Democraps: Gay Marriage Party So Homophobic

No surprise that the demonrats are sleazy, we expect nothing less from them the politicos of personal destructiom. That America fell for it (yet again) is the headshaker in all this. AJ over at Strata has all the salacious details here;

Washington Post Acknowledges Democrats Role In Foleygate

Again, more confirmation from WaPo that (a) a Democrat operative was the source of the less salacious emails and (b) this story was shopped from November 2005 to August 2006. And even then the WaPo is somehow working off an erroneous timeline. The very first Foley email is the one where he asks “Do I have the right email?” and is dated July 29, 2005 - not 2004 as the post ‘reports’. It is this kind of simple misreporting which has been the hallmark of this entire scandal. The WaPo is trying to claim their Dem Operative source is not the same earlier source, based on more misreporting on the custody of the emails coming from a Rep congressional office to the democrat operative(s):

Silverstein said his source was a “Democratic operative,” the same source that had provided the e-mail exchanges to the St. Petersburg Times in November 2005. Both the magazine and the paper declined to publish a story. But the source “was not working in concert with the national Democratic Party,” Silverstein added. “This person was genuinely disgusted by Foley’s behavior, amazed that other publications had declined to publish stories about the emails, and concerned that Foley might still be seeking contact with pages.”

A second source emerged, however, just last month, peddling the e-mails to several other publications, including The Post. And Ross of ABC News has stressed that his initial source was a Republican.

Comments

[Tracy]

This guy's post is from October 10 - what's the point of linking to it now?

[dventimi]

Why would this make anyone think that Democrats are homophobic? To come to that conclusion from this information, would be to commit a non sequitor.

Regards,
Dave

[tazzerman2000]

Dave, it's worse than just a simple case of homophobia. It's looking more and more that the democrats used the Foley scandal in a cynical attempt to sway voters and paint the republicans in the worse light possible USING and manipulating a populace that still contains many homophobic people, especially those in the religious right end of the spectrum. Nice... Very nice... Do you feel the chill here?

Their use of a homosexual for this type of political skullduggery speaks VOLUMES about their own so called values and how they view the GLBT communities who support them.

Sounds very similar to how they treat their African-American supporters also.

[Richard Davis]

tazzerman makes a great point - The Democrats I know, some are very active in their party, have told me, "I will do ANYTHING to get Bush impeached" and similar about Santorum.

The Foley expose was a diabolical plan, perfectly executed, to shock the "right" and sway votes.

It's ironic that the Democrats ranted over gay tendencies and yet proclaim to be gay rights champions.

If they would spend half that energy and ingenuity into defeating jihadist assassins...

Why do some of us grow up reading Superman and biographies and want to protect and defend America and others (Kerry) read the same books and grow up believing America is an evil bully?

And then act on that belief by putting party above country, no matter the harm in the long run.

tazz is right, how they operate is downright chilling.

[dventimi]

Tazz and Rich,

Evidently, Mark Foley attempted to seduce minors, over whom he had some level of power (since they were pages), into having sex with him. I challenge you to make an argument for why this event (if true) should have remained hidden.

Regards,
Dave

[Richard Davis]

I never said it should have been hidden, I just question the timing and the sensationalizing of it in order to indoc and sway votes.

Dave, I believe they knew about this for over a year (maybe more) but they waited till right before the election.

It was a "campaign strategy"...

Wouldn't you prefer that, when you see a problem, you take swift and appropriate action, don't wait, just to get votes -

you have to admit that smells...

(and trust me, if Republicans knew about it, and I believe some did, they should have gotten rid of Foley right away.. I guess they thought the Dems would consider them homophobes if they did it sooner, turns out to be a "damned if you do and damned if you don't")

But the Dems planned it for the most lethal damage for political gain.

Politics is a dirty business. I look forward to the day when problems are solved, not politicized.

(that's right, you heard it hear first, from a republican, not a democrat)

[dventimi]

Richard,

You are moving the goal posts. The original implication in this thread was, I believe, that Democrats are homophobes (and therefore, hypocrites) because they criticized Foley for having or wanting to have homosexual sex. I pointed out that he was being criticized, not for wanting homosexual sex, but for wanting underage sex with people he has power over. So now you change the issue to whether Dems sat on damaging info in order to maximize its damage. See why these debates drag on?

You believe Dems sat on the info. Do you have evidence, or merely a hunch?

I do not have to admit that it smells, if I don't believe that it smells.

If Repubs sat on the info, why do you assume the least unethical motive of them, that they sat on it because they were afraid of being called homophobes by Dems, and then IF Dems also sat on the info, you assume the most unethical motive of them. I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.

If Dems sat on the info, they were unethical. Period. If Repubs sat on the info, they also were unethical. Period. Fear of being criticized by Dems is no justification for any Repub to put the well-being of minors in jeopardy.

To adopt your argot, "f**king cowards!"

Jolly regards,
Davey Wavey

[Richard Davis]

DW - the homophobe tag carried as much weight as the underage tag, it was parlayed together. And they did get the most out of the underage card.

It's not a hunch, here - check this out. (here's the link - http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/004254.html)

(I cut and pasted this part here:)

//The timing of the revelations, as we noted, couldn't be more propitious for the Democrats. Turns out both the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November, according to research by several enterprising blogs.

Why didn't they come forward then? Who dredged up these e-mails -- and why did they hold them until now? This reeks of political trickery.

We're glad Foley's gone. He betrayed Congress, his party and the trust of the 33 pages who serve in Congress, and their parents. He behaved immorally, and we won't be surprised at new revelations.

That said, if this scandal is the Democrats' answer to their problems at the polls, it's pretty pathetic. It shows a base contempt for the voters.//

dw - be advised, I think both parties knew about it about 11 months prior to release, both sides had reasons to wait. One because of embarrassment, the other for votes. (I had forgotten the mileage they got with the "look at the party of values" card)

Still think it doesn't smell?

[dventimi]

RD,

I can assert that "homophobe tag" did not carry as much weight as the "underage tag", just as easily as you have asserted the opposite. Prove me wrong.

Show me one comment from a Democratic officeholder or leading left-leaning blogger (and not from the comments sections), that says, or implies, that the problem with Mark Foley was that he is a homosexual.

The link you provided is to an opinion piece on a blog, which itself cites an opinion piece from a newspaper (a WSJ editorial). It is not a piece of reporting, and reflects only opinion, not reporting. And, their reasoning is poor. Case in point: they lump together Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, and Bill Clinton, with Mark Foley and imply they involve the same kind of illicit behavior. That is intellectually dishonest. Barney Frank is openly gay, but no one has accused him of soliciting sex with a minor. Bill Clinton is not gay, and no one has accused him of soliciting sex from a minor (Monica Lewinsky was 22, four years into the age of consent, when she had an affair with the President...did you know that?). Gerry Studds did admit to having an affair with a 17 year old page, for which he was censored in 1983. Any Democrats who defended him were wrong to do so, but they were by and large a different generation of officeholders from those now in D.C. Furthermore, that was BEFORE any party relied so heavily on "family values" as do today's Repubs, so the taint of hypocrisy was less, then.

Last, based on the timing of Folegate alone, ONE CANNOT CONCLUDE it was gamed by Democrats. I can explain why, if you like, but it might require powers of reasoning that, frankly, are beyond any of you.

Regards,
Dave

[dventimi]

I want to be very clear about my challenge. Comments from Dems pointing out that Foley was a homosexual, IN ORDER to highlight the hypocrisy of Repubs who hate and condemn homosexuals, will not meet my challenge. Obviously the Dem in that case is not condeming the homosexuality, but is highlighting the hypocracy of people who condemn homosexuals on the one hand, while harboring and protecting a homosexual on the other.

So no, no no, no no no no. That doesn't count. You got to show me a comment that clearly, categorically has a Dem specifically condemning Foley's homosexuality. Can you comprehend that? Do you catch my drift?

Regards,
Dave