Jim Hoft Leaves Right Network To Embarrass Himself At A New URL
June 08, 2011 2:59 pm ET by Ben Dimiero
Yesterday, Jim Hoft put up a post on his Right Network blog announcing that he would be leaving the site to start a new "Gateway Pundit Blog" at thegatewaypundit.com. In typical Hoft fashion, he managed to botch the announcement:
At his new site, Hoft explains that he will "write more about this latest move in the coming days," but doesn't explain the reason for the split. (Right Network did not respond to Media Matters' request for comment.)
It wouldn't appear to make sense for Right Network to get rid of Hoft, since he seemingly has been a traffic boon for them. Still, Hoft's popularity remains an ongoing source of bewilderment. Despite regularly concocting phony stories and botching facts, Hoft remains a wildly popular and influential conservative blogger.
One thing is for sure, though: if Hoft wasn't fired from Right Network, he certainly should have been.
Similar to his time writing for FirstThings.com, Hoft's tenure at Right Network was marked by an almost remarkable capacity for failure. Here's a brief recap of three of his worst moments.
In January of this year, Hoft displayed his investigative reporting chops by alleging, with help from a tip from "Chad," that the White House had encouraged attendees to applaud President Obama's memorial speech for the victims of the Tucson shooting.
After posting a transcript of comments from then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs expressing surprise at the amount of applause during Obama's speech, Hoft responded by asking "Oh really? Then why was it printed on the Jumbotron?" and included the following screenshot:
The answer to Hoft's question of why it was "printed on the jumbotron" was that the text was live closed captioning provided for hearing impaired attendees of the event.
Hoft wasn't just good at fabricating controversies out of thin air. He also continued to hone his well-practiced skill of promoting satirical stories as if they were real news.
In the wake of Obama releasing his long-form birth certificate, Hoft threw his lot in with the Jerome Corsis and Alex Joneses of the world by declaring that the document produced by the White House was a forgery.
Apparently scrambling for confirmation of this ridiculous conspiracy theory, last month Hoft posted an article on his blog from the San Diego Reader under the headline, "Bummer. San Diego High School Rescinds Obama Invite After Discovering His Long-form Birth Certificate Is A Fake." The "story" alleged that a group of students had performed a close analysis of Obama's long-form and determined that it was a forgery.
Among the many hints that this story was satire was the fact that it was filed in the Reader's "On the QT" section, which describes itself - on the page of the article itself - as "Almost Factual News." Other warning signs included the comment from the "commencement ceremony chair" that closed the article, decrying the "two jerkfaces" who exposed the forgery:
"Our commitment to ethics really sets us apart at High Tech High," says fellow senior and commencement ceremony chair Rishika Daryanani. "This case is no exception. Thanks to these two jerkfaces, now we have to disinvite America's first black president and maybe get him kicked out of office, too. Thanks a lot, guys. Maybe we can get Donald Trump to fill in."
If that was too subtle for Hoft, the story about a "family-friendly" water park acquiring the rights to a famous song from Team America to soundtrack its "Red, White & Shamu' Extravaganza, 'Osama Bin Eaten'" appearing adjacent to the birth certificate story probably should have set off a few warning bells.
One thing that becomes clear if you read Hoft regularly is that while his incompetence is regularly comical, his reflexive hatred for all things liberal and progressive can lead him to some odious places.
In the wake of CBS reporter Lara Logan's sexual assault and beating in Egypt, Hoft blamed Logan's "liberal belief system" for almost "get[ting] her killed." He asked, "why did this attractive blonde female reporter wander into Tahrir Square last Friday?" (Answer: she was doing her job as a reporter.)
After being criticized by Media Matters, Hoft announced that his "post stands" and said that "these warped individuals must have missed that day of school when they talked about playing with fire."
While Hoft was roundly criticized by liberal sites for his comments, to their credit, the conservative RedState called him out. RedState contributor Leon Wolf wrote that Hoft's post was "appalling and should be apologized for without qualifications."
But rather than apologize, as recently as four days ago, Hoft wrote "once again time proved me right" because another female journalist had been attacked in Tahrir Square, confirming his thesis that "political correctness made the state-run media, including the female reporters covering the revolution, blind to the dangers in Cairo and Tahrir Square."
So, Hoft will bring his writing to its third home in less than a year. If there's anything we've learned from his time at Right Network, it's that while his URL may change, he never will.
So now we get this yawner.
This is the career Ben chose. Ay-yai-yai.
Did Jim Hoft write about those? Oh,no need to reply I could care less what that knucklehead has to say.
If you could care less what he has to say that means that to some degree you do care what he has to say, stalker congero.
The fact of the matter is that Hoft wrote quite extensively on Weiner. Poor Ben Demiero couldn't say a word about anything Hoft was writing about him, though. Nothing. Not even that Hoft published the name of Weiner's teenage porno heartthrob.
The only bone that Eric Boehlert threw Ben Demiero finally was this nothingburger story. It makes you feel sorry for him, all this pent-up, obsessive anger Ben has for Hoft and in the big story of the year he has to keep his mouth shut.
The applicable link is the third article down.
I see no Susie Madrak anywhere in the link.
Ok then hosed,what did Jim Hoft have to say about David Vitter and John Ensign?
You got details disproving her article then? Or just more generic personal attacks?
Crooks and Liars is a good source. You no doubt disagree.
Don't see much but news in it. Where does she fall down in your eyes
For starters, anyone who got to the page should have already noticed and/or figured it out on his/her own. It's also way way up there on a list of incredibly stupid junk anyone flags as "Breaking". 'Specialty' political sites use the term in an exaggerated way a hell of a lot, but this is extra-extra silly.
Boehlert was tweeting about Hoft but he wouldn't let anyone here write about him or anything Weiner-related. Pretty shameful.
Just tweeting how the right-wing was weiner-obsessed and playing pretend-enraged that Hoft published the names of a few of the girls Weiner was having cyber-sex with. None of that was right-wing misinformation, but apparently something felt strongly enough to get in twitter wars over.
Sounds plausible, Jeremy.
Kinda doubt that, mjlilgui. MMfA had a complete embargo on it.
And even with this scandal, the fact that Jim Hoft is an idiot and probably a racist does not change in the least bit.
It certainly does not.
Pretty strong hunch given that none of them have said one word about anything here.
What do you think, that there was absolutely nothing they could have reported on? I'd like to hear your theory because to me anything short of an embargo on the story is about as believable as Weiner blaming the pic on a hacking was when he said he wasn't worried about the crime committed on him.
Well, you see, Johaely, there's no story here other than Hoft changed URL's, and who cares, really. It's just an excuse to feed Ben Dimiero's obsession with Hoft. He's assigned to Hoft, and this has to eat at him that he's reduced to writing about this non-story and going back to the well to dig up old stories on him to make something out of it, especially when there were probably a good 5-10 stories he could have chosen that Hoft wrote about on Weiner the last ten days.
If you take out the gratuitous references that Ben has written about and listed numerous times already, what do you have? That's right, Hoft changed URL's, a big fat 'who cares?'
You, congero, CatsR and Deluded apparently care, but that's about it. Pretty sad, Johaely.
And it's something you could do on your own.
Or better yet, why don't you email Ben Dimiero and ask him to forward you his Jim Hoft dossier after he's cross-referenced Vitter and Ensign?
Start by telling me how their situations are the same as Weiner's last ten days of lying and relying on guys like you to believe him.
Now, you know what Ben Dimiero was "forbidden" to do? You have been quickly losing your mind ever since the Obama birth certificate was released, hoosier. I know I have implored you to do this before, but seriously, seek help. Talk to someone. Your anger has overtaken your cognitive thought.
None of them is saying anything about the photo Opie and Andy captured from his cell phone that he said he wouldn't release to the public.
If you think he was lying and Anthony was also lying when he said this
then please share with us how you're making that claim, especially in light with how offended you seem to me by my stating my speculation without proof that MMfA has completely embargoed the Weiner story this past week and a half.
Really? So, he was displaying the photo but did not want anyone to see it? Even you cannot be this stupid, hoosier. Now, you are just getting sad.
You guys are the ones who are claiming Breitbart was complicit in that photo getting blasted out on the internet. If such is the case, why isn't MMfA even covering that?
But they didn't write anything about him at all. Why?
You're not the first to ask this question. A number of other conservatives have as well.
It's just kid stuff, Deluded, pure and simple.
You see, those same young deputy research fellows that you read here every day are all assigned to track the twitter pages of various bloggers at Big Government and other conservative blogs, and when they find something they can make a story into that that particular blogger may have tweeted, the MMfA deputy fellow will always start his/her report with "Breitbart blogger so and so said this.....".
So sorry, Johaely, nice try, but you're wrong.
Neither Vitter nor Ensign came out publicly with weird, highly implausible excuses for themselves and relied on and expected the conservative media to believe them and cover for them like Wiener did and like liberals covered for Weiner.
Like they still do.
Think about this congero. Ponder it. Run it back and forth in your head and ruminate over the implications.
Weiner apologized to Andrew Breitbart.
Wait a minute David Vitter it was revealed liked to wear diapers. The conservative media hardly mentioned if at all. You can continue to repeat your beliefs about the liberal media , I mean you are a true blue tea-bagging wing nut. Weiner apologized to Andrew Brietbart? Who did Strom Thurmond apologize too?
There is also the fact that you keep repeating the same crap without any proof while also acting with a hypocritical holier than thou attitude. Do you display the same irritating "outrage" over the fact that places like FOX news, MRC and Washington Times also hires "fresh out college" interns without any "journalism knowledge", since you like to bring that up whenever you don't like the fact that the article is hitting one of your precious little Breitbart bloggers.
That is what you wrote to me hypocrite.
After all, you don't seem to be able to actually show us the directive to "avoid" the issue and where it came from.
Well, I guess we all know it came from S.O.R.O.S, but it would be at least nice to know that it really did and that he wasn't simply spending all his time visiting the whitehouse.....
So you really DO know MMFA's strategies from the inside, very interesting.
Yeah, I can snipe someone at twitter, and, if I'm the owner of a news corporation I'm going to have to report on it the next day otherwise I'm a coward by definition.
Even if I don't have all the facts yet.
Man it's unreasonable what conditions these liberal social networking sites set these days, whatever we post on them, we have to back them up in ALL our other endeavours, ESPECIALLY if our "other endeavors" happen to be managing a blog or information propagation site/system of some kind.
I don't think I'll be registering on twitter any time soon.
Clearyl, because like most people, they were doubting the story that the Rep. Weiner was selling. And, good for them to choose common sense over party. I certainly would never expect hoosier to understand such things.
Coaching a young woman to lie for him is a crime, too. Do you want to see Weiner prosecuted for that?
I kinda don't think you do. I pretty much think your sense of what's right and what's wrong all depends on what the politics of the person in question are, for the most part.
Still waiting for all the articles by Jim Hoft about David Vitter,John Ensign or any Republican sexual scandals.
I didn't say that, I was never a birther conspiracist, my world didn't implode when Osama bin Ladin was killed, I never defended Vitter, I didn't lash out at Ben Dimiero and I never even closely intimated I thought he should have been defending Weiner.
Pretty much nothing in your post is true.
You did not defend Vitter. You just suggested that Republicans did not support Vitter after it was shown that he was ordering prostitutes from the Senate floor even though it is a fact that his Republican colleagues gave him a standing ovation. You don't last out at Ben Dimiero?? You have lost all rationality. You cannot even remember your own bizarre arguments at this point.
There are continuing doubts and questions as to whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian or a muslim. His father was a muslim.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his kindergarten records.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his school records from Hawaii (Punahou).
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his Occidental College records.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his Columbia University records.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his Columbia thesis.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his his Harvard Law School records.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his Harvard Law Review articles.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his articles and papers from the University of Chicago.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his medical records.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his files from his years as an Illinois state senator.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his Illinois State Bar Association records.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his baptism records.
Barack Hussein Obama has NEVER released his adoption records.
C'mon lets hear the lie.
And for you to pretend that he didn't do it on purpose is just as bad as the release of the photo itself.
Then you said this to me.
I pretty much think your sense of what's right and what's wrong all depends on what the politics of the person in question are, for the most part.---hosed
Your reply about Strom Thurmond was classic and perfect example of your and the rights hyprocrisy. what I just quoted from you fits you perfectly.
You're not "all ears" either. You already seen the evidence and will forever pretend it somehow was released accidentally.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't have a wife and/or children or maybe you believe that Weiner's entire family deserves being humiliated.
Liberal logic never fails to amaze me.
Your argument boils down to 'It's there, isn't it. That proves he released it on purpose.'
Married with children, Bob. Weiner is a scumbag who held private message conversations with at least one underage girl. It's not for me to say whether he got what he deserved, but he not only made his own bed, he's an idiot for thinking he wouldn't get caught. And he's a liar to boot. Why you guys forgive someone who used you to save his own skin is beyond me. And how why you're giving him sympathy for the well-timed announcement of his wife's pregnancy is quite frankly, somewhat amusing too.
Yes, he was a birther. And, hoosier lost it ever since the birth ceritificate was released. These are the same kinds of arguments he used when he was making his birther arguments, though.
'Breitbart said he would not release the pic and did. That is dishonorable.'
'He did not release the photo.'
'It is out there. He showed it to Opie and Anthony.'
'They took the pic without him knowing about it.'
'Wouldn't that mean he was showing it to them? Wouldn't that be releasing it.'
'Ben Dimiero once kicked my ass in high school. He's a jerk!'
Not even the basic logic that a child could follow. You have my sympathy hoosier.
I can understand your not being aware of his apology to Breitbart, Deluded, but you got two thumbs-up here for saying that. That's what amazes me about this place. People here pretend they're all about being so informed and reality-based. They rely on these kids at MMfA with no journalistic background for all their political information, and it's just sad.
Who's they? The kids working at MMFA? What did they say or rather write about Wiener?
How do you know this? Do you have inside sources in MMFA? If so please tell me if S.O.R.O.S was involved.
So the guys who gave me a thumbs up did not post anything, but according to you they were the "kids who are ill informed about reality and with no journalistic background" and they gave me a thumbs up because they were uninformed.
Right, I'm beginning to believe you have MORE than just inside information here.
That's pretty acceptable given the general standard of "obsession" right now. To understand what this general standard is, we have to take a look at how it is applied from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
After the Palin Versus Paul Revere history clash broke out. There were a number of people who came in here and called those who were discussing the issue "Palin obsessed". Never mind the fact that they disregarded the ones who gave her all the coverage in the first place (which, by the standard they set, can be considered an obsession too), but if discussion on the Palin gaffe by the left can be considered an "obsession" by the right, then it's acceptable to say the 2 men mentioned were "Weiner obsessed" given how much time and effort they put into promoting the issue on their personal sites.
Tell me, is S.O.R.O.S still paying them well?
Do you think it's just a coincidence? None of the 80-90 researchers here had anything to say? There was no right-wing misinformation for the last week and a half on the entire Weiner saga?
Are you serious?
The guys who gave you a thumb's up were uninformed and clueless commenters who likely look to this place for all of their political information. People like congero and Johaely. And that's why they had no idea that Weiner had apologized to Breitbart.
Bill O'Reilly has been strongly arguing that the Weiner episode is going to "hurt" Obama and the Democrats. You yourself try to inflate the importance of the story by referring to it as "Weiner-gate" and a "scandal". But I think that once Weiner resigns, or decides not to, or whatever happens, this story won't last very long. Of course, the right will beat it to death during the election season. It will no doubt become a new rallying cry for the right wing nut jobs: "Bill Ayers!" "Reverend Wright!" "ACORN!" "Weiner!"
But I really doubt that the story is going to turn out to be the political bonanza you are hoping for. Huge numbers of voters are not going to rush to vote Republican just because some liberal congressman sent a nast picture to somebody. That's just my two cents.
There are a lot of elements to the story involving Dems and the liberal media and blogs, though. It's amazing to me how so many liberals are so enamored by guys like Weiner and Alan Grayson simply because they are loudmouths that they turn them into heroes for the liberal cause. In the case of Weiner, as we can verify from his tweets, he was getting off on demonizing Republicans, literally. He was using it to cruise for girls. So in effect, his liberal fanbase was encouraging his weird behavior, telling him how grateful they were for his being their voice. Then when he gets in an embarrassing situation, or basically finally gets caught for years of trying to exploit other women because of his high profile, it's his same liberal fanbase that goes to great lengths to try to blame his hubris on some weird Republican conspiracy to take him down. And Weiner lets that happen.
The entire liberal blogosphere covered for him as he was lying to their faces and now for the most part they prefer to just let it slide and hope it goes away, or try their hardest now to bring back the Vitter story, or Larry Craig. In effect, still covering for him. He cr@pped on you, used you, and you're still excusing him.
Even Eric Boehlert doesn't have the decency to go on Twitter or report here that Breitbart got this one right after he tried to castigate him for being 'weiner-obsessed' all last week.
Pretty shameful if you ask me.
Where I disagree with you is when you assert that "his liberal fanbase was encouraging his weird behavior". I think that most liberals, like myself for example, were not interested in his tweeting pictures one way or the other. Speaking for myself, I admit that Weiner's offense is a matter of complete indifference to me. I support his politics,and that is essentially where my interest in Weiner begins and ends.
liberals did the same thing with Clinton. You don't see that with Republicans. No one adored Sanford. When he was caught, conservatives didn't back him up. Same with Larry Craig. Same with Vitter. The big difference between them and Clinton and Weiner is that they didn't lie after they were caught and rely on conservatives to back them up and get them through the scandal. With liberals, if a politician's views are similar to theirs, they will forgive almost any offense. It's pretty bizarre.
Craig and Vitter did not try to initially lie? You bought the "wide stance" story? Once again, hoosier, reality has no bearing on your belief system.
After 5 dismal failures using fabricated evidence to lie about innocent people and force public policy, Breitbart finally got managed to sniff out an actual factual crotchshot.
As Stephen Colbert rightly stated, Breitbart has made himself the Edward R. Murrow of crongressional wang photos.
So yea, Breitbart is an expert at sniffing out crotchshots. (So is any 10th grader.)
And he sniffs these out with the aid of people like Mike Stack, and the harassment he inflicted on minors (Just so you know, Stack is a self-described pervert whose viciously defends rape and incest themes in porn, and whose own website features the image of a girl being raped with her eyes taped shut... family values, eh? More like Child endagerment... you must be proud to have him on your side.)
Despite the fact that Stack deliberately tried to get a minor to confess to adult relations she never had, Breitbart considers him, and the elusive Dan Wolfe, to be reliable sources.
So lets stop the whole conuntry to get a bunch of adults to stare at all the dirty pics that Breitbarts really eerie sources dug up. THAT is investigative journalism for ya!
Never mind that the distraction let Chris Chirstie cut the purse strings on the tornado torn mid-west, or that Justice Thomas has now demonstrated a clear conflict of interest that goes unnoticed... lets all go back to 6th grade and leer over some bs sexting photos.
Great Job! I see you kids have your priorites!
Way to take us back to a Dark Age witch trial through the use of modern tech.
And lets just forget that James OKeefe attempted to frame Abbie Bourdreau in her own fallacious sex scandal (thank you Izzy Santa for having a moral backbone.)
(BTW, So why does sexual humiliation play such a prominent role in Breitbarts so-called journalism?)
But even though Breitbart has taken down Weiner all the way, you shouldt be too happy yet.
As material witneses, his pals Dan Wolfe and freinds will have to come out of the closet.
Moreover, these friends will have to explain why they tried to induce minors to lie.
And I am curious as to why a woman who met RAW in April, and began a sexting exchange with him in such a breif time, decided to hook up with Andrew Breitbart less than a month later to share the images RAW sent her. I mean, talk about a heated affair.
But you sit back, enjoy the sorrow you have caused in a family (just like you did when you kicked so many kids to the curb by defunding ACORN, or when you attempted to disenfranchise Special Ed students by slandering Alicia Ploshnic), drink it in like the vapid graveyard ghoul you are, and keep this in mind...
YOU ARE CELEBRATING THE USE OF EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL AS A POLITICAL PROCESS... you will now have to live with the precedence.
May all the suffering that Breitbart creates, and that you drink in like nectar, may that sorrow follow forever. May it wrap you eternally in its embrace.
It's very likely Weiner won't have to explain why he tried to influence a minor to lie for him. For some reason, a sitting US Congressman doing that bothers you less than two schmucks with too much time on their hands doing it.
It goes back to my main point about Weiner's adoring fan base. Forget what Weiner was doing and how he was using you to perpetuate his sickness, just focus on the messengers and what their private lives are like. Psychotic liberal reasoning on your part. Your defense just keeps morphing while the convervative blogs had this right from day one that Weiner is a philandering pervert that hit one wrong key and it exposed him for something that was very likely something he does quite often. Weiner is the one who did this to himself and he's the one who f'ed up that one tweet to a public one instead of a private one. He is to blame for that. He's also the one to blame for all the other women coming to light by lying and not just issuing a terse statement and letting it be done instead of trying to explain it away and saying he was hacked (which his fanbase beclowned themselves by not only believing him but working day and night trying to prove him correct).
You're more in denial than even the worst of the Kos Kids, Cats.
What I do care about is the fact that emotional blackmail (over materials no more daming than anything anyone on the right might have in their closets), has been used to ressurect a Witch-trial-like political circus, supplied by full grown adults frothing over a posted penis pic.
And I do care that this is happening at a moment when there are some very important issues on the table.
And some overgrown, overpaid, lying frat boy hypocrite (Breitbart) is blinding people with this non-issue.
You know, when the RNC came to the Twin Cities, I SWEAR I saw Kilmead and Doocy at a local gay leather bar. A LOT of people did. They came with the LCR. As soon as word got around the bar, they (whoever the two were) bailed like Palin on Alalska.
Maybe I should exacerbate the internet rumor that the two are closted gay men?
Maybe we can get a group of adults to spend months monitoring their private lives online, and coaching people in their twitter accounts to lie, until we get that perfect crotchshot!
No thanks, I dont prefer the Morality Police like they have in Tehran.
Thats a bit too 1984ish.
And yes, Breitbarts behavior in these last few days has been even more depraved then usual.
He isnt just trying to ruin the congressmans career, but his life.
And he is squeezing every bit of pain, sorrow and misery out of the congressman that he can... he relishes in the suffering he has caused, (just like when took the stage at the press conference, or when he blew his latest blackmail pic..., and that after fomaing at the mouth about how he was too decent to go that low.)
I imagine thats what Ed Gein felt like when slipping into the skins of his victims.
So congrats on your well anticipated crotchshot, and the feeding frenzy you have unleashed as a thin disguise for your true political agenda.
BTW, Considering that the office of Rep Issas was involved with the Crew on this project, you can now honestly say that (with the combined efforts of shadey, evasive online avatars, a perverted porn slinger chatting up minors to get false confessions, Andrew Breitbart, and GOP statesmen) the name Big Government.com is now more than just a website... its a reality.
May you live long in the dismal, over-monitored world you are helping create.
Really? David Vitter just got re-elected and last I checked using prostitutes is still illegal in D.C.. John Ensign was poking his best friends wife who worked for him. Do you think his power and position helped him there? The story though is much more than just an office love affair or sexual harrassment case it goes to using your office to secure jobs for said lovers son and hush money arranged by Sen. Coburn who last I heard was a Republican. Infact Ensign only resigned after threat of prosecution and removal from office by congress and charges are still pending for him and Coburn.
I did a wiki search on Republican sex scandals and this is what I found:
Mike Duvall, a Republican politician and a former member of the California State Assembly, resigned after his sex comments were broadcast in Sept. 2009. In the video, the married family-values crusader from Yorba Linda talks in graphic detail about women he said he slept with -- at least one of whom appeared to be a lobbyist with business before the utilities committee on which Duvall sat as vice chairman. [9][10]
Paul Stanley, Republican former member of the Tennessee Sen., resigned from the state Senate effective Aug. 10, after his affair with a 22-year-old intern and a subsequent extortion attempt was revealed to the public. [11][12
Alan David Berlin, He is an aide for Senator Jane Orie of Pennsylvania. He is also a furry who contacted a fifteen year old boy over the internet, and offered to "yiff" the boy in a panda outfit, while his parents weren't home. The parents discovered the graphic emails on the boy's computer and called the attorney general's child predator unit sometime in May. Police raided his home and discovered various furry outfits such as a wolf costume, as well as a cat outfit; all complete with two holes cut out at the undersides of the costumes. He is now arraigned in Dauphin County jail on a $250,000 bail.
Michael Duvall, California state Representative in September 2009:
"Graphic sex-bragging caught on tape".[23]
Then lies and denies it and blames media [24].
Finally apologizes and resigns[25].
2008
Bruce Barclay, former Cumberland County commissioner, videotaped hundreds of sexual encounters — many with male escorts — using cameras hidden throughout his Monroe Township home.[26]
Matthew Joseph Elliott, former aide to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child.[27]
Vito Fossella, the only Republican member of Congress from New York City, admitted to police to having a child out-of-wedlock when stopped for drunk driving.[28]
Robert McKee, Republican delegate from Western Maryland, announced his resignation after authorities seized two computers, videotapes and printed materials from his Hagerstown home in a child pornography investigation. McKee also resigned his position as executive director of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Washington County.[29]
Daniel Dean Thompson, 31, a Utah retailer of "family-friendly" tapes and DVDs (Hollywood films with the "dirty parts" removed), arrested and booked into the Utah County jail on charges of sexual abuse and unlawful sexual activity with a 14-year-old.[30]
Derek Walker, former Eagle Scout and candidate seeking the GOP nomination in a race for north-central Pennsylvania district, was charged with felony burglary and criminal trespass stemming from an encounter last year with an ex-girlfriend, during which he allegedly broke into her home and used his cell phone to videotape her engaged in an intimate moment with another man.[31]
I'll stop there but you can find a whole page here:
Your text to link here...
How about Arnold Schwarzenegger hiding his affair and using his power and influence to hide his affair and child out of wedlock for 10 yrs. So climb down off your pedestal Republicans don't hold any moral high ground when it comes to sexual scandals.
I never said Republicans hold the higher moral ground. I said liberals tend more to glorify their political heroes and accept their lies, and they are more apt to forgive their heroes for not only lying about sex, but using them to cover for them over their lies about sex.
Name one person in your above copying and pasting that lied after he was exposed and used his conservative fanbase to cover for him while he was lying.
Do you need me to restate my point that liberals elevated Weiner to super-star status simply because he was such a loudmouth congressman who craved the spotlight, and that he used that hero status to lure women into sexual tweets and phone sex in a highly exploitative, grossly misogynistic manner. You can't comprehend how liberals aided and abetted his behavior? I didn't say you did it on purpose, but you did glorify him. You did the same thing with Clinton. You did the same thing with Obama, too. You did it with the Kennedy's. With Vitter, Craig, Sanford and Ensign, those guys weren't glorified at all by conservatives. There's just something really weird about liberals and the way they prostrate themselves for certain political figures.
No I can't and you are stretching to try and make a link. I guess you forgot about Strom Thurmond. Let me remind you. He fathered a child by the underage daughter of his black housekeeper all the while raging against civil rights and integegration. He keep this child now an adult secret only revealed after his death. So while this loud mouth segregationist was ranting all those years you were actually enabeling him,right?
I supported Weiners positions and policies, I knew nothing of his sexual escapades so therefore I couldn't be promoting them. On the other hand David Vitter was just re-elected and as far as I can see Newt Gringrich and Rudy 9/11 Ghouliani are still respected members of the Republican Party and at least one has declared himself a canidate for president and the other is mulling it.
2011
In Wisconsin, Republican state Senator Randy Hopper, while claiming to still live with his wife, was actually living outside the district he represents with a much younger 25-year-old mistress. In early 2011, the mistress was hired by a conservative lobbyist firm and given a state employee's job at rate of pay much higher than the previous person doing the job.[1][2][3]
Sen Hopper is still in office and less we forget
2010
NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) uses a strip club named Forty Deuce in Las Vegas for fundraiser gatherings with Pete Sessions in attendance. He claims there was no nudity involved.[4][5][6] In Feb. 2009, Tao, another Las Vegas club of questionable family values and clothing requirements, was used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RNC uses party funds to pay rich, young Republican donors to attend a Hollywood night club specializing in lesbians, bondage, and S&M.Washington Post March 30, 2010[7] Michael Steele appears to have authorized it at least indirectly as part of his "off the hook" PR campaign. A Young Republican who knew Steele personally named Erik Brown was involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your text to link here...
Pretty creepy and it shows the Republicans hold no superior moral authority.
Pretty sure I never said that, but let me check just for sure.
No, congero, I never said that.
Idiot.
Your text to the link can go right here, is what that is telling you. I have no idea if anyone reads what you write anyway since chances are pretty good you're repeating something you've already said a hundred times on here, but when I see "Your text to link here" my heart bleeds a little for you every time.
LOL.
Here, Your text to link here..., read it yourself.
Appears he was willing to take down the entire party to save his own rear end if that was what he had to do.
But you don't care about that because you don't care about anything to do with someone's sex life, right?
Lol.
Liberal are not going to suddenly drop their support for the Democrats simply because Weiner sent dirty pictures via tweets anymore than conservatives are going to suddenly drop their support for Newt Gingrich just because he cheated on 1 or 2 of his wives.
In fact, I have spoken to Republicans I know who would like to see Newt Gringrich elected president, regardless of his moral failings. These same Republicans of course, were outraged in 1992 that Bill Clinton would dare to run for president with so many rumors of marital infidelity surrounding him.
In other words, these conservatives I know hold two contradictory positions:
1. they can't understand how anyone could vote for Bill Clinton, because of his adultery.
2. they can't understand how anyone could not vote for Gingrich, despite his adultery.
I admit I'm the same way. I am much more forgiving of liberals who engage in certain activities that I am of conservatives who engage in the same activities.
Let me quote the great Walt Whitman:
Do I contradict myself?
Very well. I contradict myself.
But I am large. I have multitudes.
You got to admit, that guy is sneaky. LOL
Pretty sure Gingrich was never accused of rape, molestation or sexual harrassment, either, OHBROTHER58.
Pretty sure Gingrich never had his law license stripped away from him for his blatant obstruction of justice.
I mean, can you even try to compare apples to oranges?
Or are you going to just settle for being just as intellectually dishonest and lazy as congero?
Ginrich was roasting Clinton while he was simultaneaously pulling off a number of affairs that were no less honorable. (and devoting all political, media and investigative resources to that sex scandal, at the very moment that Al Qaeda declared war on us... but no, sallacious sex scandals are more important, right?)
The GOP gave Ginrich a pass on that for over 10 years until, boom, Gingrich states that moderation is the best policy.
Only THEN does the GOP start to turn on Gingrich like Palin on Alaska.
And you know what that shows?
It shows that these purported concerns over decency (an ideal Republicans frequently feign, but never live up to) is only a thin mask covering a deeper and more dishonest agenda.
You pretend to care about decency as a blind for your real desire to annihilate political targets.
So you know who else does that? The Government in Tehran, for starters. Youre in good company pal.
Your aim is to take out political targets by a circus of public humiliation... and the only one of thgose circuses that has the slightest shred of validity is Breitbarts nudie pics of a congessman.
Thats your high point, thats the only honest score you can claim... a crotchshot. Congrats!!
Again, like Colbert said, the Edward R. Murrow of congressional wang pics! GOOD JOB!
Well, seeing that Breitbart, Loesch, Stranahan and The Crew waited for weeks and months, with bated breath, and sleepless nights, constantly monitoring the titoverse for a flying penis (like they were waiting for a shooting star), i guess their efforts paid off.
Like you, your sources are a parody of themselves.
Being accused of something is not proof of anything. You seem to be suggesting that Gingrich is morally superior to Clinton because Clinton has been "accused" of things that Gingrich hasn't. I assume you feel contempt for Justice Clarence Thomas, since he, too, was accused of sexual harassment.
My point wasn't that Clinton or Gingrich is morally superior. My point was that Clinton and Gingrich are both guilty of adultery. And the fact that Clinton is guilty of adultery isn't going to turn me against liberals anymore than the fact that Gingrich is guilty of adultery is going to turn you against conservatives.
I am honest enough to admit that I am only interested in a politician's public policy views, not his private sins. You, however, insist on pretending that the private moral code of a politician is important to you.
The problem with your pretense, of course, is that it forces you to make ludicrous arguments, like the one above, where you insinuate that Gringrich is more worthy of admiration than Clinton, despite the fact that they are both adulterers.
"My adulterer is more moral than your adulterer" is really a silly argument, don't you think? Just be honest and admit that when it comes to which political party to support, Newt's adultery is of no importance to you, just as Clinton's is of no importance to me.
My answer? I don't know, and I don't care. I assume by the question that you believe that Clinton is guilty of sexual harasment because he paid her a settlement. Fair enough.
So I assume then that you also believe that Bill O'Reilly of Fox News is also guilty of sexual harassment because he paid his accuser a settlement too.
So again, we are back to square one. By your own argument, both liberals and conservatives are immoral, and should not be trusted, correct? So if I understand you correctly, Bill Clinton's incident of sexual harassment causes you to mistrust the Democratic Party. And Bill O'Reilly's incident of sexual harassment cause you to mistrust Fox News, correct?
WTF, OB? What kind of argument is that?
No, my argument all along was that liberals are more prone to glorifying their politicians and forgiving their lying about sex to save themselves than are conservatives. Both Clinton and Weiner used liberals to save themselves. Liberals not only forgave both of them because afterall, it was just about sex, but they also forgave them for using them to defend them based on their lies. That's what I think is unforgivable.
I can't go along with you there. Conservatives are just as prone to glorify their politicians. Many on the right speak of Ronald Reagan as if he were some sort of god. Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Mark Rubio, George W. Bush, and many other conservative politicians are routinely glorified by their followers. Whether liberals are more prone to forgive liberal politicians for lying about sex is a very gray area. As I said before, I can only speak for myself, but I am one liberal who admits that I don't care, and therefore don't need to forgive, a liberal politician who lies about sex. I can't speak for conservatives, but as I said, I have observed many conservatives who commit sexual sins, and yet don't lose the support of conservative voters.
"Both Clinton and Weiner used liberals to save themselves."
I'm not sure what you mean by this. In Clinton's case, I suppose you mean that he was "saved" from impeachment. But he didn't "use liberals" to avoid conviction. The Democrats who voted to acquit him could easily have voted to convict. Actually, you could say that Clinton was "saved" by the 9 Republican Senators who voted to acquit him. Without the votes of those conservatives, Clinton would not have been "saved".
As for Weiner, he has not been saved at all yet.
"Liberals not only forgave both of them because afterall, it was just about sex, but they also forgave them for using them to defend them based on their lies. That's what I think is unforgivable."
Again, politicians cannot use their admirers to "save" them from punishment. Yes, many people on the left forgave Clinton for his sins, but that is not what "saved" him from being thrown out of office.
Look at Tom Delay. He has always had a lot of conservative supporters, who did not turn against him when he was indicted. But the conservatives continued support for DeLay did not "save" him from being convicted.
That should be a lesson to you why you should never idolize politicians and put them up on a pedestal like liberals are prone to doing time after time. It just makes their fall all that more difficult to accept.
Just one.
Better yet, how about mikehuck proving it!
Lol!
You claimed that no one on the right backed up Vitter after he was shown to have committed crimes from the Senate floor. This is an outrageous lie that is provable wrong. His right-wing colleagues gave him a standing ovation when he retured to the Senate. With cheering and everything. You would know this if your world included even a dose of reality.
You claimed that none of the right-wingers tried to lie their way out of their scandals? Larry Craig didn't lie? Is that what really happened in the alternate universe you have chosen to live in?
You voted for G-Dub TWICE - Oh, wait, sorry. You only wanted one incident. You are welcome.
I didn't say no one on the right backed him up, mikehuck.
You said I was wrong about Obama and his birth certificate. You've said a lot of things about me and the birth certificate that just aren't true. I was asking you to name one thing I've said about the BC that was wrong, not just anything you think I said that you disagree with. Vitter was never hailed as a hero by the right-wing like Weiner was by the left, not even close. Vitter didn't lie about it to the public expecting his conservative base to cover for him. Vitter didn't lie to the president thinking he would cover for him. Once Vitter and his wife told admitted his affair, conservatives en masse didn't immediately go to his defense. If Weiner had admitted the pic was of him right from the start instead of saying it was a hack and expecting his liberal fanbase to conveniently blame it all on Breitbart like many of you clowns willingly obliged him on, then this whole affair may have been over by the end of the day the following Monday. The reason it didn't is because he knew guys like you and the liberal bloggers had his back.
"I didn't say no one on the right backed him up, mikehuck." - hoosier
So, we can settle once and for all exactly what you are, hoosier. Are you a shameless liar, with such sociopathic tendencies as to think we are as stupid as you are and incapable of reading the words you post? Or, are you so ignorant of the very arguments you make that you forget about them almost instantly? Is the argument itself meaningless to you? As long as you get to argue for "your team" and against "their team" is any length of dishonesty acceptable? Is it purely partisanship that you thrive on with reality having no place in the world you have created for yourself with the help of Fox and hate radio? Please tell us.
You know what is beyond ridiculous? Your sad attempt to obfuscate when proven a liar. Shameles and sad and beyond ridiculous. It does make clear to us why people like you make heroes out of such charlatans as Breitbart, though. Clearly, reality and honesty play no part in your fantasy world. You have been taken advantage of and you are too simple to realize it. You should be embarrassed, but you lack shame.
Weiner was a hero. Vitter was just some guy. Weiner lied about his antics. Vitter was upfront about his criminal activity. I actually think you may have convinced yourself of such sick rationality based on nothing but pure partisanship. Let me know when Weiner gets a standing ovation in Congress, you proven liar.
Because I seem to recall a certain title about Atlas Shrugged.....
The Democrats’ corruption problem
1. Big-city corruption.....confirmed
2. The big government mindset....confirmed
3. Self-righteousness.....confirmed
4. Democratic voters don't really mind....Obvious one
The Republican Corruption Problem-
1.Coke and Porn Parties paid by the MMS for big oil staff.
2.A true-to-life big government infrastructure (as evidenced by the creepy invasiveness of Andrew Breitbart, and his use of that invasiveness to achieve realization of GOP directive, while destroying peoples lives, even by doctoring lies, as collateral damagefor the agenda.)
3.Shameless Hypocrisy (Larry Craig, Jeff Gannon, Mark Safford..., and say, what was the RNC tab for West Hollywood Voyer again?)
4.THE TEA BAGGERS REALLY DONT MIND--- like when you guys sit completely at ease with the fact that James oKeefe tried to frame Abbie Boudreau in a state of sexual humiliation, or that Breitbart continues to falsely slandered a good man like Juan Carlos Vera as a child trafficker (that guy has kids you know... do you care?)
All of the above has been confirmed and is as plain as day.
Outside of being such bogus hypocrits and bald faced liars, the only thing you guys seem to do right is sniff out crotch shots.
You know, you should print yourself out a whole slew of Rep Weiner crotchshots, and pin them all over your walls and cielings.
That way, you can always remind yourtself of the ONE thing Andrew Breitbart managed to get right... a picture of a penis.