cliton was about him molesting women in his employ.
that brought him to court, whereupon he lied like the liar he is.
sheesh, still doing it eh? covering up fore him eh? maybe he's kicking ya down some bj action too...
way of thinking. Too bad they exposed themselves as the HypoCrat PArty they are by defending the Former Rapist in Chief...
Looking forward to wacthing ya'll try to have it both ways!!!!!!!!!!!
Democrats looking at rivals' personal lives
Amid disgust over Foley, strategists believe local attacks won't backfire
By Jim VandeHei
The Washington Post
Updated: 6:21 a.m. PT Oct 13, 2006
WASHINGTON - In the wake of the Mark Foley page scandal, Democrats are targeting the personal lives of Republicans in numerous key House races as part of a campaign to capitalize on voter disgust with the messy personal lives and alleged character defects among elected officials.
Although Democrats' internal polling shows that the Foley scandal is resonating deeply only in half a dozen races, party operatives are calculating that GOP candidates are now unusually vulnerable to personal attacks, several candidates and strategists said.
In New Jersey, Democratic candidate Linda Stender this week sent voters a two-page brochure accusing Rep. Mike Ferguson (R) of improperly preying on young women in a fashionable D.C. nightclub. Stender, who is shown by polls to be within striking distance of Ferguson, said the Foley affair "opened the door to talk about the ethical challenge of my opponent." Ferguson has denied the allegations, and a spokeswoman last night called the attacks "pathetic and desperate."
Allegations and accusations
Democratic candidate Chris Carney is running an ad accusing Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) of "repeatedly choking" and "attempting to strangle" a young mistress. Foley and Sherwood share "the arrogance of power," said Carney. "They're willing to cover up these types of things to retain power."
Sherwood has apologized for the affair but said in a television ad that the "allegation of abuse was never true."
Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand is calling on GOP Rep. John E. Sweeney in Upstate New York to explain a drunken driving arrest 30 years ago and a more recent car accident. "Your decision to release any and all records related to your arrests and other incidents with law enforcement will send an important signal about your willingness to come clean with voters," Gillibrand said in a letter to Sweeney this week.
The Sweeney campaign has said that the details of both incidents are out in public and that the congressman has nothing to hide. The lawmaker fired back yesterday by calling on Gillibrand to release her tax records, suggesting that she has her own secrets.
"It is attack and distract," said Maureen Donovan, a spokeswoman for Sweeney.
All three races highlight a much broader Democratic campaign to politicize the Foley page scandal over the final four weeks of the campaign, Democratic candidates and strategists say.
Top Democratic officials believe "that anybody who had a personal vulnerability before this is totally [at risk] with the spotlight on scandal," said a Democratic aide familiar with the party's plan to take advantage of the Foley affair. "Frankly, it is a tough environment out there if you have a problem with the bottle or the zipper."
Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), said the effectiveness of the charges "often depends on what the person is accused of having done and their reputation and standing in the community -- national climate has nothing to do with it."
Former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie said Democrats are dangerously close "to overreaching" in their attacks, risking a political backlash like the one that damaged Republicans after they pushed for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton over the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal in 1998. Democratic operatives said they are aware of this possibility but are calculating that, as long as the attacks are at the local level, they will not backfire.
Foley revelations raise voters' interest
Republicans and Democrats alike said personal attacks are especially potent in districts that were not as competitive before the public's renewed focus on controversy and alleged coverups. Both sides are reporting high voter interest in the unfolding revelations that Foley repeatedly preyed on young male pages while in Congress and that GOP leaders were aware of concerns about the lawmaker's behavior and allegedly did little to stop it.
So far, there is general agreement that about half a dozen GOP candidates are suffering as a direct result of the controversy. Topping that list are NRCC Chairman Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), who was told of Foley's questionable behavior and said he reported it to his superiors, and Sherwood, whose former mistress, in a lawsuit, accused him of choking her.
Many Republicans also said it will be virtually impossible for the newly designated Republican candidate in Foley's district to win, because Foley's name remains on the ballot.
The most common Democratic attacks have been the sort used against Republicans such as Rep. Deborah Pryce (Ohio), a member of the House GOP leadership team who has said she knew nothing of the allegations against her friend and colleague Foley. Nonetheless, Democrats are criticizing her for not catching warning signs and for being part of a team that they say averted its gaze from Foley's problems.
A big part of the Democratic strategy in Pryce's district and elsewhere is to suppress turnout among Christian conservatives, a pillar of the GOP coalition.
Indirect connections
But there have also been attempts to take advantage of the Foley episode to highlight corruption issues more broadly.
For the Ohio seat to be vacated by indicted Rep. Robert W. Ney (R), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is blanketing the district with mail saying GOP candidate Joy Padgett, a state senator, is too "dirty" to clean up Congress. "You can't clean up Congress if you are covered in mud," the mailings say, drawing links between Padgett and Ney. The DCCC is also running television ads questioning her personal business dealings. The offensive coincides with Ney's expected guilty plea on Friday in the money-for-favors scandal involving convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Top targets are Republican incumbents who have been bruised by the Abramoff scandal. In California, for instance, Democrats are assailing Rep. John T. Doolittle for supporting "forced abortions and sex slavery" in the Northern Mariana Islands, which were represented by Abramoff. Democrat Charlie Brown said the attack is fair because Doolittle has refused to return contributions from supporters of the government there.
In most cases, these attacks are akin to a "Hail Mary" football pass because the chances of success are so low. An example is in Nevada, where Democrats are trying to oust GOP Rep. Jon Porter from a seat that would be very hard to flip under normal circumstances. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) -- facing his own controversy over a big profit on a land deal -- has twice raised questions about Porter's divorce. The Democratic candidate in that race, Tessa Hafen, is a former Reid aide.
Chris Cillizza of washingtonpost.com contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
it's not about any single contest; it's about showing people that the difference between Dems and Repubs is not lies or perversion; it's the MAGNITUDE of lies and perversion. So the idea here is to disgust GOP voters with politics, until all politicians get 2 years in office, then 2 years in jail. The Dems are patriotically sacrificing themselves, suicide bombing all politics, so to speak.
I've always said, the problem with the Dems is that they have no ambition. All they want is to fuck an intern here & there, but the Republicans have vision - they want to fuck the entire world.
Look, if you wanna talk about the worst traits of one, lets talk about the worst traits of em both...I mean, Stalin/Moa were commie leftwinger's and banging chicks was the least of their ambitions...
but back on topic, the old saying, "They'll do anything to get elected" NEVER runs out of style, does it?...
What/who the hell is this Moa thing?
So if I'm Stalin, you're Hitler. And Roehm too. Neener neener.
mao, i overcompensated for dyslexia..
sorry joe,
adolph
Oh, so now the Clinton impeachment it is about sex, huh? Remember how all you guys bent-over backwards screaming that it was about LYING -- NOT SEX? Remember? Oh, how quickly ya'all forget.
Not to mention that you guys have made "family values" and "moral values" a cornerstone of the Republican platform. Add the Foley scandal to countless other Republican scandals and it turns out that you guys are MORE IMMORAL than anyone! I would say that paints YOU as the HYPOCRITE party my friend -- that is one reason people are becoming more and more disenchanted.
But, nice try, BK. The Foley scandal is about Predatory Sexual Pedophilia against minors and the Republican cover - up to maintain power. The truth is that Republicans care more about protecting power than protecting our teenagers.
The sad thing is that this is part of a pattern with the entire Republican party from 9/11, to Osama, to Iraq, to Katrina, to Shiavo, to Abu Garaib, to Social Security, to Medicare, No-Bid Contracts, to Tom DeLay, to Bob Ney, to Tax Cuts for the Ultra Rich and on and on and on...they care more about power & money than protecting or defending our people or their rights. It is time for a change. Hopefully a big change!
THROW THE BUMS OUT!!
-- Modified on 10/14/2006 11:44:00 PM
cliton was about him molesting women in his employ.
that brought him to court, whereupon he lied like the liar he is.
sheesh, still doing it eh? covering up fore him eh? maybe he's kicking ya down some bj action too...
You should be agreeing with the rest of us about Foley and the pathetic Republican leadership that allowed this to continue for years. But you are not. You defend, deny and deflect blame.
Stop lying and blaming Bill Clinton for all your party's fuck-ups. It's shows your refusal to take responsibility and acknowledge reality.
We are so over this bulshit game of lying & denying you guys play -- and it looks like the public is too...
-- Modified on 10/15/2006 8:12:35 AM
he STARTS OUT lying, like the lying liar he is. He can't molest women, because he's been doing too many drugs. And his buddies don't molest women, because they like pages more.
Oh well.
The problem with voters is that they're so gullible.
Again with the short memory. The court threw out the Paula Jones case sayin it had no merit. According to the law (isn't that what the Republicans claim to live by -- the rule of law) even if Clinton had done what Jones had acccused him of it wouln't have violated any law and was not actionable.
he just tells her, 'none of your business, woman'.
is prosecuting OTHER PEOPLE for lying which your old pal slick willy did as POTUS...
the other thing you don't see me doing is forcing women to have sex with me like the rapist in cheif did to juanita broderick (THE FUC KIN SICK MOTHERFUCKER!!! YOU THINK IS SO SLICK)
but with your affection for duct tape i can see why mnmaybe your sense of revulsion is dimmmed....
BTW, donthca just lovbe a military man that does not know what counrty he's in???? yeeehaa, i want that guy in charge of nukes!!!
i'll let YOU quibble over the spelllin sarge
the Republicans not only prosecute, but harangue others for lying, which is as it should be.
What should NOT be is to let on as if they're honest.
Next - you're so sure that Clinton raped somebody, well, you know it only takes probable cause to get an arrest, and AFAIK, that didn't happen. Yeah, I know, you're gonna say he corrupted everything - like the Repubs have room to talk about that.
you want to continue ?
OK, how about ... Mrs. Blount ? Story goes Bush, while campaigning for her Husband Red Blount and while G.W. was possibly A.W.O.L from the Air National Guard at age 26 he was all over their 14 year old daughter. Should we get more into this one ?
Oh wait I'm just a Bush Basher ... gotta give equal time to others … ok, how about oh let's see, we could talk about Newt Gingrich, preacher of personal responsibility, honesty, and ethics, who used tax-exempt foundations for political purposes in violation of House Rules. To his credit, Gingrich admitted his guilt, and was fined $300,000 by the House Ethics Committee, but Gingrich, was almost as much a critic of President Clinton's infidelity and a preacher of family values as you, funny thing was Newt was also carrying on an affair with a much younger congressional employee who reported to him. Gingrich served his first wife (Jackie Battley, his high school math teacher) with divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer, and split with his second wife (Marianne Ginther) over the phone on Mother's Day, soon after learning that she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.
So that you know BillyBoy, NO I'm not claiming all these accusations are in truth FACT, but they're just as valid as your claim by Juanita Broderick, who by the way once gave testimony in an affidavit that Clinton did not rape her. So my point is why take that story at face value and not these, true Bill ? 
or do you really just have it in for Clinton that bad ?
=================================================
BTW ... In case some of you don't know who Margie Schoedinger is ... well, maybe BillyBarrBrat would like to tell us ... but in case BillyBrat won't inform you ...
-- Modified on 10/20/2006 6:32:08 PM
Bill Clinton (my hero) lied about a blow job. His "lie" didn't kill anyone. But we have thousands of dead and wounded American soldier lying in the sand in Iraq due to George Bush's lies. Reconcile that!
your "hero" was getting his dick sucked when he should have been fixing the fucked up intel communiuty (oh, that's right, he was actually a part of fucking it uyp in the first place).
Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong
How could we have been so far off in our estimates of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs? A leading Iraq expert and intelligence analyst in the Clinton Administration—whose book The Threatening Storm proved deeply influential in the run-up to the war—gives a detailed account of how and why we erred
by Kenneth M. Pollack
.....
et's start with one truth: last March, when the United States and its coalition partners invaded Iraq, the American public and much of the rest of the world believed that after Saddam Hussein's regime sank, a vast flotsam of weapons of mass destruction would bob to the surface. That, of course, has not been the case. In the words of David Kay, the principal adviser to the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), an organization created late last spring to search for prohibited weaponry, "I think all of us who entered Iraq expected the job of actually discovering deployed weapons to be easier than it has turned out to be." Many people are now asking very reasonable questions about why they were misled.
Democrats have typically accused the Bush Administration of exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq in order to justify an unnecessary war. Republicans have typically claimed that the fault lay with the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community, which they say overestimated the threat from Iraq—a claim that carries the unlikely implication that Bush's team might not have opted for war if it had understood that Saddam was not as dangerous as he seemed.
Both sides appear to be at least partly right. The intelligence community did overestimate the scope and progress of Iraq's WMD programs, although not to the extent that many people believe. The Administration stretched those estimates to make a case not only for going to war but for doing so at once, rather than taking the time to build regional and international support for military action.
Advertisement
This issue has some personal relevance for me. I began my career as a Persian Gulf military analyst at the CIA, where I saw an earlier generation of technical analysts mistakenly conclude that Saddam Hussein was much further away from having a nuclear weapon than the post-Gulf War inspections revealed. I later moved on to the National Security Council, where I served two tours, in 1995-1996 and 1999-2001. During the latter stint the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon. In 2002 I wrote a book called Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, in which I argued that because all our other options had failed, the United States would ultimately have to go to war to remove Saddam before he acquired a functioning nuclear weapon. Thus it was with more than a little interest that I pondered the question of why we didn't find in Iraq what we were so certain we would.
...................................................
yo mamma
but never shows his delusions ever ended.
What's the point in having intelligence if you're going to elect Bush? Not like he'd know what to do with it anyway.
http://www.pilonidal.org/
Support group for chronic PsITA
It is funny...The moral party of BK is very interesting!!! We have a previous drug head who lied about WMD, and few other issues and BK tries to compare that to Clinton BJ!!!
We have a Rep Congressman who molest/fuck/text message boy while in Congress and they blame or claim that Clinton lied about his BJ affair also under oath. I wonder when they go a home after a nice BBBJ and FS, the moral one goes to their wife and tell their wives: "Hi Honey, I just had a great session with a provider and it was just AWESOME. As a matter of fact, I am going upstairs to post my review on TER soon!!!"
So Bill K, are all Republican honest like you? And it also seems you really like women but most your hero Republican Congressmen prefer young boys instead!!!!
-- Modified on 10/15/2006 11:00:32 PM
like the article =said....
lol
You can tie a little yellow ribbon around your finger, and write on it, "don't post to yourself".
I just asked a simple question!!! I did not attack you or call you a Republicrat!!!
Now this is a simple question: "Do you confess every BJ or FS if they question your sex life under oath? Or will you sing like a Sinatra and tell the whole truth about every single BJ's that you ever had?" A simple question.
By the way, on issue of sex with young boys, why do Republicans are so much into kid and young boys? What is up with that Bill? You have a good grip on these people, so PLEASE enlight us on some facts..