Democrats & Liberals Archives

It's Not About Foley

President George W. Bush, at his recent news conference said that we have more important issues to talk about besides Foley, issues like the economy and terrorism. He’s dead right. I would also include corruption. The topic of corruption, as epitomized by Mark Foley, has the virtue of including economic corruption, terrorism corruption, as well as governance corruption and religious corruption.

What does Foley have to do with corruption? Take a gander at what right-wing commentator Robert Novak said:

A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running.

Republicans in public are against homosexuality and against gay marriage. So when Foley wanted to quit and become a lobbyist, Republicans should have welcomed this development. Instead they warned him that if he did not run, the Republican leadership would see to it that he would not be effective as a lobbyist. Foley caved and ran. Republican leaders are each pointing at other Republican leaders. And Foley is in big trouble. Corruption galore!

OK, let's talk about the economy. Republicans made a deal with K-Street lobbyists: lobbyists will keep Republicans supplied with money and Republicans will write bills to please the lobbyists. This worked so well that now the Dow is zooming. Business is reaching new records. But the lot of workers is deteriorating. They are faced with part time jobs, temporary jobs, insecure jobs, stagnant-wage jobs, jobs that are outsourced, jobs with no healthcare, jobs with no pensions. Republicans corrupted the system for the benefit of business and at the expense of workers.

Terrorism? The story is one of corruption from beginning to end. The intelligence was corrupted in order to build a case against Saddam Hussein and to invade Iraq. Republican leaders corrupted Congress with this phony intelligence to get the war resolution. They lied about conditions in Iraq to keep the public on board. Lying and secrecy maintained the fiction of the "war on terror."

With the badgering slogan of the "war on terror" Republicans corrupted our system of government. They insisted that our system of checks and balances needed fixing. They were in favor of a more powerful executive, one who could keep us "safe" by calling any citizen an "enemy combatant" and incarcerating him without recourse to judicial scrutiny. To keep us even "safer," they made torture and warrantless spying legal

And let's not even get started on the sleazy Abramoff case, where Republican Rep. Bob Ney is the latest to plead guilty.

Which brings me back to moral values. The Foley case demonstrates to the world what Republicans mean by moral values. Today, I hear about a new book written by David Kuo, the man who had worked for the Bush administration on faith-based activities and left in disgust to write "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction." According to the L.A. Times:

A new book by a former White House official says that President Bush's top political advisors privately ridiculed evangelical supporters as "nuts" and "goofy" while embracing them in public and using their votes to help win elections. .... In the book, Kuo, who quit the White House in 2003, accuses Karl Rove's political staff of cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain. It assails Bush for failing to live up to his promises of boosting the role of religious organizations in delivering social services.

Republican corruption everywhere you turn. The public was fooled for a long time. But Foley-gate made people see that their wages and salaries are not increasing, that our troops are getting killed and maimed, that our glorious system of government is being destroyed and that religion is merely another weapon in the battle for political control.

Mark Foley is the symbol for all Republican corruption. Everybody talks about Foley. We should talk about corruption.

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 13, 2006 7:14 PM
Comments
Comment #188055

Paul, yup.
It’s just a cesspool from top to bottom — and don’t you think almost everybody is catching a whiff of their horrible stench by now? I think so.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 14, 2006 1:06 AM
Comment #188059

you’re right—although sounding a bit self rightous—

Most of gov’t is corrupt to some degree—it’s too bad this thread will just turn into a whole bunch of self rightousness—

It’s you folks, no, it’s you, no, it’s you,no, no, no, it’s you—

If we’d quit quibling over who’s worse—and call each and every one of them to account—our grand kids just might look back and say, yeh, they where all right, they kicked ass and saved this country.

Some are making an effort, but far too few

Too bad—it really sucks

Posted by: cw at October 14, 2006 1:39 AM
Comment #188062

“sounding a bit self rightous”

BS!

Ever since the Newt we’ve had to stare into the face of arrogance. Arrogance is a much better substitute for ignorance than it is for intelligence.

Bush & Co. have only served to ………

Ah can’t finish

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 14, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #188068

Go on—I have’nt heard, watched or read, the wing nut (left or right) litany of hate for, uh, a few minutes—

Whatever works for you—

Posted by: cw at October 14, 2006 2:55 AM
Comment #188071

CW - Hate. Yes I’m proud to say I hate. I hate things that don’t work and I hate it when others do not seem to be troubled by this long list of ineffective and self serving governance spewing out from the White House and Congress. And Paul - nice article !

Posted by: Richard Keil at October 14, 2006 5:05 AM
Comment #188076

What Foley did was wrong. But the same guys who defended Studds and Franks really have no standing to be outraged. They can pretend to be shocked, shocked, but we all know they are playing at it.

The difference is that Foley is out for writing emails. Studds stayed in for 20 years even though he actually seduced an underage boy.


So let’s all agree. Pervs like Foley and Studds should not be in high office. When powerful men seduce pages or interns, it is always bad. We should consistently oppose such things.

I will remind Dems of this in the future when they do it again.

Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2006 6:52 AM
Comment #188083

CW…

You wanted it…so here it is.

Yes, let’s get to the bottom of this Foley thing. Let’s get him out of Congress…if that is what is needed.

But let’s also continue to purge the “Culture of Corruption” by kicking out Reid (used influence to turn a $400,000 investment into a $1.1 windfall). Let’s kick out anyone who puts $90,000 in their freezer. Let’s kick out anyone who has murdered someone and not been tried for it.

Unfortunately, the “Culture of Corruption” is not just a Republican issue. It’s an issue that cuts across all party lines.

As soon as we all understand that, the better off we will be.

Posted by: Jim T at October 14, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #188088

Jim T,

Well said! I’m reminded of a George Carlin skit where he says that people who don’t vote have more of a right to complain about the sad state of government because they aren’t empowering all of the crooks in government. How many of us would trust a politician to babysit our child? I’m guessing no one. It sad that we trust them with our future.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 14, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #188091

Corruption in both parties, yes indeed. The republicans have taken it to a higher more professional level.

Paul: The republican leadership that ultimately convinced Folly (Foley) to stand for reelection was none other than Carl Rove and yes, the incentive was his k-street job. They all fear Carl. They know he can put the screws to them if he so chooses.

None of the bribes that Bob Ney took were for his own personal gratification and the life style he was leading proves it NOT.

Posted by: jlw at October 14, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #188092

When will a real American hero(ine) stand up and topple this “corruption is king” government we have? And I’m not talking about sex scandals…they will be with us as long as people are breathing…I’m talking about the lies that persuade people to vote against their own interest and that of their country…get rid of those who snicker at the people, the workers, the poor behind their backs while living it up on our dime.

Where is our real American hero(ine)??

Posted by: Lynne at October 14, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #188124

Why is it whem a republican gets caught in a sex scandal its such a bad thing. When a dem does it its only about sex and its nobodies businness. can you libs please explain that to me. at least when a republican gets caught he resigns.

Posted by: Thomas at October 14, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #188132

“Why is it whem a republican gets caught in a sex scandal its such a bad thing. When a dem does it its only about sex and its nobodies businness.”

Is the difference between consenting adults, and adults preying on minors a concept you have a tough time with?

Posted by: Observer at October 14, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #188134

“But let’s also continue to purge the “Culture of Corruption” by kicking out Reid (used influence to turn a $400,000 investment into a $1.1 windfall).”

There isnt a shred of evidence Reid did anything wrong. Land values in Nevada during that time period more than doubled. Anyone with land made similar profits to what he did. My house nearly tripled. Cons are breathless thinking they have something to distract from their scandals, but, alas, the basket it empty.

Posted by: Observer at October 14, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #188138

Many of the writers above seem to believe that corruption is only rampant among politicians. Unfortunately, corruption is found at state and local levels as well and is also alive within individuals who lie on school and employment applications, on applications to feed at the public trough, by school officials and teachers who lie on forms to make themselves look better and in countless other ways.
As God instructed Moses to say to the people idolizing the golden calf…”The people have corrupted themselves”! Corruption begins at the family unit when parents fail to teach their children respect, honesty, morality and love along with other virtues. Don’t place all the blame on politicians we voted for, but rather look to ourselves for the root of the problem. When virtue returns to the family, virtue will return to Washington. When we, as a people, turn our collective backs on the religious foundations that birthed this nation, what else can be expected?

Posted by: Jim at October 14, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #188139

Why is it that when a Democratic Senator murders a human being, he becomes one of the most respected among his Democratic colleagues, but when a Republican Rep sends gay e-mails to a page he’s out on his ear?

Posted by: Duane-o at October 14, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #188147

Jim,

Let me start by saying you are right about culture and power. However, leaders do need to show the way and they are falling down more than ever.

Also, I teach my family and live my life honestly and I am not religious, just a good person raised by good and non-religious parents. It’s about kindness, compassion, love, integrity, and principles which many religions espouse but do not have a stranglehold on. Don’t be so self-righteous.

Also, the foundations of this nation were not based on religion but the enlightenment, in other words reason. Otherwise, the politically religious would still be running around the divinely chosen King George…

Oh, uh right.

Posted by: chris2x at October 14, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #188150

Duane-o,

Are you a charicature or what? I’m afraind to ask but just who murdered who? And it is not about “gay” emails it is about politicians desperately trying to hold on to power that they look the other way regarding a predator. Democrats have not endorsed either of the things you said so stop making things up.

But you are the reason the GOP panders to homophobes while looking the other way regarding a truly dangerous person.

Posted by: chris2x at October 14, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #188168
Are you a charicature or what? I’m afraind to ask but just who murdered who? And it is not about “gay” emails it is about politicians desperately trying to hold on to power that they look the other way regarding a predator. Democrats have not endorsed either of the things you said so stop making things up.

Have you listened to the right-wing radio nuts and Fox “News” lately… they keep misidentifying the Republican Senators who are in the midst of scandels as “Democrats”. In recent weeks, media outlets have misidentified as Democrats several Republicans facing scandal, poor poll numbers.

Have the Republicans gotten so desparate that they don’t even want to identify themselves as Republicans? In New York there are thousands of banners posted for candidates running in November… Half say that their party affiliation is Democrat and the other half (the Republicans) don’t mention which party they are affiliated with.

I know this year most of the voters won’t even be looking at the names… they’ll just be pulling every lever listed under “Democrat”.

Posted by: Pat at October 14, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #188172

Jack,

“The difference is that Foley is out for writing emails. Studds stayed in for 20 years even though he actually seduced an underage boy.”

I hate to bring this up, but the “underage boy” you speak of was over the age of consent, at the time.

The really sad thing is how bad were Studds Republican opponents if they couldn’t defeat a censured Congressman.

Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #188174

Me thinks the wheels are off the gop bus so they are throwing everything and anything aganst the wall hoping something will stick… its so sad but I love it.

Posted by: Jeff at October 14, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #188176

“Why is it that when a Democratic Senator murders a human being,”

Leaving the scene of the accident is murder?
You have proof of your charge, right?
I have a question. Why is it that a republican president can murder hundreds of thousands and still be his parties choice, yet a democratic president can’t even get away with a blowjob??

Posted by: Observer at October 14, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #188177

“The really sad thing is how bad were Studds Republican opponents if they couldn’t defeat a censured Congressman. “

Maybe they can beat him now that he’s dead.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061014/ap_on_re_us/obit_studds_13

Posted by: Observer at October 14, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #188178

Bravo Observer Bravo

Posted by: Jeff at October 14, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #188179

Good points, Rocky. I also think there is a very obvious difference between what Studds did and what Foley was doing. Studds obviously started and maintained that relationship because of mutual feelings of attraction. Whereas Foley was a sexual predator hitting on any and all of the pages who might give him the time of day, and trying to get them to come to his house in DC to drink and take advantage of them, if given the chance.
Big difference there — at least the way I see it.

Aside from that, there is another large difference that Jack is failing to acknowledge — the fact that there wasn’t a widespread cover-up over Studds behavior in general, the way there clearly was for Foley’s shameful antics among the Republican leadership. These “leaders” knew full well that this guy was a sexual predator, but put their politics before the good of these kids.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 14, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #188180

Rocky

When an older man in position of power seduces a 17 year old boy, he is a perv. I don’t care what the legal age says. BTW - the Foley affair boy is also above legal age, which I understand is 16 in DC.

Foley is out of congress. I hear studds has just slipped this mortal coil, so in both cases we are talking academically.

I think we need to be consistent about these things. As you know, I am not a Clinton basher, but clearly what he did would have qualified as sexual harassment. The feminists were on Clarence Thomas like flies on horse manure for allegedly saying there was a hair on his coke can. Those same women defend Clinton for seducing interns.

I have three 20 something interns working for me. I would never think of approaching them in that way and if anyone else did they would have serious problems with me. SOme thing are wrong - always.

Foley, Studds, Franks and Clinton all did wrong. How their mistakes were handled was very differently. Democrats gave up their right to claim outrage.

A good rule of thumb is that if you are 40+ stay away from anybody under 25. The only reason they are going out with you is because you are rich, famous or powerful. It is pathetic. And nobody should EVER approach someone who works for them or whose position makes it difficult to say no. To translate this into everyday speech - all interns and pages are off limits to all politicians.

I am certain that Dems will soon be in trouble for something like this. I expect we will hear lots of rationalizations.

Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #188181

isn’t anyone worried about the impact this will, and has had, upon the pages? all everyone can talk about is the corruption…….those pages are kids…….kids who should not have been exposed to this and they will be affected the rest of their lives. you go to Washington to be a page and what do you get? a horny older man who takes advantage of you. how do you think this makes these kids FEEL?

Posted by: pat allgood at October 14, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #188182

Jack,

“I am certain that Dems will soon be in trouble for something like this. I expect we will hear lots of rationalizations.”

Nowhere in my post did I rationalize or condone what Studds did, I simply stated a fact.

Besides being a perv, Foley is a hypocrite.
Attempting to seduce a page after helping to write the sexual predator laws is reprehensible.

Franks, BTW, was reprimanded, not censured, for attempting to fix his lovers parking tickets.

I think there is a bit of a difference there.

Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #188184

” As you know, I am not a Clinton basher, but clearly what he did would have qualified as sexual harassment.”

Not at all. It is not harrasment to have sex with a willing employee. From all reports, SHE initiated the first contact. Not even the Paula Jones saga was harrasment. If we believe the facts presented, he hit on her, she said no, he never brought it up again, and her claims of damage to her career were thrown out for lack of evidence. She was promoted in fact!
Was Clinton dumb? yes. Did he do anything illegal? no. (aside from the testimony)
BTW, even though the Foley page was of consent age, I believe the law concerning using the internet to lure a minor across a state line doesn’t consider consent age, only if adult or minor.

Posted by: Observer at October 14, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #188186

Jack:
“When an older man in position of power seduces a 17 year old boy, he is a perv.”

How do you know that Studds “seduced” that 17 year old? Since we never had most of the details on that affair, this seems like pure speculation on your part.

“BTW - the Foley affair boy is also above legal age, which I understand is 16 in DC.”

That’s Foley affair BOYS, Jack. It is now common knowledge that there were many — over many years.

“As you know, I am not a Clinton basher, but clearly what he did would have qualified as sexual harassment.”

Monica publically admitted she set out to seduce the president, so how does him taking her up on her offer qualify him for harrassment? It doesn’t. We can certainly call him an adulterer, but not a seducer of innocents.

“The feminists were on Clarence Thomas like flies on horse manure for allegedly saying there was a hair on his coke can.”

There was far more to it than that — and I’m almost certain you know this. Btw, Thomas did rate the sexual harrassment label.
He was in the position of power, while Anita Hill was an underling who clearly did not want the kind of attention she was being subjected to.

“Those same women defend Clinton for seducing interns.”

Because he didn’t. Monica was the seducer. Most women were merely very disappointed in him for being an adulterer.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 14, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #188190

Adrienne

We evidently have a different set of morality.

As I wrote above, I am in a position of power over interns. I cannot conceive of a situation where it would be proper for me to have any type of sexual relations with any of them. If one of the 22 year old women could seduce me, a 51 year old man, I would have to be a real shit. I could have no self respect the next day. No man who does that deserves any respect. It is just bad.

I tell you what, if some old fart did that to my daugter … we own a gun, a shovel and 178 acres or rural property.

You also know that people can tell when someone is on the prowl. I want to teach my interns the business. I want to be able to take them to think tanks. I want them to share their options and ideas. I could NEVER do this if they suspected I was trying to get something from them. Young women (and young men) deserve better from their elders.

The problem with the whole sexual harassment scheme is people with attitudes like yours. Sex is always ambiguous. Who seduced whom is subject to interpretation. That is why you should just NOT do it when you have such a power difference.

And what about sexual harassment by proxy. I have seen young women seduce older guys and then get unfair promotions. Even in Clinton’s case, Monika was seeking and got special access. Would she have seduced him if he had been pumping gas in Hot Springs?

Re Paula Jones, that is just dishonest. A powerful guy asks a woman for oral sex. You say no problem if he goes away when she says no. Don’t you think that would make the woman uncomfortable? Don’t you think some women would feel constrained to say yes?

It just is crazy. Some guy can be sued for creating a hostile environment for telling a dirty joke, but if he outright suggests oral sex everything is fine?

Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #188191

“Let me start by saying you are right about culture and power. However, leaders do need to show the way and they are falling down more than ever.” Posted by: chris2x at October 14, 2006 01:26 PM
Glad you agree with that Chris. I disagree with a mistaken belief that our leaders should be our nations moral barometers. We do not elect them to replace our ministers, rabbi’s or Iman’s. As long as they don’t break man’s law we should not be holding them to God’s law. YOu have pointed out that you became a caring loving person with no religious background and that’s great. I don’t wear religion on my sleeve and don’t expect to be critized for saying where my moral foundation comes from. YOu and I have read different history books when it comes to the foundations of our nation. Are you really expecting me to believe that the first settlers here from Europe had no “enlightenment” or “reason” until our nation was formed? Then suddenly they had this enlightenment and their religious history had no part in forming their opinions and thoughts? Our founders had no problem writing into our sacred founding documents the word Creator. Why do you have a problem with this? Even if you don’t believe in God, he believes in you.

Posted by: Jim at October 14, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #188192
Why is it whem a republican gets caught in a sex scandal its such a bad thing. When a dem does it its only about sex and its nobodies businness.

1) Foley is basically NOT a sex scandal…it’s the coverup by Hastert, Reynolds, etc. that’s the real crime here.

2) Would you care to give any reliable sources and links which lead to your opinion??

Posted by: Lynne at October 14, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #188195

Jack:
“The problem with the whole sexual harassment scheme is people with attitudes like yours. Sex is always ambiguous. Who seduced whom is subject to interpretation.”

Don’t lay this sh*t on me, Jack. I’m not by any stretch an immoral person, and I’m not one to excuse the appearance of immorality or impropriety simply for the sake of convenience.
I don’t think it’s great thing that Studds had an affair with a seventeen year old — but I can at least recognize that when it did happen it must have been due to a mutual attraction between those two. After all, they stayed together for years, and the kid, who was a full grown man when the news finally came out, stood with and by Studds in public after he was censured.

With Clinton taking Monica up on her offer, I have no problem agreeing that it was immoral, but at least Monica was an adult, and it was her making all the overtures.

Neither situation bears any similarity with the actions and obvious motivations of Foley, and I believe that all of you on the right must know it. Foley wasn’t someone looking for a relationship, the guy was trawling for sex among teenagers. He’s nothing but a creep — and one that your whole party protected for political reasons.

“Young women (and young men) deserve better from their elders.”

I agree wholeheartedly. And yet, I am mature enough to realize that sometimes people of disparate ages can and do fall in love — even when it is messy and entirely improper, and appears quite out of line to everyone but them.
But that isn’t what we’re talking about with Foley — not by a long shot.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 14, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #188197

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your response.

The “Enlightenment” I refer to is a common description of that period in history of the eighteenth century and par of the longer “Age of Reason”. Voltaire, Locke, Hume, Jefferson, Hobbes and others believed in a social contract and the natural rights of man versus the divine right of Kings. Liberty and Democracy were borne of these ideas.

Our founding fathers were largely religious but their idea of government did not grow from the Bible. I do not have a problem with you or the founding fathers being religious. I actually believe religion does a lot of good in the world but so can reason and compassion. I did not mean to or would ever question where your moral foundations come from. What I object to is the attempt to make my country seem like it was founded as a Christian or religious nation when it clearly was not.

BTW, my wife is a Christian and in the truest meaning of the word and does not need to make such claims. I love her dearly and although I cannot embrace the larger claims of Christianity I can believe in much of what Christ taught.

Posted by: chris2x at October 14, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #188198

Why is it when a suspicous deal by Reid turns up, it’s no big deal and let’s wait for all the facts to turn up.

But when the Foley problem hits the news, it’s throw everybody out, it doesn’t matter what the real evidence was. They must have known what was going on.

What a double standard.

Posted by: Keith at October 14, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #188199

“Why is it when a suspicous deal by Reid turns up, it’s no big deal and let’s wait for all the facts to turn up.”

We know the facts, it’s a false charge. And it was made by the same jerk who falsely accused Reid of taking tickets to sporting events in exchange for votes — that Reid never gave.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 14, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #188200

Well said, chris2x.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 14, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #188201

Adrienne

And we know that Hastert did not know about Foley being a predator.

I said it it must be so.

Posted by: Keith at October 14, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #188204

There are many complex issues and questions raised here. It is sometimes helpful to take a thoughtful, systemmatic approach. Rienhold Niebuhr wrote a marvelous book, MORAL MAN & MORAL SOCIETY: A STUDY IN ETHICS & POLITICS, that would add much-needed illumination and clariety to our discussion.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 14, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #188205

clariety=clarity … sorry for the typo…

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 14, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #188207

Keith:
“And we know that Hastert did not know about Foley being a predator.”

Uh… who is this “we” you are speaking of?
Hastert claimed he only learned about Foley in late September, but that his aides found out in the fall of 2005, yet for some reason they didn’t tell him. Do you actually believe that? I don’t.
Meanwhile, Hastert’s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, is denying that Fordham contacted him at least three years ago — which contradicts Fordham and another staffer who has backed up Fordham’s claim. Do you believe Palmer? I don’t.
Sounds a lot more like lies-to-save-their-asses to this girl.

“I said it it must be so.”

Yes, and then you woke up, only to find that this warm feeling of omnipotence was only your dog snuggled up next to you?

Posted by: Adrienne at October 14, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #188210

As usual you miss the point.

Posted by: Keith at October 14, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #188211

Adrienne

Even the LA times thought something was fishy in Nevada as far back as 2003

In Nevada, the Name to Know is Reid

Posted by: Keith at October 14, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #188212

Adrienne

“Yes, and then you woke up, only to find that this warm feeling of omnipotence was only your dog snuggled up next to you? “

What the F*** does that mean?

Posted by: Keith at October 14, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #188213

“We evidently have a different set of morality.”

You accused Clinton of “harrasment”, which is a specific legal term.
Now your trying to spin it into a moral position, totally different.

“Some guy can be sued for creating a hostile environment for telling a dirty joke, but if he outright suggests oral sex everything is fine?”

You could sue, but you wouldn’t win. You HAVE to prove that the comments or actions were continued after the subject let a superior know they were unwanted, or that you were retaliated against after complaining.
BTW, my wife is a former EEOC investigator and the law is quite clear.

Posted by: Observer at October 14, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #188214

keith,
Harry Reid represents our state quite effectively. If he did anything illegal, which so far it looks like he didn’t, WE will take care of him.
As for connections, this is a small population state. Everyone is related to someone and politics seems to run in families. Just BECAUSE your related to someone doesn’t mean your dealings with them are illegitimate.
In other words, put up or shut up. When it comes to playing dirty, democrats are mere amateurs compared to the PHD’s in bullsh*t the republicans hold.

Posted by: Observer at October 14, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #188215

“And we know that Hastert did not know about Foley being a predator.
I said it it must be so.”

But to believe that, you have to believe that Hasterts top aides, who he lives with in DC, never once happened to mention such a flammable time bomb of a scandal waiting to go off.
In Reids case, there IS no evidence so far.
He bought the land for a fair price, he transfered it to a LLC, then the land was sold for fair value. The crime is??????

Posted by: Observer at October 14, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #188217

Adrienne

I don’t think you are immoral, but you are inadvertently arguing an immoral position.

By your standard, if Foley’s perv email had found a willing recipient here would be no foul. An old rich guy, according to your logic, can proposition anybody he likes as long he backs off when they say no. And if a messed up young woman makes herself available, he can jump at the chance.

We have too many examples of consensual sex of teachers (or professors) and their students. Sometimes they stay together after the fact. This does not make it right.

You are familiar with the legend of the rape of the Sabine women. According to the story they consented after a while.

Think about the young man or woman who gets a job as an intern or a page. S/he sees all these high powered people and is beguiled by the power. Those in power know that. They should NOT take advantage. I have experience with this. I am not a good looking guy, but I have been in positions that made me attractive. I decided twenty years ago NEVER to take this low road. I consider anyone who does lower down on the morality scale, at least in this instance. It is the responsibility of people with authority to use it properly. You should not look at a responsible job as an opportunity to meet girls (or boys in most of cases we are talking about).

I don’t hold to the idea that everyone must be 100% pure. We could never find such people and lots of things are none of our business. But when faced with situations like Foley, Studds, Franks or Clinton, we should not be so quick to understand and forgive.

You also (re Hastert) hit on another problem. Who should say what to whom and when? People gossip and some people use that gossip offensively. They spread rumors or even make accusations. Sometimes where there is smoke, there is no fire. How sensitive should we be? It is made much more difficult by the equivocation of standards. If I find out some old perv is hitting on a young man or woman, I can tell him to cut it out. But if he has the affirmative defense -that it is consensual -I might find myself embarrassed an in trouble myself. It makes everyone a lot more circumspect. What if the initial contact WAS consensual and then somebody changed her mind?

You may be familiar with game law. You are not allowed to wander the woods with hunting or fishing equipment out of season or w/o the proper permits. Why is that? Because it is so easy to CLAIM innocence unless you are caught red handed (the term comes from actually having blood on your hands.) You are giving sexual predators exactly that kind of protection. They can go fishing and if they get no bites, no foul and even when they do catch some fish, you have to make sure they did not jump into the net voluntarily.

I repeat people should not EVER date people over whom they have significant power or unusual influence. If we make the excuses you do we will catch some innocent people and let lots of the bad ones get away.

Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #188218

Observer

Then why did he never disclose the transfer. He showed the ownership on his disclosure for 3 years after he transferred the property.

Posted by: Keith at October 14, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #188220

Jack,

You keep bringing up Franks as if he had perpetrated some perverse scandal.

Looking at his record, the only “sex” scandal where Franks name came up, he was the victim and was exonerated.

Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #188223

Jack:
“By your standard, if Foley’s perv email had found a willing recipient here would be no foul. An old rich guy, according to your logic, can proposition anybody he likes as long he backs off when they say no. And if a messed up young woman makes herself available, he can jump at the chance.”

Actually Jack, no, no, and no — yet I could see where #’s 2 and 3 would really depend upon the circumstances. The thing is, my standards aren’t the end all and be all in this world. Nor are yours. Let’s face it — despite what we think, it’s not like those things don’t happen anyway — you and I must both acknowledge this, yes? Yet while we don’t and shouldn’t have to actually approve of any of those things, we should still be able to agree that the only thing that could ever redeem such situations would be love.
Can we agree on that?

Truthfully, had I heard at the time about Studds having an affair with a seventeen year old boy (I was busy with school during those years, and actually don’t ever remember hearing about it) I’d have been completely disgusted, and would have wanted to see him lose his Congressional position. But, since the truth only came out ten years after the fact, and because I now know they stayed together for many years, I am forced by that knowledge to view that strange scenario much less harshly. I think that those two must have been in love — though, it also seems to me that Studds should have waited to begin that affair until the kid was an adult.

“We have too many examples of consensual sex of teachers (or professors) and their students. Sometimes they stay together after the fact. This does not make it right.”

Teachers I’d agree 100%. Professors, well, those people are adults. But again, I believe a professor should have enough moral character to wait until the student is out of their class before embarking on a love affair, or a serious relationship.

You see, for me the real dilemma lies in the professional, or as in the examples you gave, the unproffessional behavior being displayed. Children should definitely be off limits always. Love must sometimes be allowed for — as long as it isn’t creepily one sided. And yes, no one should be allowed to use sex as a leg up in life. Though people do. All the time. Some with such spectacular success it is truly mind-boggling.

My point to you is this: just because folks like you and I don’t approve, doesn’t mean this kind of stuff can’t and won’t happen.

Now, if you could please do me the courtesy — quit trying to smear my morals. I’d appreciate it.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 14, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #188227

Adrienne

I really was not trying to smear your morals. That is why I tried to make the distinction between you and your argument.

I do believe we sometimes need to be less tolerant. It is hard to do it make a global standard, but most of us know it when we see it. Even the bad guys know they are wrong. That is why they sneak around and lie when they get caught.

I agree that Foley is a rat. But I have to put Studds et al in the same boat. I do not know why you (or anyone) wants to defend someone like Studds. You could well argue that his bad was compensated by his other virtues, but a man in his position should never do what he did.

The fact that they fell in love later makes no difference. He should not have even approached the kid. Think Sabine women.


Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #188231

“Then why did he never disclose the transfer. He showed the ownership on his disclosure for 3 years after he transferred the property. “

I dont know. But at most, it amounts to a technical glitch. There is no impropriety in the actual transaction or the property deal itself.
Comparing that to a sexual predator hitting on minors is laughable though.

Posted by: Observer at October 14, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #188243

Hi,I get mad about the corruption and
I also get very disturbed about the government giving themselves raises . They have provided themselves with the best insurance in the world. They take off to campaign for themselves and others candidates.
They work for us , that is the biggest joke in the world. They think they are so far above us that they have no ideal how we live.
They do not know us . If you write them a letter , they send back a sign (HAHA )form letter.Never have they said they would do what you wanted them to do. They would think it over carefully then drill for oil in Alaska.And I would bet they never see the letters.
Over all the biggest grip I have is their retirement plans. Why should we pay them and their spouses the rest of theirs lives. They don’t deserve any of that. I know they have to live away from their home towns a lot , well so do road construction people. They don’t pay us to build that highway and get paid until they have to build a new one.
They take money from companies so that they can be a voice for them in the congress and senate. And be damm the little people who pay taxes that pays their salary. They get preferential treatment from law officers , judges . the works.They all need a Hugh cut in pay and put in the social security system just like the rest of the citizen. Are these people better than us ? I don’t think so.
I believe they should get a living salary that they can live on and share insurance or Medicare with the citizens that they work for. They should be allowed to be taken out to dinner with their friends and by their friends. And I am not talking about poor house wages, $100,000. A year to start with a car and special nice government houses, to live in. In a protected neighborhood . A raise any time social security raises they should get the same. But if they were ever caught taking graft money it would automatic that they lose their jobs.They should pay into social security like the rest of us.There should be special bonuses for them , according to how many years they stay in office. God help us if we didn’t have the older more wiser people there.Their salary should top out at $200,000. a year.That is $16,600 . a month.I could live on that with a car and housing paid.They could save like the rest of the citizens and invest in the stock market. That might encourage the Larger companies to lower the salary of the CEO of big business so that the stock holders don’t get cheated.
Also school CEO’s should and coaches should have lower salaries. Our schools are running out of money and can not teach band, music, the arts, because they don’t have the money. Duh ,no they don’t if it is all paid out to the guys and dolls at the top. They should start out just like our junior senators with raises to match social security raises.With housing and a car furnished, or an allowance if they want to live on a high scale, which they pay for.
Why should these people not have to work like the rest of Americans. They are not Gods or people to worship.
They could put up a small sum to get in the pot to run for office and the government ( the people taxes paid for the rest of their campaigns). If they want to run the other persons down running with their allotted money instead of telling us what they believe in, that’s their problems. When they lose they maybe realize they did it wrong.Now their campaign is just a joke.
Something has to give. this country it is to important to give it over to crooks. to run. We need honest and proud people to look up to.Our children need to be able to be proud. to live in America. And out politicians need to be proud of themselves for their honest days work.
I know this is not going to happen unless every citizen puts it to a vote. As private citizens we should be allowed to do this. If they don’t want their jobs, send them home. All the workers in their office should have a pay scale to be paid for their work .And Mr. President should be paid all his expenses and $400,000. a year with social security when they leave office.
Now that is a plan. and the citizens should put it to a vote and if they can’t live on that they go home.We do not need to make these people rich. Because now they think they are so much better than the rest of us. We are just jokes to them.
Sincerely,
Sue McAvoy

Posted by: Suzieq at October 15, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #188245

Observer, maybe so, but it’s also laughable to make the jump “to sexual predator hitting on minors” based on suggestive emails and instant messengers from somenone who apparently never laid a finger on this or any boy sent to someone past the legal age of consent.

Is Foley a sexual predator? We don’t know that. He’s just a creepy old guy who used to be an obscure Congressman but was rightly hounded out of office for doing far less than many of his Democratic colleagues.

But we can be sure that if the potential Senate Majority Leader were a Republican this close to an election, the veil of media silence about dealings as questionable as Reid’s would not be so complete.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 15, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #188257

Here’s my two cents; take it for what it’s worth:

They’ve known about Foley for years. It was a Republican who outed him. That’s right, a Republican. Why? Moral values, maybe?

Right! Let’s be serious.

Check the timing. The same time the Bush regime wipes their asses with writs of habeas corpus, Foley’s name is plastered all over the TV, papers, and internet.

Follow the pretty ball.
No, don’t look at the important stuff!
Look at the ball! It’s shiny. Oooohh!

Wake up, zombies, we have a revolution to fight!

Posted by: pissed off at October 15, 2006 1:12 AM
Comment #188267

What about the corruption of Harry Reid? He failed to make ethics reports on a million dollar tax free sale of property. Then there is his violation of the United States Constitution when he threatened Disney over the P/911 movie.

He is as corrupt as they come.

Nancy Pelosi is as corrupt as they come too. She is a real estate speculator, just like Reid. Hillary Clinton is going to have problems too with corruption over where she and Bill get their wealth from. Hint, there may be a Chinagate looming.

Oh, lest we for get the ultimate and epitome of Democratic corruption, Ted Kennedy. Or have the Democrats forgotten poor Mary Jo Kopechne, who he murdered?

Stop telling lies about the Republicans and we will stop telling the truth about the Democrats.

Posted by: Middle Class Guy at October 15, 2006 3:56 AM
Comment #188280
Heres my two cents take it for what its worth:

Theyve known about Foley for years. It was a Republican who outed him. Thats right, a Republican. Why? Moral values, maybe?

Actually it was the non-partisan “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington” (C.R.E.W.) that outed Foley in early 2003 when they forwarded several of Foley’s inappropriate e-mails to the FBI. The FBI chose not to act on it and open an investigation until it became a full blown scandel.

Whats the difference, Fox News reported that Foley is a Democrat and Rush Limpballs and Bill O’Really have both seized on that opportunity to knock the Democrats by referring to Foley as a Democrat. Check out the Link at Media Matters.

The Republicans have gotten so desperate they don’t even include their party affiliation on their campaign banners.

Posted by: Pat at October 15, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #188282
Stop telling lies about the Republicans and we will stop telling the truth about the Democrats.

Posted by: Middle Class Guy at October 15, 2006 03:56 AM

And what planet do you hail from?

Try getting your news from sources other than Bill O’Reilly and Rush. Maybe you’re just confused… Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice are all Republicans.

My fear is that there are more of you out there!

Posted by: Pat at October 15, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #188284

Jim T said: “Let’s kick out anyone who has murdered someone and not been tried for it.” I thought at first you were referring to Laura Bush.
Immediately I imagined an end to the war in Iraq. Remember when ‘Dubya’ said he would stay in Iraq even if only Laura and his dog thought he was right. So, with Laura out we would only have to deal with the First Dog.
I just can’t remember the last good dog scandal in Congress. Even allowing time for the Congressional cover-up…we could have our troops home by the end of 2007.
There I go again, being too optimistic.
Viv

Posted by: Viv at October 15, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #188297
Paul Siegel wrote: OK, let’s talk about the economy … [the] Dow is zooming. Business is reaching new records. But the lot of workers is deteriorating. They are faced with part time jobs, temporary jobs, insecure jobs, stagnant-wage jobs, jobs that are outsourced, jobs with no healthcare, jobs with no pensions. Republicans corrupted the system for the benefit of business and at the expense of workers.

It’s actually worse than most Americans realize. This illusion of a “good”, “very good”, “just fine”, “goldy-locks” economy is being financed with massive borrowing, debt, spending, and money-printing, that would take centuries to pay down.

Re-electing Democraps or Republicrooks won’t solve anything.

Instead, do this …

Don’t send any campaign donations to the Repblicrooks or Democraps or any incumbents, and don’t [X] check that little box on your tax return to give any money to the presidential election.
Why?
Three reasons:

  • (1) Unless you are rich, and making a vast campaign donation, you are wasting your money, because you can not compete with the tiny 0.15% (the wealthy) of all 200 million eligible voters that donate 83% of all federal campaign money ($2 billion of $2.4 billion in 2004 for all donations of $200 or more).

  • (2) They get plenty of money already. That’s part of the problem. Money in elections makes them rotten, and government rotten.

  • (3) You are empowering the very same irresponsible incumbent politicians that are using and abusing the voters. You are programming them to be bad by rewarding them for being bad. Bad politicians = Bad government

Posted by: d.a.n at October 15, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #188322

Jack, Duane-o, etc.,

What does it say about the Democratic party that you are going back to the 60’s and 70’s for bad behavior by Democrats? The Democrats must be pretty clean.

Besides, “you guys do it too” is a piss-poor excuse for the God Party to try to get away with. No wonder you guys are about to get shellacked.


Posted by: Woody Mena at October 15, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #188323
Some guy can be sued for creating a hostile environment for telling a dirty joke, but if he outright suggests oral sex everything is fine?

As I recall, everything wasn’t fine. There was a multi-million dollar investigation and Clinton was impeached for statements related to the Paula Jones investigation. If the GOP was a tenth as vigilant with Foley as they were with Clinton, he would have been out of Congress years ago. Of course, they don’t get any partisan advantage from picking on one of their own…

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 15, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #188325

Pat

“Actually it was the non-partisan “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington” (C.R.E.W.) that outed Foley in early 2003 when they forwarded several of Foley’s inappropriate e-mails to the FBI. The FBI chose not to act on it and open an investigation until it became a full blown scandel.”

That’s funny. CREW is not a non-partisan group, they are a front group for George Soros and the moveon.org crowd.

Posted by: Keith at October 15, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #188326
Thats funny. CREW is not a non-partisan group, they are a front group for George Soros and the moveon.org crowd. Posted by: Keith at October 15, 2006 04:59 PM

I’m so glad you provided evidence for your statement… Oh No… You didn’t.

Posted by: Pat at October 15, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #188327
As I recall, everything wasn’t fine. There was a multi-million dollar investigation and Clinton was impeached for statements related to the Paula Jones investigation. Posted by: Woody Mena at October 15, 2006 04:45 PM

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to the Senate Investigations Committee regarding sex with Monica Lewinski… he was investigated for accusations Paula Jones made, he was investigated for accusations that he had people murdered, and he was investigated for Whitewater but if you would have read the two sentences on page 68 of the Saturday edition of the New York Times published weeks after the fact, you would have known Clinton was found innocent of those charges.

When Clinton left office he was accused of glueing shut the drawers of the desk in the oval office and that was also found to be George W. Bush’s first lie as the unelected President.

Posted by: Pat at October 15, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #188329

Pat

I belive he lied to a grand jury.

“When Clinton left office he was accused of glueing shut the drawers of the desk in the oval office and that was also found to be George W. Bush’s first lie as the unelected President”

Do you ever wonder why some people wonder don’t take you guys seriously.

Posted by: Keith at October 15, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #188332


From 2004 Newsmax

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a group that last year assisted former Rep. Chris Bell, D-Texas, in drafting an ethics complaint against DeLay that resulted in a mild slap on the wrist for the GOP leader. At last week’s press conference, Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said that DeLay should step down as majority leader.
Not surprisingly, from 1995 to 1998 Sloan served as Democrat minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee under Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Before that, Sloan served as the nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee under Delaware Democrat Sen. Joe Biden.

According to The Hill, GOP research also revealed that Mark Penn, a formed pollster for President Clinton, and Daniel Berger, a major Democratic donor, serve on CREW’s board. Spokeswoman Naomi Seligman refused to reveal the membership of CREW’s board, although she admitted that Penn and Berger are members.

Last year, Berger made a $100,000 contribution to America Coming Together (ACT), a 527 group that was dedicated to defeating George W.Bush in the presidential election, according to politicalmoneyline.com, a Web site that tracks fund-raising. According to records released by the Internal Revenue Service on Monday, March 21, 2005, and obtained by NewsMax.com, Soros Fund Management/George Soros gave the group a whopping $7.5 million in the 2004 election cycle.

Posted by: Keith at October 15, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #188334

Good work Keith,

I guess you’re trying to say guilt by association… Melanie Sloan is not part of ACT but if you put the articles together the way you do something seems inappropriate.

Give me enough time and I’ll put together some articles that make Soros part of the Nazi party.

Posted by: Pat at October 15, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #188337

Pat

Actually if you read his own Biography, he did collaborate with the Nazis in Hungary during the war.

Posted by: Keith at October 15, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #188353

Keith:
Where? Do you have a page number or are you really expecting us to try to find and read his “biography”? I’ll put that on my list right after “The Pet Goat” and “Cooking with Kim Jong-Il”. Come on, if you’re going to say something so potentially libelous, you should at least let us know what “biography” you speak of (I noted you didn’t say autobiography, which would imply he wrote it), who wrote it, and on what page it can be found. I’m sure I’m not the only one who is willing to check sources.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at October 15, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #188355

Never mind…I found what you meant.

He is a Jew who at age 13 posed as a non-Jew to escape death, and posed as the godson of a fascist who delivered deportation papers to other Jews.

What a monster. At thirteen…again thirteen…years old he didn’t want to go to a Nazi Death Camp. Yeah, he was a real collaborator…he makes Himmler look like Mother Theresa.

If you’re digging over fifty or sixty years when they were thirteen) to try to make someone look bad, you’re really grasping for straws.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at October 15, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #188368

Pat

I guess you don’t actually read the posts. It doesn’t say anything about her being in ACT.

Jacob

Actually Pat brought it up. I don’t care what he did 50 years ago. I’m much more concerned with what he does now.

Posted by: Keith at October 15, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #188398

“Don’t send any campaign donations to the Repblicrooks or Democraps “

d.a.n.,
Sorry, but we’ve been over this many times. It is imperitive Democrats win in Nov. to restore a balance of power and reign in this psychopath president.
THEN, we can worry about the nirvana your pushing. First things first.

Posted by: Observer at October 16, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #188399

“I belive he lied to a grand jury.”

Keith,

I wonder if you’ll still be talking out the same side of your mouth when (and if) Scooter Libby goes to court in a short while.

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 16, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #188402

I find it odd and laughable that Paul started this thread saying that “It’s not about Foley” which it’s not but everyone from the right insisted on focusing on Foley and how to shift the focus to misdeeds of the Democrats.

It’s about abuse of the voters trust folks! If a crime’s been committed then that’s a law enforcement matter. Obviously, Kennedy and Studds were still supported by their electorate. But as public figures they have “no-where” to hide.

Neither does Foley or Bush or anyone else on the right. But, can you honestly say that the Abramoff scandal was handled properly? Do you think the President should be able to tell any damn lie he feels neccessary?

Sheesh!!!!!!! It’s about corruption! I can guarantee you that there is no corrupt Democrat from Kansas in DC.

It’s time to let our elected officials know that they are in office to SERVE, not to RULE. Contary to popular Republican propoganda there still is not a majority ruling class in America. Although, if you vote Republican you really are voting for just that.

It’s your choice. Do you prefer a government that rules over you or a government that serves you?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 16, 2006 2:31 AM
Comment #188418

The American Covenant

Ten score and 30 years ago our forefathers brought forth an American Covenant upon this Continent. A completely new American Dream of all men created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. These rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It was said that this nation can not endure with those rights and this Dream. Our forefathers founded the Democratic Republican Party on these principals. Later Martin Luther King also saw this Dream and spoke of it so eloquently.


It is a Dream founded in law and nourished by economic freedom, a gift of the Backbone of Democracy, the small businessman and the Guilds. It is a gift of innocent till proven guilty, the right to face ones accuser, and to have a fair trial with an impartial jury of ones peers. It is a gift ensured by the availability of jobs and business opportunity. It maintained by free trade to create enterprise and the jobs that go with them, not the sending of jobs overseas to the highest bidder, because men cannot be free when they are economically chained to poverty, illness, disease, and need.


It is a Vision inscribed upon the Statue of Liberty that said send us men, women, and children from all lands yearning to be free. It is the hope and was the foundation of a Nation of Immigrants to create this great new world. It was echoed in give me Liberty or give me death, and it is tied to economic independence and the creation of jobs and free enterprise. Now we have 2 visions competing for this nation, one who wants tax breaks for ultra millionaires and hide scandalous behavior behind closed doors, and one who wants to create millions of new American jobs that give economic vitality to our hard working men and women and give our children back their future.


A clear choice is now available of what America has been and should be, verses a vision that had failed. It is time to now denounce with the righteous indignation that is building over the Scandals of Corruption and the nightmare of a Moral Lack of Leadership that ignores legality and refuses the decency of resignation within the Republican Party. Perhaps the party that claimed personal responsibility and family values as their motto, needs to take the advice they are so willing to give, but in conduct so willing to ignore, and go quietly and quickly into that good night with what principals they do possess. They need to exit a failed direction of hype and failure that now threatens our economic and moral livelihood at its very roots. Certainly the choice is clear: the American Dream or the American Nightmare.


I urge you to choose the American Covenant that was and is the Democratic Party.

Thomas P. Love

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

History

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a Bill of Rights that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights

As the delegates gathered at the Pennsylvania State House in May 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation, Virginia delegate George Mason wrote, The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree. Mason had earlier written the Virginia Declaration of Rights that strongly influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the first part of the Declaration of Independence. He left the convention bitterly disappointed, however, and became one of the Constitution’s most vocal opponents. It has no declaration of rights, he was to state. Ultimately, George Mason prevailed. When James Madison drafted the amendments to the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.


Posted by: Thomas Love at October 16, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #188433

Thomas P. Love.
Well said.
I Thank you.
Viv

Posted by: Viv at October 16, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #188443

Damn Bill of Rights! How else will Bush defeat terrorism, if he can’t spy on anyone he wants, and torture those he wants, and suspend Habeous Corpus as he needs to?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 16, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #188454
Observer, d.a.n., Sorry, but we’ve been over this many times. It is imperitive Democrats win in Nov. to restore a balance of power and reign in this psychopath president. THEN, we can worry about the nirvana your pushing. First things first.
Why? What makes you think Democrats will improve anything? Afterall, they held power a long, long time before Republicans, and they abused their “IN PARTY” power far longer. You’re position is only valid if Democrats will do a better job. I don’t think so, based on track record. Sure, the current “IN PARTY” is dismal. However, both parties are irresponsible and letting them take turns won’t accomplish anything. See, you are so scared of letting Republicans win any seats, you continue to re-elect YOUR Democrat incumbents. Republicans do the same thing, and the end result is 90% re-election rates. So, that clearly isn’t working is it? Are you saying we should keep doing what isn’t working? Do you really think Democrats will do any better? Afterall, a large portion of Democrats have gone along with many of Bush’s administration.

Don’t worry. Democrats will win back the majority, because a larger number of Republicans aren’t voting Republican, or voting at all. Many Republican voters are unhappy too. Many have left the party. I did after 30 years.

See, you think Democrats are your salvation.
That’s understandable.
That party loyalty stuff is hard to overcome.
I used to do the same thing.

The main point is though, BOTH parties are corrupt and irresponsible, neither will behave responsibly, neither have behaved responsibly, neither will pass common-sense reforms, and re-electing them makes no sense.

Just consider the PROs and CONs.
Which one will be the most convincing?

Why to re-elect incumbents:

  • (1) Vote Party, Not Candidate.

  • (2) Our choices suck, so until something better comes along, lets continue re-electing incumbents.

  • (3) The other party is more corrupt than ours (yes, some one said that).

  • (4) Independents can’t think independently? (yes, some one said that too).

  • (5) Because that’s the way we’ve always done it?

  • (6) … please add your reasons

Why to NOT re-elect irresponsible incumbents:

  • (1) Most (if not all) incumbents are irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, and look-the-other-way.

  • (2) It sends a clear, unmistakable message to Congress.

  • (3) It provides the peaceful force no other method can.

  • (4) It is simple; the one simple thing we were supposed to be doing all along.

  • (5) It creates peer pressure among their own ranks within Congress.

  • (6) It creates immediate term-limits; why wait for Congress; they’ll never pass it.

  • (7) It balances power between the people and government, instead of Republicans and Democrats

  • (8) It reduces the stranglehold the two party system has on government.

  • (9) It’s a non-partisan approach; it reduces the excesses of the “IN PARTY”

  • (10) It can reduce corruption and waste (or face being voted out and a short career). It may finally be possible to pass many badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms that Congress has refused to pass for decades (e.g. campaign finance, tax reform, election reform, balanced budget, One-Purpose-Per-BILL, immigration reform, etc.)

  • (11) It’s inexpensive; no need to even send money to any politicians. Besides, most of us can not compete with the wealthy. A mere 0.15% (300,000) of all eligible voters (200 million) made 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 more; $2 billion of $2.4 billion in 2004).

  • (12) It is quick.

  • (13) It eliminates the truly bad career politicians immediately.

  • (14) It cures the “jelly-brain” disease that some pandering politicians are almost immediately stricken with shortly after being elected to office, which makes them forget many (or all) of their campaign promises (i.e. “read my lips”, “no nation building”, etc.).

  • (15) It reduces the cu$hy pensions that each congress person will receive after only a few terms in Congress.

  • (16) It will encourage more people to get on the ballots.

  • (17) It reduces the effect of Gerrymandering.

  • (18) It is better than doing what we are doing now, which is not working.

  • (19) It levels the playing field; incumbents have vastly unfair advantages (time, visibility, perk$ of office, big-money-donors, etc).

  • (20) It increases the number of newcomers, who are always vastly out-numbered by incumbents that won’t allow any reforms that may even remotely reduce the incumbents power, opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted seats.

  • (21) It increases accountability. Incompetent and/or poor performers should be fired. Know any in Congress now? It’s actually almost laughable.

  • (22) It creates unpredictability, which reduces the big-money-influence on a government that is already too FOR SALE.

  • (23) It doesn’t require that many people. Only 5% (4 million) of all eligible voters (121 million) voting for challengers could change the political landscape significantly. There is power in small nubers after all. It’s not herding cats, expecting bi-partisan cooperation, or expecting the most brain-washed to become un-brainwashed. Only a few percent of the population is needed to kick things off.

  • (24) It is the only thing we haven’t yet tried that we were supposed to be doing all along, always. We were never supposed to keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents due to blind party loyalty, partisan brainwashing, laziness, complacency, apathy, or ignorance, or distracting petty partisan warfare.

  • (25) It might be fun to see some truly bad, career politicians finally get the boot?

  • (26) It may eventually enable someone to name 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible, accountable, not bought-and-paid-for, and don’t look the other way.

  • (27) … please add your reasons

Feel free to add your own reasons?
So, I agree, first things first.
Don’t ever re-elect irresponsible incumbents merely because you are afraid of the other corrupt party, becaue BOTH are corrupt, and the nation’s problems growing in number and severity proves it.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 16, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #188464

Paul: Nice post, very concise! This will make a very handy reference. BTW the GOP, they were the folks who came up with that “Contract With America” thing a dozen years ago or so, correct? Wonder how that is working out for them??

Posted by: Ken Juakkuri at October 16, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #188466

KD

“I wonder if you’ll still be talking out the same side of your mouth when (and if) Scooter Libby goes to court in a short while.”


I’m sorry, what orifice do you talk out of when you correct someones inaccuracy.

Posted by: Keith at October 16, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #188491

d.a.n. said:

Do you really think Democrats will do any better?
It took the Republicans only 1 year to turn a surplus into massive record deficits. It took the Republicans 2 years to start a war that has killed over a half a million people. The Democrats would be hard pressed to do worse. I can only hope they learned a lesson.
This is just a shot at inserting images, a ‘fun’ chart of Bushes popularity rating:

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 16, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #188502

Dave — Nice!
Reminds me a little of my own creative concept: Bush’s Big Wheel Of Impeachable Offenses! You may even remember me mentioning the idea before — “Step right up and give it a whirl! Everybody hits an Offense! Nobody goes home without a copy of the Constitution!” :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at October 17, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #188541

No, they probably can’t do much worse.
But they are both corrupt.
Does it make much sense to let them take turns?
90% re-election rates is the real problem.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 17, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #188546

Adrienne,

Thanks. I’m sorry I don’t remember the wheel of corruption, but doesn’t giving them a copy of the constitution mean they could actually read it? It seems more appropriate they get a roll of T.P. with the constitution on it. That seems more like what Bush has been doing to it for the last 6 years…

d.a.n.

I think beyond incumbency, the problem lies in a system that allows room for only 2 parties. Free markets typically have 3 main players. Where’s our third and how do we change the system to get it?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 17, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #188677
Dave1-20.09 (interesting handle) wrote: d.a.n. I think beyond incumbency, the problem lies in a system that allows room for only 2 parties. Free markets typically have 3 main players. Where’s our third and how do we change the system to get it?
Yes, the two party duopoly has a strangle hold on the nation. They are successfully blocking access of third parties and independents to ballots and debates.

The only way to resolve it is Education, first.

The only lasting solution is what we ALL should have been doing all along, always.:

  • Take off partistan blinders.

  • Avoid being seduced into distracting, petty partisan warfare.

  • Think out-of-the-blinding-party-loyalty box.

  • Reject the myth that the problem is only the “IN PARTY”. That myth is fueled by the “OUT PARTY”.

  • Look at what YOUR incubments are doing (or not doing).

  • Ignore the Hot-Button issues, such as flag-burning, filabustering, amending the Constitution to ban gay-marraige, etc. None of that will matter if we ignore some much more serious issues.

  • Learn about the total Federal debt ($22 trillion). Ignorance is no excuse. The fiscal picture is dismal, and has the real potential to [explicative] up everything. Also look at total nation-wide debt (over $42 trillion).

  • Ask yourself: “Is this 90% re-election rate thing working?

  • Look at the nightmarish size of government. What the [explicative] is up with that [explicative]?

  • Look at the falling median wages since 1999.

  • Look at the increasing foreclosures, nation-wide for over a year.

  • Look at the the bubbles created by massive borrowing, debt, spending, and money-printing.

  • Recognize that many won’t even reach this line, because they’ve already been turned off, because they can not over-come the extremely effective, blinding, distracting, seductive partisan brainwashing and petty partisan warfare. There’s a reason politicians love to fuel the petty partisan warfare.

  • Look at the pork-barrel, waste, graft, and corporate welfare the incumbent politicians vote for while our U.S. troops risk life and limb, go without body armor, medical care, and basic needs.

  • Look at the direction of the nation. Do you like it? If not, how does re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way incumbents going to change it? It won’t. Haven’t you yet figured out that incumbent politicians don’t give a [explicative] [explicative] about you, or your children? Irresponsible incumbent politicians ONLY care about preserving their power, their opportunities for self-gain, and the security of their cu$hy, coveted seats of power.

_____________________________________________

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.
  • Don’t Re-Elect Irresponsible, Bought-and-Paid-for, Look-the-Other-Way, Incumbent Politicians !
Posted by: d.a.n at October 17, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #188678

By the way, Clinton almost balanced the budget, and look how he did it (look at 1995 to 2000)… he printed a lot of money. But, Bush has set new money-printing, borrowing, debt, and spending records.
No doubt about it. This administration is truly abysmal.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 17, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #188681

Dave1-20-09,
P.S. that spiralling graph of Bush approval is quite revealing. It appears George W. Bush will go down as one of the worst 5 presidents ever.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 17, 2006 9:25 PM
Post a comment