After trumpeting ethics allegations against Massa, conservative media embrace his accusations against Dem leaders
After highlighting reports last week that the House ethics committee was investigating whether former Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) had sexually harassed a member of his staff, conservative media pivoted to promote Massa's subsequent claim that the Democratic leadership had orchestrated the investigation in order to force him out of office because he opposes health care reform legislation.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Hannity compares Massa to Foley, then runs with Massa's allegations
Hannity on March 3: "[R]emember how big an issue the Mark Foley case was?" On the March 3 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated (transcript from the Nexis database):
HANNITY: All right, remember how big an issue the Mark Foley case was leading into the 2006 elections? "Politico" reported earlier today that this guy, one-term congressman, Eric Massa, also from New York.
I don't know what's in the water in New York these days. But according to several House aides on both sides of the aisle, you know, this guy is married with two kids, who's being accused -- he's denying it -- but being accused of sexually harassing a male staffer.
Now do you remember the outrage then? So how big an issue -- I guess is my question -- how big an issue is corruption now going to be as we head into these midterms? You think it's going to matter?
Hannity on March 8: "[I]t looks like this is only the latest instance of intimidation to come from the Obama White House." During the March 8 edition of Hannity (from Nexis), Hannity stated that "the White House appears to be resorting to desperate measures to pass a government-run health care takeover. New York Congressman Eric Massa who resigned early this evening says the Democrats are starting to eat their own." After playing audio comments of Massa criticizing the administration and congressional Democrats, Hannity stated that "it looks like this is only the latest instance of intimidation to come from the Obama White House."
Limbaugh: "Congressman Massa, we're doing our part here to make it a national story"
Limbaugh on March 3: "Man, oh man, oh man." On the March 3 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated, "Man, oh man, oh man. New York Congressman Eric Massa, a Democrat, will not seek re-election after only one term in orifice. Literally." After reading allegations reportedly made against Massa, Limbaugh added, "I wonder if he's gonna -- could this be one less vote for Pelosi? I don't know. Doubt it. He'll hang in there."
Limbaugh on March 8: "Congressman Massa, we're doing our part" to make his allegations against Dems "a national story." During the March 8 edition of his show, Limbaugh stated, "Massa says that they're coming after him because of his vote on health care." Limbaugh further stated:
LIMBAUGH: He was asked in this appearance: "Well, why don't you rescind your resignation?" He said, "The only way I can do that is if this becomes a national story." So Congressman Massa, we're doing our part here to make it a national story. But he then said, "But you have to understand something, if I don't quit, the ethics investigation continues and they're going to ruin me that way." What would you do if you were him? What would you do, Snerdley, what would you do? They're going to ruin him anyway. He sounds ticked off enough that I would stay. This guy is as fired up as anybody I've ever heard anywhere opposed this, and the process and how they're getting it done. This guy is going to have so much support from people. We'll see. He's got five hours or four hours unless I was missing something here and he's said today that he's going to go ahead and resign and I haven't seen that.
Fox Nation trumpets "Gay Sex Harass Allegations," then asks "Did Rahm Railroad Out Massa?"
Fox Nation on March 3: "House Dem Resigns Amid Gay Sex Harass Allegations." On March 3, the Fox News website The Fox Nation linked to a Politico story using the headline "House Dem Resigns Amid Gay Sex Harass Allegations":
Fox Nation on March 8: "Did Rahm Railroad Out Massa? Beck Finds Out Today!" On March 8, the Fox Nation front page promoted Massa's scheduled appearance on Glenn Beck's Fox News show:
The front page linked another Fox Nation page that quoted from a Washington Examiner item on Massa.
But it also begs the question, will the reverse also be true around here? Certain posters, like DellDolly for example, stuck up for Massa last week on this very website, will she now distance herself from her comments defending him because of his "accusations against Dem leaders"?
What say you Sue?
Really? When cornered she scurries away, but we are the trolls.
Me? I don't neglect arguments I am aware of. That's stupidity squared to suggest that I let arguments drop "when cornered". You haven't once cornered me - now, I have cornered both you and your buddy, as have many others, and you two run away all the time, but not me.
And that argument I didn't "respond" to? The thread was created by MMFA on the 4th. I commented on it that day quite a bit, as well as several different times the next day too.
Bludog's challenge wasn't posted until the third day, about 18 hours after the last post had been made on that thread - and somehow I'm supposed to KNOW that, and I was supposed to have used my spidey-sense to figure that out I guess, and then reply?
You have such anomosity towards me, you post without any consideration to how ignorant you're going to look when I debunk your baseless allegations! This was a gold medal display of ignorance though - you really outdid yourself with this one - accusing me of scurrying away when it's the polar opposite of the way I behave and a great example of how YOU behave.
I thought we were supposed to ignore the "trolls," but I guess that's just one of your rules for everyone else.
But your post? Purely a baseless personal attack, so thanks for again confirming that you're on the side of the trolls. I always appreciate it when people dig their own graves.
Troll posts that are aimed at derailing threads are pretty easy to expose and describe. Defending oneself from an untrue personal attack, not letting that false story stand without challenge, is not wrong. In fact, when pointing out a troll post, one SHOULD confront and refute the distortion, and then warn others to not reply to that troll post. Since it's not likely that anyone else BUT me will reply to the personal attack, I don't think that warning to others to not reply is necessary, but I didn't 'feed the troll' here.
I don't have different rules for myself, RightON, but you have no compunction about lying, so once again you lie here.
Note to RO - I do not intend to label you as a troll. I'm just pointing out DD's hypocrisy. Of course she'll refuse to see or accept it, obvious though it is.
Anyone that disagrees with her in any way, ever, gets the troll label automatically. Without fail. She can't handle a different point of view because she has no faith in her own, that's the problem.
Any honest person.
But again, thanks for proving that not only do you take up for paid trolls like RightON, your reading comprehension is horrible.
It's not TROLLS that need to be ignored - it's their troll posts. Sometimes that's about all that a poster makes, is troll posts. One should not feed a troll post.
But you don't have a clue. Go on, keep making a fool of yourself. Don't let common sense stop you.
No one comes here to read your infantile post.
PLEASE...GROW UP or STAY OFF this board.
Just saying!
I wrote nothing to be ashamed about. Nor did I blindly support Massa in any way that should be scorned. It's not my fault YOU guys can't understand standing up for the truth rather than talking a politically partisan stand.
So, once again, you're making ad hominem attacks that are without any factual basis. I have NOTHING to walk back - nothing, and I didn't do what you accuse me of above!
He DIDN'T make any "unwanted sexual advance", based on what we know. He jokingly told a guy he was going to "frack" him after the guys he was with suggested that he should "frack" a bridesmaid! That's not a sexual advance! And he tickled a guy, and the guy felt very uncomfortable with that tickling, as it violated his personal space. That's what we KNOW. We don't KNOW that much, because the ethics committee hasn't released info - just someone who leaked info to reporters, and either the leaker or the reporters concluded that it was sexual harassment. There's NO evidence that it was, though.
And as I said the other day, I don't SUPPORT Massa if he actually IS guilty of sexually harassing anyone on his staff, but there's NO evidence of that at this point in time. Allegations leaked to a reporter is NOT evidence. What Massa said is the ONLY evidence we have. That's the point that you don't get. How like you to believe a theory without any evidence to support it. Again, because you don't get stuff the first time it's explained to you, allegations leaked to a reporter is NOT evidence!
And of COURSE you think I'm wrong - your personal animus so clouds your judgment it's amazing your keyboard still survives after you type a reply to me! That's YOUR failing. That's where YOU are wrong.
Wow, I mean Wow, you are defending such actions by a (former) US Congressman. Amazing.
This is not rocket science.
And I guess you need this explained to you AGAIN. I guess 3 times isn't enough. But, why don't you understand that having to have stuff explained to you numerous times is a bad thing for your credibility?
And as I said the other day, I don't SUPPORT Massa if he actually IS guilty of sexually harassing anyone on his staff, but there's NO evidence of that at this point in time. Allegations leaked to a reporter is NOT evidence. What Massa said is the ONLY evidence we have. That's the point that you don't get. How like you to believe a theory without any evidence to support it. Again, because you don't get stuff the first time it's explained to you, allegations leaked to a reporter is NOT evidence!
Oh, and thanks for dishonestly cropping my comments to portray them in a dishonest way. I love it when you continue to dig your own grave.
My god you lie from one post to the next. Do you have no shame? You are clearly defending his actions, read your own nonsense for proof. Wow.
I was DEFENDING HIM FROM charges for which there is NO EVIDENCE. It would be YOU who has no shame, as demonstrated by your repeated distortion of what I've said by cropping it out of context and by your apparent lack of reading comprehension.
This is not rocket science.
Describing what he DID admit to as NOT being equivalent to sexual harassment is NOT DEFENDING what he DID do!
And again, here's what I ACTUALLY wrote, IN CONTEXT. We all know you love to strip context by cropping statements, and it has to tee you off when I call you on that. Too bad, so sad.
He DIDN'T make any "unwanted sexual advance", based on what we know. He jokingly told a guy he was going to "frack" him after the guys he was with suggested that he should "frack" a bridesmaid! That's not a sexual advance! And he tickled a guy, and the guy felt very uncomfortable with that tickling, as it violated his personal space. That's what we KNOW. We don't KNOW that much, because the ethics committee hasn't released info - just someone who leaked info to reporters, and either the leaker or the reporters concluded that it was sexual harassment. There's NO evidence that it was, though.
And as I said the other day, I don't SUPPORT Massa if he actually IS guilty of sexually harassing anyone on his staff, but there's NO evidence of that at this point in time. Allegations leaked to a reporter is NOT evidence. What Massa said is the ONLY evidence we have. That's the point that you don't get. How like you to believe a theory without any evidence to support it. Again, because you don't get stuff the first time it's explained to you, allegations leaked to a reporter is NOT evidence!
Fine Sue, you defend him. Great company you're in there.
PLEASE DON'T FEED DIPPY THE TROLL
I already POSTED about the topic being covered by MMFA. You, on the other hand, have not. All you've done is post personal attacks.
That would make YOU the troll here, not me.
And I didn't stick up for him, not in any way, shape or form. You're lying. What I did was stick up for the known facts versus conspiracy theories that had no evidence to support them.
Here are two things I said last week about the smears being spread about him.
"There IS no scandal about Massa until he's found to be guilty of something! They're alleging that there IS a scandal because they're alleging that it's such a scandal, it's caused him to decide to not run, and there's NO evidence that's true."
"Yeah, he didn't even know that there was an ethics investigation going on when he announced his choice to not run for re-election.
But, of course, the rightwing went with their conspiracy theory that he was opting against a re-election bid because of the ethics investigation. Without any evidence.
Like I've been saying - it's the right who has the pattern of running with conspiracy theories."
Here's something else I said last week when people were unfairly linking him to Rep Mark Foley. In that comment, I was 100% right - yet guess what serial weasel troll Bludog said? That I should take it back. In fact, my comments are STILL accurate - Foley's sins and Massa's are quite different.
"Oh, baloney.
Massa is NOT being accused of inappropriate behavior just like Foley was.
Foley abused his position of authority to groom underage pages to get his jollies off of once they became of age when he had leadership control of the pages!!! That's nothing similar to potential sexual harrassment of an adult staffer, first off.
Secondly, there's no indication that the Democratic leadership turned a blind eye to that behavior by Massa, and there's a TON of evidence that MANY in Republican leadership refused to stop Foley!"
And here's another thing I said last week. Again, I am not ashamed, nor should I be, over anything I said about Massa last week. However, YOU should be (but won't be) ashamed of how controlling your personal animus is!
"And they did this same thing WRT to Rep Massa from NY. The ethics investigation has been going on for a month. When the Dem leadership heard the rumor, within 48 hours there was an ethics investigation started. If a decision to not run because of this allegation was made, why wasn't it announced a month ago??? Because the decision to not run for reelection has nothing to do with the allegation, that's why. The right is conflating two disparate events and pretending that they're linked."
Another couple of things I said last week? Sure.
"We don't KNOW that Massa did any such thing (made an unwanted sexual advance to an adult employee). He has denied that he did ANYTHING like that.
And Foley didn't prey on them while they were under the age of consent. He crafted child predator laws, so he knew EXACTLY how old they had to be before he could go after them, and he waited until they were old enough.
Now, he groomed them as future targets while they were underage, but it's unfair to say he "preyed" on them then."
Still NOT "sticking up" for Massa. Sticking up for the truth, and putting down people who run with conspiracy theories without any evidence!
Or this - tell me exactly how this is sticking up for Massa?
"The Republican leadership covered, repeatedly, for Foley.
Rep Foley held a leadership position WRT pages, minor children sent to Congress to get a specialized education. He abused his leadership position and position of authority over those pages to groom them so he could later become sexually satisfied by interaction with those ex-pages!
How is that similar to Rep Massa allegedly sexually harrassing an adult staffer? Steny Hoyer did NOT protect Massa after he heard that an ethics investigation was going to happen WRT the sexual harrassment charge. Republican leadership protected Foley for YEARS!!!
If anyone sexually harrassed a staffer, he should go, but it's STILL not as bad as someone who has sent sexually explicit messages to youths who have barely reached the age of consent who were initially contacted when they were still minors."
My comment related to your "push back" at my earlier comment about the string of "problems" that the dems seem to be reeling out. You said, as I noted above in my comment to RightOn, that I was accusing without evidence. Surely you read my comment above.
Again, Bludog proves that he's a liar and a troll.
Here's what I said in its entirety.
"Oh, baloney.
Massa is NOT being accused of inappropriate behavior just like Foley was.
Foley abused his position of authority to groom underage pages to get his jollies off of once they became of age when he had leadership control of the pages!!! That's nothing similar to potential sexual harrassment of an adult staffer, first off.
Secondly, there's no indication that the Democratic leadership turned a blind eye to that behavior by Massa, and there's a TON of evidence that MANY in Republican leadership refused to stop Foley!
You're dishonest. You suck!"
Here's his reply to my post, in its entirety.
"Wish to retreat now DD?"
His reply came two days after the thread was created and a day after anyone else had even posted on that thread, yet he and RightON have the nerve to suggest that I avoided the thread because I didn't have a good answer? How about because it had gone off the front page? What liars they both are.
On top of that, his reply was NOT about ALL the mounting scandals, as I prove above. It was about Massa. It was in reply to my post which was ONLY about Massa.
He's a liar and a troll who deserves no respect.
And of course, what do we hear now? That Massa tickled a guy, and he jokingly told another aide that he wasn't going to go after the bridesmaid in a sexual way, that he was going to go after the aide! But he wasn't serious. Now, he made the staffers uncomfortable, that's undeniable, but he's not guilty of sexually harassing anyone, and that was the theory that the rightwingers ran with without any evidence.
Like I've been saying - the rightwing loves to buy into conspiracy theories that have no evidence to support them. It's their pattern.
And RightON and Bludog the weasel have no valid arguments here.
I hope everyone remembers that this started out with Bludog/Wesley the weasel accusing me of running away from the fact that I needed to retreat from some of my positions - positions I copied and pasted above - that's how much I regret those positions, I posted them, complete with links, above!
What crazy talk! It's like the accusations that MMFA twists people's words when they provide transcripts! I am not making myself "look innocent", I AM innocent of your bogus allegations, as my copied and pasted comments above PROVE! I didn't say ANYTHING that I would take back now that we know more info - not a thing!
Your comment asked me if I wanted to take anything back, and that COMMENT was in reply to MY comment that was about MASSA, and Massa ONLY.
This is not rocket science!
It would be YOU who, when confronted with YOUR distortion of reality, tries to dishonestly shift the blame to someone else!
Excellent summation that cuts to the crux of the matter. The minions of the right are paralleling Massa to the worst of their brood, Foley and the like, then in the next breath they are extolling his claims, whether he made them or not, of corruption in the Democratic caucus.
The shortsightedness of this approach is typically conservative. They cannot see how moronic it is to first discredit Massa's reliability then use his as a primary source for an allegation. Any two-bit pettifog could collapse their case in ten seconds by just using THEIR OWN WORDS ABOUT MASSA AGAINST THEM.
Randy
However, logically, an involvement in a scandal does not necessarily discredit a person's claims about a different topic. It would be like saying Clinton could never govern again due to his scandal (yes, I am aware some people in the Republican party made such claims).
To say that he should not be investigated because of his inappropriate action amounts to an ad hominem attack. I would not be surprised if there was a little thugging around going on with Mr. Emanuel. I wouldn't be surprised if there has been in ALL the Chiefs of Staff.
"To say that these allegations should not be investigated because of his inappropriate action..."
False comparison.
Massa is being used as a witness for the right's prosecutorial whim AND as an example of the deceitfulness of the Democrats, ALL AT THE SAME TIME. It would be like asking Massa to speak on behalf of himself AND the prosecution IN THE SAME CASE, because the issue of his resignation is intertwined with his claims of corruption.
At no time was Clinton's sex scandal an assessment of his competency. The core charge was lying under oath, that's it.
Randy
However, the right wing media got snookered, no matter how they are now running away from it. They were all jumping up and down about this story yesterday, no matter how they are reinventing their impressions today.
I don't care how any of them are now saying they suspected all along that Massa story
I don't care how any of them are now saying they suspected all along that Massa's story was bogus. It was just too good for them to pass up. They all made fools out of themselves.
Oh, this really reeks of a conspiracy by the WH - suuuuuuure it does. And I know this perfect oceanfront lot for you, wonderful vista, right over here by the London Bridge - in ARIZONA.
Does the whole mess stink to high heaven? Yes, but not apparently in the way that some people at fox and (lack of) EIB are trying to suggest or outright claim.
I remember being in their gift shop once, when I traveled there with a friend who had a meeting... they had an EAS (formerly EBS) test on the radio station that was on. It used the 'sung version' of the introduction, which I have on Cheap Radio Thrills Vol. 2, along with "Phil Music and his Tijuana Pit Band".
Great production for those with a good sense of humor.
This just illustrates that the right wing hates the administration so much that they will compromise their beliefs to try and get an upper hand.
-----------------------------
The Midnight Review
I have a secret video of the Rahm vs Massa encounter the lighting is poor but you can see some of it .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRfyiFEDMmg