This scandal is a real page turner, that's for sure...

Tucker Carlson and Dana Milbank have both reported rumors that a third page scandal is coming, this one involving a Congressman and a 16-year-old girl.

Kleiman link is busted, who is it?

Link is fixed now. But we don't know who it is yet.

What was the second one?

Word in the tubes is Jerry Weller, IL-11 (R)

Kevin:

Do you have a hint of the *party* of the alleged other one?

This 100 mil that Rove is unleashing (new WashTimes story) is giving me serious goosebumps ...

Bob

Tucker Carlson and Dana Milbank have both reported rumors that a third page scandal is coming, this one involving a Congressman and a 16-year-old girl.

Probably the lesbian Hillary Clinton going after underage girls just like her husband Bill had sex with a underage Monica Lewinsky. *Snicker*

Archpundit and someone at Dkos are reporting that it is Republican Jerry Weller in IL's 11th.

Al:

Monica was 22 at the time, dorkus erectus.

Bob

Al: Bill had sex with a underage Monica Lewinsky.

Under whose age? Yours? That covers everyone, doesn't it? Monica was 22 when she met Clinton, 23 when she blew him.

Oh, yeah, and the word is that Weller is gay, implying that the page is male, not a 16 yo girl.

No, the next scandal to emerge will be Weller (R-IL), for boinking a 16 year old female page.

Linus:

The second one is Jim Kolbe. He went rafting in the Grand Canyon in the mid-90s with a couple of pages, his sister and some people from the parks department. While he and his sister insist that nothing untoward happened, supposedly he was paying a lot of attention to one page in particular, "fawning over" him and "petting his arm" -- which supposedly skeeved the other page out.

Jim Kolbe's the only openly gay GOP congresscritter.

Bob

Disputo:

Unless the Weller rumor's wrong, and the 16-year-old girl rumor actually refers to *another* congresscritter ...

Curiouser and curioser ...

Bob

A widening scandal can be politically dangerous. All it takes is one Democrat's involvement and it's bipartisan.

Also, I wonder if all news markets report the fact that so far this is a Republican problem. I have seen too many stories that make it a "Congress is corrupt" story.

JS:

I think it's more accurately a "Congressional leadership is corrupt" story (Hastert's office is at the center of it) -- and since the leadership is GOP ...

Couple it with the Ney conviction/sentencing and the Weldon FBI seizure occuring all at the same moment, and it makes it very difficult to bipartisanize this -- unless there's a new underage dalliance by a Dem.

Bob

JS,

How is it "politically dangerous" to discover that a Democrat is sexually powertripped up? It might also be morally dangerous to assume that foibles of the opposition are fair game but one's exact same foibles are not.

Or are you talking about a the rationalization of having the Executive ignore the Congress due to public erosion in that institution?

Bob, what percentage of the voters do you think know what you just posted -- or would understand it if they read it?

Rove claims he will spend $100 million between now and the election. Do you suppose he could muddy the waters a bit?

It might also be morally dangerous to assume that foibles of the opposition are fair game but one's exact same foibles are not.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to be moral relativists, now would we?

BTW, having any luck blaming the Foley scandal on the Democrats?

Real men only are seduced by women over the age of 30. At that point you know if they bleed, they're true-blue virgins. Anything less is just disgusting, like Hitlery blowing Bill.

JS:

I'm trusting you're not a concern troll.

I made reference to that piece upthread, as you'll recall. Yes, it makes me nervous. But the best innoculation against that BS is what happens in the MSM news cycles. That's why scandals like this are, unfortunately, important.

I think people understand courtroom convictions and FBI agents outside a congresscritter's office, JS.

Just the kind of video that Fox and CNN find irresistable.

And they most assuredly understand the lure of underage sex for powerful men as well.

Bob

parrot, I was cautioning fellow-Democrats not to necessarily expect that any widening of the scandal would continue to involve only Republicans. Because I thought that news of such widening was being received as being "politically" good for Democrats.

No, I did not imply, or say, or believe, that any kind of crime is worse when committed by Republicans; and I think all crimes should be prosecuted regardless of the politcs of the perpetrator.

JS:

How in blazes can you make that assumption?

Bob

Al, you're a real charmer. Strange, though, that you don't know that you're a walking advertisement for the utter moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the party you represent. But the less you know, the less you know it, I suppose.

Fuck me Jesus!

Which assumption?

Kevin - is this all you Dems have to run on? Really? I can't recall when a national political party was this pathetic.

"Vote Democrat, because some Republicans are homosexuals."

Harry Truman is spinning in his grave.

JS:

That a widening scandal will inevitably pull in Democrats.

Bob

Frazier Going Down:

That's real funny coming from a party that runs on scary foreign brown people and the existential threat of gay marriage.

BTW, how are those polls treatin ya?

Speaking of, you know, political pathos :)

Bob

Bob, where did I make that assumption? Can you quote the passage?

What I said was that Democrats should not count on its not happening.

JS:

Your phrase was "not to necessarily expect."

That's an assumption.

No sane person with a shred of experience in politics "expects" anything but the unexpected in the last leg of a hotly-fought campaign.

But no sane person with a shred of experience in politics borrows trouble, either. Why worry about something that's given no sign of happening? If a Democrat gets caught up (which is of course possible), we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Otherwise, gratuitous worry is unhealthy and demoralizing.

Bob

Why worry about something that's given no sign of happening?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the fact that Foley and Kolbe are Republicans means that any additional congressmen implicated in this are likely to be Republicans as well.

If that's what you are saying, then I disagree. If not, then I'm not sure I understand your point.

JS:

What are your grounds for disagreeing?

Here's why I think it's likely that any more scandals involve the GOP: First off, the GOP is the home of the closet. Gay congresscritters and staffers are much more likely to be closeted, because the GOP's "values" agrenda is hostile to gay people. This is how pervs like Foley can perv around for literally over a decade while being protected by a network of gay staffers whose watchword is discretion at all costs. They counseled Foley and (according to Kirk Fordham) tried to bring the problem up to the leadership. But if the stories can be believed, it had been known that Foley was "weird" around pages since the mid-90s.

Since gay Democratic staffers and congresscritters tend to be open about it, it's much less likely that they're going to partake of closet-case behaviors like Foley and apparently to at least a small degree Jim Kolbe (who took the rafting trip with the two pages when he was still in the closet).

As for heterosexual underage dalliances, I don't think there's a historical breakdown by party. Sure there was Clinton with (young adult) Monica -- but also Phil Crane with a 17-year-old girl (he didn't survive his election).

Anyway -- you'll need to argue some kind of grounds for feeling comfortable that new sleazy liaisons will inevitably include Democrats. My gut read is that there's a much less chance of that than with more Republicans.

Bob

JS:

And Phil Crane, you'll recall, was a Republican. He was censured alongside Gerry Studds in 1983 for a liaison that happened in the early 70s.

Bob

qd铃声 来电铃声 经典铃声 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片

Wasn't that Dan Crane, not Phil Crane?

John in Nashville:

You may be correct; I just went by memory and it's failed me before, so ...

Bob

Well Bob that's a fascinating analysis, though a bit too complex for me to base political expectations on. Still, I appreciate your taking the time to explain your thinking.

I would only like to point out that "not to necessarily expect that any widening of the scandal would continue to involve only Republicans", which is what I said above, is very different from "new sleazy liaisons will inevitably include Democrats", which is what you claim that I said. Do you see the difference?

""Vote Democrat, because some Republicans are homosexuals.""

Homophobes like you need to learn the difference between "homosexual" and "abuse of power on the underage."

"Vote Democrat, because some Republicans are homosexuals."

Not homosexuals -- closeted, self-hating bathhouse glory-hole addicts and chickenhawks. In both senses of the word.

plunge, who here said "Vote Democrat, because some Republicans are homosexuals."?

The only one I can find is another critic of the Democrats, setting up a straw man, as you are trying to do. Can you (or the other guy above) find anything in what Kevin wrote to justify your accusations?

You read too much Rove.

JS:

Well, I'm not interested in splitting semantic hairs, so I'll concede the point.

But I'm completely in the dark about what you base your expectations that there may be some Democrats caught up in the scandal.

Please explain why you seem to feel that way.

Thanks,

Bob

brooksfoe:

Word.

Bob

Please explain why you seem to feel that way.

Since I don't accept the reasoning that sexual predators are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats (or vice versa), I see the political affiliation of any possible newly exposed congressperson(s) as a coin toss. And, getting two heads in a row is no guarantee that the third toss will also be heads.

I think we've beaten this dead horse pretty well for now -- so it's over and out for me.

rmck1:

Turd.

Noah

JS:

You don't accept the reasoning, but you've provided no argument, just a truism that sexual deviance knows no political party. I submit it's a tad more complex than that (which brooksfoe seems to support), and you balk at the "complexity," not the reasoning itself.

This smells kind of concern trollish, to be honest.

There's no question there's a higher correlation of deviant behavior among people with strong incentives to deny parts of themselves. I don't think it's an accident that the only two names to have been revealed were both closeted gays at the time of the accusations. And there are, without any question, more closeted gays in the GOP than in the more open and accepting Democrats.

So until such time as names emerge, there's simply no reason to assume or even worry too much whether Democrats are going to get caught up in it. It takes a peculiar kind of sexuality to be an adult man and risk all by sexually fixating on teenagers. Psychology would expect this more from sexually repressed moralists or those in denial about their sexuality than from people who are otherwise comfortable with sexuality.

As for garden variety affairs? On that score, I think the odds are indeed entirely 50/50. But people don't consider affairs much of a scandal anymore -- and a Democratic infidelity is not going to tip the scale and make the page scandal bipartisan -- only a Democrat going after pages and/or underagers.

And this I see as unlikely for the reasons I've laid out.

Noah:

Troll.

Bob

And there are, without any question, more closeted gays in the GOP than in the more open and accepting Democrats.

This seems to me to be highly questionable. A closeted gay is, by definition, a gay who is hiding his/her sexual preference. How could anybody on this thread possibly have an accurate count -- broken down by party -- of closeted gays in Congress?

You're making the assumption that because the Democratic party is more pro-gay than the GOP, it follows that closeted gay politicians would be more likely to be Republican. But this is a leap in logic, and doesn't necessarily follow. There may be plenty of gay people who are closeted for professional or family reasons who nonetheless are liberal in their political leanings, and who indeed may support the Democratic party precisely because they hope its position on homosexuality eventually comes to prevail, and makes it easier for them to come out. Moreover, there are different degrees of "closetedness". There surely have to be a few members of Congress whose close friends and family know they're gay, but whose homosexuality is not widely reported or known to the general public (or their constituents).

Foley's activities were aided by a GOP congressional culture of carefully looking the other way. After all, Foley was a successful candidate and fundraisers who had funneled millions of dollars into Republican warchests. You don't let someone like that go unless you have to, even if there are those -- well, unpleasant -- rumors. Or even direct reports that you decided not to follow up on.

Democrats are fallible people, too, but the protective umbrella has been over the GOP for the last twelve miserable years and you're not likely to find Democrats taking shelter under it.

Of course Al is correct that Monica was underage.

In Al's bizarro world, no woman under 70 with any sanity remaining will hit on him. If Kevin turns 48 and has beautiful domesticated cats, does Al turn 48 and have very rabid ferrets?

As well stated by others already, the Foley SCANDAL is about far more than his behavior toward pages. But, interestingly, you have to SEARCH our "liberal media" to find even an understanding of that...course the SEX is always more titillating to REPUGS...they really aren't supposed to think or talk about it OUT LOUD...just whatever they can GET or GET AWAY WITH behind "secret" doors! It's not GODLY!!! So we hear about the gayness and the e-mails...not the fact that, again the public is being manipulated by the TALK FAST and get in all the TALKING POINTS Repugs...like Portman now on Washington Journal trying to continue spinning the YOU SHOULD FEEL BETTER about the economy meme that Bush probably believes when he reads his investment portfolios!

Down goes Frazier: is this all you Dems have to run on?

since october-1st:

GOP congressman foley resigns...

GOP white house asst. susan ralston resigns - due to connections between the white house and convicted felon GOP lobbyist jack abramoff

GOP congressman bob ney pleads guilty

GOP former fda chief lester crawford pleads guilty

and..

october isn't over yet...

But, according to that extremely "liberal" CNN, Reid's failure to dot the i or cross the T is indeed the news of the decade. They sort of morphed from Monica to Harry.

speaking of portman...

2005 budget deficit was 318-billion...

2006 budget deficit was 296-billion...

how is that cutting the budget deficit in half..

as promised?

One thing that drives me up the wall with regard to sexual accusations is how frequently someone can be ruined by a well-timed accusation without any chance at due process. Also the due process itself isn't so reliable anymoe because of he said/she said modifications of the law that have taken away far more civil protections from innocent people than domestic surveilance ever did.

Out here in Washington they are pushing hard for a "one strike" law on sex offenders. Problem is, no physical evidence of any kind is required for a conviction, nor can alibi evidence save you, because when the allegations involve children it could have happened anytime or anyplace. All that is necessary is that the child seems to remember it when prompted by someone.

Probably the lesbian Hillary Clinton going after underage girls just like her husband Bill had sex with a underage Monica Lewinsky. *Snicker*
Posted by: Al

Al, you've just got to try harder. Come on, if you're going to be the house troll, you've got to do better than that!

First of all, Hillary sits in the Senate, you know, the chamber with 100 members, 2 from each state? Reports allude to a congressman, who sits in the House of Representatives. Next time, say Nancy Pelosi. Your masters must be way embarrassed.

Mike Cook,

I do not often agree with you, but all one need remember is the infamous McMartin case in LA. Lives shattered and there are still well meaning parents living in denial over the damage they wrought.

If Carlson is reporting it, it must be about a Dem.

You'd think that the Dems would actually be running on a platform, instead of chortling about FoleyGate or Senator So-And-So getting outed.

You have to admit, as a national party, the Dems are pathetic.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the fact that Foley and Kolbe are Republicans means that any additional congressmen implicated in this are likely to be Republicans as well.

If that's what you are saying, then I disagree. If not, then I'm not sure I understand your point.

Platform? When the world is on fire, you put out the fire first, then worry about what to build in its place.

The GOP cannot put out the fire because they are fanning the flames.

Until we know the truth about what is going on in Iraq, we cannot fix it.

Also, DEMS are not heard by our current media. They are shut out of committee meetings and just barely allowed into the chamber every day.

Continue to chortle and snicker about the randy exploits of a do-nothing nobody from the backwaters of Florida, liberals. We will still defeat you on election day. You're broke, you're confused, and you don't have much longer before you're all stabbing each other with the long knives.

In fact, a little bird told me that you might actually lose seats in the House and Senate. Think about that--think about how you have lost the expectations game three weeks before election day.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah!

Your uncle Norman says hello, liberals. And you wonder why you're all scared of me.

I saw a Republican congressman (NJ?) on TV last night, and the first thought in my head was that anyone with a face like that has some bad habits. This is in reference also to what JS says above: "Since I don't accept the reasoning that sexual predators are more likely to be Republicans." You are assuming it's _reasoning_ that leads us to the conclusion that they are predators. It's not. You just have to look at their faces. George Orwell wrote that every man of 50 gets the face he deserves. They deserve their faces of predators. I'm not surprised their are more in the pipeline.

NYTimes had a story in which some Republican congressinsect denied that Trandahl's exit from the House Clerk post had anything to do with the scandal. Which is probably true. But the way the story put it, the source said something like, "It's not true that he vanished in a poof of smoke."

A poof, eh?

I always thought it was a puff of smoke.

Shorter AL

23 year old Monica Lewinsky (girl)
16 year old male republican page (young man)
14 year old raped Iraqi (woman)
16 year old female republican page (vixen)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the fact that Foley and Kolbe are Republicans means that any additional congressmen implicated in this are likely to be Republicans as well.

No, but I'd say the fact that the leadership is Republican means that its likely that any additional congressman that the leadership has been covering for will also be Republican.

Tucker's still on TV? I didn't know that! Thanks for the update.

He was censured alongside Gerry Studds in 1983 for a liaison that happened in the early 70s.

No, actually, while Studds liaison happened in the early 1970s, Crane's was more recent when the censure occurred, I think 1980 or so. As I recall, the revelation of Crane's recent affair led to the digging that uncovered Studds'.

Booby:

I saw a Republican congressman (NJ?) on TV last night, and the first thought in my head was that anyone with a face like that has some bad habits....[t]hey deserve their faces of predators. I'm not surprised their are more in the pipeline.

And you can look into the eyes of a man and see his soul? Thank the Creator that we are still a nation of laws. If liberals had their way, they would be peering at the faces of their tormentors and identifying the guilty without that pesky little detail of actually having evidence of a crime.

Bah! For shame!

And you wonder why no one votes for you!

Your uncle Norman says hello, liberals. And you wonder why you're all scared of me.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Scared of you? Hah! Hardly. We are, however, uneasy around you in the way one is uneasy around a drifter walking the streets mumbling to himself.

In short, Normie, we're uneasy around you because you're batshit crazy.

It's Jerry Weller.

I guess this explains today's George Will column discussing how awful Bill Clinton is.

But I'm completely in the dark about what you base your expectations that there may be some Democrats caught up in the scandal.

The real scandal isn't that some Congressmen pursued underage pages ('twas ever thus), the scandal is that the Republican congressional leadership, in particular Hastert, Boehner and Reynolds, knew about this and actively colluded and conspired to cover it up for partisan political gain --- which they did not and would not do for a Democratic congressman.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the fact that Foley and Kolbe are Republicans means that any additional congressmen implicated in this are likely to be Republicans as well.

Unless you believe that Denny Hastert and Tom Reynolds conspired to cover up sexual misconduct by a Democrat, -- and if you believe that, well -- yes, any additional congressmen implicated are likely to be Republicans.

Norman Rogers wrote: "And you wonder why you're all scared of me."

No one is scared of you. You are an ignorant dumbass who likes to publicly embarrass and humiliate himself by posting stupid, idiotic bullshit on a blog.

Down Goes Frazier:

What is so delectable about this is that Democrats are not "running on" it, but pubs are running from it (all Hastert can do is bumble around), and they have to run because they have, over the last several years, been so hysterical about sexuality.

Seminal Anal Cyst:

So you agree with Booby that the appearance of a man's face reveals him to be a criminal in the absence of evidence? Would you tell a judge that you convicted a man of a crime because he looked guilty and had beady little eyes?

One would think you would come down on the side of the rule of law and attack your little friend Booby, but because you are consistently unhinged and enraged, you attack your uncle Norman.

And you wonder why people hold their nose when they have no choice but to vote for you.

About time we had a heterosexual sex scandal. I'm still waiting for the powerful female politician hitting on the studly young male page or intern. Won't somebody please step up?

Bob M: "the first thought in my head was that anyone with a face like that has some bad habits"

Norman: "And you can look into the eyes of a man and see his soul?"... "the appearance of a man's face reveals him to be a criminal"

Calm down, fella. It's not the eyes; rather, it's the fat and pudginess that reveals bad habits. I'm older than the Repub fella and I don't carry that pudginess in my face. And it doesn't reveal him to be a "criminal"; it reveals "bad habits". Learn to read, fella.

When you look at Karl Rove's face, what do you see? As George Orwell said, and he was a wise man indded, a man of 50 gets the face he deserves. Poor Rove, IMHO.

Which brings me to your face? This discussion of faces is a touchy point with you. :-)

If you look the way you communicate here, well, ..... you must be a Repub.

Well, Norman, we can tell you are mad simply by looking at your posts.

Booby:

Which brings me to your face? This discussion of faces is a touchy point with you. :-)

If you look the way you communicate here, well, ..... you must be a Repub.

I am 64 years old, I stand 6 foot three and I weight a hundred and seventy-nine pounds. My jaw is square and my back is straight as a steel pole. I walk five miles per day and I have green eyes. I can knock a man down with one hand and I can kick a man down three flights of stairs without breaking a sweat. Mother said I looked like Montgomery Clift but I rather think that I look a bit like Lee Marvin in my old age, as my hair has gone completely white.

Is that enough information for you? One thing I can tell you is that I'm not your type, you pervert.

"One thing I can tell you is that I'm not your type, you pervert."

Wow. Take a pill, old guy. First, you go around the bend and assume all sorts of things about what I said, and now you assume something about me personally. Over the Internet, even.

And you expect people to listen to you? I bet you are 5'6'', 180 lbs, no muscles, all pudginess, and that pervert mark excited you so much you had to throw it in.

Sorry for going off topic, Kevin, it does relate, for I think we can see certain attitudes shared by conservative trolls, Repub politicians and sad little dreamers here. I think moderate Repubs should see what their party has in its midst.

Booby:

Sorry for going off topic, Kevin, it does relate, for I think we can see certain attitudes shared by conservative trolls, Repub politicians and sad little dreamers here. I think moderate Repubs should see what their party has in its midst.

Yes, you went off topic to try and cruise for a little man meat, didn't you? And I called you on it. Well, I'll have you know that I am what I say I am and your sexual fantasies about short fat men notwithstanding, be advised, sir: I am not your type. Now go away and stop interrupting my conversations with people who are here to listen to what I have to say to them.

And I'm cross with you because this was posted on another thread where it did not belong. Stop wasting my time with your inanities, sir.

And I'm cross with you because this was posted on another thread where it did not belong. Stop wasting my time with your inanities, sir.

Isn't it nice to see Norman Rogers seethe?

Still waiting for the mainstream media to pick up the story of George W. Bush's homosexual dalliances with Victor Ashe. I wonder how long they would have sat on the same facts abot Bill Clinton?

"The second one is Jim Kolbe."

Thanks Bob. The only action I got in the Grand Canyon was a hairy skunk who nuzzled my face in the pre-dawn hours. I went to sleep in the car.

(The skunk didn't spray in case you're wondering.)

"Yes, you went off topic to try and cruise for a little man meat"

Yuck. What a mind! I bet the face matches it.

It's shameful how Democrats are engaging in gay-bashing just to win an election.
Posted by: mhr

Mere Hapless Rightard is right! Gay bashing is the Republicans' job!

I am 64 years old, I stand 6 foot three and I weight a hundred and seventy-nine pounds.

At 6'3 and 179', you're not knocking too many people around. I think you ought to buy yourself a Happy Meal.

And, at 64, you're logging on to blogs and trying to pick fights with people? You need to grow up, dude.

"Mother said", sounds like another Norman, oh, I don't know...Bates! Yeah, that's it! Except, that Norman is only slightly less batshit crazy than you.

You Lost Brain Alright:

And, at 64, you're logging on to blogs and trying to pick fights with people? You need to grow up, dude.

No, I pick my fights down at the mall like everyone else. This incident occurred in the parking structure. A young man had parked too close to my Escalade. I waited, and waited, and when he appeared, I had words with him and ended up kicking him down three flights of stairs. Wheelchair and all, I might add. It was rousing good fun, and it reminded me of graduate school.

You may think I'm not a big man, but in actuality I am quite fit and have thick legs. My arms are a bit thinner nowadays but my legs are quite sturdy.

And, no, I'm not your type either, sir.

Jasper:

>> And there are, without any question, more closeted gays in
>> the GOP than in the more open and accepting Democrats.

> This seems to me to be highly questionable. A closeted gay is,
> by definition, a gay who is hiding his/her sexual preference.
> How could anybody on this thread possibly have an accurate count
> -- broken down by party -- of closeted gays in Congress?

Accurate count? That's a strawman.

> You're making the assumption that because the Democratic party
> is more pro-gay than the GOP, it follows that closeted gay
> politicians would be more likely to be Republican.

Yes.

> But this is a leap in logic, and doesn't necessarily follow. There
> may be plenty of gay people who are closeted for professional or
> family reasons who nonetheless are liberal in their political
> leanings, and who indeed may support the Democratic party precisely
> because they hope its position on homosexuality eventually comes
> to prevail, and makes it easier for them to come out.

Sure. Former NJ governor Jim McGreevey is probably the most notorious
recent example of that. But here's the thing: Some gay people are
attracted to the GOP ideologically (self-reliance, economic issues,
libertarian elitism) just as some are to the Democrats. The Log Cabin
Republicans exist for a reason. But it's only the GOP that has made
gay-bashing and strident sexual moralism into a political issue. So
not only is it harder to be openly gay in the GOP -- but overt denial
of sexual libertinism is a big part of the image the GOP cultivates.

> Moreover, there are different degrees of "closetedness". There
> surely have to be a few members of Congress whose close friends
> and family know they're gay, but whose homosexuality is not widely
> reported or known to the general public (or their constituents).

That's true. It was an open secret his whole political career that
Mark Foley was gay. His wealthy Gold Coast Florida district didn't
much care. But he was limited by it; he didn't seek the Senate because
he was afraid he'd be outed, he brought drop-dead gorgeous women to
parties. His ostentatious closeting was something of an inside joke.

Do I think he'd behave this way as a Dem in a wealthy Dem district?
You can't strictly answer this, of course -- but I'd tend to doubt it.

But here's why a widening page scandal is more likely to entangle
the GOP: If Mark Foley sat in his office chatting up local gay
teens ouside of the government, then it would be entirely his own
problem and hard to turn into a party-damaging political weapon or say
that Democrats would be any less inclined to have members like that.
But he didn't -- he preyed on teen pages who were protected by a
GOP apparatus, and the political issue involves a potential coverup
by this apparatus. Would the GOP-dominated page board or a GOP
Clerk of the House be inclined to cover for a "creepy" Democrat,
after a few pages brought in their "weird" emails over the years?

I don't think so. And therein lies the politics of this issue.

Bob

Norman:

You had better desist in writing messages like that, my good man, else we all begin to suspect that indeed you are nothing more than a parody -- perhaps by a scrawny, pasty-faced MBA student blowing off his economics thesis with wish-fulfillment fantasies :)

Reminds me of the Norman post I read who claimed he had to "slow down" on the fine wine and aperitifs because he was on his second liver transplant :)

Bob

Shitty twit:

You had better desist in writing messages like that, my good man

Blow it out your little ass, sir. I do what I please and you'll stand aside while a better man does great things.

Reminds me of the Norman post I read who claimed he had to "slow down" on the fine wine and aperitifs because he was on his second liver transplant :)

One of the many "spoofing" posts done by that whiny cunt Pale Rider and his little friends, you being one of them. My liver is a sound as ever and I have never required major surgery.

What else do you have, el twit? I'm tired today and you libs have put me in a foul mood.

Norman:

If you pushed a guy in a wheelchair down three flights of stairs in a mall parking lot -- you'd be awaiting trial for felonious assault even if you had something approximating a good reason for it.

Which *isn't* to say that that little scenario of yours wasn't pure comedy gold :)

Bob

Mr. Shit Consuming Twit:

If you pushed a guy in a wheelchair down three flights of stairs in a mall parking lot -- you'd be awaiting trial for felonious assault even if you had something approximating a good reason for it.

Poor fellow. This is America. A 64 year old man who has given several hundred thousand dollars to the Republican Party can pretty much do whatever he wants without fear of repurcussion.

Kevin's original post referred to a possible widening of the scandal, and linked to two sources that said new allegations might involve "a Congressman and a 16-year-old girl."

Seems to me that this renders irrelevant any arguments about closeted homosexuals having a higher probability being Republican (besides the fact that such arguments are dubious in themselves).

As to the fact that the scandal is mostly about the complicity of the GOP leadership -- that's exactly right as of now. But new allegations of sexual impropriety need not involve the GOP leadership's knowledge. And in that case the Republicans would have a much easier time framing the issue as congressional, not GOP, corruption.

Which is why my original point was that, politically speaking, Democrats should not assume that new revelations will necessarily make things worse for the GOP.

Norman:

Tell that one to Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, that Safavian dude -- did I miss anybody?

Like I said, Normster -- pure comedy gold :)

Problem is -- you write stuff like that a few times and people stop taking you seriously :(

But keep it up, anyway! We LOVE IT :)

Bob

Shitty Twitty:

Tell that one to Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, that Safavian dude -- did I miss anybody?

How rich do you think those men will be once they've served their time in Club Fed, the minimum security prison for white collar criminals? (Disclosure: thanks to some nefarious dealings with a Swiss banker and a lucrative stock options trade executed on the Nikkei, I was asked to be a guest of Club Fed for 17 months and it was easy time, I assure you.)

While you scratch and claw for money to buy ramen, these men will have pensions, retirements and millions to enjoy. And you wonder why the system puts you in a state penitentiary for stealing hubcaps and puts me in a facility without a fence around it. Hah!

JS:

This is why I think you're a concern troll.

It's completely pointless to speculate on the scope of the scandal without having new allegations to chew on. Why borrow trouble if the only possible purpose it can serve is to make Democrats nervous?

If the allegation involving the 16-year-old female page indeed traces to Weller (yet another Republican) -- then, once again, the question becomes what did the leadership know about this and when did they know it?

If it involves some garden-variety sexual tomfoolery not connected to the government -- then it's a wash and doesn't even *comment* on the current debacle currently under examination by the House Ethics Committee.

Bob

JS, do you read any other blogs -- including Wonkette? Because the very strong rumor is that this new Congressman caught up in the scandal is a GOP-er from IL. So, really, you might as well quit your "probability" posts -- the reality, apparently, is this once again cuts against the GOP.

Norman:

If you pushed a guy in a wheelchair down three flights of stairs in a mall parking lot -- doubtless there were witnesses.

And that's not exactly white-collar crime. There'd be community outrage just as there would be if that happened to a bellhop in the Park Avenue Sheraton.

This society has a low tolerance for violent sociopaths regardless of their income bracket. In fact, the wealthier they are, the more cathartic a vigorous prosecution and draconian sentence is for the plebes.

Call it bread and circuses if you like. But criminal prosecutions like this are an important way to keep the lid on class resentment.

If you did that, Norman (and I don't believe for a second you did) -- it may be possible you wouldn't even get bail.

Bob

demtom, no, I don't read Wonkette, and I was commenting on what Kevin wrote.

rmck1, your diatribes on closeted homosexuals being Republicans were obviously irrelevant, since this possible enlargement of the scandal involves a heterosexual case. When you figure out that "not necessarily" does not mean "inevitably", and that ad hominems do not add to the logic of your arguments, perhaps we can talk again.

And, no, I'm not your type either, sir.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

The one true thing you've written, Normie. You certainly are not my type, wrong gender, far too old, and, well, batshit crazy.

JS:

They weren't diatribes; they were reasonable, unheated examination of the culture of the GOP vs the culture of the Democrats regarding sexual morality in general and homosexuality in particular. My guess is that the majority of readers here agree with them.

As for argument ad-hominem: If you're not a concern troll -- why are you making a concern troll argument?

The GOP has built its recent success around mobilizing "values voters" and channeling the outrage at Clinton's indiscretion with Monica. Since they're the party of sexual morality, it's no great stretch to say that the GOP has the most to lose credibility-wise in a sex scandal.

While you keep talking about hypothetical Democrats, the facts support allegations against two more Republicans: Kolbe and Weller.

So your point, such that it is, has been made. Democrats may be implicated. As my ex-fiance the theatrical stage manager might say: We have the note.

Bob

Still waiting for the mainstream media to pick up the story of George W. Bush's homosexual dalliances with Victor Ashe. I wonder how long they would have sat on the same facts abot Bill Clinton?

(Disclosure: thanks to some nefarious dealings with a Swiss banker and a lucrative stock options trade executed on the Nikkei, I was asked to be a guest of Club Fed for 17 months and it was easy time, I assure you.)
Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

You sound like a "Bush Pioneer" then.

White-collar Terrorist. An Economic Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Well, at least we know what "your type" is:
Prison-shower bung-jumping.

And you wonder why you're all scared of me.
Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Not you, Norman. Your stinky breath.

It's shameful how Democrats are engaging in gay-bashing just to win an election. mhr at 10:46 AM

Thank the Creator that we are still a nation of laws. …: Norman Rogers at 10:53 AM

you libs have put me in a foul mood. Norman Rogers at 3:23 PM

It'll be a Democrat. Look at Carlson's face as he says it. He can barely contain his glee.

He knows the republicans are this close to turning the scandal around. It might even get them off the hook.

Sean Riley:

Barely contain his glee? Tucker smirks at *everything*.

Sorry, you're wrong on both counts. 1) FoleyGate will have legs through the election. Hastert and Reynolds haven't testified yet -- and *somebody's* lying. The odds are on Scott Palmer, and that's pretty bad news for Hastert if true.

and 2) Rumors have the person to be the Republican Wells.

Bob

Sean Riley:

Thursday's reason the mediathon is still on:

I haven't seen the TV news, but it's not difficult to imagine. Today we saw an old Catholic priest, commenting from a *Greek island* of all places, about his "inapproprate" but not "sexual" relationship with Mark Foley.

We get to hear about nude sleepovers back massages, skinny dipping and a shared Jacuzzi.

Can somebody say Neverland? Put these lurid if soft-core images together with people's lingering revulsion at the pedophile priest scandal, plus all the denial and victimology from one and/or both of them (either Foley is lashing out at this old former dear friend to give himself the mantle of victimhood -- "why is he trying to destroy me in my old age?" -- or the dear father is lying through his cassock) -- and this spells tabloid ratings bonanza.

I'm sure it was another Fox/CNN day of all-Foley-all-the time.

Bob

助听器协会网
天津助听器之家
中国助听器与耳聋康复网
中国助听器大全
斯达克助听器北京验配中心
丹麦助听器上海验配中心
湖南助听器网
名品助听器（南京）直销店
助听器价格查询网
北京助听器第一验配中心
上海助听器大世界
助听器中国聋儿康复网
中国助听器信息网
中国助听器折扣网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
中国名牌助听器直销网
国际品牌助听器(北京)直销中心
安徽助听器资讯网
助听器（广州）验配中心
贵州助听器信息港
中国聋人信息助听器交流黄页
广东助听器之窗
聋儿家长助听器交流网
广西助听器验配网
江苏助听器特价网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
甘肃助&#