Tuesday, October 03, 2006
It's so much fun to listen to our elected officials stick their tongues out and then stomp on them with so much gusto!
This week, Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) exclaimed on the floor of the House that "We don't arbitrarily hang murderers and rapists. We try them in courts, and then we hang them!"
Well, actually, Mr Nadler, that's the way they used to do it in the old Soviet Union. The courts just ratified the fact that Soviet authorities had accused and condemned anybody they pleased for any rationale they produced, with or without real or fabricated evidence. It really made no difference.
Under our Constitution, the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't get to hang them until after that's done, and all their appeals are exhausted.
In this case, however, Mr Nadler was speaking in support of the jihadist detainees who may be afforded rights they never considered for us, or that they would have never been granted anywhere else in the world, as they face our military tribunals. I doubt that he really meant that we should simply go through the motions before hanging these bastards in the manner of the old Soviet system. But, since in all other matters Mr Nadler supports the usual Leftist agenda items, perhaps he was.
In that case, sir, in this particular instance, I heartily agree!
This week, Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) exclaimed on the floor of the House that "We don't arbitrarily hang murderers and rapists. We try them in courts, and then we hang them!"
Well, actually, Mr Nadler, that's the way they used to do it in the old Soviet Union. The courts just ratified the fact that Soviet authorities had accused and condemned anybody they pleased for any rationale they produced, with or without real or fabricated evidence. It really made no difference.
Under our Constitution, the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't get to hang them until after that's done, and all their appeals are exhausted.
In this case, however, Mr Nadler was speaking in support of the jihadist detainees who may be afforded rights they never considered for us, or that they would have never been granted anywhere else in the world, as they face our military tribunals. I doubt that he really meant that we should simply go through the motions before hanging these bastards in the manner of the old Soviet system. But, since in all other matters Mr Nadler supports the usual Leftist agenda items, perhaps he was.
In that case, sir, in this particular instance, I heartily agree!
Monday, October 02, 2006
I found this on a news website today:
“It may not be as smooth as the Republicans' Stirling engine, but the Democrats' party committees are hitting on all cylinders today. They want candidates in each and every House and Senate race to push the Foley scandal to its hilt.
(Sample DSCC release: “Foley Sex Scandal Hits DeWine.” Sample WI Dem party release: “Foley Scandal: What Did Green Know and When Did He Know it?”)”
Although I’m a registered Independent, I couldn’t help but react to this latest bit of political nastiness that infests our political process.
The Democrats must think that nobody remembers anything that happened before 2002! Over the decades, on this particular subject of sex-scandalized public officials in Congress, who can forget Wilbur Mills (D-AR) cavorting naked in a public DC fountain with a stripper? Or Gerry Studds (D-MA) acknowledging a homosexual seduction (or rape) of a House page? Or president Bill Clinton’s well-publicized sexual escapades with female interns and staffers? If you look at the record, in almost every case when a Republican abused his office for sexual favors (i.e. Crane, Hatfield), he was hounded from office either by resigning or by defeat, and usually by his own party members, whether or not in power. When a Democrat engaged in the SAME or WORSE behavior, it was condoned, even APPLAUDED, while critics were castigated as prudes or worse!
“Here's Dems' playbook:
1. Pay no heed to the distinction between the e-mails and IMs. There's no evidence (yet) that any Republican leaders knew about Foley's cybersex IMs. There's plenty of evidence that they knew how uncomfortable the "overly friendly" e-mails made at least one page. So the Dems will press the GOP on what they knew about the former and will constantly, in their press releases, refer to the ‘GOP's knowledge of the sexually explicit e-mails.’"
How the Republicans should respond: Play up the indications that the source of the “explicit” messages was a Soros-funded website, and demand an investigation of what the source knew and when did it know it. Some of the messages are reputed to date from 2003. If Congressional pages were threatened by this predator, why did the source sit on the information for 3 years? How many other pages could have been potential victims of a sexual predator because this source failed to come forward until the information could have been exploited politically? Insist that the Democrats join them in a Congressional investigation of the source, and why it withheld information from the leadership of both parties -- or was it just withheld from the Republicans?
“2. Enlarge the wedge between House leaders. The tension this weekend between Speaker Dennis Hastert and NRCC chair Tom Reynolds was thick. Dems want it to suffocate the party and throw the Republicans even further off their game.”
How Republicans should respond: Unite and remind Americans how, when the Democrats last controlled Congress -- and the White House -- reprehensible behavior like this was not only defended, but applauded and even condoned! Name names, and the fates of, politicians who were caught in sex scandals. Allow that some few members from both parties succumb to degeneracy, but contrast the fate of Republican members -- resignation or ejection in disgrace -- with that of Democrats -- denial, then defiance, then demands that their privacy be respected!
“3. Be aggressive about how Dems will -- and are -- protecting children. Dems want to keep the issue poisonous in a way that's clear and direct to middle America. (In other words: this ain't earmarks.)”
How Republicans should respond: Aggressively remind voters that a Democratic congressman who homosexually “date-raped” a Congressional page was not only allowed to continue in office, but strongly supported by the Democratic party for re-election. Furthermore, a Democratic congressman CONVICTED of having an affair with a 16 year-old girl, but of attempting to include a 15 year-old girl in his disgusting and sordid little peccadillo, had his sentence commuted by none other than the Democratic Sex Abuser-in-Chief, Bill Clinton! That’s protecting children?
“4. Choose unimpeachable spokespeople to be their public face. The DCCC has enlisted Patty Wetterling, its candidate for MN 06, to call for "a thorough investigation" of the House leadership over Foley. Wetterling's son, Jacob, was kidnapped in 1989.”
How Republicans should respond: No disrespect to Ms Wetterling, but neither Foley nor the Republican leadership kidnapped anybody. If anything, she should be outraged that somebody had withheld information about a sexual predator at least from the majority House leadership (although maybe not from her own party’s leadership) until now.
“5. Deride the Republicans for incompetence. How can you possibly trust them with national security if you can't trust them with your own children?”
How Republicans should respond: The two issues aren’t related. But if you compare the way Democrats deal with the sexual predators in their party with how the Republicans deal with them -- praise versus expulsion -- it’s not hard to rebut this argument.
“6. Bring up Terri Schiavo's case and compare the heated GOP attention back then to their allegedly lax attention to the welfare of their pages.”
How the Republicans should respond: How Terri Schiavo’s plight has any bearing on this argument is beyond me or any other rational citizen. Terri was ordered starved to death by a court. How does this impact treatment of Congressional pages? Pages are the responsibility of ALL the members of Congress, regardless of party. Abuse by members of either party should be condemned and punished. Historically, abuses by Democrats have been given a pass by their party and by the press, while similar actions by Republicans have been excoriated and punished.
“7. Compare what the GOP leadership says about Foley with what Republicans said about Jack Abramoff.”
How Republicans should respond: This is such a reach by the opposition that it defies logic. What do these issues have in common?
“8. Use the Foley cash. Already, the DSCC wonders why George Allen didn't immediately return the Foley. The quotable Phil Singer: “It is more than a little disturbing that Allen apparently sees nothing wrong with holding on to contributions he got from an adult who has been caught sending sexually explicit email to children." Allen and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) will return the cash. But the NRCC already spent the $550K and won't.?
How the Republicans should respond: Let’s both ignore this one, and we won’t ask who the publisher of “Hustler, ” a magazine that degrades women, contributes to on a regular basis (and it isn’t Republican candidates). Furthermore, if Democrats want to discuss why candidates don’t immediately return scandal-tainted funds, ask Senators “Gulag Dick” Durbin and “Dirty Harry” Reid about why they were slow to respond to campaign fund contributions to them by Jack Abramoff.
“Here's what the Democrats hope to accomplish:
1. Republicans will flinch before they try and use "values" as a cudgel. Can this NRCC ad against Brad Ellsworth be run in this environment?”
Don’t know this one.
“2. Democrats now have a new way to respond to the Republicans when they go negative: ‘They're just trying to distract you from the scandal.’"
If it were a party-wide scandal involving several Congressmen, like Abscam or the post office check scam, or the S&L debacle, then this might have legs. It’s not and it doesn’t. It’s temporarily lurid.
“3. GOP candidates will be thrown on the defensive, generally.”
Simple defense: A single Congressman is not a national scandal. Tip O’Neill (D-MA) is often quoted as dispensing the sage political advice, “All politics is local!” The strongest message for Republicans is: “I’m YOUR Congressman. You know me and my family. I’ve spent my political life combating all sexual predators, and working hard to ensure that they can never threaten our children or family members. I’m opposed by the ACLU, who supports the ‘Man-Boy Love Association,’ and contributes funds to my opponent’s party. Judge for yourself who better represents the interests of your family -- or those of sexual predators.”
“4. Link House candidates -- and not just Reynolds -- to the sense that that the GOP was hesitant to investigate or even poke around into Foley's life because they didn't want to jeopardize their majority. That is, they craved power to the point where they ignored or suppressed warnings.”
There is a big, big differece between the sort of disturbing, but innocuous e-mails, that were released by the media late last week, and the explicit IM’s that were exposed over the weekend. When it comes time to protecting majority advantage, there’s also a big, big difference between the Republican approach (“goodbye and good riddance”) and the Democratic approach (“it’s a private matter and shouldn’t even be discussed publicly”).
“It may not be as smooth as the Republicans' Stirling engine, but the Democrats' party committees are hitting on all cylinders today. They want candidates in each and every House and Senate race to push the Foley scandal to its hilt.
(Sample DSCC release: “Foley Sex Scandal Hits DeWine.” Sample WI Dem party release: “Foley Scandal: What Did Green Know and When Did He Know it?”)”
Although I’m a registered Independent, I couldn’t help but react to this latest bit of political nastiness that infests our political process.
The Democrats must think that nobody remembers anything that happened before 2002! Over the decades, on this particular subject of sex-scandalized public officials in Congress, who can forget Wilbur Mills (D-AR) cavorting naked in a public DC fountain with a stripper? Or Gerry Studds (D-MA) acknowledging a homosexual seduction (or rape) of a House page? Or president Bill Clinton’s well-publicized sexual escapades with female interns and staffers? If you look at the record, in almost every case when a Republican abused his office for sexual favors (i.e. Crane, Hatfield), he was hounded from office either by resigning or by defeat, and usually by his own party members, whether or not in power. When a Democrat engaged in the SAME or WORSE behavior, it was condoned, even APPLAUDED, while critics were castigated as prudes or worse!
“Here's Dems' playbook:
1. Pay no heed to the distinction between the e-mails and IMs. There's no evidence (yet) that any Republican leaders knew about Foley's cybersex IMs. There's plenty of evidence that they knew how uncomfortable the "overly friendly" e-mails made at least one page. So the Dems will press the GOP on what they knew about the former and will constantly, in their press releases, refer to the ‘GOP's knowledge of the sexually explicit e-mails.’"
How the Republicans should respond: Play up the indications that the source of the “explicit” messages was a Soros-funded website, and demand an investigation of what the source knew and when did it know it. Some of the messages are reputed to date from 2003. If Congressional pages were threatened by this predator, why did the source sit on the information for 3 years? How many other pages could have been potential victims of a sexual predator because this source failed to come forward until the information could have been exploited politically? Insist that the Democrats join them in a Congressional investigation of the source, and why it withheld information from the leadership of both parties -- or was it just withheld from the Republicans?
“2. Enlarge the wedge between House leaders. The tension this weekend between Speaker Dennis Hastert and NRCC chair Tom Reynolds was thick. Dems want it to suffocate the party and throw the Republicans even further off their game.”
How Republicans should respond: Unite and remind Americans how, when the Democrats last controlled Congress -- and the White House -- reprehensible behavior like this was not only defended, but applauded and even condoned! Name names, and the fates of, politicians who were caught in sex scandals. Allow that some few members from both parties succumb to degeneracy, but contrast the fate of Republican members -- resignation or ejection in disgrace -- with that of Democrats -- denial, then defiance, then demands that their privacy be respected!
“3. Be aggressive about how Dems will -- and are -- protecting children. Dems want to keep the issue poisonous in a way that's clear and direct to middle America. (In other words: this ain't earmarks.)”
How Republicans should respond: Aggressively remind voters that a Democratic congressman who homosexually “date-raped” a Congressional page was not only allowed to continue in office, but strongly supported by the Democratic party for re-election. Furthermore, a Democratic congressman CONVICTED of having an affair with a 16 year-old girl, but of attempting to include a 15 year-old girl in his disgusting and sordid little peccadillo, had his sentence commuted by none other than the Democratic Sex Abuser-in-Chief, Bill Clinton! That’s protecting children?
“4. Choose unimpeachable spokespeople to be their public face. The DCCC has enlisted Patty Wetterling, its candidate for MN 06, to call for "a thorough investigation" of the House leadership over Foley. Wetterling's son, Jacob, was kidnapped in 1989.”
How Republicans should respond: No disrespect to Ms Wetterling, but neither Foley nor the Republican leadership kidnapped anybody. If anything, she should be outraged that somebody had withheld information about a sexual predator at least from the majority House leadership (although maybe not from her own party’s leadership) until now.
“5. Deride the Republicans for incompetence. How can you possibly trust them with national security if you can't trust them with your own children?”
How Republicans should respond: The two issues aren’t related. But if you compare the way Democrats deal with the sexual predators in their party with how the Republicans deal with them -- praise versus expulsion -- it’s not hard to rebut this argument.
“6. Bring up Terri Schiavo's case and compare the heated GOP attention back then to their allegedly lax attention to the welfare of their pages.”
How the Republicans should respond: How Terri Schiavo’s plight has any bearing on this argument is beyond me or any other rational citizen. Terri was ordered starved to death by a court. How does this impact treatment of Congressional pages? Pages are the responsibility of ALL the members of Congress, regardless of party. Abuse by members of either party should be condemned and punished. Historically, abuses by Democrats have been given a pass by their party and by the press, while similar actions by Republicans have been excoriated and punished.
“7. Compare what the GOP leadership says about Foley with what Republicans said about Jack Abramoff.”
How Republicans should respond: This is such a reach by the opposition that it defies logic. What do these issues have in common?
“8. Use the Foley cash. Already, the DSCC wonders why George Allen didn't immediately return the Foley. The quotable Phil Singer: “It is more than a little disturbing that Allen apparently sees nothing wrong with holding on to contributions he got from an adult who has been caught sending sexually explicit email to children." Allen and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) will return the cash. But the NRCC already spent the $550K and won't.?
How the Republicans should respond: Let’s both ignore this one, and we won’t ask who the publisher of “Hustler, ” a magazine that degrades women, contributes to on a regular basis (and it isn’t Republican candidates). Furthermore, if Democrats want to discuss why candidates don’t immediately return scandal-tainted funds, ask Senators “Gulag Dick” Durbin and “Dirty Harry” Reid about why they were slow to respond to campaign fund contributions to them by Jack Abramoff.
“Here's what the Democrats hope to accomplish:
1. Republicans will flinch before they try and use "values" as a cudgel. Can this NRCC ad against Brad Ellsworth be run in this environment?”
Don’t know this one.
“2. Democrats now have a new way to respond to the Republicans when they go negative: ‘They're just trying to distract you from the scandal.’"
If it were a party-wide scandal involving several Congressmen, like Abscam or the post office check scam, or the S&L debacle, then this might have legs. It’s not and it doesn’t. It’s temporarily lurid.
“3. GOP candidates will be thrown on the defensive, generally.”
Simple defense: A single Congressman is not a national scandal. Tip O’Neill (D-MA) is often quoted as dispensing the sage political advice, “All politics is local!” The strongest message for Republicans is: “I’m YOUR Congressman. You know me and my family. I’ve spent my political life combating all sexual predators, and working hard to ensure that they can never threaten our children or family members. I’m opposed by the ACLU, who supports the ‘Man-Boy Love Association,’ and contributes funds to my opponent’s party. Judge for yourself who better represents the interests of your family -- or those of sexual predators.”
“4. Link House candidates -- and not just Reynolds -- to the sense that that the GOP was hesitant to investigate or even poke around into Foley's life because they didn't want to jeopardize their majority. That is, they craved power to the point where they ignored or suppressed warnings.”
There is a big, big differece between the sort of disturbing, but innocuous e-mails, that were released by the media late last week, and the explicit IM’s that were exposed over the weekend. When it comes time to protecting majority advantage, there’s also a big, big difference between the Republican approach (“goodbye and good riddance”) and the Democratic approach (“it’s a private matter and shouldn’t even be discussed publicly”).
