Exactly. Someone who does this isn’t “sick”, he’s stupid and untrustworthy.
The head of a congressional committee devoted to protecting children from Internet stalkers was stalking children online. The idea that Democrats wouldn’t recognize that as a scandal is simply preposterous.
Or, rather, it’s an extraordinary claim, for which the only evidence you’ve offered is waving your hands around and repeating it as if enough repitition will make it true. Please offer your evidence for the claim, or reconsider it.
Daniel
I’m not sure if this is a hijack, but one of the concerns I have about this whole sordid mess is for the kids who sent and received the emails. While I support the “public’s right to know”, I still am uncomfortable with the identity of the kid who took part in the IMs identity being given, especially after they tried so hard to keep the issue quiet. From my understanding, the kid never gave the IMs to anyone, nor gave anyone permission to use them; and that bothers me. There is no doubt in my mind that, eventually, this kid will be identified and will forever be “the IM boy”. In a mess like this, it’s too easy to forget the “victim”.
It is kind of weird that the Pubbies haven’t jumped on the “Dems knew about it too!” bandwagon. I have trouble seeing the lack of evidence stopping them. All I can figure is that there’s TOO MUCH evidence on the Pubbie side so that if any manufactured scandal about “What did the Dems know and when?” would come back to bite the Pubbies in the ass, big time.
And just to clarify if I may - evidence that it is alleged some media outlets knew is irrelevant. The media are not Dems. They, as the performance of the New York Times over Iraq and illegal wiretapping shows, are no more that ‘useful idiots’ for whoever is in power.
Evidence that Dem politicians in a position to act had evidence on which to act - eg copies of the emails or an approach by someone involved. Before 2003, when Hastert knew.
Face it, both Dems and Pubbies are equally sordid-Washington is a cesspool. I think it is time that ALL encumbents be tossed out-we need a deep enema!
Again, this claim has no evidence. I have no problem with suggesting that Dems are more sordid, as long as you have evidence to support the claim. Right now, though, it makes sense that Pubs would be more sordid, since they’ve got the corrupting power.
Daniel
The enema of a thousand miles begins with a single douchebag. Let’s just focus on the next step and toss the protectors of child molestors.
I think the implication was that the Democrats are such a party of perverts that they wouldn’t even recognize the scandal in something along this line.
The title of the thread asks if there will be “repercussions.”
The general tenor of the last six pages has been, “Well, duh, of course there will be.”
NPR story this morning: not so much.
They sampled a dozen or so convervative rural voters and asked for their thoughts on the matter. The consensus: as long as the Republicans say they’re pro-life and continue attacking other countries who might have something to do with terrorism and all the rest, these voters will remain loyal, no matter who might be tainted by personal moral issues.
The NPR story acknowledges that this is an informal survey and not true opinion research, but they mention that their preliminary anecdotal review is consistent with a more formal poll whose results will be officially released today.
Looks to me like an interesting, if disappointing, corollary to similar reactions heard during the Clinton-Lewinsky brouhaha. Statements in the vein of “he’s a strong, charismatic man who has brought peace and prosperity, so we don’t care where he dips his wick” represent, it seems to me, more or less the same sort of denial as “they cut taxes, bomb evil foreigners, and give lip service to fetuses, so we don’t care if they’re sheltering creepy electronic kiddy-diddlers.”
If the next couple of weeks suggests that the Dems will get no traction even on the basis of this awful scandal, then the run-up to the election is going to be nasty.
(A desire to give lip service to fetuses, and a tolerance for kiddy-diddling. Hmmm.)
But the Diebold machines are in. The Gathering Of Perverts will retain both houses by the narrowest of margins, characterised by peculiar swings against otherwise accurate exit poll predictions in a few key areas.
I’m reminded of the recent thread about people voting for the right person for the wrong reasons (about Ohio voters not going to vote for the Republican gubernatorial candidate because he’s black). To me, if the Evangelicals stay home, that’s great. But it’s a little icky knowing that I’m cheering on people who might not vote for Republicans because the Republicans are too easy on Teh Gay.
Does anyone actually believe that the House Ethics Committee, perpetrators of the DeLay rule, will actually get to the bottom of this?
When the FBI covers up, what are the chances that a committee paralyzed by partisan wankery will do better?
If they don’t appoint completely independent counsel to investigate, their credibilty will be looking up at whale shit, and this fiasco will only fester more. Personally, I hope they make that mistake, it will keep this on the front burner through the election.
At this point, I think the Republican party’s remarkable cohesion is falling apart: anyone who appears to belong to a coverup is getting tainted with the pedophile-enabler label. The Democrats aren’t likely to help the Ethics committee whitewash this. The Republican members of that committee will need to decide whether party loyalty or freedom from the pedophile-enabler label is more important to them. I suspect many of them will choose the latter, but it should be good TV either way.
Daniel
A House Ethics investigation will provide some invaluable cover to Pubbies: a plausible excuse to STFU. “I can’t comment on that while an investigation is under way. Wouldn’t be right, wouldn’t be fair. Have to wait and see…” Rest assured that the investigation will proceed at breakneck speed. Do snails have necks?
Louis Freeh?
Oh, I see. It’s Clintons fault.
The problem with this, I think, is that the media isn’t in a cooperative mood: they never are when pheremones are in the air. Sex sells; wait and see doesn’t.
The media are going to keep this story front and center as long as they can, and the House Ethics Committee will either choose to lollygag or they’ll try to get in front of the story.
Either way: good TV.
Daniel
True enough, Dan, but still…all the media can do is ask the question. They are not empowered to use “alternative interrogation techniques”, they can’t force an answer from someone unwilling to answer. And there is a huge difference in plausible deniability between “I won’t answer” and “I cannot answer”.