Hastert just gave a speech saying that he was "taking responsibility" and even trotted out the ole "the buck stops here" mantra.
Followed immediately by "I'm not stepping down" and "I haven't done anything wrong, obviously".
Linkage
Shades of when Bush said he takes responsibility for the federal Katrina response and that "the buck stops here". Apparently, taking responsibility these days means that you say "the buck stops here" and then proclaim your innocence. And, no, I'm not saying Hastert needs to step down to take responsibility but I'd like to know what he does think taking responsibility entails beyond lip service.
The most ridiculous part of it being that everyone knew that the buck stopped at Hastert's office. That was the entire point of that angle of the scandal -- Hastert is the top level of brass in the House of Representatives and it was always at his desk where the buck stopped. That's why Boehner and Reynolds and Alexander were saying "Hey! I talked to Hastert about it! He's the boss!" Hastert's not really taking a brave stance by saying this, he's just acknowledging what everyone else has been saying for the last five days.
Edited, Oct 5th 2006 at 12:20pm PDT by Jophiel
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Four and a half weeks and counting
Four and a half weeks and countingFollow
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
I'd like to know what he does think taking responsibility entails beyond lip service.
What do you want, blood?
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
'Lest this sound like Hastert's hands are clean, both Boehner & Reynolds -- apparently made of stronger stuff than Alexander -- remain firm in their conviction that they spoke directly to Hastert about the issue.
Alexander is not "backpedalling". His original statements were that he talked to "Hastert's staff", not Hastert himself. This was reported in the media (and in the blogosphere) as "Alexander told Hastert, so why didn't Hastert do something!!!". Which was clearly incorrect. Correcting mininformation is *not* backpedalling...
As to Boehner & Reynolds, there's still alot of confusion as to exactly what *they* talked to Hastert about. I'm not aware that either of them has stated that they discussed the text message with Hastert directly. Only about the email, which is much much tamer in content.
The "bait and switch" is that Hastert did know about the email. He learned about it because the family of the page reported it to their representative (Reynolds), who passed it on to Hastert, who took appropriate action. Yet, it seems that many of those referring to the whole issue switch that knowledge of that one situation with the broader issue regarding the text messages. That information was *not* known to Hastert.
Is that clear enough for you? You need to be clear in return. When you say that Reynolds talked to Hastert, which information was included in the discussion. If you aren't sure, then find out. Because there's a world of difference between discussing that one email and discussing the text messages. Those are two utterly separate incidents. Mixing them together is unfair to everyone involved for exactly the reason that it creates the perception that Hastert knew about the text messages and covered them up.
But hey! It wouldn't be the first time that opponents of Republicans (in any branch) deliberately confused an issue in order to gain political advantage...
Quote:
I'm sure that you'll go on now about how I didn't make all this crystal clear in my posting and this proves my bias and probably throw the word "rhetoric" around a lot. All I can tell you is that I write my posts assuming that the reader of the thread has a basic understanding of the issue by page two.
Sure. But do *you* have an understanding of the difference between the email involving the page that Reynold's sponsored (and is presumably the information that Reynold's discussed with Hastert) and the text messages which were released publically just a week or so ago?
Because it sure sounds like you either don't know, or are perfectly willing to ignore those differences in order to make a juicier argument.
Edited, Oct 5th 2006 at 7:31pm PDT by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Alexander is not "backpedalling". His original statements were that he talked to "Hastert's staff", not Hastert himself. This was reported in the media (and in the blogosphere) as "Alexander told Hastert, so why didn't Hastert do something!!!". Which was clearly incorrect. Correcting mininformation is *not* backpedalling...
But he quickly backed off that comment, saying he discussed the e-mails with Hastert's aides, not the speaker himself.
"I guess that's a poor choice of words that I made there," he told AP.
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But do *you* have an understanding of the difference between the email involving the page that Reynold's sponsored (and is presumably the information that Reynold's discussed with Hastert) and the text messages which were released publically just a week or so ago?
Quote:
Because it sure sounds like you either don't know, or are perfectly willing to ignore those differences in order to make a juicier argument.
Edited, Oct 6th 2006 at 8:16am PDT by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
A new strategy!
Quote:
Republicans are calculating that the smartest way to survive the Mark Foley sex scandal is to rally around House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and hope that no new evidence surfaces before Election Day that shows GOP leaders could have done more to prevent the congressman from preying on young male pages, according to several GOP lawmakers and strategists.
The White House and top House Republicans remain deeply nervous that the scandal will hurt them politically, and that additional information will come out contradicting statements by Hastert and others that they were unaware of Foley's sexual messages to underage boys, the lawmakers and officials said.
For now, they said, it would be politically disastrous for Republicans to oust Hastert because it would be viewed as akin to a public admission of guilt in the scandal, as well as a pre-election victory that would buoy Democrats and help their turnout efforts.
The White House and top House Republicans remain deeply nervous that the scandal will hurt them politically, and that additional information will come out contradicting statements by Hastert and others that they were unaware of Foley's sexual messages to underage boys, the lawmakers and officials said.
For now, they said, it would be politically disastrous for Republicans to oust Hastert because it would be viewed as akin to a public admission of guilt in the scandal, as well as a pre-election victory that would buoy Democrats and help their turnout efforts.
Jophiel wrote:
That doesn't even make sense. Why would Alexander issue a mea cupla for making a "poor choice of words" if he never said it?
But he quickly backed off that comment, saying he discussed the e-mails with Hastert's aides, not the speaker himself.
"I guess that's a poor choice of words that I made there," he told AP.
But he quickly backed off that comment, saying he discussed the e-mails with Hastert's aides, not the speaker himself.
"I guess that's a poor choice of words that I made there," he told AP.
Because it's easier to just say you misspoke then try to prove/argue that your actual words were misquoted maybe?
Or... Gasp! He did misspeak. Whichever floats your boat. It's still not backpedaling in either case.
Quote:
Quote:
Sure. But do *you* have an understanding of the difference between the email involving the page that Reynold's sponsored (and is presumably the information that Reynold's discussed with Hastert) and the text messages which were released publically just a week or so ago?
You brought up Alexander and Reynolds and Boehner all in one sentence:
"Alexander is backpeddling from his claims to have spoken to Hastert. Boehner & Reynolds are not"
By doing so, you blended the issues of which specific information any of them may have known and passed on into one "issue". That's what I'm talking about. If Boehner and Reynolds only knew about the tame email and passed that on to Hastert and Hastert warned Foley about it (as has been reported and very clearly stated many many times), then that's not very significant and is certainly not a "cover-up". If Alexander knew about the text emails (either directly or indirectly), and mentioned it to someone on Hastert's staff, but that person did not pass it on to Hastert, then you still don't have a "cover-up", do you?
But your sentence essentially said that even though Alexander changed his statement, that still left the other two. The implication being that all three of them had equally "damning" information that they passed on, so if even one of them still says he spoke to Hastert about "it", then this means Hastert knew about the "bad stuff" (the text messages). What else could you have been talking about? No one's saying that the email constitutes a violation of anything, and no one (to my knowledge) is actually arguing that Hastert's handling of the email was incorrect.
Quote:
The inital "cover-up" debate is about the e-mails. I know that, you know that, I assume any gentle reader who reaches page two in a politics thread knows that without me expressly giving a timeline of events in every single post to avoid you crying about me not giving enough information.
No it's not. The original "scandal" was about the emails. Foley resigned over that right away, so the scandal transformed into "how do we blame other more senior republicans". No one has ever implied there was a coverup with regards to that email. It was handled discretely at the request of the familiy of the recipient of the email. What the heck do you think Hastert should have done?
The "cover-up" is entirely about trying to connect people who knew about the email to the text messages as well. It's entirely about trying to imply to the public that those two events were both known to the same group of people, so the softball treatment that Foley got a year ago was a "coverup" of his behavior.
Find me someone saying that Hastert should resign and pointing only at the email Joph. You can't do it. Every single argument against him and for an investigation points to the text messages for justification. Not the email.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
And in the case of statutory rape, since we're dealing with a minor, the decision to press charges rests with the parent or legal guardian. The effect is that the guardian makes the decision of consent for the minor.
And this is precisely why Ted Nugent talked the parents of his first wife into giving him legal custody over her at the age of 16 (or was it 17?). Brilliant *******.
I suppose it may be nitpicking, but at least according to dictionary.com pedophilia deals with adults interested in children while children would be people of an age between puberty and birth, rather then someone is around the age of 16-18.
Yeah, I don't find the age of the boys involved nearly as compelling as the sexual harassment angle.
Well, that, and that he was supposedly in a committed relationship during at least the most recent incidents. What the hell is that about?
Oh, and his ongoing history of speaking out against gay rights, and setting himself up as a champion of minors at risk of being stalked over the internet.
Taken all together it just adds up to a fairly smarmy picture, I think.
Well, that, and that he was supposedly in a committed relationship during at least the most recent incidents. What the hell is that about?
Oh, and his ongoing history of speaking out against gay rights, and setting himself up as a champion of minors at risk of being stalked over the internet.
Taken all together it just adds up to a fairly smarmy picture, I think.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
Because it's easier to just say you misspoke then try to prove/argue that your actual words were misquoted maybe?
Quote:
It's still not backpedaling in either case.
"I'm not at fault here; I told Hastert about it." "Wait, no, I never told Hasert. I told his staff. But not Hastert."
Yeah, that's backpedalling.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jesus H. you still don't know whether or not to shout when the Ice_Cream_Man gets ...
Ha-ha-h0-ho-hoh, even gbaji doesn't realize how Nancy herself has butt been waiting to take off some Articles. Let 'them' lay down rape Clauzes. B/C sexually-Explicit e-mails is a never-ending Giligan's trove. Just try the butt-nekid political judgement, /poke Sperm_Bank_#1. And so, let us take it semi-seriously,
...Paging Doctor Over....No, the Red Phone. ***** in the AZZ, Curdes Republican Subligar - 1. And who's/m more ****-phobic?
...Paging Doctor Over....No, the Red Phone. ***** in the AZZ, Curdes Republican Subligar - 1. And who's/m more ****-phobic?
I have a feeling that Foley left more over the issue of being outted as gay then over any actual illegal conduct.
Nice to see that the Dems still don't have any compunctions about outting gay folks in order to score some political points. Kinda reminds me of the whole "Cheney's Daughter is Gay" deal...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the "dems" didnt out Foley. the "repubs" did in order to keep from loosing support from their base.
2. the "dems" didnt have a problem with Cheney,s daughter being gay. all they did was through it up in the "repubs" face during the whoopla the "repubs" were making about being gay was the same as being immoral.
now the fact about this comming out at midterm elections does kind of stink alot like a big push for new immigration laws and getting tough on terrorist prisoners right before mid term elections. both of which will fade into obscurity right after the elections just like the stink about gay marriages did right after the last presidential election.
hello, McFly, your being PLAYED. we all are. someday we might just wake up. then again, mabe we wont. either way, weather we fight to get our country back from big bussiness, or weather we roll over, like gbaji, and sing the party line, we WILL get which ever we DESERVE. we WILL get exactly what we FIGHT for. either way.
gbaji, your like the fire calling the kettle black.
Nice to see that the Dems still don't have any compunctions about outting gay folks in order to score some political points. Kinda reminds me of the whole "Cheney's Daughter is Gay" deal...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. the "dems" didnt out Foley. the "repubs" did in order to keep from loosing support from their base.
2. the "dems" didnt have a problem with Cheney,s daughter being gay. all they did was through it up in the "repubs" face during the whoopla the "repubs" were making about being gay was the same as being immoral.
now the fact about this comming out at midterm elections does kind of stink alot like a big push for new immigration laws and getting tough on terrorist prisoners right before mid term elections. both of which will fade into obscurity right after the elections just like the stink about gay marriages did right after the last presidential election.
hello, McFly, your being PLAYED. we all are. someday we might just wake up. then again, mabe we wont. either way, weather we fight to get our country back from big bussiness, or weather we roll over, like gbaji, and sing the party line, we WILL get which ever we DESERVE. we WILL get exactly what we FIGHT for. either way.
gbaji, your like the fire calling the kettle black.
shadowrelm wrote:
gbaji, your like the fire calling the kettle black.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
shadowrelm wrote:
gbaji, your like the fire calling the kettle black.
Wisdom!
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
gbaji said.
gbaji said
sounds a lot like that strategy where the gubnmint says 'Iraq' and '9/11' in one sentence, and we thickies out here arn't supposed to connect the two totally unrelated subjects.......
Just sayin'.....
Quote:
You brought up Alexander and Reynolds and Boehner all in one sentence:
gbaji said
Quote:
By doing so, you blended the issues of which specific information any of them may have known and passed on into one "issue".
sounds a lot like that strategy where the gubnmint says 'Iraq' and '9/11' in one sentence, and we thickies out here arn't supposed to connect the two totally unrelated subjects.......
Just sayin'.....
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
46 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
liberal conspiracy
paulsol the Flatulent wrote:
sounds a lot like that strategy where the gubnmint says 'Iraq' and '9/11' in one sentence, and we thickies out here arn't supposed to connect the two totally unrelated subjects.......
Just sayin'.....
One can only assume that its because readers of the Asylum are stupid and therefore make an amalgam when they see two different concepts in one block of text.
Whereas American voters are teh clever, and know that when an administration repeatedly talks about "9/11 and Iraq and Al-Qaeda" in the same sentence, in the same declaration of war, in the same speeches, or in the same breath when they explain the war on terrorism, they are in fact talking about tow totally separate, distinct, and unrelated issues.
Obviously.
Otherwise, they would've told us...
shadowrelm wrote:
1. the "dems" didnt out Foley. the "repubs" did in order to keep from loosing support from their base.
Missing the point there. I was talking about why he resigned, not about the motives of who leaked what to whom.
If the exact same emails/IM (ok, not "exact", but close) had existed but the teens involved had been female, do you think Foley would have resigned immediately? Or do you think he'd have allowed an investigation to continue, insisting all the while that he did nothing wrong because he did not have sex with any minors?
You are aware that what Foley has admitted to was: a) being gay and b) sending inappropriate emails and IMs to teen age pages. He has steadfastly denied having sex with any minors.
Again. Would we have had the same "scandal" if Foley had not been gay. Now ask yourself why this is a scandal at all? Where's the pressure coming from?
Quote:
2. the "dems" didnt have a problem with Cheney,s daughter being gay. all they did was through it up in the "repubs" face during the whoopla the "repubs" were making about being gay was the same as being immoral.
Why is that something you feel is ok to "throw in their face"? I thought being gay was ok? Double standard? I think so.
*cough*. The issue was over whether marriage should be changed to include gay couples. The "Republicans are saying homosexuality is immoral" argument is the Left's strawman position. Nothing more.
Quote:
now the fact about this comming out at midterm elections does kind of stink alot like a big push for new immigration laws and getting tough on terrorist prisoners right before mid term elections.
With the huge difference that one actually has something to do with politics and legistlation, while the other does not...
Quote:
both of which will fade into obscurity right after the elections just like the stink about gay marriages did right after the last presidential election.
Hmmm... I'm pretty sure the "issue" of gay marriage has continued unabated since the last election. Didn't congress try to pass a constitutional amendment this year about this very issue? Seems to me like they continued on the agenda as they promised their voters.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Again. Would we have had the same "scandal" if Foley had not been gay. Now ask yourself why this is a scandal at all? Where's the pressure coming from?
Given his stance on Internet predation, and his having set himself up as a defender of teenages from people just like him, I'm going to say.... yes, he would have resigned, but probably not as quickly.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
If Foley hadn't been gay, would all those Republican leaders who're saying "had Foley not resigned, I would have demanded that he resign immediately" still have demanded that Foley resign immediately? 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
If Foley hadn't been gay, would all those Republican leaders who're saying "had Foley not resigned, I would have demanded that he resign immediately" still have demanded that Foley resign immediately?
Ok. But would they have felt the pressure from the media to take a strong position against Foley if he'd been attracted to young women instead of young men?
Look. It's not just the right wing religious folks doing this. Every single commentator I've seen on this, on every single network has universally called Foley's actions "sick", "perverted", "unforgivable', etc. The pedophilia word is tossed around a whole lot as well. Politicians tend to react to how the press responds to something. If the press had kinda gone "hmmm... that's a bit inappropriate, but we're not sure if he's violated any laws", I'm pretty sure that Republican's wouldn't feel they had to go so far in their condemnation of his actions.
The question you need to ask is "where's the massive condemnation coming from?". I don't think the Republican's are creating it themselves. There's no interest in doing so. If they could sweep this under a rug with a shrug and a "gee! That *is* inappropriate.", they would have done so. I think that in their haste to make this as big of a "scandal" as possible, it's folks like CREW and ABC who are. And hey. While we're on the subject, who on this board has been most vocally condemning Foley's actions? Who's been saying all along "let's wait until the facts are in"?
And if, as I suggest, there is a double standard invovled in which the condemnation of Foley is stronger purely because he's gay, then where does it put those posters here who've been bashing him, his party, and everyone else they can? If you accept that Foley's "scandal" is bigger because he was gay, then who do you blame for it being that way? Foley? Maybe you (I mean this broadly, not you specifically) should look at yourselves as well...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
If Foley hadn't been gay, would all those Republican leaders who're saying "had Foley not resigned, I would have demanded that he resign immediately" still have demanded that Foley resign immediately?
You never answered the question.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Ok. The answer to your question is: No.
However, I'll ask a correlary question. If Foley had been straight, and the pages involved female, would the commentators on every network in the country (both Liberal *and* Conservative) been so comdemning of his actions?
And if the answer to that question is also "No.", then the next question is: Did the Republican's make their comments as a response to Foley's actions alone, or the media response to Foley's actions?
And before you answer, be aware that the Republican's have also gotten massive heat for the alleged slowness in their response to Foley's actions. Part of the argument that Hastert tried to cover this up was related to his dismissal of the email as "overly friendly". You can't point out the Republican statements in a vacuum. You have to look at the climate in which they're operating. And right now, the media is having a feeding frenzy on this issue. All of it about how horrible Foley was and how anyone who might have defended him or even just not figured out what he was doing fast enough is also horrible and should resign as well...
Or are you trying to argue that this is *not* the basic argument for those calling for Hastert's resignation? In that climate, why be surprised when Republican's fall over themselves to condemn Foley's actions?
However, I'll ask a correlary question. If Foley had been straight, and the pages involved female, would the commentators on every network in the country (both Liberal *and* Conservative) been so comdemning of his actions?
And if the answer to that question is also "No.", then the next question is: Did the Republican's make their comments as a response to Foley's actions alone, or the media response to Foley's actions?
And before you answer, be aware that the Republican's have also gotten massive heat for the alleged slowness in their response to Foley's actions. Part of the argument that Hastert tried to cover this up was related to his dismissal of the email as "overly friendly". You can't point out the Republican statements in a vacuum. You have to look at the climate in which they're operating. And right now, the media is having a feeding frenzy on this issue. All of it about how horrible Foley was and how anyone who might have defended him or even just not figured out what he was doing fast enough is also horrible and should resign as well...
Or are you trying to argue that this is *not* the basic argument for those calling for Hastert's resignation? In that climate, why be surprised when Republican's fall over themselves to condemn Foley's actions?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 248
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (248)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Four and a half weeks and counting
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC