[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
…(I cannot take credit for the phrase - read it on Instapundit)
[/QUOTE]
And what lesson can we draw from this, Sam?
I wasn’t aware that school was in session. Maybe the lesson is that you have no sense of humor?
What, are we waiting for the other Hsu to drop?
[QUOTE=askeptic]
Clinton got a blow job.
[/QUOTE]
Only one?
[QUOTE=Jurph]
“Bush whitewashed the intelligence, launched a war without planning the occupation, stole our civil liberties, and hired a shitload of political cronies to botch our domestic policies! If he were a Democrat, you’d be howling for impeachment of his big-government, zero-liberties, no-accountability administration.”
“So what? Clinton got a blow job and then lied about it… under oath!”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Unfortunately, on the SDMB the “Clinton lied about a blow job” line is nearly always brought up by a liberal.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. Way to completely miss the point of the post, Shodan.
Ooh, what a great game! Let’s preten Hsu is a Republican – and I’ll pretend I’M a Republican!
Look, there’s no point in discussing this at all. While it’s been alleged that Hsu is a felon fleeing the law, he hasn’t actually been re-imprisoned yet, so all discussion is idle speculation and hardly worth of adult attention.
With the evidence available now (Mr. Hsu’s confession,) it’s clear I was wrong in my guess, in last week’s absence of evidence, that Norman Hsu was being framed in the court of public opinion. He has stated that he did indeed violate campaign finance laws. along with a bushel of other laws. He says he coerced people to donate to campaigns, and he contributed his own money in the name of people who didn’t know they were involved.
Having said that, I am embarrassed. I don’t feel embarrassed about refusing to “convict” Norman Hsu on the evidence we had last week. Holding on to “innocent until proven guilty” is foolish sometimes, but it’s rarely a bad guideline.
This post does not seek to jump-start this thread. I’m only here to say I was mistaken about Mr. Hsu. When I’m wrong, I generally try to go back and say so.
Well, if the Hsu fits…
[QUOTE=AskNott]
With the evidence available now (Mr. Hsu’s confession,) it’s clear I was wrong in my guess, in last week’s absence of evidence, that Norman Hsu was being framed in the court of public opinion. He has stated that he did indeed violate campaign finance laws. along with a bushel of other laws. He says he coerced people to donate to campaigns, and he contributed his own money in the name of people who didn’t know they were involved.
[/QUOTE]
OK, so he’s confessed. But speaking as a Pretend Republican, I have to point out that Clinton got a blowjob.
Rarely in these kind of circumstances can such questions as this be addressed. Media Matters provides some evidence for what may have happened if Hsu would have been a Republican. The asnwer appears to be that nobody would have said a word about it. There does appear to be some “studious ignoring” going on of Alan Fabian, a Romney bundler indicted on 23 counts.
From the Washington Post:
Yet, as Media Matters noted, despite Fabian being indicted on August 9 (nearly one month before the OP here), there have been 21 instances in Lexus-Nexis of “Fabian” and “Romney.” By way of contrast, there were 1,252 hits for “Clinton” and “Hsu”.
Specifically in the top 17 media outlets, there were 2 mentions of Fabian and Romney, compared to 246 for Hsu and Clinton.
I’d say that this provides a reasonable answer to the smarmy, shit-sucking question of the OP as to what might the response have been if Hsu had been a Republican. It would have been studiously ignoried.