Florida Congressman sends dirty email to teens

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Regarding the reporting of the story: Of course it should be reported and immediately. My question is: Did they report it immediately or did they wait until weeks before the election? This close to the election the Republicans are not going to have time to fully recover from the blow. Even if the party acted appropriately that won't be definitively known until after the election. Unfortunately for many, the Republicans won't be given the benefit of the doubt. The House could be lost based upon a presumption of collusion that may be wrong. I suppose the Democrats won't care how they won as long as they gain power but, in my mind if this story was sat on until it was believed it would inflict the most damage to the Republicans that goes beyond poor ethics. It is treason.

Treason? Sheesh, talk about melodrama. What about freedom of speech?

The news business is a pretty competitive racket so I doubt that any media outlet would have sat on this story in the hopes of inflicting the most damage. We all know they are biased one way or the other, but we also know that money trumps all political allegiances. If ABC broke the story (I don't even know if they did) then it wasn't for petty political points, it was to make money. I have no doubt they got the news out as fast as possible so they could trump all the other guys.

Funny thing -- I even know you are trying to change the subject but I still let you do it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The fact that those messages were transmitted over interstate telephone lines will have an effect.

Ya I suppose if any of those states it passed through have laws against a person communicating to a 16 year old in such a matter. It would be nice if he somehow he could be charged.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

These midterm elections are interesting.

It is no secret that I tend to vote Republican, but I do not vote straight down the party line. I voted for our current Governor, Kathleen Sebelius (D) and I will vote for her again next month because she's done a great job and because her opponent is an evangelical. I voted against our 'bad' R Senator, Sam Brownback in the last election because he is too far to the right. Conversely, I would vote for Pat Roberts, the other Republican Senator because of the way he has handled himself and represented the state of Kansas as a high ranking Senator. Same goes for my Congressman, Republican Todd Tiahrt.

I'm a native Montanan, and I follow the politics of that state as closely as I can. I am sincerely hoping that Jon Tester unseats the corrupt Conrad Burns. Tester is a Democrat, but he is also good for Montana...which is why any of these folks should get a vote in the first place.

That Montana Senate seat is one of the races that is in the national spotlight. It's kind of neat to watch.

A ticket-splitter, eh? Traitor!

I obviously don't get to vote in elections down here, but being a political junkie since time immemorial, I follow them with the kind of obsessiveness that most people reserve for pro sports (what does that tell you about our priorities, right?)

What I see happening in this next round of elections is that the Republicans, having once again successfully lowered expectations, will end up doing much better than expected. I'd expect them to hang on to the house and Senate pretty easily, in spite of predictions of a "perfect storm" sweeping the Dems into power. I just don't see it happening.

The Democrats (and the media to some extent) often make the mistake of thinking that voter behaviour works like this: a. I'm mad at Bush. b. The congress isn't very good. c. I'm voting for the other party.

In fact, disgruntled voters tend to either stay home or start splitting their ticket, kind of like you do. What that means is that there's no indication that dissatisfaction with Bush is going to mean a groundswell of support for the Democrats, who've so far utterly failed to gain any kind of traction for an alternative agenda. When Newt Gingrich was swept into power in 94, it was because he presented voters with a vision for change that was simple, made sense given the political climate and easy to sell. "I don't like X" doesn't motivate voters.

Foley's seat may well fall to the Democrats. But I doubt they'll gain traction from this issue. In the end, they're infuriatingly bad at politics--and that's a bad thing. People may say they like sincerity and earnestness, but in the real world that's a sure-fire way of getting your ass handed to you.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

What I see happening in this next round of elections is that the Republicans, having once again successfully lowered expectations, will end up doing much better than expected. I'd expect them to hang on to the house and Senate pretty easily, in spite of predictions of a "perfect storm" sweeping the Dems into power. I just don't see it happening.

The Democrats (and the media to some extent) often make the mistake of thinking that voter behaviour works like this: a. I'm mad at Bush. b. The congress isn't very good. c. I'm voting for the other party.

In fact, disgruntled voters tend to either stay home or start splitting their ticket, kind of like you do. What that means is that there's no indication that dissatisfaction with Bush is going to mean a groundswell of support for the Democrats, who've so far utterly failed to gain any kind of traction for an alternative agenda. When Newt Gingrich was swept into power in 94, it was because he presented voters with a vision for change that was simple, made sense given the political climate and easy to sell. "I don't like X" doesn't motivate voters.

I would also suggest that the Repubs loyal are far more loyal then the Dems loyal (and get a higher ratio of electoral votes in smaller states). Mr gay bashing, god fearing, rapture waiting conservative will always vote conservative even if he can't see (especially since he can't see) the hypocracy in it all. I think dem voters tend to swing back and forth more since they don't vote blindly by religion or other beliefs.

Repubs CRY OUT against gay rights in the election. Well looky looky. They cry out against child abuse and ask 'WHERE ARE THE VALUES?' Again they're no different. They just know the push points and the voting patterns.

And they fight dirty.

Don't even get me started about the war...

There is a division in American politics because the republicans have pushed it this far. To win. To make profit and earn jobs. Not for the country. Not for values. To win.

And lastly there is a division because of religious fanaticism. And if you think I mean just muslim, then you better wake up.

All in all the U.S. is losing moderation and free thought and it's becoming increasing polarised. And one side is playing that.

You are 100% right, this won't be as damaging as it could (should?) be. (Along with all the other stuff in the last 2 years) Not because the repubs are doing anything right though. Not that they are even keeping there own promises, helping the country, OR NOT OUTRIGHT LYING ABOUT THE MAJORITY OF THEIR POLICIES.

There is a significant number of people in the states blinded by religion and the 'partisan war'. It's only getting worse.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Regarding the reporting of the story: Of course it should be reported and immediately. My question is: Did they report it immediately or did they wait until weeks before the election? This close to the election the Republicans are not going to have time to fully recover from the blow. Even if the party acted appropriately that won't be definitively known until after the election. Unfortunately for many, the Republicans won't be given the benefit of the doubt. The House could be lost based upon a presumption of collusion that may be wrong. I suppose the Democrats won't care how they won as long as they gain power but, in my mind if this story was sat on until it was believed it would inflict the most damage to the Republicans that goes beyond poor ethics. It is treason.

Well it was pretty clear that the Republicans didn't want report it. Seriously, if you want to go around hiding a story like that behind closed doors, you really don't have the benefit of when it was released, now do you, unless you decided to do the right thing and release it yourself.

The Republicans in this sense only have themselves to blame. They should have released it well before midterms and had this blowover.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I would also suggest that the Repubs loyal are far more loyal then the Dems loyal (and get a higher ratio of electoral votes in smaller states). Mr gay bashing, god fearing, rapture waiting conservative will always vote conservative even if he can't see (especially since he can't see) the hypocracy in it all. I think dem voters tend to swing back and forth more since they don't vote blindly by religion or other beliefs.

Repubs CRY OUT against gay rights in the election. Well looky looky. They cry out against child abuse and ask 'WHERE ARE THE VALUES?' Again they're no different. They just know the push points and the voting patterns.

And they fight dirty.

Don't even get me started about the war...

There is a division in American politics because the republicans have pushed it this far. To win. To make profit and earn jobs. Not for the country. Not for values. To win.

And lastly there is a division because of religious fanaticism. And if you think I mean just muslim, then you better wake up.

All in all the U.S. is losing moderation and free thought and it's becoming increasing polarised. And one side is playing that.

You are 100% right, this won't be as damaging as it could (should?) be. (Along with all the other stuff in the last 2 years) Not because the repubs are doing anything right though. Not that they are even keeping there own promises, helping the country, OR NOT OUTRIGHT LYING ABOUT THE MAJORITY OF THEIR POLICIES.

There is a significant number of people in the states blinded by religion and the 'partisan war'. It's only getting worse.

I'm wondering how you justify generalizing about Republicans but not Democrats?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'm wondering how you justify generalizing about Republicans but not Democrats?

You're obviously new at this 2-party system thing, so I'll help you out: one party is good and the other one is evil. Pick a side and turn your brain off. Trust me, it's a great system: you'll never have to think about an issue again!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You're obviously new at this 2-party system thing, so I'll help you out: one party is good and the other one is evil. Pick a side and turn your brain off. Trust me, it's a great system: you'll never have to think about an issue again!

That's pretty much the answer I had envisioned.

It's sad too.

Daradon, the democrats have done as much to polarize the nation as the republicans. There is simply no question about that. It's a two way street.

And if you are suggesting, and I don't see any way possible that you're not, that the democratic base is more likely to move off of its core beliefs than the republican base I have to ask you how you come to that conclusion. The problem is not that republicans don't budge while democrats do. Neither of them budge, there are just a larger number of republicans.

Its people like me who decide the elections in the end. The moderates are the only one's that move!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The problem is not that republicans don't budge while democrats do. Neither of them budge, there are just a larger number of republicans.

I don't know if there are that many "more" of them. Most polls show that congressional voting intentions are pretty close, both in the 48% range. Sometimes (like now) the Republicans are weaker, other times they're stronger.

I do think that the GOP has a geographical advantage: more of their support is spread over a larger area, whereas core democratic support is generally located in larger cities and college towns. That "swing" faction is getting smaller and smaller, I think--and gets smaller each time turnout drops, since people who haven't made up their minds tend not to be very motivated voters.

(present company excepted, of course...)

But we're kind of headed in the direction of that other thread now.....

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Well it was pretty clear that the Republicans didn't want report it. Seriously, if you want to go around hiding a story like that behind closed doors, you really don't have the benefit of when it was released, now do you, unless you decided to do the right thing and release it yourself.

The Republicans in this sense only have themselves to blame. They should have released it well before midterms and had this blowover.

Is it so very clear? Do the Democrats phone CNN whenever one of their Senators is accused of inappropriate conduct? I doubt it. First of all there is the question of truth. I am sure allegations come up all the time and then there is the question of legality. Was a crime committed? If that is a possibility you don't go to the press but, rather the police. If with the knowledge you have been given it doesn't seem the law is broke then you see if you can curb the behavior or you monitor the individual to prevent a recurrence.

The last thing you do is phone CNN. Take a look at any of the major news networks tonight and compare the time they give to the facts of this story and how much time is spent on speculation(what could be the case). I wouldn't turn my worse enemy into the press.

[Bobblehead]

Good old Fox spin at work...


He must have switched parties!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Good old Fox spin at work...


He must have switched parties!

Now that's funny.

My guess is it is doctored since the dates don't match.

[Bobblehead]

Here is a blog with a clip of the O'Reilly segment where the mistake was made.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'm wondering how you justify generalizing about Republicans but not Democrats?

In this case I am plenty justified,

This proves the repubs have one of two game plans.

(let me first acknowledge I have nothing against gays)

1. They are hypocrites, they have gays in their ranks (obviously) and ignore them, they actually make law against them.

2. They are outright liars. They know the nature of people but use the division as a voting platform to win over the good of the country.

(not even counting the obvious aberration of someone in charge of protecting the youth propositioning it)

If there is a case were Demos are being this hypocritical, I'll jump on it. I have before.

If you are a O'Reilley or a Coulter type, you'll bring up the old Clinton argument.

I'll just say this was consenting adults, and the repubs pushed it even further. No comparison.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Daradon

In this case I am plenty justified,

This proves the repubs have one of two game plans.

(let me first acknowledge I have nothing against gays)

1. They are hypocrites, they have gays in their ranks (obviously) and ignore them, they actually make law against them.

2. They are outright liars. They know the nature of people but use the division as a voting platform to win over the good of the country.

(not even counting the obvious aberration of someone in charge of protecting the youth propositioning it)

If there is a case were Demos are being this hypocritical, I'll jump on it. I have before.

If you are a O'Reilley or a Coulter type, you'll bring up the old Clinton argument.

I'll just say this was consenting adults, and the repubs pushed it even further. No comparison.

I thought you were talking about voting bases....in fact, I'm pretty sure you were.

[JohnnyFlame]

I like they are "outright liars" comment. LOL when talking about politicians you have to be incredibly naive to think they are anything else.

I haven't voted in years and to those who say it's your duty I say Drop DEAD!!

Could care less what label they have or what country they are from. They say whatever to get elected and then do the opposite. They call the opposition wrong on everything no matter whether it's wrong, right or inbetween.

Government should be turned over to private enterprise and run like a corporation wherever possible. Then the ones who are elected should be run through an extensive battery of tests and then as many kooks eliminated as possible. The whole system is a joke -- It's like a hobby for rich lawyers or just rich whoevers. These people don't represent anybody in any party or those who hold any view whatsoever.

They will switch parties in a heartbeat or policies if it will get them in. Expecting anything like solid character from them is just silly!!!

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

That's pretty much the answer I had envisioned.

It's sad too.

Daradon, the democrats have done as much to polarize the nation as the republicans. There is simply no question about that. It's a two way street.

And if you are suggesting, and I don't see any way possible that you're not, that the democratic base is more likely to move off of its core beliefs than the republican base I have to ask you how you come to that conclusion. The problem is not that republicans don't budge while democrats do. Neither of them budge, there are just a larger number of republicans.

Its people like me who decide the elections in the end. The moderates are the only one's that move!

I'd love the recent examples of demo polarization, (besides the Foley backlash which is just a finger to Repub 'morals')

And you are right. I AM saying the repups don't budge, while the dems a re living breathing thing.

You got me backwards...

REPUBS CLING TO LOWERING TAXES WHILE INCREASING THE DEBT AND DEFECIT UN PRECIDENTED...

REPUBS CLING TO ANTI WIHT GAYS IN THEIR MIDST...

REPUBS CLING TO MAKING THE WORLD SAFE WHILE THIER OWN INTELLIGENCE SUGGESTS THEY HAVE MADE IT WORSE...

REPUBS CLING TO RELIGION AND 'FAMILY' WHILE SCANDAL PROVES THIS TO BE INCORRECT...

Backwards sir, backwards, but I can't blame you, you're with the party.

[Displaced Flames fan]

For the record, I doubt like hell O'Reilly made any comparison to the Clinton-Lewinsky thing. You might want to retract that statement or find proof.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I'd love the recent examples of demo polarization, (besides the Foley backlash which is just a finger to Repub 'morals')

And you are right. I AM saying the repups don't budge, while the dems a re living breathing thing.

You got me backwards...

REPUBS CLING TO LOWERING TAXES WHILE INCREASING THE DEBT AND DEFECIT UN PRECIDENTED...

REPUBS CLING TO ANTI WIHT GAYS IN THEIR MIDST...

REPUBS CLING TO MAKING THE WORLD SAFE WHILE THIER OWN INTELLIGENCE SUGGESTS THEY HAVE MADE IT WORSE...

REPUBS CLING TO RELIGION AND 'FAMILY' WHILE SCANDAL PROVES THIS TO BE INCORRECT...

Backwards sir, backwards, but I can't blame you, you're with the party.

Um...again...you were talking about voting bases.

and I am NOT with the party.

But I'll play your game....

DEMOS, as you call them, have practiced polarization of the country by proclaiming EVERYTHING the present administration has done to be BAD. That is the ultimate form of polarization....ie "You can't support this policy because it comes from THIS administration".

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I'd love the recent examples of demo polarization, (besides the Foley backlash which is just a finger to Repub 'morals')

And you are right. I AM saying the repups don't budge, while the dems a re living breathing thing.

You got me backwards...

REPUBS CLING TO LOWERING TAXES WHILE INCREASING THE DEBT AND DEFECIT UN PRECIDENTED...

REPUBS CLING TO ANTI WIHT GAYS IN THEIR MIDST...

REPUBS CLING TO MAKING THE WORLD SAFE WHILE THIER OWN INTELLIGENCE SUGGESTS THEY HAVE MADE IT WORSE...

REPUBS CLING TO RELIGION AND 'FAMILY' WHILE SCANDAL PROVES THIS TO BE INCORRECT...

Backwards sir, backwards, but I can't blame you, you're with the party.