"The leaking of the poll to Fox News appears to be some kind of power play by a Hastert rival to gin up the panic and force the Speakerâ€™s hand."
You can see this playing out on the blogs as well, where most people at NRO and AmSpec are demanding Hasterts ouster, for reasons which transparently have nothing to do with Foley. The fact that the "insurrectionists" are willing to lose the House rather then gain power for themselves tells me all I need to know about them. Mike Pence is a snake.Comment Posted By Jon Sandor On 5.10.2006 @ 19:35
Sure, we should "quit" calling Clinton a sexual predator. Since nobody is doing it, it will be easy to quit.
Foley had no "authority" over the pages. You may as well say that as Congressman he had "authority" over anyone in the US, and that therefore any sexual relationship he had wth any American was improper.
The facts and the law are against you, as evidenced by this kind of grasping at straws. Congressman Stubbes (D) actually engaged in a sexual relationship with a seventeen year old page. Remind me, please, what charges he was brought up on?
There is an argument to be made that this SHOULD be illegal. But it is not illegal at present, and all this hyperventilating about "sexual predators" and "underage children" and "minors" is either confused or malicious.Comment Posted By Jon Sandor On 2.10.2006 @ 13:54
I see we are still hung up on the whole "sexual predator" thing. Strictly speaking, Foley is not a sexual predator. (Based on what we know so far.) It is entirely legal for a 50yr old to have an affair with a 16yr old in many parts of the country, including DC. That seems to make many people uncomfortable, but a proper response would be to raise the age of consent.
Let's propose doing that and see how long it takes for the left to object.Comment Posted By Jon Sandor On 2.10.2006 @ 12:38
"target"Comment Posted By Jon Sandor On 15.09.2005 @ 22:14
The obsessive focus on New Orleans is mistaken, IMO. All discussion seem to hinge on the idea that NO should have been the primary targey for FEMA, and everyone else. I don't think that is clear, even in hindsight.
Simply because the media had multiple TV crews camped out there does not make it deserving of 99% of attention. I see no reason whatsoever why FEMA should allocate one third of its resources to a place which, at the end of the day, was not the hardest hit.
Are people who die out of sight of television cameras less worthy of FEMA help? It would seem so.
In future, should FEMA deploy its resources based on the media concentration, and dispense with details like trying to help people?Comment Posted By Jon Sandor On 15.09.2005 @ 22:12
"Once this became clear â€“ certainly by Tuesday morning- Brown should have been screaming for every available federal resource to be put into the pipeline and sent towards the beleagured city."
I'm sorry, but this is pure rubbish. Large areas of several staes were far more devastaed then New Orleans was. There was no pressing demand for "every available federal resource" in the city. What was needed was for the local officials to maintain law and order.
Just because New Orleans was swamped with television crews does not mean it had any special needs which FEMA could help it with. It did need leadership of course. But it is not FEMA's job to provide it, and it has no authority to provide it.Comment Posted By Jon Sandor On 15.09.2005 @ 20:08
Pages (1) :