Republicans Are Apparently Claiming Foley Promised Not to Do it Again!!

[LadyT]

Who broke Monica?
Who broke Rather / fake memo?
Blogs. Let's look at ALL the evidence. Let's nail anyone who aided and abetted this guy (from both sides of the aisle). A promise to NOT do it again carries no water with me.

Who knew what, when and how?

(Riiiight the dems DIDn"T know about this, but it drops juuust before an election) Hey T, what to buy a bridge?

Strawman.

Where did I say definitively that the dems didn't know about it? Questioning your source DOES not equate to "the dems DIDn"T know about this"

 

[uscitizen]

To some blogs are facts when they support their views
If they oppose their views they are just lies

 

[TRGLDTE]

Strawman.

Where did I say definitively that the dems didn't know about it? Questioning your source DOES not equate to "the dems DIDn"T know about this"

Let's wait to see the hard evidence.

 

[LadyT]

Let's wait to see the hard evidence.

I'm waiting on the evidence that would preclude you so say this to me:

"(Riiiight the dems DIDn"T know about this, but it drops juuust before an election) Hey T, what to buy a bridge?"

which implies that I stated that the dems didn't know anything. Or perhaps you can clarify what you meant?

 

[TRGLDTE]

No, seriously, where are you hearing these things from... because I have yet to hear any Democrat knew ahead of time about this!

On this mrning's radio program was Eric Ericson, the director of redstate.com. He indicated that one of his sources was saying that the Dems had been sitting on this as well. It is an allegation, and I reported as an allegation. I did not claim it as fact, but I did ask you to consider the implications of such a thing if true.

IMO, this being dropped into the press with October Surprise timing supports the allegation I heard this morning.

 

[LadyT]

To be fair, if they (republicans and democrats) had only seen the initial note that broke the story I don't think you can hold them accountable for anything. The initial letter we saw in the press was questionable but nothing you could in fairness ruin a person's career over. If anyone knew about the other notes that were quite explicit, I think those individuals should be held accountable.

 

[klaatu]

And I'm asking you what you're basing that on? Do you have some sort proof? I say of a different mindset because as exampled with Lieberman, dems and liberals are more likely to hold their congressman accountable for bad decisions. I say a different mindset because I've seen dems and liberals en mass put partisan politics aside and give support when support was needed. You haven't provided any examples of why you feel that the dems would still support a candidate at 33% with that kind of record. If it came out your a$$, just say so. We're all entitled to our opinions, but I ask that you not present it as fact when you have nothing to back it up.

You are using Lieberman as an example? Give me a friggin break on the rhetoric will you? You are using the bush White House and painting that Pic with a broad stroke on an entire political party. I can recall Newt being held responsible by being pressured to step down by his own party. I can also recall Nixon getting a visit from Goldwater and being told ...enough is enough.... step down.

You know lady T.. each party has its day in the sun where they can gloat and pat themselves on the back.. this day in age it is the Dems.. they can sit back and watch their political enemies fall apart ... but you really need to cool down on the spin..because neither party holds the key to proverbial Door on integrity.... if you think yours does.... you are as naive as those 33% of Republicans who still think we went into Iraq because it was the right thing to do.

 

[Cypress]

Ah, yes, discard the idea because you don't like the source.

I wouldn't put a whole lotta stock in redstate.com, or michaelmoore.com. Not unless its been corroborated by mainstream sources.

Noboby likes pedophiles. If democrats covered for foley, they should resign.

 

[klaatu]

On this mrning's radio program was Eric Ericson, the director of redstate.com. He indicated that one of his sources was saying that the Dems had been sitting on this as well. It is an allegation, and I reported as an allegation. I did not claim it as fact, but I did ask you to consider the implications of such a thing if true.

IMO, this being dropped into the press with October Surprise timing supports the allegation I heard this morning.

If it was as well known as many say it is... Im sure there are several Democrats who knew about it.

Sometimes it is a blessing in disguise when things like this happen. Maybe we can weed out a few of these bad seeds.

 

[LadyT]

You are using Lieberman as an example? Give me a friggin break on the rhetoric will you? You are using the bush White House and painting that Pic with a broad stroke on an entire political party. I can recall Newt being held responsible by being pressured to step down by his own party. I can also recall Nixon getting a visit from Goldwater and being told ...enough is enough.... step down.

You know lady T.. each party has its day in the sun where they can gloat and pat themselves on the back.. this day in age it is the Dems.. they can sit back and watch their political enemies fall apart ... but you really need to cool down on the spin..because neither party holds the key to proverbial Door on integrity.... if you think yours does.... you are as naive as those 33% of Republicans who still think we went into Iraq because it was the right thing to do.

You postulated that

"I will say that if there was a Democrat in office ..using your same outline(rhetoric)...yes... there would still be 30% give or take a few points that would blindly support him/her..... "

Even when nixon was plagued with the war and watergate, his approval rating was around 23 or 24% NOT 33%. I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming up with 1/3 particularly given the fact that dems and liberals have in recent years been a lot more responsive than cons.

 

[Jarod]

Sure, if the situation were fliped and it was a Democrat who had already resigned, AND the leadership had NOT covered it up... and I did not like the Republican canidate, I would still vote for the discrased Democrat, because I would know he was already out and I would hope for a good person to fill the void!

 

[LadyT]

Sure, if the situation were fliped and it was a Democrat who had already resigned, AND the leadership had NOT covered it up... and I did not like the Republican canidate, I would still vote for the discrased Democrat, because I would know he was already out and I would hope for a good person to fill the void!

I'd vote 3rd party in that case. I couldn't pull the lever for someone like that.

 

[Jarod]

I'd vote 3rd party in that case. I couldn't pull the lever for someone like that.

Even when you knew the pratical effect was to get you the canidate most likely to truely represent your views?

 

[uscitizen]

If democrats covered for foley, they should resign.
//

Nope they should be impeached on criminal charges.

 

[LadyT]

Even when you knew the pratical effect was to get you the canidate most likely to truely represent your views?

I think I'd feel much better about myself voting for a Green than a perv. I just couldn't do it. But I think you've shed some light for me on why that steady 1/3 exists despite the facts.

 

[Prakosh]

On this mrning's radio program was Eric Ericson, the director of redstate.com. He indicated that one of his sources was saying that the Dems had been sitting on this as well. It is an allegation, and I reported as an allegation. I did not claim it as fact, but I did ask you to consider the implications of such a thing if true.

IMO, this being dropped into the press with October Surprise timing supports the allegation I heard this morning.

The only Democrat on the ethics committee was not told about this, and was not allowed to attend the meetings where this was discussed. I am not sure that you can make a claim unless you can substantiate it in some way. I have always heard that simultaneity is not evidence of cause and effect. As a science oriented person you must be aware of this axiom no?????

 

[Damocles]

LOL. The reports say it was such common knowledge that they warned the poor chaps to avoid this guy. I seriously doubt that it somehow eluded the Ds.

 

[klaatu]

You postulated that

"I will say that if there was a Democrat in office ..using your same outline(rhetoric)...yes... there would still be 30% give or take a few points that would blindly support him/her..... "

Even when nixon was plagued with the war and watergate, his approval rating was around 23 or 24% NOT 33%. I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming up with 1/3 particularly given the fact that dems and liberals have in recent years been a lot more responsive than cons.

Lady T.. you are doing yourself a diservice by implying that Democrats are above blind support and it is only Republicans who are guilty of it... because this is what you are saying... and then you have the nerve to say that Im guilty of postulating.

By the way... I said 30% ..give or take a few..

 

[LadyT]

Lady T.. you are doing yourself a diservice by implying that Democrats are above blind support and it is only Republicans who are guilty of it... because this is what you are saying... and then you have the nerve to say that Im guilty of postulating.

By the way... I said 30% ..give or take a few..

I didn't say that all dems or liberals weren't above partisanship. I said that relatively speaking dems are more apt to look above and beyond partisanship more so than cons. Even by your own example (Nixon) support for him during the vietnam war and watergate shrunk to 23% which is 30% less than your original assertion that you pulled out of your a$$. And I would call that a substantial decrease in support from the 33% you originally said.



By the way you said:
"Correct.. and their would be 33% of Dems that would do the same on behalf of the Democrat Party... "

once again, based on history and recent events, I believe this to be untrue.

 

[klaatu]

I didn't say that all dems or liberals weren't above partisanship. I said that relatively speaking dems are more apt to look above and beyond partisanship more so than cons. Even by your own example (Nixon) support for him during the vietnam war and watergate shrunk to 23% which is 30% less than your original assertion that you pulled out of your a$$. And I would call that a substantial decrease in support from the 33% you originally said.



By the way you said:
"Correct.. and their would be 33% of Dems that would do the same on behalf of the Democrat Party... "

once again, based on history and recent events, I believe this to be untrue.

I said 30% give or take a few points. Using 33% was merely working off of your original statement. In the grand scheme of things ..Arguing over few % points is trivial on your part .... and attempting to make an unproven claim that dyed in the wool Democrats are less in lock step with their Party than republicans... roflmao!! You made the original statment .. and you have given a vague representation of history. My God... look at the Democratic support for Eugene Mccarthy and Bobby Kennedy after Johnsons Vietnam quagmire... and in them days the Dems did pretty good in Congress as well.
You may say that .."well republicans supported VietNam more so than Dems" ... in large part that may be true.. but the fact remains the Vietnam Quagmire transpired under a Democrats watch...and many Democrats chose to stick with their party and remain loyal .... despite the fact that McGovern got his clocked cleaned.
Its utterly ridiculous to make the claim that on the whole Democrats are somehow more politically enlightened than Republicans .... in fact this type of blanket statement supports the view held by many.. that the leadership of the Democrats are made up of a bunch of self absorbed elitists.