Posted by Mike Dorning at 11:55 am CST.
Had it not been for a Democratic political operative, former Republican Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate e-mails to under-age former pages might never have come to light.
Among the many fascinating details contained in the 89-page House Ethics Committee report on the Foley scandal is the chain of events that led to broader dissemination of Foley's e-mail exchanges.
It all started when a junior staffer in a congressional office received a complaint from a former page about Foley's e-mails to him and was rebuffed when she tried to raise the matter with another staff member in the office.
She then did what many many people now do when pondering an e-mail: She forwarded it to a friend. And as often happens, the forward button was pressed again and again, until it reached a Democratic operative.
Here is the chain of events, as laid out in the report:
Between July 29, 2005, and August, 29, 2005, Foley sent a series of seven e-mails to a 16-year-old former House page who had just completed the program for high school students earlier that July.
Among other things, Foley asked "what do you want for your birthday," which was 5 months away, and commented on the physique of another teenage boy who was in the page program at the time, noting the other page was "a nice guy" who is "in really great shape." Finally, the middle-aged congressman asked the boy to e-mail a "pic" of himself.
That request alarmed the former page, who then raised his concerns with Danielle Savoy, a young congressional aide whom the page had befriended from the office of the page's congressional sponsor, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.).
At Savoy's request, the former page then forwarded portions of Foley's e-mails to her, calling them "sick, sick, sick." On August 31, the former page sent her the entirety of five e-mails that Foley had sent her and asked her opinion.
The next day, Savoy raised the e-mails with another employee of the congressman, the office scheduler, Jonathan Johnson. She testified that she told him the contents of the e-mail in detail, including the request for the picture and the references to the birthday gift and the physique of the former page. Johnson told her he did not think the exchanges were particularly significant.
Seeking another opinion, Savoy then forwarded the Foley e-mails, including her e-mails back and forth with the former page, to a girlfriend, Kelly Halliwell, who was a former House employee working at a small lobbying firm.
Upon receiving the e-mails, Halliwell forwarded them to her boyfriend, Justin Field, who then worked for the Democratic caucus, and also to her boss Mike Grisso, a registered lobbyist, who said he did not share them with anyone else.
But Field, who said he was disturbed by the e-mails, shortly after he received them took them to his friend and boss, Matt Miller, who was then the communications director of the Democratic Caucus in the House.
Miller said he believed the e-mails were inappropriate, and suggested that they be given to the press. Miller testified that he considered giving the e-mails to the Ethics Committee or the House Page Board. But he said he feared that "nothing would come" of such an action.
About two months later, in approximately November 2005, he redacted the e-mail headers of Savoy and Field from the messages, printed them out and faxed them to reporters that he knew from two major Florida newspapers, the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times. Later in November, he also provided the e-mails to a reporter for Roll Call, a Washington newspaper that covers Congress.
Miller testified that some time in the fall of 2005--the report is not clear on the precise month--he also shared the e-mails with the communications director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party organization responsible for electing Democratic candidates to Congress. Miller testified that he did this as a "gut check."
The report does not name the DCCC communications director, but a spokesman for the organization confirmed that the report was referring to Bill Burton, who is the communications director.
Miller testified that he was not aware of what actions his DCCC counterpart may have taken but that Miller expected that Burton also would share them with the press. Miller testified that Burton "is someone who talks to reporters all day. If there's something that I'm missing, maybe...he could give them to a reporter."
The report gives no further information on what role Burton may have played. Asked about that on Friday, Sarah Feinberg, a DCCC spokeswoman responded by e-mailing the following statement: "The report is accurate that he did see some emails from Miller, but as the report states, it was Miller who was pursuing the placement of the story."
The Miami Herald did not pursue the story because of concern over the authenticity of the e-mails and reluctance to contact the under-age page, according to the Ethics Committee report. But the St. Petersburg Times made a number of inquiries.
In mid-November, the St. Petersburg Times reporter called Congressman Alexander's office about the e-mails. The congressman's press secretary then went to Savoy and obtained copies of the e-mails between Foley and the page.
Alexander and his chief of staff, Royal Alexander, testified it was only then that they became aware of the e-mails. The chief of staff immediately contacted House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office to alert the speaker to the media inquiry and forward on the former page's complaint.
The speaker's office passed the matter on to Page Board Chairman Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who handled the matter with a private warning to Foley to cease contacts with pages.
The report describes a series of previous warnings about the Foley's inappropriate behavior with pages that were ignored by aides to the speaker. But the report does not indiciate that Miller was aware of those other warnings.
Still, Miller continued to pursue media interest in the story. The St. Petersburg Times ultimately chose not to do the story.
But Miller, who is himself a former page, attended a page reunion over Memorial Day weekend in 2006 and expressed his frustration to another former page that the Florida papers would not publish the story. The former page put him in touch with a writer for Harper's Magazine, who began to pursue the story.
That stirred more reaction from Republican leaders. Both House Majority John Boehner and Rep. Tom Reynolds, head of the National Republican Campaign Committee, testified that they raised the e-mails with Hastert in response to the Harper's reporter's inquiries, though Hastert does not recall the conversations. Still, Harpers ultimately chose not to publish the story.
Eventually, in September 2006, ABC News did publish the story on its web site. A day later, several former pages contacted ABC News with sexually explicit instant messages that Foley had sent them and the congressman resigned.
The Ethics Committee concluded that no operatives from either political party were aware of the more graphic instant messages before they were publicly disclosed, nor were any House members of employees other than Foley.
But one question that is not answered by the Ethics Committee report is whether Burton ever shared the e-mails between Foley and the former page with his boss, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the DCCC and the chief strategist behind the Democrats' takeover of the House in the midterm elections.
Asked in October by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if he knew about the e-mails before they were publicly disclosed, Emanuel reponded, "No - Never saw them." Asked if he was "aware of them," Emanuel repeated, "We never saw them. No involvement."
Comments
I think this post story says it all about the Republicans non-action towards Mark Foley.............tom...(little t)....
Posted by: John E. | December 9, 2006 12:19 PM
Boy, democrat lobbyists and political operatives had the e-mails more than a year before ABC News broke the story. Yeah, they're a real bunch of heroes. These significant gaps in the storyline wouldn't be because the democrat operatives were sitting on the story until the election was closer now would they?
Posted by: Bill | December 9, 2006 12:21 PM
Bill what you don't like getting hit back with Rove Tactics. To Bad we have learned to fight back. You can thank your lying swift boat tatics for any thing you get hit with. A line was drawn in the sand. I posted that a long time age. So blame yourself's for not hearing just putting out RNC talking points.
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 9, 2006 12:53 PM
If Democrat operatives/loyalists openly admit to using "Rove Tactics" and "Swiftboating", and then still call Rove a scumbag, then aren't they also calling themselves scumbags?
That's an Independant talking point.
Posted by: Juanito | December 9, 2006 1:34 PM
Juanito.....Thats why politics have degenerated to the lowest level I can remember. It will take a puplic outcry to bring it back to civility. Unfortunetly, as you can tell be the posts, people eat it up!
Posted by: bill r. | December 9, 2006 3:04 PM
Independito strikes again.
I've never heard you complain about Rove in the first place,and Bill thinks he's a hero.
The next time you,tom,and RRD go down that yellow brick road,ask the Wizard for a spine.
Posted by: John E. | December 9, 2006 3:44 PM
Juanito youer words mean nothing. Yes we fought back and will keep fighting back. If we have to use ROVE TACTICS you brought it on yourselfs. You started a War We Veterans will finsh it.
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 9, 2006 4:31 PM
bottom line -- repubs did NOT adequately and promptly protect the pages when they received the necessary info (gave a warning only which still left the young men vulnerable)
neither did the democrats act adequately or promptly once they received the info (instead they saved the info for a well-timed exposure/media game while the young men remained vulnerable -- plus they had more knowledge about the instant messages than the republicans did)
both sides cared more about their political interests than they cared about those young men
that is my point regarding party politics -- how low have we sunk ??
we are in a war voted for by repubs and democrats -- if someone voted stupidly due to bad info then whining about it doesn't help the troops now -- does it ??
how low have we sunk ??
as per CHARLIE DANIELS BAND;
"we are going to put her (America) back on the path of righteousness and then .... God bless America again"
time for kettles to stop pointing at pots and lets find some common ground !!
PEACE BROTHERS
HAVE A GOOD HOLIDAY
little t -- tom -- glad to be a registered independent
Posted by: tom | December 9, 2006 6:29 PM
"These significant gaps in the storyline wouldn't be because the democrat operatives were sitting on the story until the election was closer now would they?
Posted by: Bill | Dec 9, 2006 12:21:55 PM"
I hope so.
Thank god the Dems have learned how to fight these crypto-clerical fascists like Rove.
I'm sure the Repub leadership would prefer a ham handed Kerry type opposition. Remember who invented the modern 'politics of personal destruction'? Mr. Newt.
Posted by: c.morris | December 9, 2006 6:58 PM
little tommy -- Let me be the first on the Swamp to call you a knave of the worst kind. Haven't you caught on yet? There is no such thing as an independent; you must be an operative from one side or the other. Halt -- Reveal thyself, thou mortal enemy of all that is Righteous and True!
OK -- I just wanted to beat the frenzied partisans to the punch. Now that we have the mindless nonsense out of the way, we can get back to what I first brought up weeks ago: AMERICA NEEDS NEW PARTIES.
With this euphemistically named "ethics committee", we have perfect illustration of the morally bankrupt and intellectually vapid nature of both established parties. Lord, they make me tired. And you pointed out the same thing yourself.
Now, really, if I pick out really nice hats and have good ventilation system for the smoke, aren't you ready to join my party? Can't we reasonable people say, since the R's and D's are interchangeable in the most basic ways, "Enough already."
Posted by: Elizabeth Bennet | December 9, 2006 7:37 PM
Yeah bill r, and I'm afraid they probably always will eat it up.
John E
I like that "Independito" handle. Maybe I should start using it instead.
Posted by: Juanito | December 9, 2006 7:48 PM
Actually, that was a Trojan Horse posting, and leave it to democrat activist Dale Peters to take the bait hook, line, and sinker. I don't want to hear any of you complaining about "Karl Rove tactics" ever again. Seems you're all fine with using them. Rahm Emmanuel put out the plausible deniability that he knew nothing about any of this. Sure he didn't. Face it, Emmanuel outroved Rove. Rahm's always been this dirty and I'm not surprised by any level he stoops to. It's amazing that all of you aren't complaining about the voting machines used in the last election either.
Hey Dale, looks like you guys are pretty good at this yourselfs (sic).
Posted by: Bill | December 9, 2006 8:12 PM
Yawn....this story ended the same way the Valerie(007)Plame story did....much ado about nothing.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 9, 2006 8:14 PM
Bill maybe if you read Randy Barnes obit you would a saw a real veteran. You dam right I am going to get good at using Rove's tatics it killed Randy I will never let you puke do it again. Randy was a better person them all of us here. I made a promise to him to finsh destoying the Republican who destoyed him and his family. You lowlife made death treats on him and his family in MO I will no longer be nice about it. I found out from his wife how bad it was for him. You Republican are the ones who will pay every time they run now.
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 9, 2006 8:35 PM
Newt invented the politics of personal destruction? Oh, it started WAY before Mr. Newt. Ask Gary Hart.
Here's some other examples:
Bill Clinton and his information minister, Sidney Blumenthal, attacked every woman who ever had the audacity to claim he was a womanizer as a liar, a slut, and much worse. After the Lewinsky matter do you think maybe they might've actually been telling the truth? This was in the early '90s.
Back in 1988, Michael Dukakis fired Donna Brazile for accusing then-Vice President George H.W. Bush of running a racist campaign because he had the audacity to mention that Dukakis let Willie Horton out of prison (he did).
1988 the democrat senate runs a whispering and smear campaign to defeat Robert Bork's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. So horrible was our legislators' display that this has become known as "Borking" the nominee.
Democrats started this type of scorched Earth campaigning and Rove simply learned by watching. But he came up against the master (Emmanuel) in this election.
p.s. Elizabeth, you're right, America does need new parties. Anyone want to start a new progressive party?
Posted by: Bill | December 9, 2006 9:31 PM
Ummm....Independants???I don't like to discourage you Bill or E-Liz,but did you ever hear of money????
Emanuel...(the master????) Ok,he put conservitive dems on the ticket...and won...but,why conserivatives??? Hmmmmmm...the master came to the right....4 survival of the dem party...THINK about this Bill!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 10, 2006 12:18 AM
Ms Bennet, I was delighted months ago when you joined the cause, and I'm even more delighted that remind us once again of the URGENT need for new parties. And Bill nailed it with the call for a progressive party. We don't have such a party now. (That is a point my friend RRD also made some weeks ago, to give credit where due).
I remember -- I think it was sometime in the late 80s -- hearing Bill Buckley pine for a genuine contest between the Left and the Right. American politics, he said (paraphrasing) had become a kind of minuet in the middle. There is no SIGNIFICANT difference between the typical Republican and typical Democrat pol. As we've said many, many times they're essentially two wings of a single party, the Republicrats.
Buckley was saying that minimally we need a clearly defined Left and Right for a healthy democracy. That's a bit too minimal for me, but it would be an improvement. My minimum would be a Left, Center and Right with the electoral reforms to make that workable (runoff elections, for one).
Ideally, IMO, politics in a vital democracy should be a wide open forum. I would die a happy man if I could see an American national election that was a contest between Marxists, Rightists, Social Democrats, Libertarians, Greens and whatevers...
And Paulo makes a good point bringing up money. The powers that be control it and that's why they be. Serious financing reforms are a must.
Posted by: Juanito | December 10, 2006 10:21 AM
Did any of you actually read this post?!
The staffers who found out about this tried to get it out to the press in Fall 2005. Different media outlets had the story but chose not to do anything about it.
The Democrats didn't choose the timing, the media
did. The Democrats tried to get it out REPEATEDLY as soon as they found out about this.
The Dems did not sit on this until the election season.
The Republicans, on the other hand, were well aware of this situation from the beginning. And they did nothing.
Posted by: JohnR | December 10, 2006 10:32 AM
Paulo, I'm not saying Rahm's a genius, he's just really good at dirty campaigning (he learned from Carville). There's a reason why Clinton got elected twice with all those infidelity rumors swarming around him, it's because Big Jim, Rahm, Begala and the rest were so good at attacking the messenger.
Dale, since you and your democrat friends don't mind in the least becoming what you supposedly hate and call "puke" (as you've repeatedly stated you'll use dirty campaigning on this blog) then you shouldn't be surprised when the electorate figures you out and kicks your people out of office for the same tactics. I bet your late friend would be real proud of you for doing to other innocent people exactly what was done to him. I didn't know the man, I'm just surmising. I don't know what you're addressing, either. But then again most of us on this blog rarely can figure out your wild conspiracy theories.
Congratulations Mr. Veteran, you've seen the enemy... and he is you.
Posted by: Bill | December 10, 2006 10:54 AM
Yes, I read the post John R. and if you believe it I have a bridge in New York you might be interested in purchasing. I have worked as a communications volunteer in a major presidential campaign before and I PROMISE you that there's a machinery set up in every national campaign to get sensitive information that could hurt the other side to the top people in the campaign (Rahm Emmanuel in this case) as soon as it's known. That process is disseminated to every major campaign donor and to other people known to be on the campaign's side. The democrat who knew about this was more of an insider even than a regular campaign donor, he was a lobbyist, which in campaign parlance is a super donor. A lobbyist, who has a stake in this election knew this information and didn't share it with Rahm? Sure. Rahm had nothing to do wtih his former Clinton staffer buddy George Stephanopolous and his ABC News operation getting the scoop? Gotcha.
The leaks to the St. Pete Times and other sources were probably structured so that they didn't give all the information the dems had so they'd have exactly this type of plausible deniability after the story broke. See we tried. Welcome to the real world.
Posted by: Bill | December 10, 2006 11:29 AM
I see Bill is on here trying to justify Karl Rove's dispicable actions again.
Mark Foley blew the lid off of the Republicans "family values" slogan,and Ted Haggard gets an assist on that play.
Everytime the Republicans have an argument they bring out Bill Clinton as their whiping boy.
That dog doesn't hunt anymore Bill,time for the corrupt Repubs to own up to their crimes,or continue to be the minority party for a very long time.
Posted by: John E. | December 10, 2006 12:17 PM
Dale,
Don't worry about Republican Bill.
He's suffering from post Republicans losing election syndrome.
In a couple of years,when KKKarl Rove,W.,and Cheney are in prison,their defenders(Bill,Juan) will be nowhere to be found.
Posted by: John E. | December 10, 2006 1:20 PM
If anything the election proves, "...you can't fool all the people all the time." The only surprise so far is that we haven't heard the Republican hardcore types find a way to tie in President Clinton to their scandel.
Say, where is Ken Star?
Posted by: Richard Borowski | December 10, 2006 2:32 PM
Bill you the people that make treats on people lifes is my enemy. I know how to fight back with the power of the blogs I post on. You and your right wing are a danger to this Country. You claim to support the troops and veterans but refuse to fund the VA so they can be taken care. Enlist in the military if you got the guts to fight a war based on lies by you the right wing.
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 10, 2006 2:34 PM
"Dale, since you and your democrat friends don't mind in the least"
Democratic friends. I don't understand why this incorrect usage of the term has suddenly become popular with the neocons, but it's just bad English.
Posted by: Cheryl | December 10, 2006 2:52 PM
Cheryl,
I don't understand why you don't understand the correct usage of "Democrat". In any case you look a little silly when you're smug when being wrong.
Democrat: n. A member of the Democratic Party.
Democratic: adj. Of, relating to or supportive of democracy and its principles.
Posted by: Juanito | December 10, 2006 6:20 PM
Dale,
Just as I suspected earlier,Bill has finally come out of the closet as a Neocon Republican political operative,and he's mad that he and his buddies lost the election.
Dale,it should be of little wonder that Bill,and the Republicans don't care about Veterans,they view themselves as "tough guy pencil pushers",anotherwards,they want to fight almost any other country,all of the time,whether the threat is real or imagined,and they want other people,and their familys to fight their battles for them while they take the credit for being tough guy leaders i.e George W. Bush,Dick Cheney,KKKarl Rove.
These people are the scum of the earth,and I'm glad that they got their backside handed to them during this last election.
R. I. P. NEOCONS!!!
Posted by: John E. | December 10, 2006 6:21 PM
How about this Cheryl, friends who are democrats?
Posted by: Bill | December 10, 2006 7:02 PM
I don't make treats on people's life. What kind of treats? Are they cookies? The best treats are made of flour, sugar and butter in my experience.
Posted by: Bill | December 10, 2006 7:04 PM
John E. I wasn't posting a thing about Karl Rove's actions. I've never complained about them once. I'm just calling all the people who've said how dirty they were in the past hypocrites because they're now totally on board with the democrats using such actios. You can't have it both ways. They're not dirty tricks when the other side does it and just good aggressive campaigning when your side does it. To lambaste the other side for doing the same thing your side would have done (only do it first) is the height of hypocrisy.
In fairness to you, John E., I will say you've always been for climbing down into the muck with no qualms made about civility for quite some time. I was talking about the doublespeak we're now hearing from other longtime posters.
Posted by: Bill | December 10, 2006 7:13 PM
p.s. If pro is the opposite for con what do you think the opposite of progress is? Wait for it...
Posted by: Bill | December 10, 2006 7:24 PM
Cheryl,
'democrat friends'
It's a pejorative invented by Newt. He is the first one I heard use it in the late 70's, followed Ron Rayguns.
Posted by: c.morris | December 10, 2006 7:38 PM
Dale, et al. This was reported on CNN's website today. You guys want to change your BS story now? Gosh, sometimes it's so easy with you guys. I swear. I need better competition.
The head of the House Democrats' campaign committee, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, had heard of former Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate e-mails to a former male page a year before they became public, a campaign committee aide told CNN.
Foley, a Republican, resigned after the scandal broke. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans have suggested repeatedly that some Democrats knew about the e-mails earlier than they have acknowledged, but waited till midterm elections approached to bring up the issue.
Emanuel's campaign committee aide said Friday that the Illinois Democrat was informed in 2005, but never saw the correspondence and did not have enough information to raise concerns. The aide said Emanuel took "no action" because his knowledge was "cursory" and little more than "rumor."
The aide's acknowledgement differs from the flat "no" Emanuel gave in October when asked -- during an interview on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" -- if he or anyone on his staff knew of the e-mails before the scandal broke.
So, you all want to change that BS story now?
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 12:53 AM
Oh, here's a link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/09/foley.emanuel/
So, do you really think Pelosi will drag the man responsible for her speakership in front of an investigation committee?
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 12:56 AM
Per Cheryl:
"Democratic friends. I don't understand why this incorrect usage of the term has suddenly become popular with the neocons, but it's just bad English."
Cheryl:
This is just proof of how small minded and petty our Republican friends are. Having lost all policy arguments on the merits, they've decided that schoolyard name calling is the most compelling tool they've got left. Progressives should take pride every time they read or hear this usage, because it means we've got the better of the merits.
Peace.
Posted by: a blinkin | December 11, 2006 8:53 AM
3rd party will happen one day -- hopefully soon but I'm not holding my breath
(what's bad about this is the partisan "government" participants always going to the press first and going to the press last with info instead of triggering the appropriate law enforcement and oversight provided within the government -- it's all about using an issue -- not doing the right thing -- that is exactly where we have lost our moral bearing even on isssues we agree largely about such as protecting the youth of our country from exploitation -- it's about money and/or power and not the greater good or doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing)
Posted by: tom | December 11, 2006 9:08 AM
no postings since 2:52PM Sunday. (current time; 9:20AM Monday Central)
Posted by: c.morris | December 11, 2006 9:21 AM
Justin Field was given a set of emails in confidence by his live-in girlfriend. Nice guy to take those emails and shop them around the media behind your girfriends back for a year and let her go to Ethics and defend you and herself all the while knowing you leaked this behind her back. Justin Field and Matt Miller politicized this, they cared nothing about the Pages, or the peoples lives they have ruined in the process (the Pages ironically). Real "gut check" kind of guys. If they were so concerned Justin and Matt could have gone to the authorities, talked to Kelley and Danielle about what steps they would like to see taken on their side, and/or done a million other moral things in the open to ensure that this was solved. But solved as concerned individuals not as political operatives. But guys like them salivate at stuff like this. The fact that Justin's live in girlfriend and her best friend career's could be damaged, that it was dubious, deceitful, and underhanded means nothing to people like Justin Field and Matt Miller your Future Dems in Training.
By the way I am not a Republican, or a Conservative in any way, just someone that knows the truth.
Posted by: Katie | December 11, 2006 9:21 AM
Democrat = a member of the Democratic party. Republican = a member of the Republican party. Therefore, "Democrat friends" is a parallel usage to "Republican friends," which no one would have any objection to, and proper.
Now, "Democrat party" is petty. It's the Democratic party.
By the way, when it refers to a member of the Democratic party, "Democrat" should be capitalized. When it refers simply to one who believes in direct rule by the people, the small "d" is proper.
Also by the way, the United States is not a democracy. It's a republic.
Posted by: Dave Brann | December 11, 2006 10:20 AM
Dale, was that you writing from Darien in one of the weekend Tribs bemoaning the loss of the Trib as a definably Republican paper? I doubted it, because the letter was grammatical and spelled correctly, and the reader could understand he writer's point, but you never know.
Posted by: Dave Brann | December 11, 2006 10:22 AM
Cheryl, a. blinkin, C.Morris and whomever...
If you think "Democrat" is a pejorative, if you're embarrassed to wear the label of your party, what does that say about your party?
Maybe you should find a new party.
Posted by: Juanito | December 11, 2006 10:24 AM
Cheryl, A Blinkin, I use democrat and democratic interchangeably as adjectives every once in awhile. It's true. You're right that it's grammatically incorrect, but what does it have to do with name calling? Do democrats feel it's pejorative to be called democrat and not democratic? I really don't see where you're getting this from. That's quite a stretch.
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 10:35 AM
John E. I'm not a political operative. I've never once donated money to a political campaign, either. I'm just someone who volunteered to work for McCain 2000 and I'll do it again if he runs in '08. I've never once hidden the fact that I'm a republican on this board. In fact, you could say I'm quite proud of it.
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 10:38 AM
dems/democrats/democratic -- fair points of grammar but what is really funny is the way the word "neocon" is now used as the attack word in many circles , exactly the way the word "liberal" is used as an attack word in other circles
what's funny about this is that good old bill clinton is one who loves to let this arrow fly more than most and yet when he first ran for pres he at times embraced the label of neo-conservative to set him apart from his democratic rivals and to strengthen support in some southern states
I can't make this stuff up - I'm not that smart -- this is too funny !!!!!
Posted by: tom | December 11, 2006 10:47 AM
Thank you, Katie. It's good to hear someone in the know comment on what can only be described as the lowest of the low in political dirty trickery.
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 10:52 AM
"Cheryl,
I don't understand why you don't understand the correct usage of "Democrat". In any case you look a little silly when you're smug when being wrong.
Democrat: n. A member of the Democratic Party.
Democratic: adj. Of, relating to or supportive of democracy and its principles.
Posted by: Juanito | Dec 10, 2006 6:20:54 PM"
Juan ,
I can't agree with you here.
Democrat = one Democrat
Democrats = more than one
Democratic Party = the party
democrat = one believer in democracy
democrats = more than one
democratic = method of gvmt., philosophy
The phrase was made 'popular' by Newt in the late 70's, I believe.
It would be the same as refering to the Republican party as the Republic party. Not a big deal, maybe, but incorrect no matter how you cut it.
Posted by: c.morris | December 11, 2006 11:08 AM
You "do no wrong" Republicans can try to cover the manure all you want but the blame for the Foley mess is your baby and there is no way you can change that or justify what was done. You knew about it six years ago and in covering it up for those six years, you went ever lower by convincing Foley to run again after he indicated he was retiring from office. Why?, simply because you folks were afraid of losing his seat in the House. Despite your "high moral" prostrations, you followed the Republican rule book and took politics over what was right and the hell with anyone that cares (until election time anyway).
It doesn't really matter how it got out, nothing is as bad as why this was allowed to happen and to continue happen by the Rebublican Congress and their leadership. The sin wasn't how it got out but that it didn't get out. Six years - long time for the manure to lay there.
Rove and his swift boat buddies were attempting blacken a man's name through a series of lies and half truths just as Rove did against Max Clevland and John McCain. The Foly incident was a supreme cover up for a man that was very much guilty of what came out.
Posted by: Ken | December 11, 2006 1:40 PM
All,
I honestly don't get what the fuss is about and I meant no offense. I'll try to use "Democratic" more often.
C.Morris,
How did you that little Hammer and Sickle thingie on another post? that was pretty cool.
Posted by: Juanito | December 11, 2006 2:03 PM
Ken,
Great post,well spoken.
Read Bill and Juanblabo's posts for an example of how the Republicans try to shift the blame from themselves.
I hope they take this "weak" argument on Foley into the 08 Prez election campaign.
Posted by: John E. | December 11, 2006 2:13 PM
Ken, I don't think any posters here are saying that what Hastert or anyone else in the republican leadership did was enough or in any way right. We're just saying (accurately) that Rahm Emanuel knew about it to and chose to do nothing rather than safeguard people at risk (the pages). There's blood on the hands of both parties here.
Rahm Emanuel's own aide says he knew about the Foley e-mails a year before the story broke. That's a direct contradiction of what he said on ABC News. So in addition to being a hypocrite he's a liar. That's nice.
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 2:41 PM
C.Morris, disagree with Juan all you want but it looks like the dictionary agrees with him. That's the opinion that matters. I wouldn't be offended by you calling me a republic supporter. No problem there. All these democrats getting all bent out of shape about two little letters is what's really funny about these posts.
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 2:42 PM
Good point, Dave Brann. I don't get offended when anyone talks about me and my republican friends and it is a paralell usage. Why are you guys so offended by being called democrats?
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 2:45 PM
"If you think "Democrat" is a pejorative, if you're embarrassed to wear the label of your party, what does that say about your party?"
'nito:
That sure is a clever retort. Keep it up and you'll lock up 5th place in your grammar school debating competition.
The broader issue is that, so far as I can recall, the mis-label "Democrat Party" is an innovation of Ken Mehlman or someone of his ilk, and was only floated out this year. Given that many Republicans -- including the Miserable Failure -- pointedly and repeatedly use the label now -- despite have never used it in the deep past -- one cynically concludes that their motivation is purely political. Shocking, I know.
I can see two possible reasons why Republicans use it:
1. They do not want to suggest that the Democratic Party espouses anything like democratic principles.
2. "Democrat" sounds more like "rat" than "Democratic."
3. Let's not forget that we're dealing with the same people who thought "freedom fries" was a bold initiative -- there is point of semantics too small or dumb for this crowd of small people.
Circling back to diminutive Juan: I may not always be proud of what the Democrats do, but my shame never has anything to do with the name of the party.
Peace.
Posted by: a blinkin | December 11, 2006 2:56 PM
Also, Ken, check your timeline. The democrats had more information than the republicans for a whole year before the story broke. Don't they have a resonsibility to clean up the manure they left lying around, too?
Plus, don't you think it was wrong of Rahm Emanuel to lie on "This Week" and say he knew nothing about the e-mails? Matt Miller said under oath that Rahm knew of them and had "cursory" information of their existence for a year. That is plainly a lie, unless Matt Miller was lying under oath. And if he did that he'd be charged with perjury.
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 2:57 PM
Ken,very well said.Rahm Emanuel played smash mouth with these wussies,and they don't like it when someone hits back.
My motto is very simple,we'll play it anyway you want.You set the rules,and then i'm going to kick your ass.And if you get dirty,i'm gettin dirtier.
Let's play the game mf.
Posted by: Raving Loon | December 11, 2006 3:01 PM
blinki,
You're delusional. I have never used the term "Democrat Party".
How my calling you a "Democrat" is suggesting you do not espouse democratic principles eludes me.
The "Rat" rhyme thing isn't merely delusional, it's paranoid.
The Freedom Fries reference is simply irrelevant.
So silly little blink, if I'm in line for 5th place in my grammar school debating competition, but with the sort of "thinking" you've shown here you're not even in the running.
Posted by: Juanito | December 11, 2006 4:11 PM
No one would expect anything less of you, Loon. We know there's no depth to which you won't sink, innocent people be damned.
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 4:16 PM
A Blinkin', so you're really saying I had this evil plot to attempt to imply that democrats aren't really democratic at all in the back of my mind when I referred to 'the democrat party,' the same way I would refer to the republican party, instead of saying democratic party?
Wow. Somebody needs to take this a little less seriously, I think.
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 4:18 PM
Loon, that's all well and good. That's what I've been arguing for all along. I don't mind your stance. You've been consistent with it, too. Just don't around complaining about being "swiftboated" or using some other made-up word when you lose an election as a number of posters, they know who they are, have been doing for a long time on this blog. It's inconsistent. See you in the mud.
p.s. A Blinkin, Democrat sounds more like rat than democratic? Please tell me this is some kind of joke.
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 4:25 PM
Just so we're all on the same page, here's the link to that bastion of conservative thought, CNN, detailing how Matt Miller said Emanuel knew about the e-mails a year before the story broke in complete contradiction of the tall tale in Frank James' post: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/09/foley.emanuel/
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 4:31 PM
Bill,
Bent out of shape? Where did I get bent? Just disagreeing.
Swamp rats are always referring to Repubs, Dems, whatever. Just commenting.
It's not the Democrat party. It's the Democratic party. You can call it what you want.
Jaunito,
I ♥ Democratic party.
✈ ☩✇ =♨
Sweet, huh?
Posted by: c.morris | December 11, 2006 4:54 PM
Juan,
It's a liberal secret that Kenny Bunk and I know about.
Hint, if you look back and read all our posts for the last month or so, you will figure it out.
♩♬♪
Posted by: c.morris | December 11, 2006 5:05 PM
Boyz 'n Girlz:
I agree that we "leftists" may be making too much of the "Democrat" thing. However, the fuss is attributable to numerous Republican deliberate misuses we've observed over the past year or so. To be specific, the offending misuse is reference to the "Democrat Party."
Surely you will agree that use of that particular phrasing has skyrocketed in the last year or so compared to all of prior history. That's been my observation anyway, and like most of the rest of you I'm kind of a political junkie who follows this stuff to an unreasonable degree.
So the question is this: If it's all meaningless semantics, why to the Republicans do it so often that it has become obvious that they are doing it intentionally? They must there is some some political advantage to be gained by doing it. If that's not the case, I'd be interested in another explanation for why it's being done.
Little Juan:
The "freedom fries" reference is an example of how the Republicans rely on dumb little semantic games to substitute for substance, and thus is directly relevant to what I've said above.
Posted by: a blinkin | December 11, 2006 5:09 PM
dammmmmmmmmm yall,
we can't agree on anything
how about repos and demos (liked used car salesmen except with less dignity and less integrity)
Posted by: tom | December 11, 2006 5:31 PM
This is great.
I've never heard Bill,and Juanblabo cry so much about a failure in their own Republican party,what a joke.
Try taking your "Foley is the Dems fault" argument to the people when old man McCain starts his losing bid for Prez Bill.
Posted by: John E. | December 11, 2006 5:34 PM
Juanito,
Further klu;
You have to own a 'liberal' operating system.
Posted by: c.morris | December 11, 2006 6:00 PM
linking mccain (senator who didn't have info) to foley (congressman) but not seeing the fault of demos who were more worried about using info (which they did have) than protecting young pages ?? no connection there at all huh
let me see -- ok in this logic -- everything in the world that ever happens bad is linked to all repos and everything the demos do is for the greater good
it's all clear now -- thanks John E. -- glad we had this little talk
I feel so enlightened now that I finally understand how the universe works
Posted by: tom | December 11, 2006 6:03 PM
Juanito.
Final kloo,
Think about rock groups; Fleetwood Mac and Ten Years After.☜☝☞☟
Posted by: c.morris | December 11, 2006 6:05 PM
My Democratistical friends,
In the interest of peace and harmony in the Swamp I promise to hereafter try my best to avoid calling anybody a "Democrat". I promiss to try to always use the proper and repectful suffixes.
So Democaticists, if I occasionally slip and say "Democrats", "D's", "Dems" or even "Doze", please know that my heart is in the right place, and that I beleive that most of us here certainly are small "d" democrats.
blinker,
Just as Democraticish people have no right to complain about political dirty tricks, they also have no right to complain that their opponents lack substance.
Posted by: Juanito | December 11, 2006 7:45 PM
a blinkin,
I love freedom wine, freedom cheese, and freedom kissin'!!
tom,
Some of my best friends are used car salesmen.
Posted by: c.morris | December 11, 2006 7:51 PM
John E., for the last time I'm not crying about my parties' mistakes in not identifying Foley was a predator and getting away from underage kids sooner. Look at all my posts, not once do I say Hastert and the leadership did a respectable job.
All I'm doing is saying what CNN and the Tribune have reported, that Rahm Emanuel knew about the Foley e-mails a year before they did anything about it and months before anyone in the republican leadership did. It's not all the democrats fault, but they're at least as culpable. That's why the investigation will die on the vine. Too many powerful people have too much to lose. I've already given you credit for not being one of the "we don't campaign dirty" dems on this blog. Don't make me take it back.
p.s. If I was Dale Peters or some other posters I'd go after you for "insulting a decorated veterean" by calling a former POW a senile old man. But you're luck, I argue substance and not political sloganeering like you ;)
Have a nice night John E., I missed you for the last few months. If I didn't have you I'd have to invent you.
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 9:21 PM
And Blinkin', I never said "Democrat party," I said "you and your democrat friends," the same way that I'd say "you and your republican friends." That's what started all of this, just for the record.
Posted by: Bill | December 11, 2006 9:22 PM
"Bill Clinton and his information minister, Sidney Blumenthal, attacked every woman who ever had the audacity to claim he was a womanizer as a liar, a slut, and much worse."
Bill,
Lordy, can you imagine the 'make up' sex!
EE-Gad!! ♂ ♀ ♨ 8
Posted by: c.morris | December 12, 2006 10:33 AM
This is interesting.
The supposedly inappropriate emails were passed amongst a lot of Democratic offices and reporters before it ever went to the people in charge of the pages or to Hastert's office.
And did any of these Democrats do anything 'to protect the pages' or to confront Foley?
NO. They worked the emails to maximum political advantage.
There is no mention of any one trying to protect minors or pages.
It is all political bovine feces.
Posted by: TGD | December 12, 2006 11:20 AM
Ha! good one, C.Morris.
Posted by: Bill | December 12, 2006 11:54 AM
c.morris, bill, juanito, dale, tom, blinkin . . . get a life! You are the problem with politics. You argue about nothing, blaming each other for all the sins of Washington. The biggest problem with technology is that has given all of you nuts a voice.
Posted by: CJS | December 12, 2006 1:58 PM
CJS,
technology gave you a voice too. And what are you doing wasting your time on a blog, don't you have a life?
Posted by: Juanito | December 12, 2006 2:08 PM
to CJS
yes we do argue about nothing -- sometimes it's more fun
but how are we "the problem with politics" ??
you are the only one blaming US for anything
we are blaming each other's parties and party members for the problems in washington and in my case, I get to blame both sides (because I'm too chicken-schitt to pick a team)
but we do have a participatory form of government
so what are we doing wrong and who are we hurting ?
that makes three direct questions to you
at worst we are all using this as therapy in some way or another and using this as a forum for staying quasi-informed re ideas that may be new to us ............ and at best, we are enhancing our critical thinking skills and having fun doing it
join us , don't hate us
Posted by: tom | December 12, 2006 2:14 PM
TGD
GOOD POINT
Posted by: tom | December 12, 2006 2:23 PM
Tom,
You are the problem by continuing to perpetuate an overall negativity in political discourse. You focus on blame and deflection instead of solutions and progress. Basically, you seem to miss the log in your eye as you wax poetic about the speck in your political opponents.
Please, sit back and craft your next terse retort. If I fail to respond Juanito, please do not think that I am not capable of defending my position on this issue; it’s just that I have moved on in my life – you should all try it.
Posted by: CJS | December 12, 2006 4:39 PM
to CJS
hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmm mmm mm m ............
well, that's an answer
honestly it's not a good one but still an answer - so thanks all the same - examples (of why it's not a very good answer) ;
I'm not a politician and therefore I have no political opponents to attack
you attack negativity with .......................NEGATIVITY
and you attack us for attacking others and yet you've attacked us
you say we offer no positive solutions, yet you offer none
If your point is that we need more positive input then please please please do so yourself and maybe you'll start a trend
I stand by my positions that "politics as usual" is what we've been getting and that it is less than we deserve from either party
by refusing to endorse (or let stand) the claims of moral or intellectual superiority of either party, I actively argue for a reasoned approach for finding common ground and for doing the right thing whether or not it is to the political advantage of one party or the other -- yet this stance did not spare me your attack
anyway - it's about free speech
so God bless you CJS and more power to ya !!!!!!!!
little t -- tom
Posted by: tom | December 12, 2006 5:17 PM
as much as I disagree with some on the extremes, even those opinions I respect
apathy we should not respect, neither should we respect mindless conformity
diversity we should celebrate, even though it will inevitably provoke disagreement
the true test of a democracy is for it's people to expect that changes in power are done peacefully
perfection we should not expect, neither should we expect perpetual harmony (in this world)
every improvement in the history of mankind had at its root someone looking for a way to do it a little better -- someone not quite satisfied with what already exists -- in a paradoxical way , negativity can be progressive
at the same time, inner peace can only be found by being content with things as they are
the difference is , one is internal and one external
as humans , we can't find ways to get along (and find external peace) if we cannot respect our differences, this can best be done by exploring our differences -- an exploration that cannot be accomplished without first exposing those matters on which we disagree
to pretend that one party or the other party or both parties have all of the answers is not only naive, it would be a harmful position to take -- there could then be no growth within either party or between the parties or outside of those parties
is that poetic enough ???
Posted by: tom | December 12, 2006 5:41 PM
CJS,
You need to move on and start posting the cooking or TV blogs.
Posted by: c.morris | December 12, 2006 5:48 PM
Good one tom. The final paragraph really nailed it.
CJS, I wasn't necessarily looking for a response, but feel free to do so.
There's a downside about blogging. The anonymity of it means that people tend to be snarkier than they would normally be. I've encountered a few here (VERY few) who are unbearably fricking obnoxious. Also the speed of the back-and-forth means that sometimes people can get sloppy with facts or with their thinking.
But weigh that against the upside! This is a revolutionary technological development comparable to the invention of the printing press. Bloggers are the equivalent of the revolutionary 18th century pamphleteers. Jonathan Swift, Tom Paine, Ben Franklin would all be bloggers if they were here today.
Of course, not everybody babbling in the Swamp is a Tom Paine, but there might be one or two. But even if there isn't, our democracy is better for the blogosphere.
Posted by: Juanito | December 12, 2006 6:22 PM
I am pleased to have created a topic on which all parties seem to agree!
I want to make clear that at no time have I said that we, as citizens, should not participate in the political process – in fact I believe the opposite, it is our responsibility to participate. In addition, I have not said that having an opinion is wrong, particularly when it is in opposition to another whom you wish to debate in a forum such as this blog. Finally, I have not said that a negative view, opinion or statement is never allowed in civil discourse.
What I have tried to say is that constant negativity has become pervasive in political discourse and, in my opinion; the regular bloggers in The Swamp are both a symptom and a cause of this negativity.
Do you want examples? Read the above comments and see how often it is not the political view that is rebutted, but instead the author of the blog. You don’t have to look far – just note the responses that my comments have inspired. Or, note how often sweeping statements are made about a political party and its members.
Finally, tom (please note the correction in spelling – sorry) has asked for me to lead the way toward more positive discourse. Hopefully this post is doing so by addressing our differences without resorting to broad generalizations, personal attacks or any logical fallacies. If I have resorted to any of these in my previous two posts please accept my apologies and take comfort that you have corrected me.
Posted by: CJS | December 12, 2006 6:39 PM
Without a doubt blogging is a positive. Without it what would we have?
'Money is free speech', that's what. In fact, the Supremes have declared that fact.
Without this ability to blog we would be limited to perhaps one 200 word letter to the editor once a year, if we got lucky.
Some say that's a good thing. I don't. Yes it is ruff, tuff, impolite, but who cares?
I just hope a tiny bit of what is written here gets to a politician or two.
I don't always have the time, but I try to read everything written here.
Posted by: c.morris | December 12, 2006 9:34 PM
glad you liked it, Billy.
Posted by: c.morris | December 12, 2006 9:35 PM
"...the regular bloggers in The Swamp are both a symptom and a cause of this negativity.
Do you want examples? Read the above comments and see how often it is not the political view that is rebutted, but instead the author of the blog. You don’t have to look far – just note the responses that my comments have inspired."
Posted by: CJS | Dec 12, 2006 6:39:43 PM
I agree with you on the whole, but I find the quote here to be a bit disingenuous. You goaded reponses (which were not so terribly negative, BTW) with a brief, antagonistic and (it seems) intentionally simplistic jab.
That aside, yes, I agree. Political discourse is in a sorry state, and The Swamp largely reflects that. The best thing about blogs also happens to be the worst thing about blogs: there's no filtering or editing. (Except of course for dirty words, which I think is unfortunate.)
So you're simply going to have to put up with the malicious blubberheads if you want to carry on a conversation with the bright people. There's no fix for that. The best way to cope with that is to do your best to maintain an intelligent, respectful conversation with the thoughtful posters you find here. But know that the unthoughtful ones will always be here. In that vein, welcome to the conversation. ☮
Posted by: Juanito | December 13, 2006 7:17 AM
THE SWAMP AND NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING
(political FYI below)
among different ways to describe the swamp bloggers, one could be along lines of opinions regarding "negative campaigning" (NC) issues
I'd like to make a sincere remark or two along those lines by using a definition of "NC" as follows;
1)unethical behind the scenes manipulation of the media for political gain
and/or
2)paid campaign ads which are deliberately designed to distort the record or the issues as means of a personal attack against a candidate of either party (deliberately painting the candidate's positions as being very different from what they actually are)
and/or
3) character attacks based upon weak OR irrelevant evidence (especially for remote issues)
and/or
4) playing the race card (beyond a legit civil rights issue)
please note; the above does not include character attacks based on strong evidence (especially if recent), legitimate argument associated with debating, amusing campaigning that could be construed as negative but intended to be taken lightly, attacking a past OR present voting OR performance record without distorting it, negative generalizations that do not necessarily attack character or play the race card
(arguably some but not all of this latter group could be fairly included as NC but may not be as serious as the first four)
I could easily cite repos and demos who are very guilty of NC of all four kinds as well as examples from repos and demos whose campaigns are of a negative tone but not in the NC definition above -- I'm sure we could all debate examples of a grey zone
anyway among those posting at the swamp, I think it's safe to say we have those who believe;
a) NC is a bad thing but think the other party is overwhelmingly more guilty than their own
b) NC is a bad thing but it's OK for my party to do it as long as we win
c) NC is a necessary evil and we should expect it from both parties as long as no laws are broken
d) NC is a bad thing and if both parties would quit it , we would have a better world and better elections and better government - so we should at least voice our concerns
e) NC is a bad thing but there is nothing we can do about it so why try - it is a waste of time and energy
in my humble opinion, NC by it's very nature takes away from the real issues and therefore should always be condemned -- if the two major parties refuse to stop, we should go so far as to urge and support third party involvement
the problem (as anyone who has paid attention knows) is that NC works
so who is going to take the high road ??
probably the losing party
anyway, I write this because I have some news for ya all
I have watched one particular house race very very closely -- not due to any allegiance -- but due to a nearly morbid curiosity about a race occuring in a district where I used to live years ago (when I was in USAF) and still have some friends there
shortest version story -- the DEMOS won a HUGE upset
results came in last night 12-12-06
short version of story --
1) clinton now has big, big coattails
and
2) NC tactic number two above (paid for by demos on a national level) was utilized big time (with some probable indirect playing of NC tactic number 4)
those of you who know my opinions on bill clinton (see below) and now , negative campaigning will guess that I find this outcome a little disturbing (even though I'm surely not a republican)
and you would be right but in a way the repos are getting what they deserved (on a national level) and in another way , it's even worse news than you might think for those of us who hope for less NC and more attention on issues in the future
NC tactic number 2 did not only work , it worked dramatically well in this race
now for the longer version (in bullet fashion for your analysis)
the loser in the race was Henry Bonilla - a moderate incumbent and one of the few repos who does not routinely resort to NC (and in my opinion he did not in this race either)
bonilla got 49 % of the vote in Nov and just missed avoiding a runoff
his opponent Ciro Rodriguez who is generally a very respectable man that I've known from other races (involving people I know personally) actually pulled out of the race entirely at one time and then re-entered -- he did not use NC in the general election to my knowledge (or in his prior races)
in the last 2-3 weeks, NC type 2 against bonilla started pounding the airwaves -- prime time TV -- huge quantities
and less importantly but not insignificantly , bill clinton went to san antonio for pro-rodriguez appearances
then ciro rodriguez pulled out of both scheduled debates at the last minute
bonilla was clearly planning to take on the attack ads and defend his record in the 2 scheduled debates
last minute counter campaigning on TV by bonilla that attacked the demo's ads as distorting his record were then themselves described as negative campaigning on the part of bonilla by local spin-meisters
the results -- ciro rodriguez won by double digit percentage points -- not even close
I report this only FYI because if I as an independent MD who no longer lives in that district noticed what happened, you can bet the poll meisters and spin meisters of both parties were taking notes and now you guys know what to expect for 2008
I am disheartened to know that 2008 will be all about personality and negative campaigning and not about the issues
I've been asked more than once why I don't like clinton and I've given various answers
I think though, the main reason I dislike him is the exact reason some admire him -- he does what it takes to get the job done politicallly -- he denies his faults and attacks his opponents and takes polls to tell him what to do -- to be sure he learned these bad habits from everyone -- democrats and republicans (and so has Hillary)
anyway, here is my very last attack on bill (and last political posting for a while) and if it meets the definition of negative campaigning, then I apologize but here goes;
I like the real world where all presidents have big and little mistakes which we acknowledge and we evaluate them in a historical context warts and all -- if for no other reasons than to respect their humanity and learn for their mistakes and I deplore the constant spinning of everything by BOTH parties but none more so than that done by bill clinton since 9-11 and increasing recently regarding his own record -- the saddest part is , this is totally unecessary , people don't expect really perfection on any level
so without further ado;
as I study history and try to be a participant in our participatory form of government one thing unique about these debates we are recently having seems apparent:
There is an unusual amount of resistance among clinton and his supporters to accept ANY criticism of ANY kind other than that regarding Monica ((and then they sweep that under the rug as a A) setup by enemies B) one-time moral failing apologized for already and C) nothing to do with running the country))
I stand by this observation and offer the following explanations (in David Letterman style):
top 10 reasons why clinton and his supporters don't want to be remembered warts and all like we do ALL other presidents
number 10 - clinton's childhood emotional issues trauma/self-image/innate nature/absentee father (with alcoholism) issues makes it a bit more difficult for him to personally accept criticism than most
number 9 - lawyer training mentality of him (and his spouse) -- if you can't prove it, it didn't happen
number 8 - deny , deny, deny worked very very very very well for bill and is now an old habit -- in fact this strategy regarding womanizing and harassment allegations worked flawlessly until the dna showed up on the blue dress -- the clintons continue to use this strategy for other areas since it worked so well in that one area
number 7 - self consciousness about never getting 50 % of the national vote in either election
number 6 - self consciousness about the democrats losing control of house for first time in over 30 years on bill's watch
number 5 - self consciousness about the acts of terror that occurred on bill's watch (and shortly thereafter)
number 4 - trying to draw attention away from the rather obvious paradox of double standards as they apply to his frequent attacks on his opposition (in other words, distracting away from a fair debate due to not wanting to be judged by one's own meter stick after deciding to use negative campaigning himself)
number 3 - seven way tie a) bill likes his superstar status (who wouldn't ??) b) recent evolution of e-media gives opportunity to literally rewrite history -- an opportunity which no other ex president ever had before c) supporters still revere him as being the democrat to face and overcome the "electability factor" (which mondale, dukakis never had) d) bitter resentment over the outcome of bush vs gore which was in part made into a referendum on bill's 8 years e) the "captivity under pharoah was better than wandering in the wilderness" syndrome with a twinge of ordinary nostalgia