About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Double standard: After defending Hastert over Foley scandal, Fox now attacks Pelosi over Massa

March 11, 2010 1:52 pm ET — 137 Comments

Fox News has trumpeted stories that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's staff -- but not Pelosi herself -- may have been made aware of some concerns regarding Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) last year. However, following the revelation that then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert had likely been personally informed of email then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sent to a congressional page, Fox News personalities defended Hastert.

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.

EMBED

Fair and Balanced Fox: Defend Hastert -- who was likely aware of Foley's email -- but attack Pelosi, who says she was not aware of Massa allegations

The disparities between Fox's coverage of the reports surrounding Massa and its coverage of the Republican leadership's handling of the Foley situation are especially striking given the differences in the two stories. After the Foley scandal, the House ethics committee confirmed reports that Hastert was likely told about Foley's inappropriate emails yet took no action. The ethics committee further found that Republican leader John Boehner failed to show "any curiosity regarding" the Foley emails and failed to ask Hastert to do anything about them.

By contrast, there is no evidence that Pelosi personally knew of allegations about Massa before the matter became public, and majority leader Steny Hoyer's office says that Hoyer ensured that the allegations were referred to the ethics committee as soon as he was made aware of them.

Pelosi says she first learned of Massa allegations in March 2010. As The Wall Street Journal reported on March 11, "Pelosi said she personally learned about allegations of misconduct [by Massa] March 3. The speaker said her staff knew about the allegations of sexual harassment around the time they were reported to Mr. Hoyer's office in early February."

WSJ: Leadership aide says Pelosi wasn't informed of "October discussion" about Massa. While Pelosi's staff was reportedly informed of "concerns" about Massa in October 2009, the Journal reported that according to a senior Democratic leadership aide, "Pelosi wasn't informed of the October discussion, and the matter was not referred to the House ethics committee because it did not involve allegations of inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment."

Hoyer's office says Hoyer ensured misconduct allegations were immediately referred to ethics committee. Hoyer's office released the following statement on March 3:

The week of February 8th, a member of Rep. Massa's staff brought to the attention of Mr. Hoyer's staff allegations of misconduct that had been made against Mr. Massa. Mr. Hoyer's staff immediately informed him of what they had been told. Mr. Hoyer instructed his staff that if Mr. Massa or his staff did not bring the matter to the attention of the bipartisan Ethics Committee within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer would do so. Within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer received confirmation from both the Ethics Committee staff and Mr. Massa's staff that the Ethics Committee had been contacted and would review the allegations. Mr. Hoyer does not know whether the allegations are true or false, but wanted to ensure that the bipartisan committee charged with overseeing conduct of Members was immediately involved to determine the facts.

By contrast, ethics committee found that Hastert was likely told about Foley emails and apparently took no action. From page 85 of the ethics committee's 2006 report on the Foley scandal:

The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that Speaker Hastert was told, at least in passing, about the e-mails by both Majority Leader [John] Boehner and Rep. [Tom] Reynolds [R-NY] in spring 2006.

[...]

Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.

Ethics committee found that Rep. Boehner and then-Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) failed to show "any curiosity regarding" Foley emails and failed to ask Hastert to take any action. From page 85 of the ethics committee report:

Rep. Alexander did not ask either the Majority Leader or Rep. Reynolds to do anything -- each decided to mention the matter to the Speaker on his own initiative. Like too many others, neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds showed any curiosity regarding why a young former page would have been made uncomfortable by e-mails from Rep. Foley. Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.

In 2006, Fox News figures defended Hastert's role in Foley scandal

September 30, 2006: McClatchy reported that Reynolds said he informed Hastert of emails "months ago." On September 30, 2006, McClatchy reported (accessed via Nexis) that Reynolds said he informed Hastert "months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley":

Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee charged with maintaining his party's majority, said Saturday that he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley -- e-mails the boy said "freaked him out."

Hastert said he doesn't remember the conversation but "has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution," his chief of staff and outside counsel said in an internal review released after Reynolds' statement.

The revelations have prompted calls for independent investigations. Some Democrats have alleged a coverup by the House leadership.

Hannity defends Hastert: "The only thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an e-mail." From the October 4, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

JANE FLEMING (director, Young Democrats of America): Yeah, it's clear that Hastert knew over a year ago, and maybe even longer, that this was going on, and he did absolutely nothing about it. And we have to ask: Why did he do nothing about it?

It seems to us that he was covering it up, hoping that it would go away. When it didn't go away, then they had Foley resign, and they still haven't done a full investigation about --

HANNITY: Hey, Jane, Jane --

FLEMING: Yeah?

HANNITY: Let me stop you right here.

FLEMING: Go ahead.

HANNITY: There is no evidence, none that you can cite to our audience --

FLEMING: Yes, there is.

HANNITY: -- wait a minute, wait a minute -- that Dennis Hastert knew anything about the sexual, salacious nature of the instant messages.

[...]

HANNITY: The only thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an email. Now, I spoke to Hastert. He didn't even know about the request for a picture. All he knew was the parents wanted the emails to stop --

ANN COULTER (right-wing pundit): Right.

HANNITY: -- and the parents' request was answered. He didn't know about this, and there's no proof, in spite of liberals screaming it, they can't cite any evidence that Hastert knew.

COULTER: No, of course not.

HANNITY: But here's what we do know. Here's what we do know. The George Soros-funded group, for example, got hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Open Society that gives money to this group, CREW, well, they knew about this -- and I'm reading from The Hill -- quote, "when CREW received copies of Foley's e-mails earlier this summer." So apparently, now there's even discussion that they may have been in contact with Democrats.

Hannity said there's "no evidence" GOP leaders knew Foley was "going after pages," demanded CREW "phone records." From the October 5, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Let me go back to Michael Barone here for just a second. Michael, this is an important point you were raising here. And I want a full investigation. Democrats are calling for it, but interestingly, I think, you know, I'd like to see -- for example, we know that this website, CREW, funded by George Soros, had these emails now and were bragging on their website as early as July 21.

Now, that raises the questions, because a lot of these CREW members previously worked on Capitol Hill for prominent Democrats. I'd like to see emails, I'd like to see phone records, I'd like to know if there was any contact regarding these things. In other words, what did they know and when did they know it? Because what you're pointing out here, they would have put the safety and security of children, you know --

BARONE: At risk.

HANNITY: -- prioritize partisan politics over the safety and security of children.

[...]

DOUG HATTAWAY (Democratic strategist): That's exactly what the Republican leadership did. They -- the point you're missing, Sean, I think, is wherever these explicit emails showed up -- I don't know what the leadership knew about those -- they knew that this guy was going after pages --

HANNITY: There's no evidence of that at all.

[crosstalk]

HATTAWAY: -- they did nothing about it.

ALAN COLMES (co-host): And thank you very much, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Hattaway, and Mr. Barone. Thank you.

Hannity: "no evidence" Hastert knew, suggested Republican leadership are "innocent people" being "smeared." From the October 3, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Well, it's taken on a very different dynamic though tonight, and that is that Democrats are saying -- I was watching The Fox Report with Shep tonight, and there's Nancy Pelosi out there campaigning today, saying with just 100 percent certainty that Dennis Hastert knew.

Now, I interviewed Dennis Hastert. I've interviewed John Boehner. They both deny -- and there's absolutely no evidence to corroborate this. Now, we're also getting information tonight that there are Democratically funded websites, by people like Soros, that had knowledge of this long before this was made public.

I'm wondering if we're now moving into a different arena here, where this is so politicized that this is going to backfire against the people trying to make hay out of what is a sexual scandal of one man. Your thoughts?

[...]

HANNITY: All right, perhaps, but we'll examine that in the next segment. But I think more importantly here there's some fundamental, I think, fairness issues here.

Everybody that I know is glad Foley is gone, but there seems to be an issue here to purposefully politicize this issue, and I find that equally repugnant to me. And, more importantly, I think this takes on a whole new dimension, and this is it, that, if in the pursuit of political power you are going to falsely accuse individuals of knowing things about horrible scandals like this, you better have evidence, because we live in America, and those American people you're describing are fair-minded.

DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): And that's going to backfire.

HANNITY: And when innocent people are smeared, Dick, I've got to believe that people would tend to side with the people that are being smeared. And I see that this is happening more and more in this scandal.

Brit Hume: "[I]'s always easy to say what [Hastert] should've done, but when you start thinking about the things he could've done, there's not much there." From the October 8, 2006, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

HUME: Well, I think that toward the end of the week it did begin to look a little brighter. I don't think the weekend revelations, Chris, are particularly important.

The former page of whom you speak was an adult, 21 years old, at the time, and was long out of the House page program. And it appears that Foley's pattern was that he would flirt with these pages, and sometimes in quite a lurid and disgusting way, but nothing ever happened physically until after they were out of the program. And heaven knows how many more will turn up to say that, yes, they, too, carried on with him after they were out of the program, so I -- and besides that, Foley's gone, in disgrace, finished. So how much more of the scandal can be fed by revelations about what he did is questionable.

As for what Hastert knew or didn't know, we probably won't know what the facts are on that until this investigation is concluded. However, let's look back at this a moment.

Let's assume that Hastert did know or that he decided he wanted to do more than simply issue a stern warning when he discovered these overly friendly but not X-rated emails. I think the defense that he makes, or that some make of him, that if he tried to do something really strong, he would have been accused of gay-bashing, there would have been charges that the Republicans were trying to out one of their own members solely because he was gay. It would not have been a pretty sight.

So history doesn't disclose its alternatives, but I think we can pretty well see what that one would have been. And it gives you an idea of -- it's always easy to say what he should've done, but when you start thinking about the things he could've done, there's not much there.

Bill Kristol: "I think there's no evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my view." From the October 8, 2006, edition of Fox News Sunday:

KRISTOL: Well, one would think, if one were Foley's chief staff and thought one's boss was doing something really wrong and immoral, one might not just be quiet for the next three years, if Hastert's chief of staff didn't act appropriately. Maybe they thought they had talked to Hastert and to Foley and things -- and he had subsided. Maybe there's some self-serving recollection going on here.

I think there's no evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my view. And this is -- I do honestly believe now the media is trying to stampede the social -- you know, they're treating social conservatives like idiots, for one thing, like children. "Oh my God, one of 230 House members was gay and a real creep, and, you know, and therefore we're not going to vote on the issues we care about, therefore we're going to abandon every position we have. We're going to retreat in shudder from the -- retreat in horror from the polls in November and let the Democrats win a majority."

It's not going to happen. The polls have not moved all week. That is the big fact that's going on. The media is trying to stampede the elections, confirm the Democratic victory, and it's not working.

 

Kristol: "No one has really proven or even plausibly suggested what [Hastert] should have done that he didn't do." From the October 3, 2006, edition of Fox News' The Big Story:

JOHN GIBSON (host): With me now is Fox News political analyst Bill Kristol, who is the editor of The Weekly Standard. He actually spoke to Dennis Hastert just a short time ago.

Bill, what does Dennis Hastert say about this call for him to step town?

KRISTOL: Well, first, he's really repulsed, I think, by Foley's behavior. You know, Denny Hastert was a high school teacher and a high school coach, and this kind of attempt to exploit young boys, I mean, he -- it's just -- he seems really sickened by it.

He's angry at Foley for betraying his trust, his colleagues' trust, the voters of Florida's trust, these page -- pages' trust. He's also angry at the Democrats for making -- trying to make this a big political issue to divert attention from the real issues that should be debated in this congressional election, and I think he's disappointed in some of these few conservatives who I think foolishly have somehow lashed out at Denny Hastert.

The speaker seems to have done what he could have done given what knowledge he had at the time. No one has really proven or even plausibly suggested what he should have done that he didn't do. And I think he's -- he says he's going to, you know, he's not resigning, and he's going to try to get the debate back to the issues.

Mort Kondracke: "Hastert's position is completely defensible." From the October 6, 2006, edition of Fox News' Special Report:

KONDRACKE: Look, I completely agree with what Jim Baker said, and Jim Baker is a very wise politician, that you give the -- you give the enemy one of your people, and they'll just be chomping after more. Look, I agree that Hastert's position is completely defensible, and what the Republicans need to do is to change the subject.

Now, what are they going to change the subject to? They don't, you know, they're not going to want to talk about Iraq. I guess they want to go back to terrorism. I don't think that arguing over Gerry Studds or Barney Frank is gonna -- is gonna really change the subject; it's just going to rivet attention back on this because, look, what the Republicans rely on for their base is morality voters, values voters, married women with children, and evangelicals, and those people are dismayed by this whole thing.

Bill O'Reilly: "Hastert's you know, being witch-hunted down." From the October 4, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: And in the "Impact" segment tonight, the Foley controversy continues to dominate the media. The question now is there anything more here? And is the far left involved in exposing Congressman Foley?

Joining us now from the ABC News studio in New York City, the man who broke much of the story, investigative reporter Brian Ross.

Now we are hearing that the roof is going to fall in on Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Hastert's guy issued us a statement just seconds ago, saying, look, Hastert didn't know anything about this. He heard a couple of inappropriate emails were sent. Nothing was sexual. Hastert's, you know, being witch hunted down. What do you have? What do you know? And is Hastert in trouble in your opinion?

[...]

O'REILLY: Whatever. But the fact remains that you tried to get a hold of Speaker Hastert. And so did I today. We both did. He will not talk to you. He will not talk to me. I think that's foolish. I think he has to go out and defend himself.

Because at this point, the heavy odds are that he's going to have to resign for the good of the Republican Party. Am I wrong?

ROSS: Hard for me to judge on the politics of it, but I can give you the facts. And that is that he has given inconsistent statements and actually forgot apparently that he was told about Foley earlier this year by Congressman Tom Reynolds, who today reasserted, "I told the Speaker. Maybe he forgot, but I did tell him."

O'REILLY: But what did he tell him? What did he tell him? You see, here's the real crux of this matter.

ROSS: Right, right.

O'REILLY: Did he tell him this guy is just flirting with these guys, and it is ridiculous, and it's embarrassing, and he's got to stop? Or did he tell him the guy's having a sexual deal on the Internet? See, that -

ROSS: No, he didn't tell him that.

O'REILLY: -- that is what it is.

ROSS: And, look, I know what happened here in terms of the timeline. Those sexually explicit instant messages were not really in anybody's possession outside of a handful of pages until last week -

O'REILLY: All right.

ROSS: -- when we got them from some former pages.

O'REILLY: So it's very possible that Hastert didn't know anything other than the guy's an idiot. He's just doing things that are just immature and ridiculous.

ROSS: Well, a hair more than that, according to Fordham. That this was -- because it was no secret among that group that Foley was likely gay, and that his attention to the young male pages, in particular, troubled a number of staff members.

O'REILLY: All right, so they did raise a red flag -

ROSS: They did.

O'REILLY: -- and apparently Hastert did not act upon. I think that's fair. Is that a fair statement?

ROSS: Well, he -- Scott Palmer, according to Fordham, at least, went and met with Foley. And then others also went there.

O'REILLY: OK, so I think it's a fair statement.

Now the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is a far-left group. George Soros gives a lot of money to it through his Open Society Institute. They apparently are the ones that drove this thing behind the scenes. Is that what you're hearing?

ROSS: I'm not familiar with them. They didn't drive us, but I've since seen they have posted some of those original emails on their website. I don't think they had the ones that really are the ones as you say correctly are in contention.

O'REILLY: OK. Because we're trying to figure out who is driving this, who went to The St. Petersburg Times, The Miami Herald, Fox News in Washington and got a hold of some emails.

The emails that we got a hold of were innocuous. There weren't any smoking gun. But we now believe, and The Wall Street Journal believes as well, that a George Soros-funded group drove this story. That could be an interesting wrinkle here.

But now, Fox runs with claims that Pelosi aides may have known about Massa's behavior

FoxNews.com: "Massave Problem." On March 11, FoxNews.com posted a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Pelosi's Office Knew of Massa Concerns." FoxNews.com posted the following image which linked to the article:

massave

Malkin: "The stance of the Democrat majority has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." On the March 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed "now it's coming out that potentially her aides may have known about Congressman Eric Massa and some of the concerns that people had about his activity, sexual misconduct allegations, that maybe they knew as long ago as last year." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin responded: "[T]his is about Nancy Pelosi, and it is about that very pledge she made so publicly and ostentatiously to clean the swamp, to drain the swamp, and what she has done is overflown it -- overflowed it, and I think the stance of the Democrat majority has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. And to hear her talk in such condescending and flippant tones about how her job is not to be a receiver of rumors -- that was the actual quote that she has given now -- what does that tell you about her vigilance regarding integrity among her majority members?"

America's Newsroom: There are "reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months ago" about Massa. On the March 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer claimed there were "new questions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about those incidents and, chiefly, when." Co-host Martha MacCallum claimed that there were "reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months ago about some very questionable issues surrounding Eric Massa." Hemmer later asked Fox News reporter Steve Centanni, "What do we know about what Nancy Pelosi's staff first heard, and when, about these concerns about Massa?"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by MadRiver Jack (March 11, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
      12 1
      Michelle:

      If you want to present yourself as a partisan hack, use the term "Democrat majority". If you wish to give a patina of
      fairandbalanst
      to your partisan smear job, then temper your temrinology with the patina of neutrality; use "Democratic majority".

      I see you have chosen to go with partisan hack executing partisan smear job. Good choice, Ms Malkin.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (March 11, 2010 2:19 pm ET)
      10 5
      What Pelosi's office was aware of in October was that he was living with members of his staff, and apparently that's not what a Congressman was supposed to be doing. They also learned that he wasn't quite as cultured as a Congressman was supposed to be, and he used coarse language and behavior unbecoming to a Congressman. That's not worthy of an ethics investigation. However, Pelosi's staff did tell his staff that Massa should move elsewhere.

      Until it reached the additional charges we now know about, those initial allegations weren't worthy of any investigation. However, with Rep Mark Foley and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, they knew about significant misbehavior on the part of Foley and they didn't do what they should have done with that knowledge. That's been documented by MMFA. As they demonstrated when Luke Russert baselessly compared what we knew about Massa at the time to the Foley scandal, the Ethics Committee found that Hastert and others really missed their obligations.

      From FoxNews...

      Fox News has learned that Pelosi's aides learned last October that Massa was living with male staffers and asked Massa's office to change that. According to The Wall Street Journal, Massa's former chief of staff also told Pelosi's staff that Massa's language and conduct made some aides uncomfortable.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (March 11, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
        7 13
        So groping male staff members is what you would consider as not being "quite as cultured as a Congressman was supposed to be"? And using coarse language and behavior towards those staff members is "unbecoming"?

        Wow.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by thaneb (March 11, 2010 2:44 pm ET)
          11 1
          Refreshing you agree that House Speaker Denis Hastert was neglectful of his duties regarding the Foley affair whereas Speaker Pelosi had no knowledge of the Massa shenanigans. It would also seem Pelosi's staff agree with you in that they sought to nip those shenanigans in the bud.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 10:53 pm ET)
            3  
            Ain't it funny how this post above got 10 thumbs up and no downratings, yet my similar post below got the same 10 thumbs up (likely from the same people even!) and it also got 10 thumbs down.

            That would tell ANY casual observer that there were 10 people stalking my posts and downrating it simply because of WHO made the post and because I accurately pointed out that the post we were BOTH replying to was a troll post from someone not interested in a fair debate of the facts.

            Thanks for continuing to prove me right here,that I irritate and frustrate you all so much because of how good I am at derailing YOUR attempts to hinder this site's mission.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (March 11, 2010 2:55 pm ET)
          11 11
          Yeah, thanks for showing your LACK of reading comprehension and/or your lack of concern about being honest with the known facts.

          Pelosi's staff knew NOTHING about any groping back in October.

          Please don't feed this troll anymore. He's not interested in a fair debate on the facts - he's solely out to make personal attacks.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (March 11, 2010 2:59 pm ET)
            5 10
            I was just trying to get a bead on what you think of Massa's actions and since you didn't contradict what I wrote, then what I said was accurate. Fine, that is all I wanted. No need to feed me anymore.

            You feel that groping staff members and using coarse language and behavior towards subordinates is uncultured and unbecoming.

            I still say Wow.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (March 12, 2010 6:55 am ET)
              4  
              I was just trying to get a bead on what you think of Massa's actions and since you didn't contradict what I wrote, then what I said was accurate. --RightOn
              First of all, just because you aren't contradicted does not mean you are correct. That's a basic logical fallacy.

              Secondly, she did contradict you. Your premise was incorrect as she pointed out (and I also pointed out above).
              Report Abuse
            • Author by doggeddem (March 12, 2010 3:22 pm ET)
              3  
              She never said that groping staff members was acceptable. You are putting words in her mouth that she never said. If I come at you and ask you if you stopped molesting children? You have no option because I have already tarred you with the association to child molestation, regardless of how you respond. This is the type of tactic that pathetic pigs like you always use. Delldolly was reporting what Pelosi said, using quotations to make her point. The issue is whether the speaker knew about the more sensational allegations in October or February. All the evidence points to the case that her staff only knew that Massa was living with staffers and using "salty" language in his office. There is no evidence that she knew about the "groping" prior to the end of February when Hoyer made his report to the ethics committee. You can drop your "when did you stop beating your wife" garbage now. You are trolling and everyone here knows it.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by null1fy (March 11, 2010 3:44 pm ET)
            2 7
            That was a wonderful cut-and-paste job you did back there dolly. Simply genius.

            However, we can find articles like that all day long. If you have any of your own thoughts, please feel free to let us know.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (March 11, 2010 3:58 pm ET)
              3 7
              Not fair. Once she gets her cue from MMfA then they become her own "thoughts".

              This is not rocket science.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pongotwistleton (March 11, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
                5 7
                She reminds me of the nuns I encountered in grade school. They always were flabbergasted and disgusted if someone said something that didn't conform with scripture, or questioned the validity of something said by the holy sea. DumbDolly, similarly, simply can't understand that others don't always buy into her scripture -- i.e., what the lemming staff at mmfa tells her to believe. Her mind, for what it is (obviously not much), cannot handle too many thoughts at once, let alone any thoughts that haven't been dictated to her by mmfa.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (March 11, 2010 4:35 pm ET)
                  9 8
                  This isn't about opinions or thoughts, though. It's about facts. And that IS what MMFA (and Obama, and many progressives who post here) fight against - the misuse/abuse of factual information to promote the conservative agenda.

                  If you had nuns that rejected reality in favor of their partisan beliefs, YOU should feel a kinship with THEM. That behavior is anathema to me. Nuns and blindly politically-partisan individuals like you and RightON and Bludog/Wesley the weasel eat at the trough of scripture and partisan belief rather than believing in facts and evidence.

                  And yeah, sure, you went to Catholic elementary school. If you really had, you'd likely know that it is the Holy See, not the Holy Sea! And it's not really an appropriate use of that term anyway.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (March 11, 2010 4:47 pm ET)
                    5 9
                    If it isn't about thoughts and opinions then maybe you will stop calling those that don't share your thoughts and opinions trolls, and play the whining victim of personal animus against you.

                    If you are only concerned with truth and justice then why do you resort to the most scurrilous name calling on this website? Is that necessary in your arsenal to fight against the misuse of facts? If it is, then you have little else.

                    Phony.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 2:06 am ET)
                      6 1
                      I don't CALL people who don't share my thoughts and opinions trolls, though. It has NOTHING to do with opinions or thoughts.

                      It has to do with a lack of honest intentions to have a debate. It has to do with trying to derail the topic that ought to be under discussion.

                      I don't resort to the most scurrilous name calling on the site.

                      When someone's a liar, or a troll, or a dum-dum, I document how they are behaving that way, then I identify them based upon their behavior. That's not namecalling.

                      Now, YOU did namecalling above, by calling me a phony when not only did you not provide a single piece of evidence that I'm a phony, but you couldn't have found a piece of evidence that I'm a phony if you tried to. I don't call people trolls unless there's plenty of evidence, and I PROVIDE at least some of that evidence before I call ANYONE a troll, for example.

                      You also called me a name when you said I was playing a whining victim. That's not true, either. Defending oneself from unfair and untrue personal attacks is NOT being a whining victim. When I accuse you or others of displaying personal animus, it's because you have chosen to demonstrate personal animus. It's YOU who has made a bad choice by injecting YOUR personal animus into a debate, not MY bad choice for calling everyone's attention to your demonstration of that personal animus!

                      You are NOT my victim. You are the one who commits the offense of using an invalid and inappropriate debate technique when you can't debate the facts. You are the one who uses strawman arguments like the one above, that I call people trolls because I disagree with their opinions because you can't create valid arguments to refute what I've said. Again, you're the one who uses invalid debate techniques, not I.

                      I don't care if you insult me, because it doesn't hurt my feelings at all. I point out that you tried to substitute a personal attack in place of a valid argument because it diminishes your credibility. I point out when you do it to make fun of you - to ridicule you!

                      Please, keep behaving the same way. Please.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pongotwistleton (March 12, 2010 8:11 am ET)
                        1 4
                        You're pathetic. Nearly half the comments I read from you involve you justifying or explaining yourself to Righton, who you consider to be a paid troll. Are you that obsessed with what he thinks of you? Get over it. Don't be so sensitive to his remarks. (In other words, get a life)
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 1:23 pm ET)
                          3  
                          It's not MY fault that RightON makes all those personal attacks.

                          It's like the troll posts that complain that MMFA covers FoxNews too much, or that they "protect" Al Gore too much - it's not their fault that FoxNews is so delighted by futhering the conservative agenda. It's not MMFA's fault that Al Gore gets attacked unfairly too often.

                          And it's not my fault you and RightON and all the other sockpuppets make all these unfair and baseless attacks on me! It's unfair of YOU to assert that I need to allow his unfair personal attacks to go unchallenged - like somehow it's my fault.

                          If your assertion were correct, then career criminals could allege that the DA was simply out to get him, and should simply ignore that criminal, since he's clearly never going to learn from the punishment the DA might mete out! That's a stupid argument for the criminal to make, and it's equally as stupid for you to assert that I should ignore RightON's personal attacks.

                          In fact, I've done this site a great service. He used to have credibility he doesn't deserve. He no longer does. I haven't seen any new rightwing trolls make any headway towards getting credibility either. That's a good thing.

                          The pathetic one in this back and forth would be you for presenting a bogus argument in your pathetic attempt to defend RightON and attack me.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by pongotwistleton (March 12, 2010 2:04 pm ET)
                            1 4
                            Dolly, hands down, you are the most entertaining poster on this site. It's not easy being you, the staunch defender of truth and honesty on this board, but you bear the burden with admirable equanimity. You're a courageous DA
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by OTP (March 13, 2010 5:42 pm ET)
                              3
                            BUT it is YOUR fault that YOU make all those personal attacks....

                            shill
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 12, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
                          3  
                          "You're pathetic. Nearly half the comments I read from you involve you justifying or explaining yourself to Righton, who you consider to be a paid troll. Are you that obsessed with what he thinks of you? Get over it. Don't be so sensitive to his remarks. (In other words, get a life)"--pongotwhistleton

                          Justifying herself? I call it trying to educate the uneducated. Why do you even bother to read? So you can attack delldolly? She has much more patience than I. At least she still tries.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by OTP (March 13, 2010 5:43 pm ET)
                              3
                            Sorry, but the uneducated can't educate unless one considers the repeat of talking points "educational"...
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by open_mind (March 12, 2010 3:41 pm ET)
                          3 1
                          They are both generally pathetic. They stalk each other constantly, but in this case it looks like RO is the stalker (and instigated the trolling apparently) - so he is the more pathetic in this particular instance.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 11:02 pm ET)
                            3  
                            I don't EVER stalk him. Not ever. Not once. Just because I reply to his posts doesn't mean I stalk him. I reply to all kinds of posts on all kinds of threads, all day long since I'm home all day long without much to do.

                            So, no, you're wrong about me. But you ARE right about him being pathetic.

                            My posts tend to address the topic and the content of other people's posts in a fair and honest way. His, not so much, not hardly at all.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by OTP (March 13, 2010 5:41 pm ET)
                                3
                              You are delusional, your "posts" are ATTACK, TALKING POINTS, DENY SPIN, then when that doesn't work you haul out the "TROLL", "DON'T FEED THE TROLL" and your other belligerent name calling rants....
                              Report Abuse
                  • Author by OTP (March 13, 2010 5:39 pm ET)
                      3
                    You wouldn't know a fact if it got in your face... Your facts are spin and talking points as you shill for mmfa...
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by null1fy (March 11, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
                  2 4
                  It's Holy 'See'.

                  Sorry, lol.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 12, 2010 3:26 pm ET)
                3  
                "Not fair. Once she gets her cue from MMfA then they become her own "thoughts".--right ON

                Then take your damn ball and go home. At least she, like the majority of us here, post to links and note when stating opinions which is more than you usually do. Yawn.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (March 11, 2010 4:27 pm ET)
              5 7
              This isn't about "my thoughts". It's about facts and evidence.

              Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

              There's no evidence that Pelosi or her staff knew ANYTHING about any groping or sexual harassment back in October. That's a factual statement I said that I then backed up with links to news articles that confirm that I am being factual.

              That's NOT my opinion.

              My THOUGHT is that we should adhere and be respectful of the truth. Unlike you and your ilk.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by null1fy (March 11, 2010 4:40 pm ET)
                2 7
                Being devoid of any thoughts, we all know it's not about "your thoughts."

                Being devoid of any opinions, we all know it's not about "your opinions."
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (March 11, 2010 6:30 pm ET)
                  6 6
                  Yeah, thanks for providing concrete examples of your allegations.

                  Oops, sorry, you didn't provide a single example.

                  Contrary to what I did, which was provide examples of FACTUAL information.

                  Thanks for again proving that you're a troll who supports other trolls. I love it when you dig your own graves.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by rjvg50 (March 11, 2010 4:50 pm ET)
            5 1
            Look, I'm a strong Dem, stand by our president. Let's get behind Pelosi and Reed to pass health care.

            But S**T!!! After Foley, Ensign, Craig et.al. Pelosi doesn't shut the blinds, turn on the water faucet, lean in real close and whisper "WHO ELSE IS CRAZY AS A S**T HOUSE RAT???" when she becomes speaker!

            I know I would have.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 12, 2010 2:56 pm ET)
                 
              You will never get all the crazies out of the House. Have you met along of House members? There are alot of nuts.

              I was on these threads defending the Republicans against Bunning last week. And I would do the same with the Democrats and Massa. The Republicans hate Bunning as much as anyone, so I cannot hold his madness against them. The Democrats also despised Massa, so I cannot hold him against them either.

              Beck and Limbaugh, however, are a different story. They went out of their way to sell Massa as some sort savior and were humiliated accordingly. They bought him so they own him. Otherwise, only the voters who elected him are responsible for having such a nut in Congress.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by angels4light (March 11, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
          9 3
          Since that is not what DellDolly said, implied or even suggested, you are clearly off-base. You seem to do that intentionally, though - for what purpose, other than to get some kind of rise or "score points" with someone (not anyone I know of that posts on these boards), I cannot fathom.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (March 11, 2010 3:25 pm ET)
            5 10
            It's exactly what she said, read it again. If she wants to wiggle out of it now, fine.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by angels4light (March 11, 2010 5:34 pm ET)
              8 1
              I did read it again. She said:

              "What Pelosi's office was aware of in October was that he was living with members of his staff, and apparently that's not what a Congressman was supposed to be doing. They also learned that he wasn't quite as cultured as a Congressman was supposed to be, and he used coarse language and behavior unbecoming to a Congressman. That's not worthy of an ethics investigation. However, Pelosi's staff did tell his staff that Massa should move elsewhere."

              She did not, in that or later, say anything like what you said. Therefore, there is and was no need to refute it. You seem to be an intelligent person, at times, and seem to have some grasp of the rules of forensic debate. Since you did not refute her claim, and since you tried to reword her claim in a completely fictitious way, you not only concede her points but forfeit any points yourself.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (March 11, 2010 5:39 pm ET)
                1 10
                Look, I asked her twice if that was her position as she stated in her first post, and she dodged it twice. Which tells me that is her position and she is ashamed to admit it, or she is not ashamed to let it stand. Your option makes no sense. If I made a statement and was asked about it, I would answer it directly.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by angels4light (March 11, 2010 5:53 pm ET)
                  8 2
                  Since it clearly was not her position, it exposed you as a troll - hence her choice to remain silent. Personally, I think I should have ignored you as well, but it just irks me when I see people dramatically twisting someone's words just to make noise.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (March 11, 2010 5:58 pm ET)
                    3 11
                    Her choice to remain silent? Yeah, right. If it was not her position then she should explain it. If asking what someone wrote is what they mean makes me a troll, so be it. I am used to being called that so I don't really care. It's only hauled by people who can't defend their position.

                    Please, ignore me as well. You haven't made much of a case anyway.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 2:11 am ET)
                      7 1
                      Actually, he/she totally demolished your case.

                      Thanks for once again demonstrating to all that you deserve no credibility.

                      And I have explained it - on the original thread and on two other threads where it's been brought up.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 12, 2010 3:48 pm ET)
                      3  
                      "If asking what someone wrote is what they mean makes me a troll, so be it. I am used to being called that so I don't really care. It's only hauled by people who can't defend their position."--right ON


                      She HAS defended her position/opinion whatever time and time again and done so very well.

                      So, you are used to being called a troll and don't care. Hmmmmmmmm, if it walks like a duck ...
                      Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 11, 2010 3:33 pm ET)
            11  
            angels - you must remember that Tommy/right ON's m.o. here is to misread a post/article in order to start an argument.

            He does it on purpose. He's intellectually dishonest. That's why I don't respond to him anymore.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (March 11, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
              4 12
              "That's why I don't respond to him anymore"

              Fabulous! After you lied about what I'd written in the thread from yesterday, you'd do better by not being tempted at all.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 11, 2010 4:00 pm ET)
                8  
                OK internet tough guy, I'll break my self-imposed exile since you do deserve an explanation.

                You weren't directly equating deaths due to a lack of health insurance to a woman who was potentially losing her job at a health insurance company.

                What you did do is respond to my statement about deaths/bankruptcies due to lack of health insurance with your little tale about your friend losing her job, saying that there are casualties on both sides.

                So while you didn't directly equate the two, you did compare the two. So for saying "equate" instead of "compare", for that, I'm sorry. Now back to your regular programming.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (March 12, 2010 6:42 am ET)
          4  
          What Pelosi's office was aware of in October was that he was living with members of his staff, and apparently that's not what a Congressman was supposed to be doing. They also learned that he wasn't quite as cultured as a Congressman was supposed to be, and he used coarse language and behavior unbecoming to a Congressman. That's not worthy of an ethics investigation. However, Pelosi's staff did tell his staff that Massa should move elsewhere.--DellDolly
          So groping male staff members is what you would consider as not being "quite as cultured as a Congressman was supposed to be"? --RightOn
          It seems quite clear from DellDolly's post that "groping male staff members" was not part of the initial allegations in October, which DellDolly was quite obviously describing in her quote. Your question appears to be either built on a bad premise or a very weak attempt at trolling. Which is it?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by doggeddem (March 12, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
          3  
          Way to deliberately misinterpret Delldolly's post. There was no knowledge about "groping" in October of 2009. When there was information about sexual harassment, Hoyer reported directly to the ethics committee and to speaker Pelosi. Hastert and Boner knew about Foley a year before he resigned, and they knew about his advances toward pages. They knew about Foley's conduct and did absolutely nothing until his story was out in the open. Nice try.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by bludog1 (March 11, 2010 2:45 pm ET)
        2 10
        I think I have heard this response from the Speaker before (I didn't know I didn't know). Either she has serious issues with the truth/memory or she has serious issues with office management because apparently from the reporting today, her Member Services Staff aid did "know" that strange stuff was happening relating to one of her Members. We shall see where this one leads. Anyone want to take bets on whether the Ethics Committee takes up the investigation as asked for by the House today?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (March 11, 2010 2:56 pm ET)
          8 8
          Thanks for proving that you either didn't read the relevant info or you don't care about it.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (March 11, 2010 11:05 pm ET)
            5
          doesn't know, indeed... like the contents of the hrc bill, she just wants to get it passed, then there will be plenty of time to read it later...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 2:13 am ET)
            4 2
            Either you know that what you typed is a gross distortion of the actual facts, or you didn't even bother to read the article above.

            So, which is it - are you dishonest or dumb?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (March 12, 2010 2:50 am ET)
              2 3
              pop quiz... who said this?:

              "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"...

              a. mark foley
              b. dennis hastert
              c. eric massa
              d. nancy pelosi
              e. none of the above

              if you said "d", it wasn't because you bothered to read the article above...


              Report Abuse
              • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 12, 2010 11:16 am ET)
                1 2
                Off topic, but I am glad to see someone state this here.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 1:48 pm ET)
                4  
                Terrific job of distorting what she said, cropping that ONE comment out of a speech she made!!! And you were alleging that, similar to the baseless charge you make about the comment you quote, she ALSO behaved in a similar way WRT to Massa. But, as I said, the only way to believe that there's a fair comparison between what you falsely allege she meant with her HCR bill and what she's doing WRT to Massa is to be dishonest!

                See, a fair debate doesn't include distorting what the Speaker of the House says to change the meaning to support YOUR own political agenda!

                Here's what she said in context

                "You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention - it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.

                "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."


                So, what she was ACTUALLY saying was that UNTIL one looks at the bill that's actually BEING passed, one doesn't have a fair picture of what's ACTUALLY in the bill. She was NEVER saying that she was suggesting that one couldn't/shouldn't read it right NOW. She was saying that one should NOT believe the hype and distortions from the right. One should ONLY believe what actually ends up in the bill. You can read the preliminary version right now. You can read the amendments that are accepted. Then you can re-read the entire bill after it's passed.

                You're a dishonest hack who got caught cropping a statement and giving it an alternative meaning in a dishonest attempt to smear Pelosi and baselessly assert that this is a pattern for her that can be used in this OTHER case.

                It can't. You got caught. Too bad, so sad.

                And how unique that "Rational Conservative" echoed your distortion! Can't say I'm surprised.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 12, 2010 2:59 pm ET)
                  1  
                  She is correct about that. I do not understand the controversy at all. Before the American people understand all of the benefits or pitfalls that may come from this legislation, it has to pass first. Is this controversial to someone?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by bludog1 (March 12, 2010 4:35 pm ET)
                      4
                    Kind of flies in the face of transparency
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 12, 2010 6:47 pm ET)
                      1  
                      What does? That we will not understand all the good things that might come from this bill until after it is in effect? That is ALWAYS true.

                      Also true would be we will not understand all the bad things that might come from this bill until after it is in effect. Lame faux outrage.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by mookie von zipper (March 12, 2010 6:04 pm ET)
                      3
                    don't the proponents/opponents in office already have an idea of the ostensible benefits/pitfalls the bill has?... but that's not exactly the same as actually knowing what provisions are in the bill... somebody had to write the damn thing, did this person not read what he/she wrote?...

                    we continually put these bozo's up on pedestals... they work for us, we put them in office... saying we should wait until it passes before we know what hits us is the height of arrogance from their standpoint, and dangerous and irresponsible from ours...
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 11:08 pm ET)
                      3  
                      She DIDN'T say that though, as I already PROVED.

                      You and other rightwingers who have cropped that one comment out of a much longer speech, and taken it out of context to pretend it means something it doesn't mean, are the ones who are flailing and failing here.

                      Before we actually SEE the benefits, the bill needs to pass. And BEFORE the bill passes, one shouldn't be judging the bill based upon the distorted picture that the right is painting of it!

                      This is NOT rocket science!
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by OTP (March 13, 2010 5:49 pm ET)
                          3
                        You prove NOTHING except that you are a spinning shill for NP and mmfa....
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by mookie von zipper (March 14, 2010 1:43 am ET)
                          2
                        actually, she did say the quote, and you proved nothing... she didn't say we need to pass the bill before we can see the benefits... she said, for the 3rd time now, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it"... that's like saying a doctor needs to perform surgery in order to formulate a diagnosis...

                        Report Abuse
                • Author by mookie von zipper (March 12, 2010 5:53 pm ET)
                    3
                  spoken like a true spin doctor... what part of "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" do you not understand?... the so called context you illustrate is of no consequence to her statement... you'd be better off just saying the lady misspoke and be done with it, because your alleged context and the additional verbal genuflection you've spewed is utter nonsense, which is pretty much how obama, pelosi and reid have presented hrc, so at least you're in good company...

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 11:11 pm ET)
                    3  
                    The context of ANYONE's comment is ALWAYS relevant and is ALWAYS of consequence, first off.

                    But more importantly, she was NOT meaning what you've alleged she meant.

                    She was saying don't believe the HYPE from the right. Believe the actual bill's contents, not the distortions the right is pushing!

                    She didn't misspeak, so no, I wouldn't be "better off" saying that. I'd be distorting reality if I said that. She said EXACTLY what she meant. You're cropping what she said out of context to distort its meaning!

                    And you're a troll who pretends he's not one, so at least YOU'RE in BAD company here.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by OTP (March 13, 2010 5:50 pm ET)
                        2
                      If the context is ALWAYS relevant, then why oh, why do you support mmfa chopping and taking comments out of "context"??? interesting....
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mookie von zipper (March 14, 2010 1:27 am ET)
                        2
                      except in the case of o'reilly and limbaugh, where the context of their statements are too sensitive to be considered...

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mookie von zipper (March 14, 2010 1:45 am ET)
                          2
                        rather, their statements are too insensitive for their context to be considered...

                        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 12, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
          2  
          I think I have heard this response from the Speaker before (I didn't know I didn't know). - bludog

          Yes, but that was Dennis Hastert. Different speaker and different party.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bludog1 (March 12, 2010 4:43 pm ET)
              3
            Rangle comes to mind.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 12, 2010 6:52 pm ET)
              3  
              No, he was not the Speaker. Hastert was the speaker who pretended as if he did not know about Foley. I don't believe Rangel was ever the Speaker.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by melpol (March 11, 2010 2:30 pm ET)
      1 1
      Gropophillia is a common disorder that is cured by a slap in the face. The disorder has been given notoriety by a former congressman named Eric Massa. He was fortunate that he controlled his disorder by limiting his groping to males. The groping of a female is a criminal offense that could lead to the imprisonment of the gropophile.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 11, 2010 2:39 pm ET)
      3 10
      Not sure how to respond to this, except that it completely ignores the reverse of this situation. In other words, how Dems were quick to attack then and now are quick to defend.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (March 11, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
        4 11
        These kinds of things are usually only fought out by the entrenched loyalists in the parties. They buck up when it's theirs, and pounce when it's the others. And to try and shirk the double standard hypocritical label they just keep bucking and pouncing.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bludog1 (March 11, 2010 2:46 pm ET)
          2 10
          And yes, you are absolutely right about the double standard.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (March 11, 2010 3:02 pm ET)
          8 8
          That is the way that the hypocritical Republicans act.

          Provide a similar number of examples of Democrats doing that.

          And here's a hint - this is NOT an example of the Dems doing it. Pelosi and her staff didn't know about the tickling and other inappropriate contact and comments back in October.

          And Massa was loyal to the Republican Party until they screwed up and invaded Iraq for no good reason.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (March 11, 2010 3:03 pm ET)
            2 8
            Exhibit A-1
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 11, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
            2 8
            OK-- Larry Craig. And it just takes one example to prove the point, not a similar number of examples.

            Massa's loyalty until Iraq is irrelvant.

            But I will add a piece to this puzzle right now-- Paterson and Rangle. Its not just one controversy going on right now, and the impression in regards to defending these people (even excusing behavior or minimizing it-- ie on Rangel it was said his behavior did not effect national security) is that they are no different than the Republicans. The people want to see, after the Dems attacked Reps when they were in power, to see Dems be quick to condemn even their own when any sort of impropriety is brought forth. That is what they expected of Reps and now they should hold the same standard to themselves.

            Otherwise, it really does appear to be a double standard. Appearances matter, don't they? Even if you can make an argument that they should defend, appearances matter. And that is what is before us now.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (March 11, 2010 5:08 pm ET)
              6  
              A lot of Dems have criticized both Paterson and Rangel but that's all they can do until the allegations pan out. It's like that guy who stuffed the cash in his freezer. The Dems were trying to get him out for a long time and he refused. The voters eventually threw him out.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 11, 2010 6:46 pm ET)
                1 5
                We can say the same thing about several Reps when any Rep has been said to be involved in any sort of troublesome activity.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (March 11, 2010 10:47 pm ET)
                  5  
                  No. republicans usually try to defend them.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 11, 2010 10:54 pm ET)
                      4
                    If you wish to believe that, fine. Its not what I see.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 2:17 am ET)
                      5 2
                      Then you are detached from reality. Jon Ensign's misdeeds were well known by several Senators before they became publicly known and those Senators tried to protect him and then defended him. House Republicans did the same for Rep Mark Foley.

                      I could go on, but if you don't KNOW this - again, this is NOT a matter of belief or opinion, it's fact - then you aren't credible on ANY topic.

                      Oh, wait, we already KNEW you weren't credible on any subject. This just reinforces what we already knew.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 12, 2010 4:21 am ET)
                        1 5
                        Dolly, this really does not warrant a response, simply because it A) completely misses the point B) offers nothing of substance and C) continues in your insults.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by null1fy (March 12, 2010 11:55 am ET)
                            4
                          She misses the point quite often. Be sure when you tell her she's missing the point, you write a 1000 word essay outlining why or you haven't provided any EXAMPLES because it isn't rocket science and you have to get a clue.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 1:51 pm ET)
                            4 1
                            Yes, please do, please include examples, and get a clue, because it actually isn't rocket science!

                            But I don't ever "miss the point". You wish I did. You baselessly assert that I did when you can't debunk what I've said, because people who can't debate the facts make personal attacks.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by null1fy (March 12, 2010 1:56 pm ET)
                                4
                              Debunk, get a clue, it isn't rocket science, and provide EXAMPLES.

                              :D
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 11:14 pm ET)
                                2 1
                                Please, continue to emphasize your shortcomings by showing us that you get constantly debunked, you don't have a clue, you don't even have enough brains and common sense to figure out things that aren't brain surgery or rocket science, and you consistently don't provide ANY evidence to support your allegations.
                                Report Abuse
                            • Author by mookie von zipper (March 14, 2010 3:45 am ET)
                              1 2
                              so... when you continually spew terms such as, troll, dum-dum, dumb, dummy, doofus, dimwit and dunce, just to name a few, all of which have been directed my way from you at one time or another, aren't those personal attacks?...

                              there are typically two types of people here at media matters, and i don't mean liberals and conservatives... i'm referring to people who formulate arguments, and there are people that resort to name-calling... you hold the unique distinction of being a third type, one who formulates a cogent point, only to undermine your own credibility by closing your comment with unnecessary pejoratives... this item's thread is chock full of 'em... so when you say, "people who can't debate the facts make personal attacks", one might think you're hypocritical, but you're really not, since you have the uncanny ability to do both...

                              i'm used to your vitriol, though, so if that's how you wanna roll, then cool by me....

                              Report Abuse
                • Author by doggeddem (March 12, 2010 3:13 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Vitter? Ensign? South Carolina? Abramoff? I don't recall anyone coming out and criticizing them from your wing of the political landscape. What I see is a whole lot of wagon circling and denial. In Ensign's case there was actual "negotiation" involved to keep his story from coming to light. That is radically different than how democrats have addressed unethical behavior.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (March 11, 2010 6:37 pm ET)
              4 5
              Larry Craig is an example of Dems behaving in an offensive way?

              Duh. He's a Republican.

              And yeah, considering how many examples we have of Republicans acting in a dishonorable way and covering for other dishonorable Republicans, you DO need to provide multiple examples of Dems behaving the same way in order to be able to equate Republicans and Democrats here!

              And no, appearances are not the same as facts and evidence! I know you wish they were when your side wants to pretend that Dems are as bad as Republicans.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 11, 2010 6:51 pm ET)
                3 6
                Not really on the multiple exampe thing. A single example will prove the point. And the I example I present is the reaction to Larry Craig. Allegations come out that he touched some dudes feet in a public restroom urinal and immediately Dems are shouting that he is gay and that he should resign.

                You are right that appearances are not the same as facts and evidence. Actually, Beck pushed Massa on that exact point, and all Massa wanted to do was apologize for giving the wrong appearance to the public. But let's be sure to address the issue here. Shall we? We are not talking about whether or not these guys are innocent or guilty. We are talking about the double standard of attacking someone who has been implicated in scandal. Since the double standard has to do with attacks, it should be clear that appearances do matter in that context.

                Their guilt or innocence is separate.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by JimmyCraghorn (March 11, 2010 7:11 pm ET)
                  6 1
                  "Allegations come out that he touched some dudes feet in a public restroom urinal and immediately Dems are shouting that he is gay and that he should resign."

                  RC, thats a little revisionist history going on here regarding 'Wide Stance' Craig. It wasn't allegations, He PLED GUILTY to soliciting sex in a Men's bathroom. It was the guilty plea that had dems calling for his resignation. I don't know what poing you were trying to prove with this example, but you're facts don't add up.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 11, 2010 7:21 pm ET)
                    1 9
                    I remember the facts a touch differently, in that before the admission came out, forlks were calling for his head.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by JimmyCraghorn (March 11, 2010 11:08 pm ET)
                      7  
                      The fact is that he pled guilty long before it became public. It was only after the facts came out that he went before the cameras to claim, "I am not gay. I never have been gay."
                      The fact is that people were calling for his resignation because he had pled guilty to a crime. If you have trouble with your memory do some research.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 11, 2010 11:25 pm ET)
                          6
                        That he was gay was not the reason people wanted him out.

                        All the facts did not come out at once, either. Before all the facts were known they were calling him to resign.

                        Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 2:19 am ET)
                  6 1
                  No one shouted he should resign because he was gay - except maybe some Republicans!

                  You're just ignorant! That's the only possible way you can come to the conclusions you've reached!

                  And no, baseless conspiracy theories without any evidence to support them SHOULD NOT MATTER.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 12, 2010 2:34 am ET)
                      8
                    Dolly, yes, I am ignorant. No Democrats have ever irrationally attacked a conservative. All conservatives are evil, and that's all you need to say.

                    My point above is that his sexuality had nothing to do with anything, except to fuel flames. However, he was being accused of that as soon as all this came out. But even still, before all of the facts came out people on the left were calling for his removal. This is very similar in many ways to Massa.

                    I also ask you to look at a list provided at the bottom of people on both sides...
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by D-Man_Scientist (March 11, 2010 11:52 pm ET)
                  4
                Otherwise, it really does appear to be a double standard. Appearances matter, don't they?
                --RC

                And no, appearances are not the same as facts and evidence!
                --DD

                I have to agree with RC regarding appearances. Perception is reality, regardless what the facts might be. You're right, DD, that appearances are not the same as facts and evidence, but unfortunately it is perception and appearance that tends to fire passions, and facts are what remain once those fires have cooled. In other words, people get fired up based on what they see, and logic and reason only take over when they cool off.

                The President ran his campaign, in large part, on a pledge to change how Washington works, and to increase transparency and ethics. The democratic party has set this higher standard for itself, and to keep faith, people need to see the democrats willing to throw their own under the bus at the first sign of possible impropriety.

                As far as using scandal for political gamesmanship, the republicans aren't alone in doing it. The whole 'culture of corruption' business a few years ago is proof enough of that. Calling for your opponents' heads when they screw up may be unsavoury, but it is a legitimate political tactic that's been used effectively by both republicans and democrats.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by OTP (March 13, 2010 5:51 pm ET)
              1
            Every time harry reid PROVES he's a racist and YOU support him in his racism....
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 11, 2010 3:03 pm ET)
          1 10
          Right On, I agree. It happens going both ways, and they do just keep seeing who can shout the loudest to win.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (March 11, 2010 4:57 pm ET)
        8  
        They're two distinct situations. We attacked Foley first and when it became clear Hastert knew about Foley and tried to keep it quiet, we attacked him. With this situation it looks like someone reported the allegations to Hoyer and he sent it to the ethics committee for review. Massa has since confessed to everything.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (March 12, 2010 7:09 am ET)
        5  
        Not sure how to respond to this, except that it completely ignores the reverse of this situation. In other words, how Dems were quick to attack then and now are quick to defend.
        If I understand your analogy, Fox "News" is attacking the Democrats in the article above. How is Fox supposed to be the "reverse of this situation" from Democrats attacking/defending with regards to the Foley scandal? Are you inadvertantly equating Fox "News" with the Republican Party? Should I pretend to be surprised by that?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 12, 2010 11:14 am ET)
            6
          Not, Fox News, but Dems/Liberals and GOP/Conservatives.

          I think it is apparent that most here equate Fox with the conservative movement. I do not think it is, but that most here believe that it is. It is this assumption in which I address the issue.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by angels4light (March 11, 2010 3:17 pm ET)
      6  
      And this is surprising how, exactly? I understand that the aim is to expose hyprocisy, but this particular hypocrisy is common knowledge, isn't it?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RavenRog (March 11, 2010 4:36 pm ET)
      2 8
      Again, why are we comparing Massa to Foley? Foley didn't touch anybody.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (March 11, 2010 6:42 pm ET)
        5 5
        There's no evidence that Massa touched ANYONE in a sexually harassing way either. None.

        Foley abused his authoritative position over the pages in order to groom underage pages to cultivate contacts for when they became of age so that he could get his jollies off using them. Massa made adult staffers feel uncomfortable with his bawdy language, jokes and physical contact.

        Touching someone in a way that has yet to be proven to be sexually harassing is quite different than using former pages to sexually stimulate oneself.

        Then, to top it off, the Republican leadership KNEW about Foley's dangerous conduct, and HID that disreputable and dishonorable conduct from others for months and months. There's not similar behavior on the part of the Democratic leadership in Congress here!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (March 11, 2010 6:45 pm ET)
          3 4
          Groping is sexual harassment Sue, if it is advanced without consent and it is made to a person in your employ.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 2:22 am ET)
            5 2
            SOME groping is certainly sexual harassment. Not ALL groping, not the actions that Massa described. He described TICKLING. That's not sexual harassment.

            So, like I said, and like I meant, there's absolutely NO evidence of ANY sexual harassment while this guy was in Congress.

            And I'm still not Sue.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 12, 2010 2:37 am ET)
              1 6
              Dolly, are you that willing to excuse this guys behavior? Sexual harassment or not, can you at least acknowledge his behavior was innappropriate? He was a Congressmen who tickled his staff.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (March 12, 2010 7:16 am ET)
                5 1
                Dolly, are you that willing to excuse this guys behavior? Sexual harassment or not, can you at least acknowledge his behavior was innappropriate? He was a Congressmen who tickled his staff.
                That was not the argument Dolly was responding to, so I think it is pretty dishonest to suggest she is somehow "excus[ing] this guys behavior".
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 12, 2010 11:10 am ET)
                  1 3
                  Open, maybe, but she is out there shouting pretty loudly that his conduct does not constitute sexual harassment and is apparently very willing to let it slide.

                  If she wishes to address this, let her. But I look at a supervisor of any sort tickling any adult subordinate terribly innappropriate, not simply inappropriate. Espcially given that he was a congressman. He was not just any old boss.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (March 12, 2010 11:44 am ET)
                    1 6
                    Exactly, well said. Dolly has yet to refute what she said, only others have tried to rescue her from her own words. That is weird.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      Again and again and again you lie in more and more displays of your personal animus towards me.

                      I defended what I said, and then refused to continue responding to your troll posts.

                      Two other people have shown the error in your arguments here too, and somehow your takeaway is that no one has done that, and that the people who HAVE tried to do that only tried to make excuses for me?

                      Delusional much?
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 1:58 pm ET)
                    3 1
                    What a dishonest poster. Below, I say that his behavior is inappropriate. I said it 9 hours before you made this post.

                    AND YOU REPLIED to that other post. So, "IF" I wish to address this?

                    Really? Do you think that I wasn't going to notice what happened here? Really?

                    There's NO indication from ANYTHING that I've said that I'm willing, much less VERY willing, to let ANYTHING slide.

                    What I've repeatedly done, contrary to YOUR side, is respect the truth and acknowledge the evidence we have and the evidence we DON'T have.

                    We have NO evidence that he participated in sexual harassment as a Congressman. None. It's not my failing that the evidence supports EVERYTHING I've ever said about former Rep Massa. It's YOUR failing that virtually NOTHING you have written stands up to ANY scrutiny.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 12, 2010 6:50 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    But I look at a supervisor of any sort tickling any adult subordinate terribly innappropriate, not simply inappropriate. - RC

                    Wow. I am just having a hard time getting upset about adults tickling each other. But, good luck with your faux outrage.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by OTP (March 13, 2010 5:53 pm ET)
                2
              Pay attention, tickling teabags ding bat....
              Report Abuse
        • Author by oscar the grouch (March 11, 2010 8:28 pm ET)
          1 5
          Or, for that matter, interns.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 11, 2010 8:44 pm ET)
          1 5
          Except for his admission. You say he didn't admit? From what I understand he has said he did touch, and he is sorry that he gave any wrong impression to anyone.

          For whatever it is worth, intent is not necessary in sexual harassment, only that you create a hostile environment. If he touched some guy and it created a hostile environment, it may well qualify. And has said he has touched some guy, and really seems to avoid the direct issue of whether it was in a sexual manner. It is clear that it created problems.

          I don't know if his behavior would get him convicted, but it is enough to raise serious questions.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 2:30 am ET)
            5 3
            He said he TICKLED. When he was agreeing that he "groped", he then clarified that what he did was tickling.

            That's not sexual harassment. It's inappropriate. It's not sexual harassment. He went out to lunch with staffers, at least some of whom were gay. That's not evidence of any sexual harassment.

            None of this means that he couldn't have committed sexual harassment that we've seen no evidence of YET. But with the evidence we've seen and heard so far, it's NOT sexual harassment.

            Facts. Not my opinion. Not my belief. Facts.

            This is not rocket science.

            And no, not all physical contact between two men is sexual harassment.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 12, 2010 2:40 am ET)
              2 4
              No, you're belief. I wonder how it would play out in court. Don't you?

              A boss tickles his subordinate in a way that made him feel uncomfortable.

              If he had tickled a female staffer would that be any different? A boss tickling a female staffer that made her feel uncomfortable. Sounds problematic.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 12, 2010 4:14 pm ET)
                4  
                "No, you're [sic] belief."

                So now you're saying that Dolly is a belief?

                Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (March 11, 2010 7:52 pm ET)
      1 5
      Now, what could be more "fair and balanced" than to be on one side of an issue today and the other side tomorrow?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 11, 2010 8:39 pm ET)
      2 5
      "However, following the revelation that then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert had likely been personally informed of email then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sent to a congressional page, Fox News personalities defended Hastert."

      I took this from the lead in paragraph to this piece. Why did I post it? There is a key word in the sentance. Notice the word "likely". This word really condemns the article, because it states that it is not proven that Hastert knew, only that it was "likely".

      If it is likely, it is at best an assumption, but likely leaves room for doubt. 'Likely' is something that is not proven, even if strongly insinuated. "Likely" means it is not fact.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 2:32 am ET)
        4 3
        No, it's not actually a key word. You should have read further.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 2:35 am ET)
          4 2
          And here's another link to another article by MMFA with more detail about what Hastert failed to do.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 12, 2010 2:51 am ET)
            2 4
            OK, then explain what is the word?

            The word is used in the heading for the story, so it is important. The other link is A) to the same source, and B) is irrelevant. Perhaps something different was meant but likely means what it means. Had they meant for sure, they would have said that. But they didn't.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (March 12, 2010 2:03 pm ET)
              3 1
              No, YOU got to the other link I provided to figure out exactly what the House Ethics Committee found. Here's a hint. You don't have a clue.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by robrob (March 11, 2010 11:40 pm ET)
      2  
      IOKIYR.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mookie von zipper (March 12, 2010 12:52 am ET)
      2 5
      from the meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss dept:

      really, media matters, double standard?... fox news didn't defend hastert, their partisan hacks like hannity did... but only because pelosi and her ilk were calling for his head like a shark in a feeding frenzy... questioning if and/or when she knew anything about massa is merely pointing out her hypocrisy for expecting us to believe hastert should have been aware of every aspect of the lives of the other 434 members of congress...

      speaking of hypocrisy, i'm continually amused at how partisan hacks here really believe it's the other side's guys making up the vast majority of those that are corrupt and/or caught in sleazy scandals... let's go to the scoreboard...

      dems:
      sandy berger
      charles rangel
      cynthia mckinney
      william jefferson
      jim traficant
      don siegelman
      larry langford
      rod blagojevich
      edwin edwards
      sheila dixon
      kwame kilpatrick
      jim mcgreevey
      bill richardson
      mike easley
      anibal acevedo
      john edwards
      tim mahoney
      gary condit
      eliot spitzer
      gavin newsom
      antonio villaraigosa

      gop:
      karl rove
      scooter libby
      bernard kerik
      ted stevens
      tom delay
      sarah palin
      john rowland
      george ryan
      bob taft
      james west
      john ensign
      mark sanford
      david vitter
      larry craig
      mark foley
      jack ryan

      these are the just the high profile names i'm familiar with, mostly perpetrators of unsavory sexual behavior, arrogant or stupid incidents, or financial felonies... nor does this include the larger collective class actions such as abramoff and the litany of charges, accusations and scandals associated with clinton and bush... and finally, these aforementioned bozo's merely scratch the surface of the last 10 years...

      none of us are being served in the long run by this endless cycle of the gop and dems trading power between the white house and both houses of congress... you so called progs who constantly harp about the evil republicans and those lying bastards at fox news are delusional if you think otherwise...

      reporting from murderland ranch,
      i'm mookie von zipper
      massmurdermedia

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 12, 2010 1:08 am ET)
        2 4
        Had to laugh, Mookie. But seriously, your list points out exactly what it is I have been trying to say-- that this problem goes both ways, and it is indeed a double standard to even point out the action of the other side at this point.

        It is exactly what people are tired of and why people are so sick of Congress.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Blueneck (March 12, 2010 5:02 am ET)
        5 1
        Yup--both sides do it. Your scoreboard is a little light though. The lists should be longer. In the spirit of just trying to help we should add:
        Republican Sex Offenders (a list)

        A longer list.. Yes it is from Democratic Underground so I'm sure they just made it all up.

        And since you mentioned other crimes I suppose you might be interested in this list of "Republican Offenders".

        I'm sure there must be even longer lists of Democratic criminals, pedophiles, flashers, and gropers (and don't forget to include Independents, Libertarian Socialists, and O'Reilly's MMFA Stalinists). And no doubt the compilers of the lists (since they appear to be Democrats) must have made up most of it, so the lists will have to be vetted. I would do it for you but I'm exhausted from reading down the three provided. Just trying to help. Always a pleasure. Have to get back to listening to my recording of Rules for Radicals while ordering more guns on my cellphone (I believe in multitasking). And tonight I get my bag of cash (untraceable) from George Soros. I'll need it since my boyfriend has luffa burns since attending a party given by O'Reilly at his home in Manhasset and he doesn't have health insurance. But George pays well and I should have enough left over to order the 14 volume set of The Works of Joseph Stalin.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Lizinbklyn (March 12, 2010 11:58 am ET)
          3 2
          Didn't Foley abuse 'Pages'? Aren't they teenagers?

          Massa's staff are adults, are they not?

          Couldn't these adult staff members tell Massa emphatically "I'm not interested, BUDDY, back off or everyone will know what a fool you're making or yourself" or should Massa's adult staff members have gone to Speaker Pelosi's office demanding a meeting . .

          Sometimes, as an adult, you have to stand up for yourself. I know Massa had the power but he also HAD THE SECRET!!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Blueneck (March 12, 2010 12:45 pm ET)
            1 1
            Dear Sir or Madam:

            Blueneck is unfortunately busy this weekend and will be unable to personally respond to your concerns. Please be assured that someone from our staff of trained Help Desk consultants will be responding to your concerns with 72 hours. Your satisfaction is always our highest priority.

            Automated response from our server. For further assistance please use this link.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Blueneck (March 12, 2010 12:51 pm ET)
            1  
            BTW I agree.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (March 14, 2010 3:34 am ET)
            3
          sure, it's light, as i said, i only went back to 2000... but your reliance on partisan websites plays right into my other point that we are both doomed to mediocrity as long as we continually vote for the respective lesser evils... i'm guilty as charged for voting republican, but i feel compelled to do so not because of enthusiasm for a candidate but because i'm not down with dems or liberal agendas, and there are few if any viable third or fourth party candidates... your sarcasm belies a trust in the democrats that is downright embarrassing based on their performance since the 06 midterms and the 08 general...

          how do ya like 'em now?...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mookie von zipper (March 14, 2010 3:53 am ET)
              3
            preemptive retort:

            yes, i voted for bush... no, i was not pleased with his performance, particularly in term 2... the republican presidential contenders in 08 was embarrassing, and mccain was a joke...

            so i voted for palin...

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Blueneck (March 14, 2010 4:32 am ET)
            3  
            Partisan website? Ah yes the reliable old genetic fallacy which is a species of the ad hominem argument. I guess I should have taken the information from a nice reliable source like say, your blog. Of course a proper 'refutation' would take the form of vetting the list to find whether or not the information presented was accurate. And of course you would be free to produce a list of comparable length from another source (partisan or not). Here's a nice list to get you started. Much longer than yours, which I would guess came from this Wikipedia article about political scandals. Not nearly as long as the one I provided, which dealt with criminality. By the way I post links because I generally don't believe in long cuts and pastes. Me? I vote for a politician when I believe him or her to be honest, have the best interest of the people at heart, and likely to deliver on his or her promises. Hence I don't go to the polls very often. My bad? Maybe. But I try to hold their feet to the fire once they have power. But you know, laws and sausage. Until we get corporate graft out of our electoral and legislative processes (fat chance) it doesn't matter how many lists we compile or who is in office. We're skrewed (to hopefully get this beyond the profanity filter).
            Report Abuse
      • Author by OTP (March 13, 2010 5:56 pm ET)
          3
        I think you forgot patterson and silky pony - john edwards
        Report Abuse
    • Author by doggeddem (March 12, 2010 3:03 pm ET)
      3  
      The moon is the sun and the sun is the moon. And President McCain is about to launch nuclear warheads on communist China. Yippee, for FAUX News, we distort, we crap all over democracy.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.