Hannity and Melanie Morgan cited "double standard" in media's attention on Foley while ignoring Cindy Sheehan's alleged participation in porn chat rooms
On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity joined authors Melanie Morgan and Catherine Moy in comparing Cindy Sheehan's purported interest in online pornography to sexually explicit instant messages former Rep. Mark Foley allegedly sent to underage congressional pages. Morgan asserted that "[t]here's a double standard and hypocrisy at work" in the fact that there was far greater attention and criticism focused on the Foley scandal.
On the October 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity joined Melanie Morgan and Catherine Moy, co-authors of the just-released American Mourning: The Intimate Story of Two Families Joined by War, Torn by Beliefs (WND Books, October 2006), in comparing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's purported interest in online pornography to sexually explicit instant messages former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) allegedly sent to underage congressional pages, asserting that the far greater attention and criticism focused on Foley's alleged conduct represents a "double standard."
American Mourning is purportedly a biography of two families who lost soldiers in Iraq, including the family of Army Spc. Casey Sheehan. In the book, Morgan and Moy quote Cherie Quartarolo, the sister of Sheehan's former husband Pat, claiming that, following Casey's death in Iraq in April 2004, "Cindy had become addicted to online chat rooms of a pornographic nature. She had many men communicating with her. She eventually had physical rendezvous as well." The book offers no other information substantiating Quartarolo's claim but later refers to Sheehan's "pornography addictions and her dalliances" and asserts that Sheehan had exchanged "hundreds of explicit e-mails and instant messages" with Lew Rockwell (pp. 170-172).
On Hannity & Colmes, Morgan accused the media of being "a willing and complicit factor" in the story of Cindy Sheehan, who became an anti-war activist after her son was killed in Iraq. Co-host Alan Colmes then objected: "I find that going after Cindy Sheehan the way you are is despicable. This is a woman who lost her son. Everybody grieves differently. In your book, for example, you talk about Cindy Sheehan having an affair with Lew Rockwell. You say she's addicted to online porn, which has nothing to do with anything, as far as I'm concerned." In response, Moy asserted that "this just fills out a little bit of the story. It had to be in there. I mean, we talk about instant messages with other people now, don't we? And I know you talked about it, because I've heard you." Colmes later asked: "Is Cindy Sheehan a policymaker? Is she an elected representative?" Morgan replied, "She thinks she is."
Moy further argued that Sheehan's purported interest in online pornography is fair game because Sheehan "made herself ... a public person." Hannity, on the other hand, wondered whether the differing treatment of Sheehan and Foley represented a "double standard," asking: "Does it only matter if Republicans have Internet ... inappropriate messages? Is that the story?" Morgan replied: "There's a double standard and hypocrisy at work, and we are not going to let it stand."
From the October 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
MORGAN: The media was a willing and complicit factor in this whole story. Cindy Sheehan was not just an ordinary, suburban, Vacaville, California, mom who suddenly planted herself -- and woke up one morning, and said, "I've got to do something about the war in Iraq," and went to Crawford to ask the president: "What noble cause did my son die for?" What happened was, she was financially assisted -- hundreds and thousands of dollars were spent to help her to create a media message, which she, in fact, began unspooling every night on the 6 o'clock news, and --
COLMES: Let me just say something. I find that going after Cindy Sheehan the way you are is despicable. This is a woman who lost her son. Everybody grieves differently. In your book, for example, you talk about Cindy Sheehan having an affair with Lew Rockwell. You say she's addicted to online porn, which has nothing to do with anything, as far as I'm concerned. You tie her to David Duke and the KKK and [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez. And I really think it's disgusting.
MORGAN: Well -- well --
COLMES: I really think it's disgusting what you're doing, in terms of talking about her being online in chat rooms, doing porn stuff. What does it have to do with anything?
MORGAN: Let me answer that question for you. And I'm happy to answer it, Alan, because she introduced the subject of her personal life herself. She created a biography for herself that was largely untrue and uncorrected by the media. We were doing a biography on Casey Sheehan and Justin Johnson, the two boys who were best friends. The families were also part of the story. And we also dealt specifically with the Johnson family, who also had addiction that became part of their reaction, their extreme reaction to their grieving, and we were sorry to have to report this kind of --
COLMES: You didn't have to report anything.
MORGAN: Oh, of course we did --
COLMES: What does it have to do with anything?
MORGAN: Why would we be dishonest in doing a biography?
COLMES: First of all, I think it's a smear job to talk about her online, having affairs, doing online porn, as if that has anything to do with anything. This is a woman -- everybody goes through a grieving process differently.
MOY: Absolutely.
COLMES: And the Johnson family clearly did it differently than the Sheehan family.
MOY: Alan, the truth is truth. It's not conservative; it's not liberal; it's the truth. Some people can't handle it. In this case, this just fills out a little bit of the story. It had to be in there. I mean, we talk about instant messages with other people now, don't we? And I know you talked about it, because I've heard you.
COLMES: Well, we've talked about it because it was a news story.
MOY: And she's a public person, too, and it is a news story.
COLMES: Is Cindy Sheehan a policymaker? Is she an elected representative?
MORGAN: She thinks she is.
MOY: She affects policy.
COLMES: Is Cindy Sheehan somebody that the American people have chosen to represent them in any legislature? She's an individual citizen who's chosen to speak out based on her grief.
MORGAN: We give her kudos for her brave voice. We do. And just like I have been very vocal on the other side of the issue, we don't have a problem with that. We have a problem when the story is not told accurately. There has been a travesty in the media.
HANNITY: We've got to run. Does it only matter if Republicans have Internet --
MOY: Messages that are --
HANNITY: -- inappropriate messages? Is that the story?
COLMES: Mark Foley was an elected representative protected by the leadership of the Congress.
HANNITY: Hang on a second -- is that it? Is that the story?
MOY: She's a public official, and she made herself be one. She's a public person now, not an official. You're right.
HANNITY: Double standard?
MORGAN: There's a double standard and hypocrisy at work, and we are not going to let it stand.
HANNITY: Good to see you both.
MOY: Right. Good to see you.
HANNITY: Thank you for being with us.
MOY: Thanks.
HANNITY: Appreciate your time.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Cindy Sheehan being elected to any office, do you? Nor do I remember her aligning herself with a "family values" party. This is nonsense.
How desperate are these guys?
Check out Media Research Center's story ([link to www.mediaresearch.org] about the supposed media "double standard" between the Foley story and that of Mel Reynolds (D-Illinois). Here's the catch: the Reynolds case was 12 YEARS AGO. Talk about desperation.
12 years or 12 months, it doesn't make a difference. If you fail to see the media's and Democrat's double standard in the sex scandal realm, you're either ignorant, stupid or in denial.
Ignorance, stupidity AND denial, what with the vast personal experience of your own LIFE. Reynolds went to JAIL, he served the entire term for his sex charge. No democrat I know of tried to cover up his wrongdoing. So while your ignorance, stupidity and denial expertise are not being questioned. Knowing what you are talking about may be another matter.
Not that I expect you to. People like Studds are celebrated by the Democratic party. I guess sodomizing a minor is ok, because it was "consensual". I guess it's too much to expect consistent outrage. But I guess sodomizing a minor is just ok as long as you have "D" in front of your name.
displaying that ignorance, stupidity and denial, that you just commented on. Yes, display that expertise. No one I know celebrates Studds. While I dont approve of what Studds did it was a consensual affair with a guy above the age of consent. Sodomy doesnt concern me at all if it is consensual and not with those below the age of consent. As for Reynolds HE WANT TO JAIL. He served the entire term for the sexual impropriety. I dont know exactly what more you want. Perhaps branding a scarlet letter on him. Meanwhile NO DEM COVERED UP FOR EITHER STUDDS, who was reprimanded by the House nor Reynolds WHO WENT TO JAIL. Feel free to further display your moronity, it is at least amusing
" While I dont approve of what Studds did it was a consensual affair with a guy above the age of consent. Sodomy doesnt concern me at all if it is consensual and not with those below the age of consent. "
Your turn to display stupidity..."consensual" does not apply in that case. It only applies if the two parties are within 4 years in age to each other and the legal guardians give approval. So, while you claim to be outraged at Studds activity, you show no sorrow that it happened by claiming it was an "authorized" affair since a teenager gave his approval to be raped by a man. So, do you still approve of the sodomy that Studds did to those young men? (yeah, yeah...I know, he only 'did' one kid...but that's all we KNOW about)
Studds was illegal to rape a minor, and the liberals feel he has been "punished enough" because he was "reprimanded" and you show the liberal hypocrosy by saying what you say. Using your liberal wisdom to claim Studds was in the right and Foley is the worst criminal in the world because he targeted young children.
That's ALL you guys bring, EVER. LOOK OVER THERE LOOK OVER THERE LOOK OVER THERE!!!! THEY DID IT TOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Like a bunch of spoiled little kids, you whine "yeahhhhh, but what about BOBBY?"
Since you CANNOT defend your party, you attack the Democrats, and Sheehan (who's never been elected to office, by the way- THAT'S what this thread is about, NOT Studds, Clinton, or whoever else) in a completely transparent, disgusting, retarded attempt to distract everyone from looking at the disgusting state of the GOP.
Desperation, she makes a stinky cologne. And you guys are as desperate as the day is long.
Laughable, really. Oh, and TOTALLY PATHETIC.
I have seen you make it before. What I have never seen is you back up that this in THIS case it was relevant. I remember the scandal at the time. I was critical of Studds at the time. HE said the page was above the age of consent. At the TIME I didnt see anyone counter his claim that the page was above the age of consent. So until you cough up WHERE it happened, and what the applicable state laws were at the time this is just you TRYING to say you know something you dont.
IF you can show me this relevant information I will concede you are right and be even more critical of Studds. UNTIL you do that you are bloviating.
Go look up your own law descriptions. Anyone with a brain knows what "consensual" means concerning a minor (that might be why you're having a hard time with this one). If you're underage, it means you need parental consent/approval. Did he have consent from the boys parents to rape their child? I doubt it. And, I doubt you'll ever be (or ever was) critical of Studds behavior. As a proud member of liberalism your mainstay belief is that all and any gay person can do whatever they want because gays are a protected group. Unless that gay is a republican, then all of a sudden being gay is a crime that needs to be "handled" immediately and forcefully! Liamd
because all sex scandals are the same.
*rolls eyes* Clinton getting a BJ is the same as Foley soliciting minors is the same as O'Reilly's loofah incident.
Gimme a break.
I'd respect Republicans and other conservatives more if they would ever take responsibility for anything.
will explore the private life of TV moralists... Let's see what will be their reactions...
We have clues already of what Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are into. All those conservative repressives....must be some serious kinkiness lurking in those minds. The worst part is not that they would be into kinky sex...but that they're such hypocrites about it.
Trying to lure underage kids to have sexual dalliances they MIGHT have a point, if there isnt, they dont.
They wouldn't have a point then either, unless they could show Democratic leadership knew about Sheenan's proclivities for the underaged and did nothing to stop it.
So the comparison is false because: She is not elected She didn't diddle with minors There was no coverup
And that's assuming the allegations are true, because it sounds like a smear to me.
Ah, that's the smell of conservative desperation.
Face it, Sheehan is a wierdo AND a liberal...so, of course she will seek out children to seduce. That's what that kind of liberal does...seek out kids to perform their wierd idea of morality with. You gotta love the morality of the liberal...you can do whatever you want and "it's all good", but if a non-liberal performs the same acts you get booted out of your job for being "deviant" and crucified for those "disgusting acts" by the same group of people who want it all legalized.
It's not like we need to produce any proof now, she will provide it for us sooner or later. Shehan only looks for more publicity. And if having sex with minors works for Studds, Crane and Foley ....... (oh wait, Crane did it with the opposite sex...what a wierdo!)
Colmes is right. It is disgusting. This is nothing but a smear job by these two Republican shills. Sheehan has the right to grieve any way she wants. She is allowed and has the right to engage in online pornography with 50+ year old man.
The difference between Foley and Sheehan is that Foley was sending inappropriate instant messages to underage pages, minors, for God's sake. Foley was taking advantage of their innocence and foisting himself upon them. What we see with Sheehan, just like Clinton, is another consensual relationship. The Right wing in this nation is so desperate that they will smear the mother of a soldier lost in Iraq just to make themselves feel better about the moralless, lying, sexual deviants that they are. What a**holes.
CSL
I agree, but you're taking their claims at face value. In fact, it appears that they have no actual proof of Sheehan's alleged "porn addiction." Furthermore, just because they've chosen to label whatever correspondence she's had as "pornographic" that doesn't mean it is.
However, this shouldn't even be on the news. It is nothing but a smear campaign against Hannity's favorite punching bag, Sheehan. The right wing in this country has turned Sheehan into the boogeyman, all for exercising her right to free speech and demonstration. Most Americans can understand why Bush will not/cannot meet with Sheehan. Personally, I admire her for her determination. She lost her son. She has a right to ask, "for what"? without being demonized by neocon shills like Hannity and these two skanks looking to make a quick buck. Colmes is right. It's disgusting.
CSL
As someone pointed out at C&L, Moy has some nerve to be reporting on someone elses "addictions" when she herself is the size of a Volkswagen Beetle! Classless bitches, both of em!
It's Hannity and that other guy. Because colmes cannot seem to get a point across half as well as the people responding to this item right here in the blog. How is it that a thinking person cannot out-argue simple-minded reductionists like these so-called conservatives.
HANNITY AND colmes. Paired together in an industry in which eye impact is the ultimate job qualification for every desireable position.
" The difference between Foley and Sheehan is that Foley was sending inappropriate instant messages to underage pages, minors, for God's sake. Foley was taking advantage of their innocence and foisting himself upon them. "
Get serious! "Foley.....foisting himself upon them." You have real problems if you think that those pages are "innocent". They know full well what they are doing as they get their parents to "land" those jobs for them. Being a page isn't like working at micky-d, you don't just go there and fill out an app. You've got to have "connections" to get your kid into that exclusive club. Besides, what's the difference between Foley e-mailing sexually explicit writings and Sheehan e-mailing sexually explicit writings? Both claim consent. Are you suddenly becoming a hypocrit like most other liberals? How is it you call for a morality-check when a republican spews sexual e-mails but claim sexual-freedom when a liberal spews sexual e-mails.
Apart from the obvious fact that these claims of "online porn addiction" are completely irrelevant, what proof could these women possibly have? They probably found out that Sheehan was a Match.com member or something, and then they decided to characterize that as a porn addiction. Despicable is the word.
They try to minimize and disguise what Mark Foley did.
He was a sexual predator, going after the very youth he was supposed to be a mentor to.
Cindy Sheehan, if she did what they accuse her of, was having consensual "dalliances".
They are as different as day and night. To rally their base, they will smear anyone unfairly. To smear the opposition, they will equate unequal "sins" all day long.
Disgusting.
Heru... The most biter poster on here.
JLyon called Bill O'Reilly a domestic terrorist yesterday.
JLyon attacked O'Reilly becuase he is pro life.
JLyon is a troll , and an ultra psycho especially with the support of Cindy Sheehan who I think is a turd.
If you were to read my post, you would see that it shows the difference between what we say here and what Hannity says to the nation. That was the major point of my post. For some reason conservative wingnuts just can't tell the difference between a blog and a national platform. Of course, I added my own opinion in there as well. That's my duty as a poster at MMfA.
Why are you acting as an apologist for a troll? Maybe Ellie's right about you too?
CSL
I provided plenty of evidence, from your previous posts here, of your two-faced behavior that identifies you as a lurker troll.
I didn't just make wild allegations like you did. That would be what you did! I backed up what I said. Like most rightwingers, you make allegations but don't back them up with proof!
You lied about John Kerry's medical records, and then you came here and lied about yourself in other episodes, and I previously documented those actions by you.
Me = someone who backs up what she says
You = someone who isn't even honest about your sex! You claim to be a woman, so you can avoid acknowledging who you really are, and then when you were pissed at me last month you called me a "c*nt". No females call other females "c*nts". It just doesn't happen.
Quiet, and stop trolling.
...during a recent show that she hopes this book sells a lot of copies, because she has a lawuit pending and she'll be collecting the money it makes.
I hope she bankrupts all of them.
absolutely disgusting, this stuff. foley scandal is pretty well documented, what they say about cindy sheehan is pure hearsay from a person who has every motive to smear her. And these people are offended that both aren't treated the same, and whine about double standards in the media? There's this irony in this, but i'm sure it's lost on people who believe still believe that fox 'news' is fair and balanced...
These two barely function humans have no proof but the word of one person and even if she was into chatting in porn rooms that would have absolutely nothing to do with Foleygate which involves underage boys.
Only in the sick, twisted mind of Right Wing Authoritarian like Hannity would it or could exist a double standard.
In our "free" society if you are an adult and desire to look at pictures of naked people in the privacy of your own home it is supposedly still legal to do it.
I always thought it was a cunundrum to call yourselves "fair and balanced" because that would mean you would have the views of Hitler about the Holocaust and to take the child molesters side to balance out those who are against it. Well, the way Fox News defends Mark Foley proves they can take the side of a child molester.
How dare Hannity and that evil Melanie Morgan even question Cindys personal life and compare it to a Pedophile Congressman.
Cindy Sheehan lost a son in this illegal war, it giver her the right to say waht she wants. These Republican hitmen want to attack her personally .
Kudos for Alan Colmes also for saying its disgusting.
Hannity and Morgan and the fat one with her are a disgrace.
This sounds like a troll argument.
" ..... even question Cindys personal life and compare it to a Pedophile Congressman. "
I thought he was gay. You're saying that since he is gay, he is now a pedophile? I sure hope the rest of the gay population is starting to get their lawyers since they are now ALL pedophiles. Thank you for clarifying the difference between gay and pedophile.
" Cindy Sheehan lost a son in this illegal war, it giver her the right to say waht she wants. "
It's nice to know that liberalism is minimizing the loss that all parents of casualties are now facing because liberals (wrongly) feel this war is illegal. Her son lost his life protecting Cindy's "right to say what she wants". You make it sound like that right had been taken away from her.
Liamd
>>"...hundreds and thousands of dollars were spent to help her to create a media message" --Morgan<<
And I'm proud to say that a couple of those bucks were spent by me. Part of the reason I contributed was to counter the blitzkrieg of villification that was coming from the right against Sheehan at that time.
How many more American kids have died since those summer days when Sheehan's question went unanswered by the ignorant, drive-by Bush?
" How many more American kids have died since those summer days when Sheehan's question went unanswered by the ignorant, drive-by Bush? "
Well, let's check that out. Since "those summer days" there have been over 2 million "American kid" deaths by the method of abortion,tens of thousands of teenagers have comitted suicide and more have died at the hands of drunk drivers.
Perhaps we can get all the good liberals together and work on a solution to these "illegal" deaths. Do you think we should get our priorities straight? Are you more upset over deaths in an "illegal war" or more upset about doctors killing babies or drunkards killing teenagers?
Liberals give the right to doctors to kill babies, liberals teach their children there is no accountability and they become criminal/boozer/sex addicts. But, should a patriotic young man die in war he is demonized by his mother for supporting his country and liberals say: "it is good".
Melanie Morgan works for Morgan works with the Russo Marsh & Rogers public relations firm which specializes in electing Republican candidates, has with help from the Pentagon run "Truth Tours" to Iraq for right-wing US media personalities, and which receives funding from Iraqi Kurds to run advertisements on American television stations thanking the United States for the war. She gained national notoriety in the summer of 2006 when she suggested that Bill Keller, an editor of the New York Times, be killed in a "gaschamber" for the crime of "treason" after the Times' reporting on US government spying on Americans Her email there is Melanie@RMRWest.Net She has a radio gig as KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco and her email there is melaniemorgan@abc-sf.com
Reference [link to www.sourcewatch.org]
I presume that Catherine Moy is CatherineMoy@abc-sf.com but haven't used it...yet
The more contacts the better because these people are poisoning free speech in our country with their smear&lie McCarthyism.
PEDOPHILIA! no comparison...
Pedophilia is sexual arousal over prepubescent children. That means kids before they have hit puberty.
Foley is a sexual predator, and he groomed underaged youth to satisfy himself sexually. He was supposed to be a mentor to these people, not prey on them.
He is not a pedophile.
Foley's sins are much worse than the "sin" of looking at pornographic pictures or cybersex with other consenting adults, if Cindy Sheehan even did those things.
Foley is the same sort of class act as other people who use their power to sexually harass their subordinates. Of course, we have laws to keep those people from achieving greater power, and good Justices at the top like Clarence Thomas to enforce those laws to the ultimate.
So, who is Cindy accused of harassing? Oh, yeah, that weak, powerless guy, what's his name? George something?
....by donating money to Democratic candidates, or volunteering in any way possible to progressive causes. I personally just donated more to two of my local Dems in House races, and plan on volunteering my time.
Use your outrage to send a message, just like Cindy Sheehan taught us.
I think these kind of dirty smears will only backfire on the right-wingers. There's probably a reason none of our regular conservative posters are defending this. They're probably turned off by this.
Remember Schindler's list at the end? "I could have sold this watch, it would have saved two lives, why did I keep this watch? Or this car?" I'm at the point of wondering if I'll make the house payment on time and still feel guilty with every piece of mail from MoveOn, Westland, Kerry, Edwards, the ACLU, Jack Murtha, and eight or ten unanswered calls from the DNC on the pone every night (give to any of these once you will hear from every recipient several times each day). When it is over, will we still be saying: "Why did I keep this watch? This car? This boat?" Only if too few heed the call ...
What is this crap? It's a wonder Alan Colmes doesn't projectile vomit on Hannity and the alleged book authors. How Faux News can continue to promote such trash and NOT be seem for the total propaganda, hate mongering media outlet, is beyond me. This has to be transparent, even for the most brain washed among us. To smear Cindy Sheehan and somehow equate it to the Foley predator scandal is beyond grasping at straws. First, as many have stated Cindy Sheehan's personal life between consenting adults, should be just hat her personal life. Whatever happened to the "conservative" values of keeping government out of one's personal life? Second, for any person who has ever gone through a contentious divorce- are we really to believe the so called "word" of an ex- sister in law? Really. Third, ok again it's obvious, but come on. Mark Foley was a elected representative in Congress who used the access and information he had to teenage boys hose parents entrusted to Congress as pages to try and seduce then through graphic sexually oriented messages. Apparently was reported a number of times, been colloborated through a number of sources, and apparently wasn't dealt with for gawd knows what reason. At the same time he (Foley) had a very public leadership role on stopping the exploitation of children through the Internet. Ah, huh, oh yeah so any similarities to Cindy Sheehan. AHHHHH. Make the craziness stop. Please.
[link to www.nytimes.com]
"Let's see, connect someone to Democrats then smear that someone. Sounds like a good game plan. Now, go get em boys... and girl". Be on the look out for other "Liberal" public figures being smeared in a similiar fashion.
Will these two ladies be writing a book about Sara Evans and her sex-starved husband because Ms. Evans is a rightwingnut icon? And Ms. Evans has been outstpoken about the importance of sex in the life of married couples - although, apparently, not the type of sex her husband had in mind.
Meanwhile, I would recommend not getting between these two babes and a ham sandwich - you'd pull back a stub...
The war-loving "Christian" Republican base has got to be loving this story. I can see them now, cackling with glee over the oh-so-deliciously sinful thought of Cindy Sheehan and online porn! Washes the taste of Foley right out of their mouths.
Catherine Moy is a columnist for the Vacaville Reporter (Cindy Sheehan's hometown), and her email address is poohdo@aol.com (no joke - I got it from the Reporter website).
Melanie Morgan cohosts one of the most mean-spirited, local right wing radio shows in the SF Bay Area. Coincidentally (cough, cough), her husband is Jack Swanson, the big wig Progam/Operations Director for KSFO and the larger KGO radio stations. Morgan's program runs on KSFO.
organization is "Move America Forward."
[link to www.moveamericaforward.org]
Write them if you are interested in reviewing their financial reports. IF they send them to you...I'm still waiting for my copies of the annual reports from the J.C. and Frankie Watts Foundation.
Just how sad and desperate can Fox and its right-wing apologists get? Does Slanthead and his cronies have any clue how idiotic they sound?
What's next? Blaming Bill Clinton for the Cardinals blowing their 20-point lead on the Bears last Monday night?
Indigo:
I am still physically ill over that game. It is the right wing conspiracy's fault the Cardinals lost. The Bidwiils must be Republican donors, they are getting bad karma.
No way. It's obvious that Cindy Sheehan and George Soros were in the Cards' booth sending plays to Dennis Green in the second half.
It's so obvious they were responsible for Arizona's meltdown.
Stupid liberals! Is there anything they can't screw up?
...that an ex-husband is not a credible source when making accusations about his ex-wife? And that the ex-husband's sister is an even less creditable source?
The key slime word is, of course, 'porn.' How on earth is a sister-in-law supposed to know it's a PORN chat room? If it's an ordinary chat room, or a political comments board, she could very well be making contacts and meeting men, even for companionship, romance, or sex.
But no, it's a 'porn' chat room. One with pictures, no doubt.
Unless the sister-in-law is looking right over her shoulder and copying down URLs, what she's describing is a woman on line all the time, typing messages back and forth.
That's everybody here.
Take away the word 'porn', and what this sister-in-law is stating could be completely true.
But 'porn' is the only word the Right hears, or cares about.
I don't believe what even my best friend says about his ex-wife until about two years later.
This woman is about as untrustworthy a source as you can find in this world, making an unsupportable allegation.
But jesus, it's llike dogs being thrown a hunk of raw liver.
Porn. Porn porn porn porn porn porn porn!
I am dismayed by your Conservative Truth(code for: HATE).
Now I ask either of you or both of you to meet Cindy Sheehan on national TV and discuss issues. The rules are that you are not interviewing her but she is interviewing you. And wow, the facts about Mr. Morgana that will come out. You two are cowards of the lowest form. Ergo, gutless.
I saw Ms. Morgan. www.ignorance.com those pictures were not of high quality but we could see it was you.
Signed,
Sean H and the boys
hello all im new so take it easy are we actually discussing if consenual online sex between 2 adults is on a par with predatory messages to minors by a policy maker ????? we just carry on down hill dont we
Good point. They are worlds apart
These women must have attended the "Ann Coulter Journalism Academy Of Making Things Up Just For The Hell Of It". They have graduated Magna Coum Lousy and are now poised to peddle their tawdry book to the Right Wing Pundits everywhere. Motto: Trashing Human Beings For Fun And Profit...The Ann Coulter way!* (TM)
normally, he meekly bends over, and takes a stiff one from behind.
to the issue. haven't read the book, but it sounds like they're just throwing out allegations, with no actual proof. standard rovian tactics.
sheehan isn't an elected official, foley was. amazing that colmes wasn't able to articulate that basic fact. apples and oranges.
thus has the state of liberalism come to; when confronted with the easiest of BS to refute, the alan colmes' of the world still do a piss poor job of it.
if ms. sheehan has filed a defamation suit against the authors & publishers, i suspect she'll lose. their defense will be that they were merely quoting others, they never opined on the truth of the allegations.
they will win, the book will be bought by the hundreds by right wing groups, and the unsubstantiated allegations will pass into media lore as "truth", much as the "al gore claimed to have invented the internet" lie has.
these two can't lose.
i do think she's got the law on her side for this. Using the argument that it's not your words is really not an argument at all, also not a legal argument i think. I don't know a lot about these laws, but it is morgan's responsibility to verify the facts before she puts in writing for the public to read. Sure, the ex sister-in-law said this slander, but quoting it, and thereby accusing sheehan, without allowing her to respond to the charges, isn't allowed, i think.
Of course, i could be wrong about this, and if someone has a better knowledge of this matter, i'd be interested to hear it.
Personal morality becomes a different entity when it is applied to an elected official. Foley was that. He betrayed his contituents by appalling "hits" on boys. He reminds me of Caligula.
Sheehan may very well have had sexual rendezvous based on chat rooms. It's nasty stuff, yes. But nobody elected Cindy Sheehan to any office that she could betray. She could not betray her movement or her son's memory by seeking relief with a man she met online. If Hannity weren't so fixated on women as either the BVM or whores he might understand that. But he's a jackass so he can't.
What makes this so bloody difficult to understand? Hannity the provocateur, as the crashdive of the Republican party gets only two weeks away, is desperately fighting to keep the influence he probably has within the Party. Right, the Republicans are going down. Georgie will be left out there exposed with only his war to keep him war.
Played excerpts of Slanthead's broadcast from the day after his visit to the Oval Office to take his marching orders from Bush.
It was funny.
Hannity was berating his audience by saying if the Dems win the House and/or Senate, it will be because his listeners did not get out and vote. Bad listeners!
It was an obvious ploy to "gin the base," which is (I suspect) exactly what Bush asked Hannity, and the other right-wing radio robots (Ingraham, Bortz, etc.) from that meeting, to do.
I wonder if Hannity knelt and kissed Bush's ring when he met him?
Colmes never challenges what should be most basic question about these two smear merchants' story: is it TRUE? Are they LYING to further their rightwing political agenda. What in their background demonstrates that they're shills for the wingnuts? What evidence do they have other than the alleged word of some family member who may have ulterior motives for smearing Sheehan.
Instead, he plays right into the wingnut meme that Dems and liberals have not morals nor ethics. Colmes questions the relevance of the story while essentially ceding the truth of the story.
It's true that the story is theoretically irrelevant-- other than demonstrating the sliminess of the wingnut propaganda machine-- arguing that point is essentially admitting the moral bankruptcy of liberals. It's like Clinton resorting to the definition of "is."
It's difficult to discern whether Comes is entirely Ailes' puppet or just entirely lame and clueless.
I submit to you it was not because of her initials that Melanie Morgan was known as "MMMMM< MMMMM, GOOD!!!!"
of course, in that respect, mr. colmes follows the herd, never challenging the veracity of the allegations, merely arguing that they're irrelevant. thus, they play right into rove's hands.
what's especially grating is that it needn't require a rocket scientist to quickly and easily debunk these people, just someone willing to do a bit of hard work, and have at least half a brain.
that said, the core constituency will believe anything they're told. want proof? they still are convinced that, a. saddam was involved in 9/11., and b. wmd's have actually been found in iraq. this, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
actually, malice aforethought is the rule with libel/defamation. you have to know the information is false, that you're presenting as fact, and present it anyway. again, i've not read the book, but i suspect it was reviewed by the publisher's counsel, to avoid that very thing. as well, opinion is not actionable.
for example, i can say "i think AR is a raging twit.", and that is protected speech, right or wrong. however, should i say "i know for a fact that AR is a raging twit." and have no evidence to support my assertion of fact, that is libel/defamation.
the truth is always the first line of defense.
How come no one pointing out that CLINTON ADMITTED THAT HE LIED!!! The Republicans are all lying and blaming each other. Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly crucified Clinton, but did not blame the "leakers". With this Foley scandal? Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly blame the "leakers" (supposedly the Dems and CREW). Hypocrisy? Does this have to be pointed out? Why doesn't mediamatters or somebody play clips of Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly blaming Clinton and not the leakers (that fat woman that was bugged, I forget her name), and then play clips of Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly "flip-flopping" and blaming the LEAKERS with the Republican/Foley case???
These two women actually wrote a book? Must be a compelling read! I guess if they had nothing to say, no arguments about policy no new info about details of politics or even Washington life, gossip will have to do.
Who said that, 'intelligent people talk about ideas while the other kind talk about people.'?
Don't mean to give any other posters here the back of my hand - didn't read all posts - but it's so damn simple!
Sure Cindy Sheehan is a public figure but that doesn't make her having an active sex life with other consenting adults, anyone's business beyond cheap, stupid gossip! Shame on you for putting it in your silly book! More to the point it doesn't make it at all analogous with abuse of power in the pursuit of sex, or with further abuse in pursuit of a cover-up.
She may be 'fair game' for gossip mongers, but the left isn't responsible for her actions and in fact she didn't 'do anything' - even if the allegations are true - that the left or the Dems need to take responsibility for.
She didn't betray the trust of the people who didn't elect her to any office. She didn't abuse any power, since she demonstrably didn't have any! No one engaged in any 'cover-up' to protect power only linked to her by association - there wasn't any!
Hell, you don't even have to be smart enough to be a progressive or a liberal, to understand that there is no valid comparison and your little book of gossip - not to mention your stupid appearance on Hannity and Combs - is a mere distraction. Ladies, do you have any idea how foolish it makes you look, trying to establish some linkage or connection here? In fact, perhaps I've judged you too harshly. Perhaps your partisan loyalty is simply so great that you overlooked that fact and for now, you only appeared stupid!
On the other hand, if this is any indication of your true intelligence, reading your book must be a little like slogging through deep mud - without the exercise!
The minions of the right have been so busy with distraction that they still haven't noticed tha the Dems have all in all, been admirably restrained. If the right were wise enough to shut up the Foley scandal might go away!
OH! Right! How foolish of me, I nearly forgot that the Repubs are enjoying and 'working' this distraction from the real problems of lousy management, lousy governance and a little war they have burdened the nation and the world with!
in reading the nyt this a.m. iwas absolutely revolted to see gallagher ,boortz, ingraham, hannity and medved in the oval office are these idiots discussing policy,making strategic war plans? where have we gone when a president can bring an entie coterie of like minded media together? of course all administrations have their favorite media but it is generally "fair and balanced". the dems when they take back the house ,and that appears to be a crtainty now, must reinstate the fairness doctrine as their first order of business. hannity and limbaugh , in their own pathetic ways , are esentialy begging their minions to keep the repubs in power because if the f.d is reinstated they know their toast. can you give me halleluyah, amen
This is yet further proof of how low the right-wing will go to smear and destroy anyone who speaks out against their policies. So they get two "journalistic" hacks to write some tabloid trash that's probably the equivalent of The National Enquirer, then try to pass it off as their obligation to report. Mark Foley is an elected official, so I don't understand what kind of "double-standard" Hannity is referring to.
As for the wingnuts who keep referring to Gerry Studds...some of us aren't old enough to even remember who that was, so stop accusing all Democrats as supportive of him! If a Democrat would have been busted for hooking up with congressional pages, I would be just as outraged. Similarly, when Clinton was busted for his affair with Monica, every Dem I know was intensely disappointed...however, one should not be impeached for receiving a b.j., no matter what their political affiliation may be...