Gay Patriot Header Image

Camille Paglia Slams Democrats Over Foley Politics,HRC Employee Worked in Democrat Senate Office

Yet another important voice (and someone I rarely agree with) who is channeling GayPatriot this morning…..

The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was “Foley, Foley, Foley!” — and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.

After three or four days of it, as soon as I heard Foley’s name, I turned the sound off or switched channels. It was gargantuan overkill, and I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot. I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men. When a moralistic, buttoned-up Republican like Foley is revealed to have a secret, seamy gay life, it simply casts all gay men under a shadow and makes people distrust them. Why don’t the Democratic strategists see this? These tactics are extremely foolish.

Not only has the public image of gay men been tarnished by the over-promotion of the Foley scandal, but they have actually been put into physical danger. It’s already starting with news items about teenage boys using online sites to lure gay men on dates to attack and rob them. What in the world are the Democrats thinking? We saw the beginning of this in that grotesque moment in the last presidential debates when John Kerry came out with that clearly prefab line identifying Mary Cheney as a lesbian. Since when does the Democratic Party use any gay issue in this coldblooded way as a token on the chessboard? You’d expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives.

Because the Democrats don’t care about gay people unless they are getting homo campaign contributions or they can throw our community under the bus for political gain.

***********

To that point, it is becoming quite clear that the Democrats were intimately involved in the suppression of potential criminal emails for the sole purpose of political gain.  RadarOnline is reporting that the fired Human Rights Campaign employee who started the Foley scandal is Lane Hudson.  Mr. Hudson was a one-time Democratic Senate staffer and was hired by HRC for field work shortly before the phony “StopSexPredators” blog appeared. 

 lane.jpg

Lane Hudson – Democrat Activist & HRC Employee
Who Suppressed Emails Of A Potential Child Predator

And here is Mr. Hudson’s Friendster profile.  Matt has more on Mr. Hudson’s long history of being a Democrat activist in the comments below. 

My question is this:  What did Mr. Hudson do from the time Sen. Hollings left the Senate in January 2005 until the HRC hired him this fall? 

I certainly hope that Joe Solmonese has reached out to the FBI to cooperate with their investigation.  If he hasn’t, he damn well better.  I’m sure there are a lot of interesting emails on the HRC computers.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

48 Comments

  1. Bruce, for what it’s worth, Lane Hudson comes from a long line of major Democrat Party activists in South Carolina. he served as a delegate to the 2004 DNC Convention pledged to JohnEdwards. He was part of Young Democrats and active in the Kerry race along with Donnie Fowler, who made a futile stab at knocking off ScreaminHowieDean for the DNC Chairmanship in ’04. Fowler was head of Kerry Operations in Michigan and worked closely with Gov Granholm’s staff and Michigan Democrat Party Chair Mark Brewer’s notorious “Special Issues” goon squad.

    It may or may not be the Lane Hudson of interest but Royal Oak, the city of note in the cybercypher sleuthing done elsewhere, is a gay mecca for liberals in the Detroit Metro area.

    Sometimes the stars align too closely to be ignored.

    I think we have the trail that leads to the DNC and Democrat Party activists… but then we had that trail with MikeRogers and JohnAvarosis, right? Or the MSM who whipped up the story and all the backstories?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 27, 2006 @ 10:50 am - October 27, 2006

  2. Royal Oak… is a gay mecca for liberals in the Detroit Metro area.

    What, did “Fashionable Ferndale” get too gentrified? 😉

    But, who could deny the allure of Michigan’s answer to Fire Island, Saugatuck. And then, of course, there’s Holt, a town so notorous for public sex that opposing schools routinely chant “Rest stop! Rest stop!” at high school basketball games.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 11:20 am - October 27, 2006

  3. I thought about how to say this. Should I try to be subtle, gentle, mocking, ironic, or just blunt?

    Maybe I should express what I *feel*.

    Well, then, here’s some impressions. I do expect “this stuff” from progressives. Progressives, it should be remembered, are self-defined. In the modern world many progressive ideas are distinctly 19th century, like socialism, or miserably out-of-date in other ways, like educational methodology.

    There is evidence to suggest that mid-twentieth century laws interfering in the private sex lives of individuals were put on the books by progressives (some of this evidence was used in Lawrence v. Evans).

    The great progressives of yesteryear had their moments, but they brought a lot of wreckage along with them, because, as they see themselves, they are searchlights of clarity, impervious to criticism, and infectious with the need to cure the rest of us of ignorance, religion, and narrow-mindedness.

    Now we only have their faded imitations–on the whole, ruthless as they always were, but empty of vision, reactionary and ready to restore the dead, but like the magicians in scary stories, blind to how it all does wrong.

    Then there’s the younger crowd like Harold Ford, who says he’ll vote for the gay marriage ban.

    I guess I can understand Camille Paglia’s attitude toward the Democrats. Like her taste in poetry, it’s Sixties-ish.
    I guess she remembers better days.

    And I can understand why we (gay people) stay clear of Republicans. What I don’t understand–and find increasingly contemptible–is why any self-respecting gay person would vote for a Democrat.

    Maybe it’s some exotic form of self-torture.

    Comment by Anthony — October 27, 2006 @ 11:22 am - October 27, 2006

  4. GP,

    It is no accident that Michigan is the epicenter for the Foley Scandal. Michigan is where the IMs and the LA page e-mails meet–and you don’t have a scandal without BOTH.

    It really hurt the conspirators when Wild Bill outed Jordan Edmund’s name–that’s when the wheels started coming off. That led back to the Page Alumni board, and an awful lot of interesting connections.

    Zack Stanton, a former page from Jordan Edmund’s class was a good friend of both Edmund and Loraditch. He is also a democrat party activist, and a co-blogger with Ray Wert, also a dem activist who worked closely with Jennifer Gradholm.

    Ray Wert is also a member of Michigan Liberal, a group founded by Matt Ferguson–who is a paid consultant of Coalition for Progress, a PAC funded by Jon Stryker–and I bet that name rings a bell! By the way, in addition to funding HRC through the Gill Foundation and Arcus, Stryker gave 100,000 to dem party GOTV orgs in FLORIDA in 2004.

    In other words, there are several ways that Lane Hudson could have gotten access to both the IMs and the e-mails in Michigan. No proof, but certainly a lot of smoke. And should we mention that Melanie Sloan of CREW also has Michigan roots?

    And as for Mr. Hudson’s firing from HRC–what a big fat joke! What do you bet he already has a new job making more money.

    Comment by verner — October 27, 2006 @ 11:44 am - October 27, 2006

  5. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We’ve seen the enemy, and it is ourselves.

    If we as Americans have any hope of staying alive in this era of dhimmitude, Islamo-Nazism and (God forbid) “Speaker Pelosi,” we need to stop engaging in scorched earth policies amongst ourselves and unite.

    This last revelation about Hudson is the straw that breaks this camel’s back. What POSSIBLE gain is it to us as gays if we can’t trust our own???

    I need a drink.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 27, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - October 27, 2006

  6. Peter, if we could “trust our own” as you put it, HIV would have been twarted in its tracks years ago… if we could “trust our own” we wouldn’t be in the deep trench of voter antipathy toward support of gay rights… if we could “trust our own” we wouldn’t be automatically identified as an adjunct of the Democrats –like blacks and ecoTerrorists are today.

    If we could “trust our own”, this blog wouldn’t be necessary.

    We can’t… as the GayLeftBorg leaders who fed the Foley and outing scandals have proven. For them, helping the Democrat Plantation Masters is more important than a gay brotherhood.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 27, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - October 27, 2006

  7. Anonie-mouse… I didn’t know Denny was covering up anything? Or are you getting your leaks and spin from the Democrat House members and staff PLEDGED to keeping the House investigation secret until after it is complete?

    Proof, a-nonie-mouse. Proof. We’re waiting…

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 27, 2006 @ 1:31 pm - October 27, 2006

  8. And let’s see, wasn’t Anon1 one of those people who claimed that Democrats and Democratic Party operatives had nothing to do with this?

    Why yes, yes it was.

    Of course, now that that’s been blown open, Anonie-non is trying to wildly spin and flail about how Republicans allegedly “covered up” — despite the fact that they confronted Foley directly on the issue based on the evidence they had and told him he should no longer have contact with the individuals who complained.

    It kind of blows holes in Anonie-non’s theory that the Republicans should have run screaming to the media, because every second’s delay meant Foley was raping more children — when we find out that Anonie-non and its pals delayed quite a few seconds, allowing scores more children to be raped, just so it would be closer to election time.

    Of course, Anonie-non’s stuck — because it now has to admit either that a) the evidence it and the Republican leadership had wasn’t grounds for action or b) not acting didn’t endanger anyone.

    Wonder which it’ll choose?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 27, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - October 27, 2006

  9. Were the Democrats involved in the timing of the scandal? Possibly. If so, good for them. After sitting around watching the Rovian tactics work so well for the Republicans its nice to see them taking some lessons and biting back with similiarly effective campaign tactics. It’s a shame that politics has devolved to that point, however it doesn’t make sense for them to not use what has worked for the Republicans for the past six years.

    As Michael Reagan stated after the incident, the GOP would be using the story just as much as the Dems did if the shoe was on the other foot. The leadership should have thought about that when they started ignoring the Foley problem back in 2002 and should have simply let him retire after the 2004 election, like Foley wanted to. Then there would be no cannon fodder. I guess it’s the Democrats fault though.

    Lastly, the idea that the media is the liberal lap dog is a joke considering how easily they parrotted the official White House line uncritically through the 2004 election.

    Comment by FormerRepublican — October 27, 2006 @ 1:55 pm - October 27, 2006

  10. Hey “formerRepublican” I can do that too… try this ficition out:

    “As a long time supporter of Bill Clinton and John Kerry and as an activist in nearly every major GayLeft organization in America… no, in North America… no, in the entire Western hemishpere… no, in the world… no, in our galaxy… no, in the universe… I applaud and commend the HRC for working closely with the DNC to tarnish or smear any candidate who might oppose us and our world view. The fact is, the HRC didn’t go far enough in my book –we should have mobilized hit squads of explosive strapped youth to take out all candidates who oppose our agenda. What we can’t achieve at the ballot box will be delivered to us by our liberal activist judges still on the courts or the world shall burn by default. We will win even if it means imperiling our troops, gutting our gay brothers on the opposing political team, or lying to all in order to advance the most important agenda facing Americans… no, facing modern man… no, facing all of humanity throughout history… no, facing all intelligent and non-sentient beings in galactic history. Yeah; that’s the ticket.”

    Signed, A FormerDemocratHouseStaffer-with-very-close-ties-to-Hillary-Harry-Nancy-Howie-and-Michael-Moore.”

    Only, like you formerRepublican, the above is fiction.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 27, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - October 27, 2006

  11. Only, like you formerRepublican, the above is fiction.

    Whatever lets you sleep at night bud.

    Comment by FormerRepublican — October 27, 2006 @ 3:39 pm - October 27, 2006

  12. “The idea that the media is the liberal lap dog is a joke considering how easily they parrotted the official White House line uncritically through the 2004 election.”

    This is a joke, right? What planet are YOU from?

    Sheesh.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 27, 2006 @ 3:56 pm - October 27, 2006

  13. Then, FormerRepublican, I think you’ll agree; any male who sends emails to a teenager that are in the least bit oblique should be publicly denounced as a child molestor, investigated thoroughly, fired from their job, and pilloried in the public square.

    Especially if they’re gay, since gays have much more propensity to be child molestors and shouldn’t be allowed around teenagers.

    OR……you could come back to reality and admit the following:

    1) Foley was repeatedly admonished about his behavior by Republican peers and leadership

    2) Foley’s emails, while unusual, hardly constituted proof of deviance

    3) Foley’s instant messages, which were done on his own time to people who were no longer his subordinates, were evidence of his behavior, but were not known to House leadership

    4) Foley lied to and misled House leadership regularly concerning his behavior

    All in all, what it boils down to is that, in hindsight, there were signals; however, there simply weren’t enough to make the assumption that Foley was doing what he was doing — and once there were, Foley was gone. Toast.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 27, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - October 27, 2006

  14. There are three errors at my comment (#3).

    1) The first sentence of paragraph three where it reads “…here’s some impressions” should read “here’re some impressions”. The first is ungrammatical.

    2) The reference in paragraph four to “Lawrence v. Evans” should of course be “Lawrence v. Texas”.

    3.) The phrase at the end of paragraph six, “blind to how it all does wrong” should read “blind to how it all goes wrong.”

    Comment by Anthony — October 27, 2006 @ 4:50 pm - October 27, 2006

  15. This blog has become a breeding ground for right wing apologists whose main argument is:
    “yeah but”
    then you play the “victim” card
    Foley did something bad.
    It has sex appeal so the media will pound it to death, like what happened to Clinton
    Of course dems are going to try and make hay with it….just like repubs would…
    But now instead of simply blaming Foley and what appears to be at the very least some mismanagement of the House by Hastert,
    You all say:
    “Yeah But!”
    Then:
    “Vast Left Wing Conspiracy”
    pathetic…..

    Comment by keogh — October 27, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - October 27, 2006

  16. I guess if Foley writing real e-mails to real underage pages is no big deal, then sexually explicit fiction should be no big deal either right guys? I can’t wait to see you jump all over the Allen campaign for their latest Webb release. Once again, when Republicans have good ammo they use it. It’s good when Democrats do it too. Better is if neither party does, but that’s not reality. I won’t hold my breath while I wait to hear you guys calling out the GOP operatives on this story

    Comment by FormerRepublican — October 27, 2006 @ 5:46 pm - October 27, 2006

  17. I guess if Foley writing real e-mails to real underage pages is no big deal, then sexually explicit fiction should be no big deal either right guys?

    Ah, but you see, FormerRepublican, you did make Foley’s emails a “big deal”.

    Surely you aren’t claiming that Allen should have taken the high road; after all, aren’t you all about tit for tat?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 27, 2006 @ 6:00 pm - October 27, 2006

  18. oh the shame of it all – that I actually agree with Pagilla.

    Comment by sandy — October 27, 2006 @ 6:10 pm - October 27, 2006

  19. Actually, every Republican has condemned Foley, which is why he is out of a job now. And unlike Gerry Studds, no one on the right side of this blog has ever defended Foley. He has been universally condemned as the sick pervert he is.

    It is in fact Democrats who proclaimed that Gerry Studds having real sex with a page even younger than the page Foley was IMing was no big deal. Mel Reynolds “winning the lottery” by setting up a three-way with a 15 year old and a 16 year old. Reynolds was pardoned by Bill Clinton after being convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault. Then there’s Democrat Ted Strickland and his 12 Democrat cohorts who all opposed a House resolution that condemned adult-child sex. Then there’s the ACLU, which every liberal loves, defending the rights of paedophiles to publish instructions on how to rape and murder children.

    Simple formula. If you’re a pervert and a Republican, you’re gone. If you’re a pervert and a Democrat, no worries. They might even name a Marine sanctuary after you.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - October 27, 2006

  20. no one on the right side of this blog has ever defended Foley. He has been universally condemned as the sick pervert he is.

    Except of course this line just above: “Foley’s emails, while unusual, hardly constituted proof of deviance” and provided similar blow offs on the IM’s.

    As far as Kolbe, I think that is over-trumped BS and he’s getting sucked up in the furor over Foley, which once again the GOP could/should have diffused four years ago.

    Comment by FormerRepublican — October 27, 2006 @ 6:25 pm - October 27, 2006

  21. Surely you aren’t claiming that Allen should have taken the high road; after all, aren’t you all about tit for tat?

    I’m actually not. In this political climate no one does, so it wouldn’t make sense for Allen’s campaign too either. I’d just ask that both sides stop acting holier than thou about the practice until they stop it themselves.

    Comment by FormerRepublican — October 27, 2006 @ 6:26 pm - October 27, 2006

  22. “Foley’s emails, while unusual, hardly constituted proof of deviance”

    The purpose of that line was not to defend Foley, but to contrast the content of the emails with the content of the IM’s, you idiot. ND30 has consistently said that Foley is a perverted creep and is glad he’s out, just as the rest of us have. In utter contrast to the way your side rallied around the perverted creep Gerry Studds.

    It’s kind of sweet watching Webb get blasted by the heat of the hysteria the Democrats helped create.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - October 27, 2006

  23. Yeah the Democrats really treated Studds with kid gloves. Both he and Crane were censured by the House and the House stripped him of his committee chair. They didn’t make him resign, of course when you look at the chronology the GOP didn’t make Foley resign either since he resigned before the story broke and Hastert et al are on record saying they didn’t know about the seedy exchanges until they saw it in the MSM. Studds was re-elected by his constituents, which quite a shame since having relations with a 17 year old, while legal, is certainly wrong, especially considering the nature of their professional relationship to each other.

    Comment by FormerRepublican — October 27, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - October 27, 2006

  24. Both he and Crane were censured by the House and the House stripped him of his committee chair.

    Being censured by the House means diddly-squat. (Chuck Schumer even voted against censuring him.) He lost no congressional privileges and got his committee positions back in the next session. They even named a Marine Sanctuary for him. Studds’s Provincetown constituency hailed him as a hero and returned him to office, with apparently no one giving him any extra oversight vis-a-vis pages. None of which speaks well of how Democrats deal with predators in their own party.

    As the Republicans showed with Crane and Foley, they, in contrast, have no tolerance for predators.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - October 27, 2006

  25. As the Republicans showed with Crane and Foley, they, in contrast, have no tolerance for predators.

    Both Crane and Foley dismissed themselves, the Part did “diddly-squat.” Nice try though.

    It’s kind of sweet watching Webb get blasted by the heat of the hysteria the Democrats helped create.

    Enjoy the heat, apparently some seediness in Allen’s divorce proceedings (I guess he is passionate about preserving marriages, unless it’s his own) are now coming out in retaliation. Lovely political system we’ve devolved to, isn’t it?

    Comment by FormerRepublican — October 27, 2006 @ 7:05 pm - October 27, 2006

  26. If you’re going to take the absurd position that the GOP is the party of perversion and the Democrats are the party of virtue, I’ll put Rick Santorum against Ted Kennedy any day on that basis.

    Crane and Foley… gone. Studds and Reynolds, lauded and pardoned. Spin all you want, but the fact remains. If you’re a pervert in the GOP, you’re out. If you’re a predator in the Dems, no worries.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 7:08 pm - October 27, 2006

  27. If you’re going to take the absurd position that the GOP is the party of perversion and the Democrats are the party of virtue, I’ll put Rick Santorum against Ted Kennedy any day on that basis.

    No, I think both parties are equally corrupt and perverted, which is why I think it’s best when neither of them control both the executive and the legislative branch. I’m curious, based on your comments, if you think the Republicans are really the party of virtue with no warts you can see at all.

    Comment by FormerRepublican — October 27, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - October 27, 2006

  28. A few days ago I posted that the Republicans were crooks and the Democrats were nuts. I went on to say that, given a choice, the country is better off being led by tough thugs than it was being led by people fingerpainting in their own drool.

    If either of my teenaged sons were a House page, I’d have no problem with them working under Denny Hastert, since I know if one of his own did something inappropriate, he’d get rid of them. Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats, on the other hand, have demonstrated that it’s no big deal when one of their own members seduces a teenaged male page as long as the pervert is a Democrat.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 7:21 pm - October 27, 2006

  29. And let’s not forget Nancy Pelosi marching in a Gay Pride parade with man-boy sex advocate Harry Hay.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 7:27 pm - October 27, 2006

  30. After sitting around watching the Rovian tactics work so well for the Republicans its nice to see them taking some lessons and biting back with similiarly effective campaign tactics.

    It must be fun to manufacture a demon to cover for one’s own behavior. Would it be too much to ask for an example of Rove’s “tactics” that matches this phony website and coordinated media smear that still hasn’t even resulted in an accusation of anything illegal on Foley’s part?

    Comment by Extraneus — October 27, 2006 @ 7:30 pm - October 27, 2006

  31. {reposted from other thread}

    I read somewhere that they had originally intended to release the story, right about now.

    I wonder if Karl Rove had any role in their panic that caused their premature release of this story?

    While I’ll be happy to see Hastert step down on November 9, I believe he did the right thing by not doing so earlier. If he had done that, that would have only increased the Democrat/media feeding frenzy, and they would have instituted “death watches” on the next ones down the food chain.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 27, 2006 @ 7:34 pm - October 27, 2006

  32. I’ll agree that Hastert should be out of the leadership after the election. I don’t think he’s a bad guy, but the House GOP needs change, and he’s too comfortable with the status quo.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 7:43 pm - October 27, 2006

  33. I don’t think he’s a “bad guy” either. But his leadership has been utterly insipid since Day 1.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 27, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - October 27, 2006

  34. Does It Matter?…

    Ever since the big reveal of HRC’s involvement in the Foley situation, there have been numerous people trying to explain away or minimize the behavior of the blogger in question and what it means for HRC to be associated with it….

    Trackback by North Dallas Thirty — October 27, 2006 @ 7:49 pm - October 27, 2006

  35. For all the hired trolls who are saying that Hastert knew and covered up, could you please tell us exactly what Hastert knew, and what he covered up? Seems to me, after a month, we still don’t know of any crime Foley committed. Or is Hastert just suppose to assume that any time a gay member of congress pays any attention to a teenaged boy, we should automaticly assume that he wants to have sex with him, and is guilty until proven innocent.

    As far as I can tell, Foley a) sent sexy e-mails to a 17 year old who replied in a rather suggestive way b) had cybersex with an 18 year old and c) had a hook-up with a man in his 20s. There’s no evidence that Hastert knew anything about any of that, or if he did, could have done anything, because all parties involved were above the legal age of consent. I mean really, it’s not like Foley got a blow job from someone under his employ in the oval office–and then lied about it under oath or anything. It’s also not like he raped anyone. I think the worst you can say about Foley is that his actions are rather distasteful, and immoral to many of us. So what. I think Foley is a very disturbed man. I also find many people distasteful and immoral, but that doesn’t make what they do illegal.

    So I ask again, what did Hastert cover up?

    Comment by verner — October 27, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - October 27, 2006

  36. Allen is defending himself. It’s a liberal trick that they can attack and when their opponents respond…they cry out…”stop all the negative attack ads, and can’t we just be civil”. Until they launch again. Note the MSM isn’t decrying the lack of discussion of the “issues” this year. When it’s the Republicans ox being gored, dirty personal attacks are fine.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 27, 2006 @ 9:52 pm - October 27, 2006

  37. Any ideas of the big October surprise next week? I hear there may be pictures of Nancy Pelosi and Barbara McCulsky.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 27, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - October 27, 2006

  38. It’s appearing more and more like Trandahl may have been a mole who was trying to set up Hastert. I have the feeling that he might not have told Hastert as much about Foley as he says he did.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 27, 2006 @ 9:57 pm - October 27, 2006

  39. #36 Hasterts real crime is he didn’t out Foley. In the minds of the liberal hypocrites.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 27, 2006 @ 11:08 pm - October 27, 2006

  40. It’s a liberal trick that they can attack and when their opponents respond…they cry out…”stop all the negative attack ads, and can’t we just be civil”. Until they launch again.

    So true. Like when the WaPo was “piling on” for days about Allen saying “Macaca” and accusing him of using racist slurs. And then as soon as it came out that Webb used to drive around African-American neighborhoods using the N-word and pointing guns, the WaPo suddenly decided that these forays into a candidate’s history were unseemly.

    As David Frum put it, “Democrats may strike in any way they like – and may go sobbing to the media if they get back any portion of what they dish out.”

    The next liberal trick is to accuse anyone who points out blatant and obvious media bias of claiming victimhood; another typical lib tactic to shutdown a debate when they know the facts are against them. They know media bias overwhelmingly favors Democrats, but rather than admit, they say you’re claiming ‘victimhood’ when you point it out.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 11:30 pm - October 27, 2006

  41. Mrs Cheney had the perfect question for the MSM about Iraq. “do you want America to win?” And Wolf Blitz stammered and stuttered and said ….”well yeah of course we want America to win.” You can ask that of any liberal about almost any issue. Do you want America to succeed?
    I’d predict they will stammer and stutter as well.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 27, 2006 @ 11:39 pm - October 27, 2006

  42. Lastly, the idea that the media is the liberal lap dog is a joke considering how easily they parrotted the official White House line uncritically through the 2004 election.

    Well let’s see:

    They’ve lied about Bush, they fabricated military records etc.
    They lied about Cheney
    They lied about Rumsfeld
    They lied about Rice
    They lied about hurricane Katrina
    They lied about Brown and got rid of him
    They lied about Abu Ghraib
    They lied about Club Gitmo
    They lied about Korans flushed down a toilet inciting a mob
    They carried the water for the Hezbos
    They lie about Iraq
    They show snipers killing American soldiers and don’t care a damn about who the soldier was
    They lie about the economy
    They lie about the last 3 elections (at least)
    They cover up for lord BJ no matter what
    They lie about Rush Limbaugh
    They lie about stem cell research
    They lie about global warming
    They release classified information and dare you to say something about it.
    Shall I go on?
    Oh and they openly admit that they’re liberals and reward each others for their lies.

    Yeah. They sure are liberal lap dogs.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 28, 2006 @ 1:31 am - October 28, 2006

  43. Crap! I didn’t close my blockquote.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 28, 2006 @ 1:32 am - October 28, 2006

  44. Exactly how far out on the left do you have to be to think the legacy media is biased toward conservatives? Anyone who thinks the MSM is biased to the right must regard the People’s Weekly, The Nation and The Village Voice as middle-of-the-road. I guess as long as Katie Couric doesn’t kick off the CBS Evening News with, “Good Evening, comrades. Here is how the imperialist running dogs are oppressing the workers tonight,” she’s part of the VRWC.

    Comment by V the K — October 28, 2006 @ 8:46 am - October 28, 2006

  45. Any media source that doesn’t call Bush a moron and a fascist every edition is a tool of the Rove administration.

    Comment by VinceTN — October 28, 2006 @ 11:00 am - October 28, 2006

  46. This from the people who detest objective journalist outing of gay people.

    Nice. You guys twist so much i bet you can rim yourselves.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — October 31, 2006 @ 9:53 pm - October 31, 2006

  47. GOB, you may have coined a new phrase there: “objective journalist outing of gay people”. What a joke!

    There’s no twisting here except by your buds at OutSports and the DailyKos and BlogActive trying to rationalize their role in torching fellow gays who are conservative or GOPers… talk about kettle/pot… let’s remember it is uniquely YOUR side of the gay aisle who keeps asking conservative gays how they can stomach “turning their backs” on fellow gays to help out the GOP.

    The only twisting is from people like you… to rationalize a way out of their moral quagmire. It’s what usually happens to the morals-less atheistic GayLeftBorg… they just haven’t informed you yet.

    Objective journalist outing… you’re not only a traitor to the cause of gay equality, you’re a disloyal spinster for the Democrats. Talk about twisting GOB. Goodness.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 1, 2006 @ 11:52 am - November 1, 2006

  48. This from the people who detest objective journalist outing of gay people.

    Mike Rogers is as much an objective journalist as is Joan Rivers.

    If you can find Rogers’s documented tactics in line with ethical journalism….well, it won’t be surprising, but it will speak volumes for your objectivity — or lack thereof — in the situation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2006 @ 4:23 pm - November 2, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.