Buchanan repeated discredited claim that Rep. Frank "had a fellow running ... basically a full-service whorehouse in his basement"
SUMMARY: On MSNBC, Pat Buchanan asserted that Rep. Barney Frank "had a fellow running a -- basically a full-service whorehouse in his basement." In fact, the House ethics committee found that the man's initial public assertions that he had run a prostitution ring out of Frank's residence were contradicted by evidence and the sworn testimony of third parties.
On the August 29 edition of MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams, during a discussion of congressional sex scandals, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan asserted that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) "had a fellow running a -- basically a full-service whorehouse in his basement." In fact, the House ethics committee -- which, at Frank's request, investigated the allegations made by Stephen Gobie -- found that Gobie's initial public assertions that he had run a prostitution ring out of Frank's residence were "contradicted by third-party sworn testimony or other evidence." In its report, the committee further absolved Frank of allegations that he was aware of "prostitution activities alleged to have taken place in his apartment," as Media Matters for America documented.
In August 1989, Gobie reportedly told The Washington Times that he ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's Washington, D.C., apartment and that Frank was aware of his operation. While Frank admitted to having paid Gobie for sex several years earlier and to later hiring Gobie as an assistant, Frank denied any knowledge that Gobie allegedly ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment.
As The Guardian reported on August 30, 1989, Frank "asked the House ethics committee ... to investigate his relationship with" Gobie. The committee subsequently launched a 10-month investigation, ultimately finding, as The Boston Globe reported on July 27, 1990, "that Frank had violated House rules by writing a misleading memo that was used in an effort to end prostitute Stephen Gobie's probation on felony charges and by allowing his House privileges to be used to waive 33 parking tickets that Gobie might have received while driving Frank's car." The committee's report on the investigation recommended Frank be reprimanded for the infractions, and the House voted for such punishment on July 26, 1990. However, the committee further concluded that "the weight of the evidence does not indicate that Representative Frank had either prior or concomitant knowledge of prostitution activities alleged to have taken place in his apartment."
Moreover, contrary to Buchanan's assertion, the ethics committee's report repeatedly noted that Gobie's purported evidence that he had been conducting a prostitution ring out of Frank's residence collapsed under scrutiny. The committee noted that several of Gobie's claims were "repudiated by sworn testimony" from other individuals (Page 18). For example:
Not only have Representative Frank's landlords, Colonel and Mrs. James Daugherty, submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion, Mr. Gobie's assertion has also been rendered questionable by the fact that his claims of call-forwarding service were contradicted by the telephone company.
Gobie had claimed that Frank allowed him to forward calls from his "escort service" to Frank's apartment.
Also, members of the committee repeatedly asked Gobie if he had "any knowledge whether any of the clients that you arranged to engage your escort service in fact were involved or participated in any sexual activity at the Congressman's residence" or whether Gobie himself engaged in such activities at Frank's apartment. In each instance, Gobie answered, "Not that I can recall at this time" (Page 7).
The committee concluded "with Respect to the Credibility of Stephen L. Gobie":
While much has been said, written, and speculated with respect to Representative Barney Frank's relationship with Stephen L. Gobie, it is clear that most, if not all, of such media attention has been the product of assertions made by Mr. Gobie. As has been discussed in detail in prior sections of this Report, the Committee went to great lengths in seeking testimony or other information relevant to the assertions. In numerous instances where an assertion made by Mr. Gobie (either publicly or during his Committee deposition) was investigated for accuracy, the assertion was contradicted by third-party sworn testimony or other evidence of Mr. Gobie himself (Page 37).
From the August 29 edition of MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams:
ABRAMS: Are Republicans more prone to sex scandals? We looked at the past 10 years, all right. By our rough count, Republicans had double -- double -- the political sex scandals of Democrats: 10 to 5 over the past decade. We looked at Congress, governors, and of course the presidency -- and because Capitol Hill is no stranger to scandal, it was not an easy task, going through the history.
But in the past year alone, there's [Sen.] Larry Craig [ID]; there's Sen. David Vitter [LA], who admitted seeing a prostitute; [former] Congressman Mark Foley [FL] and those emails to congressional pages. Now, you may remember Republican Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan, who dropped out of the race when his wife alleged he'd taken her to sex clubs and asked her to have sex in front of other people. Louisiana Congressman Bob Livingston, an impeach-Clinton leader who abruptly resigned hours before the vote to impeach Clinton after revelations he had an extramarital affair. Ohio Congressman Steve LaTourette's affair was exposed by the Hill newspaper in 2003. GOP Congressman Don Sherwood [PA] lost his seat last November after reports he settled a lawsuit with a former mistress who accused him of strangling her. And there's former House Speaker Newt Gingrich [GA] who finally admitted he had an affair. And revelations former Congressman Henry Hyde [IL] had an extramarital affair 30 years earlier. Representative Ed Schrock [VA] decided not to run for re-election after allegations came out about taped phone calls of him with another man.
Democrats have had their bad apples, too: President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky; "I'm a gay American" Jim McGreevey [NJ]; Congressman Gary Condit's [CA] career ruined when it was revealed he told police he had an affair with murdered intern Chandra Levy; former West Virginia Governor Bob Wise admitted to an extramarital affair; Kentucky Governor Paul Patton's political career fell apart after allegations he retaliated against an ex-mistress' business when she ended the affair.
All right, so there you have the last 10 years in political sex scandals laid out, but bottom line, Pat, it does seem that at least when you look at the last 10 years, you got 10 to 5 and you got these family values guys getting busted -- are the Republicans involved in these sex scandals more often?
BUCHANAN: I don't really think so. I mean, in terms of morality up on the Hill, I think it's six-one, half-dozen of the other. But I will say this, there's no doubt about it, the retribution by the Republican base against people who engage in extramarital sex, and especially homosexual activity, is much more severe.
You remember the famous case of [former Rep.] Gerry Studds [MA] and [Rep.] Barney Frank [MA], one of whom had a fellow running a basically a full-service whorehouse in his basement and the other of whom took a 16-year-old page around the world -- both survived, were re-elected, but a Republican congressman involved with a 17-year-old female intern was thrown out immediately. I don't know that there's more of one than the other. It used to be back in the time, the Nixon era, it was the Democrats, you know, [late Rep.] Wilbur Mills [AR].















Sometimes repeating the slander just makes the slander worse, more destructive and injurious.
Either that, or Pat is running out of material and finds himself forced to drag Barney Frank into a story where Barney's sexuality has no relevance.
Bottom line:
If Barney Frank or Gerry Studds were Republicans they would have:
1) Been pressured to resign by their fellow Republicans
OR
2) Would have been voted out of office by Republican/Conservative voters.
But Barney Franks & the late Gerry Studds were Democratic/Liberals from Massachusetts.
They both stayed in Congress & continued to get re-elected. Studds even got a standing ovation from Dem/Libs after he turned his back on Congress as they officially censored him.
Pat was a tad off with this story...but not by much.
Been pressured to resign by their fellow Republicans
Like Foley?
Or Vitter? Or that alaska rep. under investigation?
Psst, guys, J2 is trying to stay "on message".
JJ, don't let his good looks fool you tonight. He's using short term memory to make his case!
Well, he is awfully good looking. I dunno. ;-)
Alright folks, it's true I am very good-looking.
Oh yeah & I do suffer from short memory loss ;-)
There are rotten apples on both sides of the aisle.
But the Republican apples preach.
The Democratic apples don't.
Mmmm...well now I'm hungry. Think I'll go get an apple.
So why do the republican apples reak? Is it because they fall far from the tree, or because they fall to quickly? Did y'all cut back on the labor necessary to pick them up and ship them to market?
Oh, sorry, meant "preach". NOT!
They're busy making those apples into hard cidey, 'bout to make the rounds of the 'Publican speak easy, ya know the one where it's easy to speak bad about those dastardly Democrats.
Oh, good looking vain one, the right wing answer to everything is that both sides do it. Now go get me a granny smith with some caramel and pecans on it. Mmmmmm.
I don't know who granny smith is, but if she looks like raquel welch did at that age, I'm all over that!
Whose a good doggy, whose a good doggy!
the right wing answer to everything is that both sides do it.
Julia my love, please don't tell me you believe Liberals are without sin?
Both sides have exhibited less than moral & ethical behavior from time to time.
Bad news...that granny smith apple with the caramel and pecans I fixed for you. I ate it.
Sorry :-/
Whose a bad doggy, whose a bad doggy. I hope that granny smith gives you a tummy ache, sir. :-0)
so true! it's just y'all are on 1st right now. Your whole lineup is batting less than 0.25, how do you win a game with that lineup unless if you change the rules?
JETER:
There are many variations and convolutions to the issue of "personal lives" of politicians.
But the one overarching issue is this: Democrats largely legislate to help people, and do not seek to make legislation to regulate morality. Human behavior causes problems, to be sure, but Democrats concentrate on addressing the problems without being judgmental, while the GOP addresses probems by blaming the victims, telling people how they "ought to" behave, and holding THEMSELVES up as shining examples of proper behavior.
This difference in approach to "personal" issues makes for wildly different criteria in how to evaluate personal performance. This is entirely FAIR, because the GOP side makes a huge issue about personal behavior, uses it as a wedge issue, and to pander to religious, fundamentalist, and "morals" voters.
Since the GOP MAKE this an issue, it is certainly fair to judge them by their own stated standards.
Since the Democrats do not claim "holier than thou" standards, it follows that they cannot and should no be judged on that issue as harshly as those who RUN on their personal morality to garner votes.
Everybody does it, everybody is human and fall short of perfect behavior, but one side makes it a vital ISSUE, while the other side does not.
Think of it this way: Candidate A runs by saying he will always wear a suit when doing the nation's business. Candidate B is casual, and doesn't even address a dress code as a part of his agenda. If Candidates A and B show up for work dressed casually, for whom is this an ISSUE? Candidate B never made any claims, but Candidate A is violating a promise and a principle he made to get elected. Candidate A will be judged harshly, and SHOULD.
Geez Tex suits vs casual wear?
How about a more realistic analogy with a little bite.
Here's mine from another post I wrote:
Let's say there are 2 married men. One preaches to anyone who'll listen about the importance of monogamy & keeping ones wedding vows. The other guy never says a word about the subject.
Both guys end up cheating on their spouses.
Both are cheaters. The guy that never preached about monogamy & keeping your wedding vows doesn't deserve a gold star & a pat on the head just because he isn't a hypocrite.
Point: Both have indulged in immoral behavior. One is a hypocrite. But neither is innocent & both should be judged harshly.
Ok I've got to get back to work...
I think that is a fair analogy. No analogy is perfect, but I can see it. It does explain a fair amount of the difference between the way both scoundrels are treated.
I think people are often more disappointed by a hypocrite than a typical scoundrel. As Republicans have often used preaching to get elected, it can also serve to make them hypocrites when they fail. Of course, this has also affected a Democrat or two who got elected doing the same thing - like Gary Condit.
TEX- well said.
This Repug sex scandal after sex scandal is well repugnant. Exactly because they "preach" the "family values" talk, to bash and trash those that don't fir a certain definition of morality in regards to personal behavior.
Homosexuality has been equated with everything form evil, sinful, 'mafia', corrupting our youth, undermining marriage, etc etc.
The recent scandal surrounding these very high profile bloviators speaks volumes on their own lack of a moral compass. Hypocrite doesnt quite do it justice.
Buchanan bringing up a 17 year old scandal involving Barney Frank and rewriting history is classic bash and trash Repug behavior. Look over there, folks they do it too. Wah Wag Wah.
Only he doesn't get the facts right, and Barney Frank wasn't pretending to be someone he's not, and not only took responsibility for his actions, but encouraged the full investigation.
This is very very slimy behavior. The whole sinking stinking ship should go down.
Or Duke Cunningham?
Or Bob Ney?
Or Newt Gingrich?
Or Tom DeLay?
Pressured to resign like Republicans. Oh yea, the party of accountability. That's rich. "We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know where they are." And we'll fire anyone who knew about the Plame affair. And on and on and circle the wagons and win at any cost to the constitution. In the scandals that actually are destroying our rights as citizens and getting people killed there doesn't seem to be any concern for accountability among Republicans. The hypocricy of jeters' statement is stunning and yet totally normal among righties.
Oh, I see this has been addressed already.
It has everything to do with pandering to the so-called morality of the constituent, while simultaneously partaking in that which is considered 'immoral'... that's mondo-hypocrisy... If you run on 'family values' and turn out to be Gay... well, what can you do? These liars deserve what they get. Mentioning Frank in this instance, purely for the well-known fact that he's gay... is even MORE pandering to the conservative base. But, it has nothing to do with the real issue - hypocrisy.
...and, not really aimed at you J - more at Buchanan's use of Frank as an example. If you don't like Frank .... that's fine. But, his sexual orientation's got (or should have) nothing to do with it.
Greek,
First off I do agree that when one preaches/lectures "family values" or any type of so called moral behavior & then is caught conducting themselves otherwise...they are most deservedly defined as hypocrites.
However, bad behavior is bad behavior.
Let's say there are 2 married men. One preaches to anyone who'll listen about the importance of monogamy & keeping ones wedding vows. The other guy never says a word about the subject.
Both guys end up cheating on their spouses.
Both are cheaters. The guy that never preached about monogamy & keeping your wedding vows doesn't deserve a gold star & a pat on the head just because he isn't a hypocrite.
Now as far as Barney Franks goes. He's not my Congressman, but he's very well known by anyone who lives up here in Massachusetts [actually fairly well known nation wide] I don't agree with him on probably most issues, but the guy is intelligent, articulate & possesses a very humorous wit. And from everything I've ever heard/read his constituents are pleased with him.
Now before you or anyone says, well that's obvious because they keep electing him...let me tell ya a little bit about Massachusetts politics.
This is a Democratic majority state. Quite frequently our Congressmen, and our two Senators run either unopposed or against candidates that get very little backing by the GOP, because it's a given the Democratic candidate is a shoe-in.
Teddy Kennedy's only serious challenger in about the past 100 years was Mitt Romney.
That's a fair assesment, but you still leave out the part about Barney not denying his status. He doesn't hide anything, lives as he believes. No credit for that?
Actually Snoop, I don't believe he was always "open" about his sexuality. But that may be faulty memory on my part. ;-)
I'll see if I can check that out.
As far as him being open now, that seems to be fine with eveyone up here. Including me :-)
Couple of things to get straight, J2:
First of all: his name isn't "Franks." It's Barney Frank.
Second: Gerry Studds wasn't "censored" by the Congress (which doesn't really have the power to do that--it's a First Amendment thing); he was censured. That may just be a typo, but it's a big difference.
Now, some facts about Barney Frank:
No, he wasn't "always" open about his sexuality. (What gay person was? You seem to be setting an unrealistically high standard!) He did, however, come out in 1987, according to Wikipedia--three years before the Gobie scandal.
Why do Massachusetts voters keep electing him? Because not only is he a liberal, ideologically in line with his constituency, but also because he does a good job for them. As you noted, he's one of the smartest members of Congress. Why wouldn't they keep voting for him? Because he's gay? Because he had a relationship with a guy who turned out to be a sleazeball?
Those would seem to be pretty superficial reasons for turning an excellent public servant out of office. Wouldn't you agree?
Well Hugh, after reviewing my posts here & on the NBC's Myers advanced "value[s] voters" myth, cited Tony Perkins thread I did in fact write Frank & censured on the other thread , however it seems I also did indeed interchange the words censured/censored & Frank/Franks a few times [I of course meant censured & Frank]. Oh I also referred to Gerry Studds as Gary Studds on one post..Not sure why I did that [brain fart?] But thank you for calling my attention to those errors.
When I wrote to Snoop that Barney Frank was not always "out", I of course was talking about his years as an elected US Representative. I figured that was understood. Frank was elected in 1980. According to your post he "came out" in 1987. Snoop wanted me to give Frank credit for being a lawmaker open about his sexuality. I merely said, I didn't think he'd always been upfront about it. I was correct.
Frank does get re-elected because he is fortunate to be a Liberal in a very Liberal state. He is popular with his constituents. And he virtually has very little serious competition for his seat.
You wrote:
As you noted, he's one of the smartest members of Congress. Why wouldn't they keep voting for him? Because he's gay? Because he had a relationship with a guy who turned out to be a sleazeball?
I do wonder if Republican voters would keep returning one of their own to Congress with that same background? Maybe not.
One can draw their own conclusions about that.
I don't share his ideology but I like Barney Frank, because he's interesting, bright, well-spoken, and has a witty sense of humor. I enjoy listening to him whenever he's on TV or radio.
Personally I would not base my vote on anyone's sexuality. For others that might be an issue. However I would take into account sleazy behavior, or cavorting with those that exhibited sleazy behavior. Straight or Gay.
Right. Again, the bottom line is...Buchanan is using Frank as an example b/c he's Gay. That seems to be enough for Buchanan and most Republicans. Period. It's used as some sort of proof of how bad a guy Frank is... By the same token, you seem to be unfortunate enough to be conservative in a very liberal state. But, that's really got nothing to do with Frank or his goings-on. I'll take a guy like Frank over a guy like Craig any day...for the reasons you mentioned.
Buchanan is using Frank as an example b/c he's Gay.That seems to be enough for Buchanan and most Republicans. Period
Well why shouldn't he bring him up?
Greek, Craig is Gay [or bi-sexual] & this is certainly a scandal that involves alleged soliciting of Gay sex in a men's restroom. And Barney Frank was once involved in a scandal involving an alleged Gay prostitute.
I think it's perfectly feasible & appropriate for Buchannan to bring up Frank as an example.
Now I realize there's some question about what Stephen Gobie was up to, & how much Frank knew about it but...
I always raise a skeptical eyebrow on the 'I didn't know' defense or the 'I'm sorry now that you've caught me' apology.
Jeter, we have the same situation here in Texas. We have the biggest bunch of crooks and liars in this here Republican ruled state as ever was. You and I should switch states. That way I'd be closer to Nantucket :-)
JJ, I never knew you were in texas. anywhere's near austin?
Hey Snoop, don't try to make time with my gal!
I'm not really your gal. You just want me to be a "bad" liberal with ya. Ha! :-)
I am crushed Julia...and here I bought you a ring. Well ok it was a Ring Ding. And I ate that too...
You don't have to be a bad Liberal.
Just be bad ;-)
I'm gluten free, doll. Have your fun with some other tart.
Gee, no pastry jokes?
Honey bun?
We were on a roll last night. I thought it was Friday night. But these posters today gave you lots of food for thought, all pastries aside.
Just north of Dallas, a little south of Denton. Yeee haw! (but a Yankee from PA originally).
Hey Juliajayne, I'm originally from Texarkana, Texas. Of course you know I had to leave but I do have friends in Denton.
You're lucky, Pearlene. Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Cornyn for Senators....yuck. I hope you have better reps where you are.
Vegas baby, Reid & Ensign half and half.
Cool! I was born and raised in Michigan, but as a teen my parents sent me to MMA in Harlingen. They kept moving during the school year, but I always found them! ;)
Snoop, I was celebrating my 16th anniverary with my beautiful husband up in Mackinac Island ( love that smell of horse manure and fudge) last week, and the Petoskey area. It was hotter than hades in TX and we had to get away.
Jeter, your analogy about the two married guys is a bit false. These politicians aren't just 'preaching' as your married man. They are using a pose to pander to moralists in order to gain political power. It really does make them worse in some cases. Especially when the case they are making is against the rights of homosexuals. The inherent argument behind the right's stance on restricting same sex marriage is that it's 'unnatural' and simply a choice (perversion) that some people make. To pander to this sentiment in order to gain power while you yourself are repressing that very reality speaks of deep personal corruption.
Sundog,
I'll admit I'm a bit lacking when it comes to analogies, but that was the best I could muster ...and on the whole I don't think it's too off what I was trying to get across. I'm not sure I can come up with one more appropriate. Maybe someone else here can. Funnymanpants & NoMoBush are pretty good at them. Now not to be snarky...but I have to wonder if you'll be critiquing Tex's analogy about promising to wear a suit & then showing up in casual clothes. To me that was weak. He's a Lib like yourself, so I'm just curious if you'll mention it to him.
You wrote:
It really does make them worse in some cases. Especially when the case they are making is against the rights of homosexuals. The inherent argument behind the right's stance on restricting same sex marriage is that it's 'unnatural' and simply a choice (perversion) that some people make. To pander to this sentiment in order to gain power while you yourself are repressing that very reality speaks of deep personal corruption.
I think preaching/lecturing others about any number of moral/ethical issues [and then doing the opposite yourself] is being hypocritical.
As far as homosexuality & Gay marriage goes...well each of us must decide for ourselves how we feel about either/both topics. Those that speak out against either/both are not necessarily bigots. They also should not be lectured to by others that they must accept a certain point of view.
The problem of course [and we both agree here] is IF you preach/lecture against either/both to gain power when in fact you are a closet Gay, then yes you are a hypocrite...and should it be revealed [because of a scandal], you also deserve to be referred to as a hypocrite.
The point [getting back to my analogy] was that if 2 people engage in inappropriate behavior, be it cheating on a spouse or whatever...both are guilty. But one is an hypocrite as well. That doesn't make the one who isn't a hypocrite any less guilty.
Hope this post makes sense...I'm trying to get out of here & get to lunch ;-)
Hey Jeter,
The difference lies in that these guys weren’t going around actiing holier than though and telling their fellow Americans they were hell bound if they didn’t hop on board the social conservative train. I certainly am not excusing their behavior and they wouldn’t have gotten my vote because they have poor judgment as far as I’m concerned and I want my leaders to at least have better judgment than me. You’re also correct, social conservatives seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to sexual indiscretions and they seem to limit morality to sexual matters. They appear to be much more tolerant when it comes to unethical behavior like lying, cheating, and scheming and other of a non-sexual misdeeds. This is the only way I can understand social conservatives casting their lots with the likes of Atwater and Rove and they come off like cafeteria moralists and they only choice the sex special. This also seems to explain why so many social Conservatives are living life on the down low since judgment by their political peers and base is swift and harsh.I'll try that again.
They come off as cafeteria moralists and they only choose the sex special.
does dessert come with that? [couldn't resist]
This is the only way I can understand social conservatives casting their lots with the likes of Atwater and Rove and they come off like cafeteria moralists and they only choice the sex special. This also seems to explain why so many social Conservatives are living life on the down low since judgment by their political peers and base is swift and harsh.
Excellent observations Lynn. Can't disagree at all. The sad thing I suppose is that because they [social Conservatives] choose to focus on sex as the big no no, many are forced into the closet.
Jeter, don't give The Republican party too much credit. How long was everyone aware of Foley and when was he asked to leave? After he was caught. How long was everyone aware of Craig? According to Scarborough Republicans were aware of Craig since the 1982 page scandal.
I feel like a little Neal tonight...
Abramoff, Tom Delay
The Indian gaming scandal
Karl Rove and
on to Haliburton
Dick Cheney, G. W. Bush,
Pumping up prices like gasoline,
And charging consumers
credit to high hell!
Lost loose change, in the range
$700 million here and $5 million there
Sold state secrets and
no one in Jail.
$2 million dollar toilet seats,
Rotten C-rats and political pictures
Katrina aid and
outing CIA agents too!
And each one said
as he tried to get head,
I just looked underneath the stall,
and wondered what my page was doing,
And wept when I got busted
For bein? done too soon,
For bein? done too soon.
For bein? done.
I hear ya Pearlene.
Seems nobody does a thing till after the crime is discovered. Just like all those so called genuine apologies we hear...everyone is oh so sorry AFTER they get caught.
Washington insiders [ Congress & the press] might have known about Foley & Craig, but I don't think the general public hears about how everyone in D.C. knew until the scandal erupts.
Back in the 1960's the media & Washington insiders knew about JFK stepping out on Jackie...but the rest of us never heard about it till years later.
But you're right, the Republicans may not deserve a great deal of credit. No doubt they are forcing out the bad apples more for self-preservation than anything else.
Jeter, I gotta say that Dems are bad too. I guess I don't mind them being bad cause they don't preach morality. Dems remind me of a hooker who goes to church. She's may be bad but she still has faith ;-).
Just like Delay was. Oh wait, he chose to step out of the race, but not before running in the primary so he could convert his campaign finances to personal wealth.
No, the bottom line is that Pat Buchanan pushed a deceitful right-wing talking point, with little regard for the facts.
You are right, in a sense: if Frank were a Republican, the party structure would have forced him to resign.
As soon as he came out.
Republicans don't cotton to no homer-sect-yew-awls, don'tcha know. They want dem-ol weeer-dos to stay where they belong--in the closet, not lettin their perty wifes and kiddies know when they're gettin their jollies with their boy-toyz on the down-low. Them's some family values!
Barney Frank has more integrity in his big toe than GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Michael Chertoff, and Gonzo combined.
"Barney Frank has more integrity in his big toe than GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Michael Chertoff, and Gonzo combined". HUGHG
You got that right.
Ok...so Barney Frank is reprimanded by the House for using his power to attempt to get parking tickets fixed and a felony probation dropped...and admitted to paying a prostitute for gay sex...his democrat constituents re-elect him.
Craig is charged with a misdemeanor...during his implied attempt at free gay sex...wanna make a bet what the republican voters in Idaho do with him if he runs for re-election?
Wesley,
When did Barney Frank run on a "family values" anti-gay platform?
His constituents made up a majority in Massachusetts. If Frank wanted to run again and won, I would have no problem with that.
His democrat constituents had no problem with his behavior and lack of ethics...that's why they voted for him...ok with me...that's their business.
With Barney's past behavior...it would be a little difficult to campaign on family values...a little like Mike Vick applying for a job at the SPCA.
The whole notion of 'Family Values' is a fabrication by Republican nitwits.
...which, actually, is all the funnier when these liars get crushed by their own facade.
Greek
I have a Pakistani friend who became a US citizen about 13-14 years ago. She was so excited and she couldn't wait to vote. She registered as a Republican and she asked me after she had already registered if I was a Republican. I told her I wasn't and she asked me why and I told her my reasons. They pulled her in with that family values marketing scheme. I didn't do anything to dissuade her choice I just explained my reasons for not supporting the Republicans. Well about 4 years later she changed he political affiliation she was very very disappointed with the Republicans. She told me that she found the Democrats policies more family friendly and she switched parties. God the woman is more liberal than I am now.I love it. I applaud her (and your) honesty. I still get surprised by the loyalty some of the more conservative posters show around here... even time after time. Seems to be an unyielding facet of the GOP in general - loyalty.
Loyalty's their only virtue. Sadly, their loyalty is almost always misplaced.
Yes, payback is a bitch, isn't it? Craig ran on a family's values, anti-gay platform. So imagine if those voters who elected him don't reelect him.
There is no such thing as a Democrat constituent. There are DemocratIC constituents and ReNAMBLAcan constituents. The difference is the hypocrisy. Frank was always openly gay. What he did was wrong and got him a reprimand. There were no real suprises to his constituents. Craig sponsered anti gay legislation, denied he was gay several times and was living a lie. I see a difference.
Amen, Solon. 100% Those arguing the opposite are being dishonest, I think.
The issue I raised is not about Frank's open gayness. It is about his abuse of his office...and the tacit approval by his constituents.
He is elected to be one of the leaders of the country...and he was caught red-handed trying to fix parking tickets and a felony probation and hiring prostitutes...and the democrats have decided that's ok.
Nice lesson for the youngsters in Mass.
Yes he ADMITTED to abusing his position that way. What he NEVER DID was hypocritically pretend to something he was not. The Democratic party did NOT try to cover it up, like say the GOP did with Foley, he was reprimanded and the people of Massachutsets made their decision about keeping him. Even COPS fix parking tickets, they shouldnt but they do, so he got the punishment the people of Massachutsets felt fit the crime. What it ISNT is comparable to this scandal.
- he got the punishment the people of Massachutsets felt fit the crime - solon
Yep...thanks for making my point.
You only THOUGHT you had a point. Slamming the people of Massachutsets for making a decision you disagree with is not a point. Its WHINING.
Don't hurt him too bad, he's been known to cry!
But mommy, they did it first!
You haven't answered me, how old are you?
..."Craig is charged with a misdemeanor...during his implied attempt at free gay sex...wanna make a bet what the republican voters in Idaho do with him if he runs for re-election?"
Oh, they'll turn him out all right.
But not for breaking the law. They'll turn him out because he's gay. They don't want no Brokeback stuff out in the open.
Oh how I love this. A little story; I guess I was about 8, maybe 9, when I got home and mom told me she knew about something I did. I tried the ol' "but Johnny did it first!". Didn't fly, still got an ass whipping, and more importantly, learned that two wrongs don't make a right.
I know it's been quite popular among the "moral" right for some time now, it's a staple on Fox news. But I swear Hannity and his ilk look like real grown ups. Must be the makeup.
Just exactly how old are you people that keep using this argument?
It's not only about the crime this time. It's about the HYPOCRISY!
And enough with the Frank, Studds, Clinton references. That was then and this is now.
That's exactly right. Craig was a severe/harsh critic of homosexuality... turns out he's Gay. what a surprise.
No, turns out he's a pervert. Big difference between gay and pervert, use Craig as a definition...
Buchanan's words re 'retribution' are commentary regarding the so-called morality of the Rupublican voter base, their likes, dislikes... Has nothing to do with sexual preference or orientation.
Furthermore, a striking/glaring difference is.... Republicans are more apt to be caught and severely punished by their constituents b/c they - without fail - pander to their base and denounce all those so-called dastardly deeds. That's one for the alleged imoral act... and one for being a bald-faced liar. The allegations against Frank are tenuous at best... he's also an admitted 'out' Gay man. Can't catch someone if they've already told the truth.
Vitter was caught hiring a prostitute. He has something like a 60 percent approval rating in Louisiana.
Vitter ran on family values.
Vitter is a Republican.
Barney Frank did not run on a family values platform. He does not vote against gay rights bills.
I also heard Buchanan try to compare that being gay was a disease comparing it to a compulsion. When will MSNBC stop airing divisive hate?
Many social conservatives do this when their opining. They usually liken homosexuality to alcoholism or kleptomania. That's why they have established these really funny de-homosexulization rehab centers. I think they give the graduates a certificate certifying that they are now 100% heterosexual or maybe they just tattoo on their butt cheeks, which is probably a good place to put so when these graduates have there next same sex encounter their partners will know they are are having homeosexual sex with a heterosexual.
Repulsive behavior is repulsive behavior. If an elected official engages in it whatsoever, I will consider the behavior itself and make a judgment as to whether or not I will vote for him or her, irrespective of his politics or what issue he does or does not champion. I hold all polticians to the same standard when it comes to their behavior and actions.......their public voting record is irrelevant to me when it comes to evaluating their misdeeds.
I won't vote for bad behavior simply because a certain politician doesn't emphasize character or value issues in their public persona......they are all the same in that regard, for me.
Tommy, alot of people will fall for the "but you must re-elect me, or you will lose representation on the commitees where I have seniority". I'm not up to speed on Sen. Frank's committee scenario, but I'd be willing to bet that has some thing to do with him continuing to be re-elected. Also, seems likely he is getting above average donations from donors out side his state.
I am also not up to speed on Barney Frank, I don't live in his district - if the people in Mass want to re-elect him, that is essentially their business. I am just speaking for myself and how I evaluate candidates who have fallen "off the wagon" in some way.
Ah, a fair point, here is another one. IF you vote for a guy and he does something wrong you make a decision on THAT. Was it so bad you wont vote for him again? Or was it something that you can write off as a mistake, and let it go if he doesnt do it again? On the OTHER HAND, if he tells you he is a devoted family man who is comitted to anti gay legislation or to to getting rid of the gambling casinos in your state and you find out he is gay and has a compulsive gambling problem that means he is NOT who you voted for. THAT goes to who he is it isnt a mistake it shows a pattern of playing YOU for a sucker for saying things you KNOW he doesnt really believe and that calls EVERYTHING into question, who is he? THAT is why hypocrisy is a whole new kettle of fish in your elected leader. If you are saying any mistake or transgression he is gone fine, that is YOU, it isnt really realistic to expect EVERYONE should see it that way. American voters are very forgiving and understanding but when the scandal shows that the man is NOT who he has portrayed himself to be he has in effect committed a legal fraud on you, a scam, you were HAD. You have no idea what he believes or how he can possibly represent you. THIS is why to ME and perhaps the people of Massachutesets its different.
Repulsive behavior is repulsive behavior.
Only in the eye of the one who is repulsed. Homosexual behavior is not repulsive to me. I don't want to do it because I'm not inclined in that direction, but I don't care what others do in private.
A case can be made that the GOP is screaming for Larry Craig's resignation and not David Vitter's because Vitter didn't pick up another man. That would not be a good case, but it would be a case. The real reason is that Craig's successor will be appointed by a Republican governor, and if Vitter were to resign his successor would be appointed by a Democratic governor.
Remember, if the GOP says it's about morality, it's really about politics. If you want to know what the GOP is doing, just look at what they accuse everyone else of doing.
Well of all things? Tom Delay is defending the Republicans by blaiming the biased "left wing" media. Who woulda thunk it?
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=fbb65dd6-1ac1-4b65-9f72-c2dc6d6943a0&p=Source_Today Show&t=m5
I suppose birds of a feather ...
Unbeleiveable that Matt Lauer would have Slimeball Delay on to talk about ethics. But it is instructive that the "on message" Delay was talking about was to smear Democrats and say that Repubs get rid of their own bad apples unlike Dems.. Sorry, if they did, there wouldn't be so many ethically challenged skunks in the Republican ranks. What absolute crap.
Interesting in a couple ways. I think I liked the graphic showing the leading Republican candidate at 23% was None of the Above.
It gets better. 8-30-07 Hannity & Colmes, Tom Delay eliminates Gobie completely from the story and claims that Frank was found guilty of personally running a brothel from his home.