotta dough.

Posted by: Matt on October 2, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

For richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health, until we are parted by consonants.

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Forsaking all umlauts.

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

In the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy O.

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

In terms of someone taking a marriage vowel and then chearing on their spouse they are a pig.

OK, so John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, Newt "Three Times Lucky" Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bill O'Reilly, Bob Dole, George Bush Senior, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzennegger, Gary Bauer, and Dan Burton are all pigs. After all, they all took marriage "vowels" (I presume it was an "A" for adultery?)

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

The Holy O!

I like it! Yes! Yes! Yeeesssss!

I'm sorry, what was the topic again?

Posted by: craigie on October 2, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Mazel triphthong!

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

A holy O? I like it! The only times I have ever seen God, there was a big O involved, definitely. "O God!!!"

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on October 2, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

In terms of someone taking a marriage vowel and then chearing on their spouse they are a pig.

Is that meant to be "cheering on their spouse"? Like in the egg toss, or the sack race?

What's so wrong about that? I mean, as long as you keep your marriage to the union of one man, one woman, and one company picnic.

Posted by: craigie on October 2, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Can I kiss Vanna now?

Posted by: Pat on October 2, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know which of those men cheated on their wives, if any. Getting divorced and remarrying is not cheating. In the case of at least 3 or 4 you are merely being a bigger pig than Slick Willie.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

I like to buy a "C".

Posted by: Foley's Libido on October 2, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Have often wondered why some atheists invoke various gods' names while coming. Not saying I do it, you understand.

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Does that "C" stand for "congressman?"

Posted by: Sesame on October 2, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Big John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are pigs on many levels and cheating on their wives is not at the top of the list. Their marriage is their business but we know for a fact Big John and Rudy cheated throughout their respective marriages with amazing frequency and their wives probably knew about most of it.

It's obvious Rudy's marriage was not the 'normal' marriage and that was by mutual consent.

In terms of someone taking a marriage vowe and then cheating on their spouse they are a pig. That goes for you and anyone else. I don't think we have as many pigs among us as you do but that doesn't change anything.

I just love bringing up Big John and Rudy. It reminds conservatives of how much they've had to compromise with their supposed moral values to support the adulterous pigs.


Posted by: wdr on October 2, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't get the C reference, either. But then we've established I'm naive.

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Come with me Foley, but bring your own "V".

Posted by: rush on October 2, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Non-orgasmic?

Posted by: Dr. Ruth on October 2, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

"C" for child as in No Child Left Behind. But Congressman works for Jack A. which brings us back to topic.

Posted by: Foley's Libido on October 2, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know which of those men cheated on their wives, if any.

I know: John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, Newt "Three Times Lucky" Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bill O'Reilly, Bob Dole, George Bush Senior, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzennegger, Gary Bauer, and Dan Burton.

Getting divorced and remarrying is not cheating.

No, but having an affair and then getting divorced -- that is cheating.

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, back in the topic that Jack built.

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

'pubs are perverts - I'm sure not defending them.
Unlike the underpaid trolls here.
Posted by: razorboy

Underpaid? dude anyone paying these foobs for the lame ass shit they post is being ripped off.

Posted by: klyde on October 2, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

I think you meant vow and cheating but I make typos all the time

Ok on this I do have to confess. My typing is a tad less than professional grade and my spelling not much better but even so that was exceptionally stupid.

I'm not blaming Clinton for anything other than what he did. He did cheat on his wife constantly and that makes him a pig. Especially having a child and knowing the potential devastation to the children in a family torn apart due to infidelity. I've seen it and if there's a God there will be a place in hell for those people who have done this to their kids.

The pigs among us, this is my definition, are those who take these kinds of maritial risks which expose so many innocents to such long term damage. The evidence is that Bill Clinton cheated on his family every day of his daughters life. He's a pig and so is everyone else who has done the same thing.

I don't have much opinion on childless couples with a different set of rules mutually agreed to. The marriage vow is critical as a family vow. How a childless family may wish to amend their vow is their business. Any man who would priortize his sex life over his kids is scum.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Great, i'll bet Thomas is compiling a list of all dems who cheated on their wives at one time or another. I like "wheel of in-fidelity" better.

Posted by: American Idiot on October 2, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Where, oh where, has Bob Livingston gone? From "chearing" to becoming a top lobbyist? Hmmm, how chearing pays.

Posted by: stupid git on October 2, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Underpaid? dude anyone paying these foobs for the lame ass shit they post is being ripped off.

Troll work is about quantity, not quality.

Posted by: productive on October 2, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Moyers is a bitter political hack from the LBJ administration. He's no more a journalist than you are.

This Foley thing is driving them batshit insane isn't it?

Posted by: klyde on October 2, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

No, but having an affair and then getting divorced -- that is cheating.

We know two things: Having an affair is sleezy and you are sleezy.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Where, oh where, has Bob Livingston gone? From "chearing" to becoming a top lobbyist? Hmmm, how chearing pays.

From the same Republican sex scandal, whatever happened to that cheating skank Helen Chenoweth? Don't you wonder how some of these Republicans find two people who'll sleep with them?

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Such drollery! rdw wrote: I'm not blaming Clinton for anything other than what he did. He did cheat on his wife constantly and that makes him a pig. ...The evidence is that Bill Clinton cheated on his family every day of his daughters life. He's a pig and so is everyone else who has done the same thing.

Well, for starters, I'd be inclined to wonder what "evidence" rdw is referring to (every day?!) but we know how, um, fertile Wooten's imagination is.

But I take it, Wooten, that by "He's a pig and so is everyone else who has done the same thing," you agree that (h/t Stefan) John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, Newt "Three Times Lucky" Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bill O'Reilly, Bob Dole, George Bush Senior, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzennegger, Gary Bauer, and Dan Burton are pigs as well?

Posted by: Gregory on October 2, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

We know two things: Having an affair is sleezy and you are sleezy.

Yeah, Stefan! You have some damn nerve pointing out all these adulterous Republicans, you filthy messenger! (You missed quite a few, hon.)

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Any man who would priortize his sex life over his kids is scum.

Great, so John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, George H.W. Bush, Henry Hyde, Bill O'Reilly, Bob Dole, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzennegger, Gary Bauer, and Dan Burton, all of whom had children at the time they had affairs and all of whom, therefore, prioritized their sex life over their children are scum.

You heard it from rdw first, kids. John McCain = scum. Rudy Giuliani = scum. Newt Gingrich = scum. Bob Dole = scum, etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory: Well, for starters, I'd be inclined to wonder what "evidence" rdw is referring to (every day?!)

Quite simple mistake, really. rdw assumes that Bill Clinton uses his penis as often as rdw thinks about Clinton's penis.

Posted by: shortstop on October 2, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

I believe the "C" was meant to complete the name of the new West Palm Beach air charter service. It is an offshoot of AerLingus, the Irish Airline. Foley will be able to provide charter service for other Publicans with similar tastes. "Be sure to fly C__iLingus Air. We cater to the younger set."

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 2, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

I've seen it and if there's a God there will be a place in hell for those people who have done this to their kids.

Wow, so according to rdw John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are going to hell? Wonder how all those values voters will feel about voting for GOP presidential candidates who are, by rdw's definition, hell-bound?

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Potential devastation..yes, agreed. Real damages in this case, I don't see it. Hillary has gone on to be a great senator (imo) and I think that Chelsea has graduated from stanford. I think the everyday of his daughters life is a little over the top. Even Wilt the Stilt wasn't that bad (or good depending on your viewpoint).

Posted by: American Idiot on October 2, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

If a military officer commits adultery, they risk losing their career. Officers get Court Martialed all the time for infidelity. I don't have a problem with it. That little UCMJ restriction got rid of two of the worst commanders I ever had, and I went to the club and got good and drunk both times.

I do not defend Bill Clinton's infidelity. That is his personal life. I don't have to like it, and it certainly is not my responsibility to defend it. I defend his political life, but not his personal. He was my C in C for three years, after the Reagan and Bush presidencies. I can't really judge Reagan as my C in C - I was in ROTC back then, not active duty. But Bush 1? No thanks. (But he was a damn sight better than the shrub. I have been among the Big Red 1 for a few days, I went to visit my boyfriend at Ft. Riley. The officers are agitated if they speak frankly, honestly, and off the record)

If Foley were an officer, he would not merely face termination of his commission. He would also face some rocks at Leavenworth and I would hand him the sledgehammer. That goes for anyone preying on children. Nobody gets a mulligan.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on October 2, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be inclined to wonder what "evidence" rdw is referring to

Gennifer Flowers for one had a 12-yr affair with Slick Willie complete with tapes to prove it. We do know Bill had 22-yr Paula Jones brought up to his hotel room and came out 20 minutes later and they both wre smiling. You can assume Paula was there for the same reasons Hillary thought Monica was there, for counseling. It wouldn't be the 1st time Bill made an ass of her and you.

BTW: making sleezy accusations of a list of republicans makes you the sleeze not them.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

Don't push me! I'm getting hysterical! Don't fucking push me, libs!

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

BTW: making sleezy accusations of a list of republicans makes you the sleeze not them.

No, fucking other women while their wives and children are waiting for them at home is what makes those Republicans sleazes.

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Real damages in this case, I don't see it

It would seem so but a great deal of humiliation and unnecessary pain. Many kids are able to surmount lousy parents. Reagans father was a drunk. That's good for Chelsea and good for Hillary but no excuse for Slick Willie. We all know how devastating this can be on kids. Making it seem like 'no big deal' was spineless of his defenders.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Gennifer Flowers for one had a 12-yr affair with Slick Willie complete with tapes to prove it. We do know Bill had 22-yr Paula Jones brought up to his hotel room and came out 20 minutes later and they both wre smiling.

Even granting your Drudge Report fantasies, you've hardly accounted for every day of Chelsea's life. So dish us out the dirt, Wooten! Surely you weren't letting your mouth write a check your brain can't cash?!

BTW: making sleezy accusations of a list of republicans makes you the sleeze not them.

Of course, making "sleezy", thinly-sourced accusations against a single Democrat is just hunky-dory.

But seriously, Wooten, wouldn't you agree that these adulterous Republicans are pigs? Hyde, for one, admitted his "youthful indiscretions", and Gingrich's daliiances are a matter of public record as well.

Put up or shut up, Wooten. Pigs? Or IOKIYAR?

Posted by: Gregory on October 2, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Cindy Hensley for one had an affair with Big John McCain while she was 25 and Big John was married to Carol McCain. We do know John had 25-yr Cindy brought up to his hotel room and came out 20 minutes later and they both wre smiling. You can assume Cindy wasn't there for counseling. Big John then dumped his wife Carol and their three kids and married Cindy so he could use her family money to jumpstart his political career. It wouldn't be the 1st time the gigolo Big John made an ass of his wife and you.

Posted by: wdr on October 2, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Even Wilt the Stilt wasn't that bad (or good depending on your viewpoint).

I played football on Tuskin playground where Wilt played Basketball. Overbrook would have been my high school but as you can tell I received a high quality catholic high school education. Part of Wilts legend is that it was every day. Part of the mystery of his death is that it was sooo soon was because it was every day. He didn't have any diseases. He just wore out.

Wilt was a single guy and a high quality individual. He was and remains a beloved sports figure in philly.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

The trolls have finally done it. They have got us talking about Bill Clinton's zipper. Folks the topic of this thread is supposed to be Abramoff and to a lesser extent Foley. Slick Willy is history. The other two are real life examples of Republican cover up hypocracy.

Posted by: Ron Byers on October 2, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Judith Nathan for another had an affair with Rudy Giuliani while Rudy was married to Donna Hanover. We do know Rudy had Judith brought up to his mayor's office many times and they came out 5 minutes later and they both wre smiling. You can assume Judith wasn't there for urban renewal. Rudy then dumped his wife Donna and their four kids and moved out of the family home to live with a gay couple. It wouldn't be the 1st time Rudy made an ass of his wife and you.

Posted by: wdr on October 2, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

But seriously, Wooten, wouldn't you agree that these adulterous Republicans are pigs

"IF" true, absolutely!!!!!

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, simple question: is John McCain, who cheated on his wife while he was married and had three kids, a scum and a pig? Yes or no?

Posted by: nova zembla on October 2, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, the Trolletariat sock puppet brigade is really freaked by the damage the Foley scandal can do to the Groping Old Pedophiles (GOP). It has been a while since I have seen this degree of desperation and idiocy within their talking points in their attempts to make this mountain into a molehill as someone already put it. The problem for the GOP here is that this was their man, on their watch, with their leadership covering it up and allowing Foley to stay in place to do this to more young teenage boys. I find this attempt to spin it as minor because there was no physical contact (or at least has not been reported that there was yet, like shortstop I know that these sorts of pedophiles have long histories and his is likely to start showing up thanks to the scrutiny and notoriety this incident is generating) reeks of desperation, especially since by the legislation Foley himself wrote he is a pedophile and committing a sexual crime since the boy was not 18 yet.

Sucks to be forced to deflect and minimize this scandal to the GOP, which also likely accounts for the rank fear and desperation we have all seen here. This is clear cut and it cuts to the heart of the premise that the GOP is the moral party of ethics that they somehow let a sexual predator go unchecked even after his behaviour came to the notice of the GOP House leadership. I said it the first time I commented on this matter and I will say it again, this issue is the perfect wedge to destroy the GOP false image of morality and reliability and trustworthiness for the Dems and they would be utter morons to not take advantage of it. The GOP certainly sees the risks, look at Tony Snow's CNN interview this morning where he played it off as "naughty emails" which he had to walk back this afternoon at the WH Daily Briefing.

The Trolletariat is terrified because they have used false smears (especially sexual ones) to discredit the Dems, now they are facing the potential of a serious sex scandal involving underage children not only by one of their members but also that the leadership of the GOP in the House covered it up instead of doing the responsible thing. This scandal is real, and goes to the heart of being able to trust, and without that blind trust the GOP has lost their biggest defence against those voters starting to wonder whether the Dems and independents have a point about how corrupt and dangerous to the American Constitution the GOP has become over the last decade and especially over the last five years. For a party that convicted a President for having consensual sex with an adult that chased/initiated the relationship and claimed that made him unfit for high office the notion that they would accept a pedophile predator in their own party and cover up his sins demonstrates a level of hypocrisy too big too ignore. This is especially true if you are someone that votes on moral values issues first and that is the core base of the current GOP.

This is bad enough, with Woodward's book and increased focus on the Abramoff scandal also coming into focus in the last weeks of the election cycle the GOP and it's operatives are desperate to somehow neutralize this issue and return things to terrorism where they can go back to scaring people into voting for them, instead of these things which will scare people from voting GOP this time.

Sucks to be Chuckles, his sock puppets and their occasional reinforcements at this blog. What goes around comes around, especially for Chuckles that has shown time and again just how terrified he is of sexuality and how much he sees it as a weapon to discredit voices he dislikes now having to defend through deflection and distraction a predator pedophile GOPer and the leadership which protected him. I LOVE IT!!!

Posted by: Scotian on October 2, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Even granting your Drudge Report fantasies

Don't you realize Paula Jones made the entire impeachment possible? That simple bastard could have settled 6 years earlier for far less money and be done with it. No Paula, No testimony. No testimony, No Monica, No Monica, No blue Dress. No Perjury, No impeachment. No perjury no $800K bribe to Paula to go away and no loss of his law license.

The most interesting aspect was the fact two state troopers provided the tstimony and what kept the story live was an unusually stupid lie by Bill Clinton. Michael Isakoff of newweek vobered this in detail. He has heard there might be a story and went to check it out. Clinton told him he was at the convention where the incident took place but left in the afternoon and could not have been there when Paula said it happened.

Isakoff figured he's check Clintons story and when it checked out he's report him clean and probably not even repeat the rumor. Except he found out Clinton lied about being at the hotel that night and it was a rather poor lie. Clinton was hiding something. It was only then Isakoff knew he had a story. He was able to put Bill Clinton and Paula Jones alone in Bill Clintons hotel room 10:00 PM one night for 20 minutes.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Nova,

"IF" true, absolutely.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

"IF" true, absolutely!!!!!

Why the scare quotes, Wooten? Why are you holding back on condemning your team for the very things you condemn clinton for? Hyde's an admitted adulterer, Gingrich's multiple affairs are a matter of record, as are Giuliani's, as are the others on Stefan's list (one wonders, as always, is Wooten's ignorance delusion or dishonesty? Does it matter?).

You make a claim (Clinton fooled around every day of his daughter's life) that you haven't come close to backing up, and you cling to the out of ""IF" true"?

Looks like Wooten, a loyal GOP soldier to the end, also adheres to his party's moral equivalences. He can't issue the unqualified condemnation he flings at Clinton. There you have it, folks.

Posted by: Gregory on October 2, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Great Political Sign in Drexel Hill, PA

"Our party is not quite as sleazy as theirs"
Vote Republican

And get off that I played football crapola on the same field, blah, blah.

Wilt left that area in 1955 to attend the University of Kansas. I saw him play his first varsity game against Northwestern in late 56. Saw him on campus many, many times. Watched him work out with one of the greatest track teams of all tims. I also had a long conversation with him one night in Glendale, CA in 71. Yes, he was very curteous and an intelligent man.

You did not graduate until possibly late 70 or early 71 from that catholic school where the nuns probably used the ruler on your knuckles for playing pocket pool. Yeah, your education was so great that all you could become in the Navy was the Jolly Green Giant stacker on a supply ship. This is what has qualified you to be such an outstanding military expert.

I apologize to one and all for cavorting with a troll. Never again.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 2, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

BTW:

Woodwood still has a book tour but as of today his timing is looking very unlucky. As it now stands his preaching will be limited to the choir. The prior woodward post has been dead for 24 hours and wasn't much about the book anyway.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

For all you Republicans talking about Bill and Monica or Newt and his string of horny affairs, I would remind you that we are talking about Foley and a 16 year old boy. We are truly talking about sexual predation.

Like Rape, sexual predation is not about sex, it is about power. Consentual sex is irrelevant to the discussion.

More importantly in the Foley case we are talking about the enablers who turned a blind eye to Foley's predation.


Posted by: Ron Byers on October 2, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

3rd paul.

Catholic high schools were segregated by sex. I went to a boys school administered by priest and did once have a 2x4 bounce off my ass. I had nuns in grade school and had my tooth knocked out by one in the 6th grade. It was very loose so it shouldn't count but I never told her that. Those were the days when one did not come home and tell MaMa bear the nun knocked a tooth out because MaMa bear would knock another tooth out for putting a nun to such trouble.

I would not trade my grade school and high school experiences for anything and go to all reunions. Which by the way, you publics rarely have.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

"IF" true, absolutely.

There's no "if" about it. McCain's and Giuliani's adulteries are a matter of public record. They are admitted.

So: John McCain, admitted adulterer: is he a pig and a scum? Yes or no?

Posted by: nova zembla on October 2, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Like Rape, sexual predation is not about sex, it is about power. Consentual sex is irrelevant to the discussion.

Great minds and all that - I said the same thing on another thread the other day.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 2, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

I did my time standing with my arms out and a bible on each palm. Didn't like those people when I had to be around them and don't voluntarily consort with them now.

But I was so used to uniforms I joined the Army.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on October 2, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

So: John McCain, admitted adulterer: is he a pig and a scum? Yes or no?

Nova,

focus in here. it's not hard. If your claims
are true and he's an adulterer then he's a pig.

Since I didn't read the history of either man I'm not going to make the claim.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

"Like Rape, sexual predation is not about sex, it is about power. Consentual sex is irrelevant to the discussion.

More importantly in the Foley case we are talking about the enablers who turned a blind eye to Foley's predation."

Posted by: Ron Byers on October 2, 2006 at 5:25 PM

Yep, that is exactly right, and all those that try to deflect from this here are also enabling predatory pedophilia for the sake of their partisan political beliefs. Too bad those that claim to be the moralists in a society usually turn out to be some of the worst breechers of those moral codes when they think they can get away with it. This man is clearly a predator in his actions, the GOP leadership enabled it rather than do the right thing in case there was any negative blowback for them, and now the online GOP defence operation is spinning desperately for anything that might distract, deflect, and/or minimize the scandal right at the core of their party leadership in Congress. Especially when it is 5 weeks from midterms that already had the GOP on shaky ground.

This shows yet again that for the GOP it is all about their power, even when it comes to sexual predation by one of their own. Power before principles is what the GOP stands for and this scandal is just the ticket to showing this to the GOP base that has been blinded to it by the careful acts of the GOP machine (media and other aspects) painting themselves as the party of principles and integrity (HA!). Given the GOP power lust I suppose this kind of conduct by Foley fits a pattern, same as Hastert's and the House leadership's does by their refusal to do anything, cover up what they knew, and not go looking to see if there was more there which any proper investigation would do. If it took ABC one day to turn up the IMs once they had the original email that the House leadership had been apprised of then the only way the leadership didn't find any of it was that they refused to look.

Hastert trying to claim he does not remember any of these discussions from months ago is not going to wash. This is no minor issue and it is doubtful anyone believes Hastert did not remember a complaint about a GOP House member in inappropriate contact with underage pages. This is not exactly the normal business of a politician, is about children, and Hastert doesn't recall something like this?!? I doubt any parent will believe that one.

Posted by: Scotian on October 2, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Since I didn't read the history of either man I'm not going to make the claim.

Well that's odd. rdw has been an almost encyclopedic fount of (mis)information about the personal histories of both McCain and Giuliani here many many times in the past. And yet now, suddenly, when it comes to their marital infidelities he "didn't read the history of either man." Never read a word about them. Has hardly heard of them. John McCain, you say? Rudolph Giuliani, yes? Sorry, don't know the men.

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Since I didn't read the history of either man I'm not going to make the claim.

Rewriting the Rules
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 12, 1999; Page C1

John McCain was talking about his presidential ambitions when the question came.

"You had an affair during your first marriage," CNN's Bernard Shaw said to the Arizona senator. "The sitting president is being impeached for his conduct with Monica Lewinsky. Should a politician's private acts be part of public discourse?"

"Let me say that I am responsible for the breakup of my first marriage," McCain replied. "I will not discuss or talk about that any more than that. If someone wants to criticize me for that, that's fine."

....In such an environment, media inquiries can't be far behind. CNN's Shaw said he asked McCain about his first marriage after reading press accounts in which the senator acknowledged his infidelity. "Each candidate's situation is different," Shaw said. "My inclination is not to snoop under the candidates' beds but to ask relevant questions about their lives." McCain "responded very succinctly, and that was more than fine with me."

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

rdw has been an almost encyclopedic fount of (mis)information about the personal histories of both McCain and Giuliani here many many times in the past

That's odd because I don't know much except a few headlines about either's personal history nor have I ever been much interested. I rarely mention either man and I detest McCain. Perhaps you have examples?

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Since I didn't read the history of either man I'm not going to make the claim.

Here's some more of "the history" of the man, in McCain's own words, from his autobiography "Worth the Fighting For: A Memoir."

"I met Cindy Hensley in Honolulu in the winter of 1979...I spotted her at a cocktail reception hosted by the CINC and immediately made my way over to her. She was lovely, intelligent and charming, seventeen years my junior...When it came time to leave the party, I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaian Hotel. By the evening's end, I was in love."

In the "winter of 1979" John McCain was married to Carol McCain, and they had three children -- but that didn't stop him from hitting on a girl seventeen years younger than him and taking her back to a hotel the same night they met.

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Not convincing enough for me. Why is this so important? I haven't seen McCain admit anything and I'd need to know which press reports before I can know if the reports are credible. For example if that's Dan Rather's reporting then it's not credible.

It does sound as if McCain is a pig but there's no blue dress here.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

When it came time to leave the party, I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaian Hotel. By the evening's end, I was in love."

Sounds to me you have the goods on Big John. If that's accurate he's a pig.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Having an extremely difficult time reading and understanding your posts - Could you have Fox News reprint them or have O'Reilly transcribe them for either his TV or radio program. Fox and O'Reilly seem so much better at providing many of us with our political education.

I'm sure others on this thread feel the same.

Thanks for your curtesy and cooperation in this matter.

Posted by: stupid git on October 2, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

If that's accurate he's a pig.

I love that he still can't give it up without the qualifer "if that's accurate" -- considering, of course, that this is from McCain's autobiography....

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Git,

You like Fox, too? I especially like their "Political Spin for Dummies" - I mean you know that show is "accurate".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 2, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

he still can't give it up without the qualifer

I give up the qualifier when it's from a source I trust. Stefan, above said I pontificated on McCain and Rudy regularly in the past. That's not true. Therefore I am not ready to take your word for what is in McCain's bio.

I still can't understand why this is so important. I think I like McCainl less than you and most on this post. I consider him to have the 2nd biggest ego in DC next to Clinton and I do not think he's make a good President. I would not vote for him in a primary but being from PA my vote won't matter.

I do think Romney would make a good President and would gladly support him. If in November 2008 my choice is Clinton or one of these three it's very easy.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

More importantly in the Foley case we are talking about the enablers who turned a blind eye to Foley's predation.

The entire House Republican leadership may have to claim alcoholism is responsible for their poor oversight.

Posted by: Hostile on October 2, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

Therefore I am not ready to take your word for what is in McCain's bio.

Hahahahaha!

Just...can't....quite...bring...myself...to...admit...that...my...heroes...are...bad

Keep breathing. You can get there. Let go of the fantasy world, and live in the light.

Posted by: craigie on October 2, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

myself...to...admit...that...my...heroes...are...bad


Craigie,

You need to learn how to read. I've already said I detest McCain. His a vain, egotistical, little man. Think that might eliminate him from hero status?

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I've already said I detest McCain.

Well, if you detest him, I must like him more than I think I do.

Posted by: scrutiny on October 2, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

rdw here is your ass. You can have it back now, take it in your hands.

Posted by: this thread on October 2, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if you detest him, I must like him more than I think I do.

Well the press does fancy him as a maverick and he does hate GWB. Those two things have to make him somewhat palatable to libs. He might be the most interesting one to watch. He's not going to win the GOP nomination. But if he comes even a little bit close he just might go independent because the press will try to convince him he can pick off moderates and even some liberals not able to vote for Hillary.

I suspect he finishes 3rd well behind Romney and Rudy. I would not be shocked to see a Romney-Guliani ticket versus McCain-Graham versus Clinton-Warner. In this race Clinton would be 3rd.

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

No! The beautiful dream can't be over! Can't...let...go...

Posted by: rdw on October 2, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not going to gang up on the Bush loyalist while he's down. Aparently, that's what GOP congressmen are for.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on October 2, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

That's awesome that Moyers will be returning to PBS. Thanks for the heads-up, Kevin!

Posted by: DanM on October 2, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

That's odd because I don't know much except a few headlines about either's personal history nor have I ever been much interested. I rarely mention either man and I detest McCain. Perhaps you have examples?

Sure, here are some examples...y'know, reading the comments below it seems that for someone rdw "detests" and whom he rarely mentions, he sure does seem to have an obsessive interest in the guy....(note: emphases mine. Misspellings, atrocious syntax and grammar, and detachment from reality rdw's).

John McCain for President!! Big John stood in the eye of the storm and supported Bush on this. Last week he voted FOR extending tax cuts. Over the next 18 months the Alito/Roberts will roll back partial-birth abortion, affirmative action, kelo (gov reach to condemn private property for commerical development) and the feds use of the commerce clause to interfere with state issues. All this will accrue to John support of GWB on conservative judges & justices.... How does President McCain sound?
Posted by: rdw on February 22, 2006 at 9:28

Your party is screwed. You cannot stop Hillary in the primaries and she cannot win nationally. She's the one person who will ensure McCain gets the GOP nomination. Big John will crush her.
Posted by: rdw on February 8, 2006 at 8:23 AM | PERMALINK

McCain is already a very appealing figure and his war record cannot be attacked. America has known his life story for 30 years. The image is set in concrete. It would merely make the attacker look like a chump...McCain has always taken the exact opposite tack. He's always claimed, "I'm no hero"....
Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

This is also how/why McCain can suddenly get the needed religion on taxcuts to please the base. John is very well positioned if he continues to acknowledge the base.
Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

McCain will only be a year older than Reagan so age will not be an issue in the GOP primaries. I'm not sure what you mean by pandering to the 'stay the course' crowd but if you mean the conservative base you are wrong. McCain has been consistently to the right of GWB on this all along. This is one of the few time he hasn't been pandering. It is clear he is working hard to attract the base. It could not be simpler. He cannot win in the GOP primaries unless he has the base on his side. For some strange reason in 2000 he thought all he needed was the press, liberals and independents. He learned those groups can only hurt him in GOP primaries. We know from his recent support for the tax cuts he's learned the lesson well. Far from being an obsolete position conservtives form the largest single voting bloc in the country and that's not changing. It's even more critical for McCain in 2008. Beside age he has a perfect opportunity in runing against Hillary. The gift is there for the taking.
Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK


IN 2008 Big John will still be sucking up to the MSM after having passed tax cuts, fighting hard in the GWOT and spending cuts and managing the breakthrough that put Roberts and Alito on the Supreme court. Big John is back in the conservative fold. Plus the good people of the South are shrewd. They're not just selecting the candidate they most prefer. They are selecting the candidate most certain to beat Hillary. It all polls John trounces her. He's always dominated the middle and now owns them. Once he gets conservatives he's in.
Posted by: rdw on February 22, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK


Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Therefore I am not ready to take your word for what is in McCain's bio.

Here's a tip. Go to Amazon.com, look up McCain's bio. Then click on the link to "search inside this book" and type in "Cindy Hensley." Read pg. 32, and presto, there's the passage! No need to take my word for it at all.

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a tip. Go to Amazon.com

Sorry Stefan. We all know that Amazon.com is Soros-funded smear site with the sole purpose of encouraging reading, the gathering of facts, and other seditious activities.

We're watching you.

Posted by: Faloofa on October 2, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

That's odd because I don't know much except a few headlines about either's personal history nor have I ever been much interested. I rarely mention either man and I detest McCain. Perhaps you have examples?

Remember, these posts below are about someone rdw claims he "rarely mentions," whom he's "not much interested in," and whose personal history he doesn't know much about:

McCain is perfectly positioned for 2008. Even those conservatives still pissed at John will see Hillary on the other side. That makes voting for John a duty. 2001 - 2016 Bush - McCain.
Posted by: rdw on March 3, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

McCain gets respect for spending 6 years as a POW honorably. Just being a figher pilot and getting shot down commands respect as a person with drive, ability and courage. He never trashed his fellow troops or his country. He's never caried himself as a hero and has always been modest regarding his service. I can guarrantee you no one will attack McCain on his service. Certainly not a Clinton.
Posted by: rdw on March 3, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

McCains war hero status is about his character. It's about the kind of person he is under pressure. It has nothing to do with Iraq. We all want a President we can admire. McCain is a guy we can admire and respect.
Posted by: rdw on March 3, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

McCain is beloved. He has very, very high favorability ratings on his service. Attacking that would be pure suicide. No politician will do so. No politician will associate themselves with anyone else who does so. The MSM will not help and the conservative blogs won't. The liberal blogs just don't have the pull. The man spent 6 years of his life in a POW camp for his country. You simply cannot take that away or criticize him on it.
Posted by: rdw on March 3, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

John is in a great position. He doesn't need to pander. He's an authentic pro-life social conservative. He's always been solid on spending. He supports keeping the current tax cuts. He's very strong on defense. He's been very good on judges. He was very weak on campaign finance reform but it's a dead issue.
His biggest strength is he beats hillary. If John can't get them to vote for him Hillary will.
Posted by: rdw on March 4, 2006 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2006 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK
Well the press does fancy him as a maverick and he does hate GWB. rdw 7:57 PM
This doesn't look like hate. Nor has McCain every stuck to his guns in any fight with Bush; like Arlen Spector, he always caves which should put an end to the misplaced "maverick" label. Posted by: Mike on October 2, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

from: http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/

Someone was sharing the plans to attack Iraq nine-months before Bush made his push for Authorization...the emails between Abramoff and the White House indicate that this may have happened.
From: Jack Abramoff
To: 'octagon1'
Monday, March 18, 2002 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: Sunday
"I was sitting yesterday with Karl Rove, Bush's top advisor, at the NCAA basketball game, discussing Israel when this email came in. I showed it to him. It seems that the President was very sad to have to come out negatively regarding Israel, but that they needed to mollify the Arabs for the upcoming war on Iraq. That did not seem to work anyway. Bush seems to love Sharon and Israel..."

Posted by: Mike on October 2, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

What a weird and wondrous thread!

Both Charlie/Thomas1 and rdw drop-kicked through the goalposts of disgrace.

Can you beat that?

(Many thanks to studly regulars cmdicely & Stefan. Mike too.)

Posted by: obscure on October 3, 2006 at 6:30 AM | PERMALINK

I could be the actor who played said Architect -- that's at least possible, isn't it?

Posted by: Roquefort Moon on October 3, 2006 at 6:40 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Only had to go back 7 months to find me posting on McCain. How long did that take? let me see, 5 post, 4 on the same day, 1 a day later. Obviously whatever Kevin had posted was something about McCain and the 2008 election. and then 2 in Feb and 2 more in March.

And all of those personal nuggets about McCains personal life. Like his war hero status. And.....??????????????? Oh that's it? I guess I really dug deep there didn't I? No one new John McCain was a POW.

That would represent less than 1/2 of 1% of my posts. As I said. I rarely post on McCaon and I don't go into his personal life EVER!

BTW: It is interesting at that time McCain was a front-runner. Bush has forced him to take difficult positons and now Guliani has moved in front of him and by a rather wide margin. In addition Romney has emerged as a very strong candidate for the conservative wing of the party.

McCain is going to have a hard time beating either. In fact a likely scenario for each is that liberals trash McCain and Guliani for their personal lives and Romney gets the nomination. McCain wouldn't do VP and Romney would not want him. Guliani probably would. He's got more money than God from the speakers circuit and is getting border while Romney would give him real clout. Rudy would make NYS competitive and probably give Romney PA and Ohio.

The fact is Democrats need to carry NYS and CA by very wide margins to win nationally. Rudy would make that impossible. Rudy's great strength on terrorism and crime would make this a dream team.

Posted by: rdw on October 3, 2006 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

Nor has McCain every stuck to his guns in any fight with Bush; like Arlen Spector, he always caves which should put an end to the misplaced "maverick" label

Trust me, John hates George and with some passion. The pose is pure political calculation. The press really had McCain thinking he would win in 2000. The press understands conservatives about as well as they understand climatology. They are clueless. John was bitterly disappointed at getting crushed.

The fact John has caved is proof of GWBs deft political skill. He keeps on winning and you twits still think he's the dumb one.

Posted by: rdw on October 3, 2006 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with what you said earlier.

Posted by: Alex on October 4, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

english amatuer porn vvj english amatuer porn http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/english-amatuer-porn.html
amatuer pictures of girls vvj amatuer pictures of girls http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/amatuer-pictures-of-girls.html
japanese free amatuer sex clips vvj japanese free amatuer sex clips http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/japanese-free-amatuer-sex-clips.html
live amatuer sex cams vvj live amatuer sex cams http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/live-amatuer-sex-cams.html
denver women amatuer vvj denver women amatuer http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/denver-women-amatuer.html
free amatuer dog sex pics vvj free amatuer dog sex pics http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/free-amatuer-dog-sex-pics.html
picking up amatuer girls vvj picking up amatuer girls http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/picking-up-amatuer-girls.html
amatuer kansas porn vvj amatuer kansas porn http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/amatuer-kansas-porn.html
couple amatuer porn vvj couple amatuer porn http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/couple-amatuer-porn.html
amatuer porn mpeg vvj amatuer porn mpeg http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/amatuer-porn-mpeg.html
uss amatuer porn vvj uss amatuer porn http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/uss-amatuer-porn.html
real amatuer women movie clips vvj real amatuer women movie clips http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/real-amatuer-women-movie-clips.html
girl porn amatuer vvj girl porn amatuer http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/girl-porn-amatuer.html
virus free amatuer porn vvj virus free amatuer porn http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/virus-free-amatuer-porn.html
free teen amatuer porn vvj free teen amatuer porn http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/free-teen-amatuer-porn.html
amatuer sex vidz vvj amatuer sex vidz http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/amatuer-sex-vidz.html
oral amatuer sex vvj oral amatuer sex http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/oral-amatuer-sex.html
amatuer indian girls pics vvj amatuer indian girls pics http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/amatuer-indian-girls-pics.html
free amatuer sex galleries vvj free amatuer sex galleries http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/free-amatuer-sex-galleries.html
phone sex amatuer vvj phone sex amatuer http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/phone-sex-amatuer.html
search amatuer wife gallery sex vvj search amatuer wife gallery sex http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/search-amatuer-wife-gallery-sex.html
amatuer porn tryout video vvj amatuer porn tryout video http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/amatuer-porn-tryout-video.html
amatuer tryouts sex vvj amatuer tryouts sex http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/amatuer-tryouts-sex.html
porn seattle amatuer vvj porn seattle amatuer http://amatuer.bluesauce.com/porn-seattle-amatuer.html

Posted by: english amatuer porn on October 5, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly