So I guess that means dems arent that serious about 'the culture of corruption'. Re-electing a corrupt black Dem caught with 90k in his freezer. Hilarious!

The people of LA deserve the ineptitude they get via their elected officials. They deserve Blanco, Nagincharge, and Lanendreau, the 3 LA Dems responsible for the the governmental failure to prepare to evacuate.

The looney left has a different standard of excellence when it comes to their own, and that bar is set very very low.

"The spotlight is now focused relentlessly on the Democrats..."
God bless ya, JT. I know you mean well, but if you think the MSM, either print or TV, is going to focus at all, let alone relentlessly on anything critical of Dems, well...
But God bless you and your's.

I wonder if the media will find a way to blame President Bush for the election result in La? That would a continuation of the theme that President Bush is responsbile for all local political action in La.

What I find funny is the fact that when asked about William Jefferson, the Democrat punditry replies; "He hasn't been charged with a crime".

When I see someone giving that reply I can only scratch my head thinking, 90 grand in a freezer in all probability is going to bite you in the ass sometime down the road.

It doesn't take a political genius to have the slightest bit of hindsight to see that coming.

Personally if a Republican pundit gave me that type of spin about a corrupt Republican I would feel my intelligence would have been insulted.

Yet somehow Democrats chug that Kool-Aid down without question.

just how long does it take DOJ to bring charges? what are they lacking here that they had in, for instance, the cunningham case? they have cash that I presume jefferson can't legitimately account for, they have accomplices on the record. seems DOJ and the FBI might be a tad more eager to go after republicans than democrats, huh? and while I'm at it, why haven't charges been brought against Mary the Traitor? She was kicked out of the CIA but no charges, no hints of any charges. Just what does it take to get indicted? Yeah, that's right, you have to be a Republican. it's not that those republicans ought not to have been charged but it would be nice to see some equal opportunity prosecutions.

and why are the republicans so quiet on this one? oh, and to those inclined, don't even try the 'GOP is giving the dems the rope to hang themselves' line. paraphrasing a bit, a tree falling doesn't make any noise if no one is there to scream about it. this is a non-issue non-story outside the blogging world, which means 99.9% of the voters have no real clue what is going on. Does the GOP figure the MSM is going to carry their water the way it does for Democrats?

and by the way, the House ought to let Jefferson in. If the good (?) people of his district are stupid enough to want him representing them, then it is not for us to reject their choice. Our system is based on letting the people pick their representation... no matter how stupid they are in their choices. We're not supposed to be the ones looking for big government to save the people from their own stupidity, are we? Congress can marginalize him, they can ignore him, they can cut his office budget by $90,000, but they ought to seat him.

just how long does it take DOJ to bring charges

I thought the same exact thing. But if given odds I would say it was a safe bet that charges are forth coming some time in the near future.

And if I were to think as a Republican political strategist, then I would welcome the fact Democrats didn't clean up their own dirty laundry before it piled up.

Whether this becomes a spectacle for Democrats lays in the hands of the black caucus. They were staunch supporters of Jefferson regardless of the 90K in the freezer. After indictment will their rallying cry be "he has not been convicted"?

Then after conviction, should they wait for appeals too before abandoning him? I betch'ya.

Ah yes, the whining begins. It's "the media", always the media, forever the media. Or the "dems" or the "left", as if this election somehow represents all of the democratic party or all of the "left". By the logic of some of you wingnuts I guess (because of Mr. Foley) all conservatives are pedophiles.

This election means one thing and one thing only. Most of the people in Jefferson's district wanted him back in Congress. It means that and nothing more. Jefferson was kicked off the Ways and Means Committee last summer by the democratic leadership.

Since you wingnuts have nothing constructive to offer about anything whatsoever this presents you with an opportunity to gather together and and whine and be self-righteous - the only 2 things you folks are good at.

Hugh:

Again, you miss the point!

The Democratic leadership and the MSM didn't go after Mr. Foley, they went after the Republican leadership for not reacting properly to the situation. Most of the comments that I have read here are about the Democratic leaderships responce to Jefferson and in particular the respoonce of the Black Caucus. Seems like apples and apples to me.

Somebody increase Hugh's Zyprexa. He's mistaking laughter for whining, and his concrete thinking and delusions, with kos's talking points murmuring in his head, have left him with no grip on reality.

I think your headline gets it right. The people of Louisiana re-elected Jefferson and so his presence is quite legitimate. But he certainly leaves the Democrats vulnerable in their message of ethics reform. I would be sympathetic to Pelosi denying Jefferson senior positions that would create a high profile for him. I guess if I were in Pelosi's shoes I would also quietly tell the Congressional Black Caucus (away from the prying eyes of the media) that I would not take any chance in compromising the gains of the last election just because the have a "thing" for Jefferson. Being black does not lower the standards for corruption.

USMC

The democratic leadership did what it could do. It stripped him of his committee assignment. As to the Republican leadership, I believe the report issued yesterday supported that approach by the dems. Lastly, Foley was gone by his own choice. What would you have them do?

Epador:

Actually I take Lexapro for depression - I am not psychotic though sometimes when I read the drivel you post I want to be. You folks don't laugh because you're humorless (an affliction of the right). Indeed most of what you do is whine about unfair the world is to your point of view and then act self-righteous about everything else. Rarely do I go to Kos and it is my joy to read you folks.

If I were an angry trolling lib/dem with nothing better to do than to troll to prove my ignorance and hate, Id be depressed too.

Test

Hugh, the A/P is already carrying Jefferson's water on this one. There "news" article contains THIS liine:
"...allegations the FBI found $90,000 in bribe money in Jefferson's freezer"

Allegations the money was found?? Get it?

The money was found...FACT.

The A/P is offering the "What lipstick on my collar?" defense for Jefferson. (aka: "What stain on what dress?")

"The democratic leadership did what it could do. It stripped him of his committee assignment. As to the Republican leadership, I believe the report issued yesterday supported that approach by the dems. Lastly, Foley was gone by his own choice. What would you have them do?"

By Hugh:

Now that's what I call a response. No name calling, just facts and opinions. Thank you. If you could stick to that approach, you would be a lot more welcome here. In fact, I find it boring to only read opinions from one side, but like those supporting the other side to use rational arguments not silly name calling.

As to what the Dems should have done after Foley resigned - get on about the countries business.

The Democrats are off to a sterling start.

Have any other Congressional leadership regimes started out this badly before? They may have a new record here.

If they keep this up, they will be out in 2 years.

Fortunately Hastert, the lying piece of crap pedophile protector, is still in the House -- waiting for Jefferson to come back so he can defend him.

So, republicans, how much longer are you going to allow Hasert to stay in office now that the Ethics Committee nailed Hastert?

Hugh nailed it.

The DOJ held back until the election was over so as to not influence the election. They'll move forward now. He is innocent until proven guilty, and it sure looks like he's guilty, but the DOJ wasn't going to make headlines until after Jefferson was re-elected or not - and I imagine whether Jefferson is in office or not determines many things with respect to how the investigation is handled.

Kinda reminds me of the Coleman Young time as Major of Detroit. Scandal after scandal, election win after election win.

Police officers, renovating the Police Chief's summer home on company time, accidentally broke into the kitchen ceiling and cash came raining down, lots of it.

Young himself organized a boycott of South Africa (then segregated) and then was discovered to have a vast quantity of Krugerands secreted away, questionably obtained.

But then, after those pardons, the beef futures, missing/found billing records, Whitewater, Casa Grande, travelgate, Chinese cash in brown paper bags, gardeners who give 400K, FBI files on Republicans, the latest missile stuff (and ports) sold to the Chinese, Monica, a rape of the AG...

You wouldn't think a Clinton would have a chance, but you watch.

Kinda makes the 90 grand seem like a small thing don't it.

"The democratic leadership did what it could do."

Not true; they could refuse to seat this obvious crook.

"What would you have them do?"

Take out the trash and refuse to seat him. Further, he should be ostracized by both parties. Public shaming...let his constituents know what a foolish thing they did by voting for him. Probably other things (only started on my coffee allotment for the day) but that would be a good start.

pedophile?

Lying Lee, lying again.

"The DOJ held back until the election was over so as to not influence the election."

Actually, that is incomplete. It should say "The DOJ, and the MSM, held back until the election was over so as to not influence the election."

Oh, and Jay -- your reference to the Democrats, "...who seem stuck in a hayfield full of rakes and bound and determined to step on each and every one of them -- as forcefully as possible, and with as many cameras on them as they can find." is just wishful thinking.

The Democrats are delivering, and Pelosi is making the hard, touch, and correct choices. You'll have to spin harder than that... but then your audience here is largely an uninformed, slow-thinking group of conservative droolers - as evidenced by the clapping monkeys on the comment threads.

but then your audience here is largely an uninformed, slow-thinking group of conservative droolers - as evidenced by the clapping monkeys on the comment threads

Boy, I had to do a double take and make sure I was still reading the Jefferson thread again.

I got a dollar to any liberal's dime that Jefferson will be indicted, convicted and even spend some time in the big house. I wouldn't take that bet either if I were a Democrat.

Yet, right on cue we are idiots for assuming 90K in the freezer can be dismissed because there hasn't been a formal charge and that Democrats can't do anything about.

You see Lee, the difference is if this was a Republican, you would hear me demanding he step down. Why can't you people do the same?

Disclaimer: My use of "you people" is all inclusive of liberals no matter where you fall into the Democratic Party rainbow of diversity.

1) Gianni, why did you emphasize Jefferson's race? Are black people genetically predisposed to hiding large amounts of currency in cold places?

and

2) Jumpinjoe, I know you didn't just use the e word diversity as a pejorative...right?

Hugh. I strongly suggest an atypical antipsychotic.

Really. Depression ain't the main problem. Maybe some lithium followed by lactimal might help those delusions of grandeur from recurring.

Since my post there area few whines to be noted, unless you were trying to demonstrate clairvoyance, the titters and smiles above your post really aren't what most of us consider whining.

I agree that a new Democratic Leadership needs to arise and displace the current old leadership, and show some spine and ethics. Wherever they may be found. Who is there to wrest the gavel from Pelosi? [pin drops loudly]

As for Hastert and the rest, they have my scorn as well.

Jumpinjoe, I know you didn't just use the e word diversity as a pejorative...right

It's just that my short and long term memories are intact and I remember Ross Perot addressing the NAACP convention a few moons ago. He kept saying, "you people" and was branded a racist for not being hip and in-tune to the latest PC trend at the time.

Me personally, being acutely aware of the fragile sensitive nature of liberals, decided to set the record straight before I was accused of anything.

~Peace Out~

Corruption is a resume enhancer for the democrats. They'll literally elect anybody. Marion Barry, Jefferson, Studds, Kennedy, and the list goes on and on. There is apparently nothing you can do and NOT be reelected as a democrat. Amazing.

But I guess when you have as few decent people as the democrats do, you can't be picky.

This is going to sound racists, but its not, so read the whole thing. The main reason Jefferson got reelected is because of the blacks. Specifically, the no food welfare ghetto blacks. They know he will do everything to keep up the handouts that they get, so they vote for him, no matter what he may have done. As for Louisiana flunking a test, please remember what his district was, New Orleans and part of Jefferson, the most liberal areas of the state.

Fortunately Hastert, the lying piece of crap pedophile protector, is still in the House

Which pedophile was that Lee?

Divide and conquer, that is the name of the game in Louisiana politics. It was conservative Jefferson Parish that put Jefferson over the top? How you say? Remember the "bridge incident" when New Orleanians were held back from crossing the bridge into Jefferson Parish by armed guards? Carter (the opponent) was very critical about this at the time (and in Spike Lee's documentary of Katrina and its aftermath). This ruffled the feathers of conservative sheriff Harry Lee who told his supporters not to vote for Carter. He couldn't say vote for Jefferson because Jefferson supporters consider Lee a racist and would have stayed home. So conservative Jefferson Parish came in strong for Jefferson because their pride was hurt. This is how politics works in Louisiana. They can give a rats a** about what the rest of the US thinks, even though we are shooting ourselves in the foot. It's ALL local politics. Usually I get upset with these shenanigans, but this time I have not because America deserted us a longtime ago now and it is not going to make any difference in the recovery effort. This is how it will pan out. Jefferson will be shunned by the democrats (so LA loses) until he is indicted and when a new election is called. Another of his opponents, another Carter who came in second in the primary will win. (This is exactly WHY he endorsed Jefferson.) Politics is played hard and for keeps in Louisiana and the Louisiana citizens are always the losers.

Here is a link to Lee's news conference.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/10/85326/942

"Boy, I had to do a double take and make sure I was still reading the Jefferson thread again."

Put down the brass cymbals and pay attention, JumingJoe. Hastert has been found guilty of covering up for the slimy pedophile Foley. Hastert lied. How can republicans allow him to stay in office -- aren't we talking about the same issue? Whether the respective political parties will clean their own house of less-than-reputable congress critters?

Or do conservatives think only the opposition should be cleaning house of guys like Jefferson (who looks guilty to me), while guys like Hastert stay in office?

Family value republicans looked like hypocrites when the Foley scandal surfaced, and they will look like hypocrites if they let Hastert stay in office -- especially so as they call for the ouster of Jefferson.

Oh yeah, I forgot -- pointing out inconvenient truthes like this gets one labelled as a troll for "hijacking threads" lol -- another example of conservative hypocrisy....

Lee, who was the pedophile you were talking about before or were you just being the mealy-mouthed little troll that you are...

As the Democrats have zealously enjoyed pointing out to everyone for the last 6 years - you get the Government you elect.

If they want to have someone leading them that is corrupt and willing to steal from them, then they can have it - but when they get fed up with it, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

It was conservative Jefferson Parish that put Jefferson over the top?

Very interesting explanation.

I got a dollar to any liberal's dime that Jefferson will be indicted, convicted and even spend some time in the big house.

No doubt about it, which is why it doesn't bother me if the Congress refuses to seat him - the system will take care of him soon enough, and he'll just languish as a junior rep until then.

Can Congress constitutionally refuse to seat Jefferson? Based on this case, it doesn't seem that they can. (I know, typical democrat, concerned about the constitution and all. Quaint, isn't it.)

Yet another embarrassing day for the democrat party.

There is virtually no chance that William Jefferson will be convicted. He will be judged by a majority black jury in Louisiana and if there is certainty in this world it is that a black jury will never, ever convict a black Democratic politician.

Hugh old boy, you are dead wrong. Every republican I know has been laughing every day since the election. Peeeloshi has provided the comedy and not the dimmi's of La have shown their true color, it's green as in money. No more from me and I hope no more from the Fed's.

Uh, Lee?
You said: Hastert has been found guilty of covering up for the slimy pedophile Foley.

And yet here was the head line yesterday
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/nation/16201671.htm

Also, do you know the difference between a panel and a jury? Only one of them can find someone guilty.

What I find funny is the fact that when asked about William Jefferson, the Democrat punditry replies; "He hasn't been charged with a crime".
...
When I see someone giving that reply I can only scratch my head
...
Personally if a Republican pundit gave me that type of spin about a corrupt Republican I would feel my intelligence would have been insulted.
...
Yet somehow Democrats chug that Kool-Aid down without question.

I assume that Republicans express the same position when talking about Tom Delay, who actually was charged with several crimes.

Which pedophile was that Lee?
...
Lee, who was the pedophile you were talking about before

Aww, isn't that cute? Looks like Steve is desperately waiting for someone to give him an opening to pull out the completely shredded "b-b-but the age of consent!" argument.

Put down the brass cymbals and pay attention, JumingJoe. Hastert has been found guilty of covering up for the slimy pedophile Foley

Wow Lee, I missed that news flash. (Link Please)

How about anyone of you liberals trying this: Repeat after me....

"I believe that for the good of the Democratic Party and for the good of the republic, William Jefferson should cede his seat in the House of Representatives."

Like I said, if this were a Republican I would be shouting it from the rooftops. But so far all the liberals here have confirmed that corruption within the Democratic Party is A-O.K. because of that (D) behind their name.

This is just another "see I told you so" moment. Thanks for the confirmation for everyone to see.

Every republican I know has been laughing every day since the election.

Funny, because every Democrat I know has been laughing too.

Just FYI, though, these Republicans aren't laughing.

"Only one of them can find someone guilty."

Really? Perhaps only a judge or jury can find someone guilty in a court of law -- but the ethics committee found that Hastert was guilty of negligence, nonetheless.

Here's the very first paragraph from the article you linked, SCSI....

Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other congressional leaders were negligent in their response to early warnings of inappropriate advances toward underage male former pages by former Republican congressman Mark Foley, the House Ethics Committee concluded Friday.

Looks like the ethics committee found Hastert guilty of negligence, SCSI.

Man, you conservative thought-police are downright scary.....

I assume that Republicans express the same position when talking about Tom Delay, who actually was charged with several crimes

Depends if you think he should be charged with a crime. Evidently more grand juries decided Delay committed no crime.

Please explain that crime to us also.

I'll return the favor. 90 THOUSAND eff'in dollars stashed in the freezer and not one liberal here will acknowledge a crime took place.

Looks like the ethics committee found Hastert guilty of negligence, SCSI

You read way, way too deep into that Lee.

Please continue to paragraph number two:

It says...........

But the ethics panel found no House rules were broken and declined to reprimand or otherwise sanction any current House member or employee for their handling of the matter.

"I'll return the favor. 90 THOUSAND eff'in dollars stashed in the freezer and not one liberal here will acknowledge a crime took place."

JumpinJoe - you are an idiot. I've already said I think he's guilty.

as to this: "But the ethics panel found no House rules were broken and declined to reprimand or otherwise sanction any current House member or employee for their handling of the matter."

Apparently there aren't rules covering Hastert's negligence, but he was found guilty of negligence, nonetheless.

Aww, isn't that cute? Looks like Steve is desperately waiting for someone to give him an opening to pull out the completely shredded "b-b-but the age of consent!" argument.

Posted by: Brian at December 10, 2006 03:49 PM

Just a simple question...if he can't answer, he obviously just likes to throw out platitudes and other nonsensical garbage he knows is false to trolls like you and hugh.

Lee seems to be having a problem understanding this....
"But the ethics panel found no House rules were broken and declined to reprimand or otherwise sanction any current House member or employee for their handling of the matter."

Apparently there aren't rules covering Hastert's negligence, but he was found guilty of negligence, nonetheless.

Lee

* * *

I'll try to make this simple for you Lee. A person can be negligent in their actions. And negligence can be a component of criminal actions. But it's not a crime to just be negligent, it has to be a component of some criminal behavior. If not, anybody who ever missed sending a birthday card would have been fined of would be sitting on their butt in a jail somewhere. I realize that doesn't go to support your world view here. Sorry! So very, very sorry.

You can be guilty of things other than the commission of crimes, and yes, upset old guy, you are very, very sorry individual if you don't have anything better to do on a Sunday afternoon besides defend the likes of Denny Hastert, but if you look up the dictionary definition of guilty you'll find this: "culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing"and "justly chargeable with a particular fault or error -- as in she was guilty of a serious error in judgement".

Don't you conservative trolls have an ethics at all? Do you really think that if you repeat a lie over and over it will go unchallenged?

Hastert has been found by the Ethics Committee to be guilty of negligence in the Foley incident, but you guys are only guilt of being stupid.

Lee, we get it already. We are hypocrites because Jefferson's crime is equal to the "no law broken" Foley scandal and we are not calling for Hastert to resign. Therefore Democrats can keep Jefferson around and claim the Republicans are guilty too. Wow, frigg'in brilliant.

So help me out of my hypocritical ways because it hurts my feelings to be categorized as such.

Please state in detail the laws Foley and Hastert broke so that I can understand it. Start with Foley first. Make your case and I will call for a prosecution.

In Hastert's case, please give me in detail the laws that he broke so that I will ask for him to resign from the House.

Ready......GO!!!!!!!

So he's guilty of being negligent in allowing a predator like Foley to prey on teenaged pages, and you don't think that is reason enough to bounce his ass out of Congress, JJ?

I guess there is just no way to reason with you family-value hypocrites.

" (I know, typical democrat, concerned about the constitution and all. Quaint, isn't it.)

Posted by: jpe at December 10, 2006 02:22 PM

""Aww, isn't that cute? Looks like Steve is desperately waiting for someone to give him an opening to pull out the completely shredded "b-b-but the age of consent!" argument.

Posted by: Brian at December 10, 2006 03:49 PM"

Well, jpe, at least we see that Brian isn't concerned about the Constitution. Except when it's a Dem under fire.

Fair weather American.

p'p' (lee lee) and I guess that taking 90,000 dollar bribes is ok if your family values are of the mafia type-or like "Dingy" Harry or like "Turbin Durbin, or Ted "Hic" Kennedy, or John "Bandaid" sKerry, or Nancy "Captain Stretchface" Pe-losser, or John "cold blooded killers" Murtha, or Chuckie "Donation" Schumer, or "KKK" Byrd, or Jay "here's our war plan" Rockfeller, or Alec "Impeached" Hastings and on and on----But but but to back that bunch would not be hypocriteical? Naaaw.

90 THOUSAND eff'in dollars stashed in the freezer and not one liberal here will acknowledge a crime took place.

Are you blind, or just argumentative? Several liberal posters, including myself, have criticized Jefferson, now multiple times. And many liberal blogs had been pulling for his opponent to defeat him. And those same blogs are now surprised and dismayed at his win, even suggesting he'll be the "first member indicted in the next Congress".

So get off your high horse, coming from the only party to have had a convicted felon as a sitting congressman.

Just a simple question...if he can't answer,

Nope. If you don't know what pedophile he was referring to, then you're too stupid for him to bother answering. On the other hand, you could just stop being a lazy coward. If you have something to say, just say it.

Well, jpe, at least we see that Brian isn't concerned about the Constitution. Except when it's a Dem under fire.

I'd repond to you, but I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. It's certainly unrelated to anything I've posted in this thread, though.

So he's guilty of being negligent in allowing a predator like Foley to prey on teenaged pages, and you don't think that is reason enough to bounce his ass out of Congress, JJ

Lee, I asked for something real, real simple and you still cannot deliver.

Since your argument in this thread is too overlook Jefferson because Republicans are overlooking Hastert (which BTW is the dumbest I've heard from you besides the "we should have nuked Afghanistan") then it would behoove you to provide specific statutes to back it up.

Please state the law that was broken. When you figure that out then we can talk about how Foley can be prosecuted too.

But if you want to play your retarded tit-for-tat defense of Jefferson and Democrats lack of outrage by using Foley as your cover, well then I can play that too.

Have fun with this hypocritical bullshit:

Gerry Studds Democrat Hero and Page Boinker

Studds defended his sexual relationship with the minor as a "consensual relationship with a young adult." The page later appeared publicly with Studds in support of him. Dean Hara, whom Studds married in 2004, said after Studds' death in 2006 that Studds had never been ashamed of the relationship with the page. "This young man knew what he was doing," Hara said.

Studds was re-elected to the House six more times after the 1983 censure.

Let's see what Lee had to say about that........

Lee Defends Studds Here

Lee's words....

Studds' constituency re-elected the man to office for 12 more years of service after the scandal broke. That demonstrates that he obviously was a good representative for the people he served, and in a democracy reasonable people would give him credit for that much on his passing.

Are you blind, or just argumentative? Several liberal posters, including myself, have criticized Jefferson, now multiple times.

Brian

For shits and giggles I went to your left wing blog to see how the left was criticizing Jefferson. I plucked this stuff off without getting very far down the thread.

Real intellectuals you are hanging out with there Brian.

Jefferson was set up by Bush's FBI. That's how I see it and have always seen it

No different than what happened to Jack Murtha years ago...the FBI came to him.

The republicans in this country will do anything in their power to screw over the democrats to make themselves feel better.

Not to say there aren't some NOLA cops and politicos that are on the up and up, but from what family says that is the exception rather than the rule, so I might be judging him a little too harshly

Rikc, you're probably right. Funny though how his office was stormed quite a bit of time after this deal went down and it was done in such a way that lead me to believe that the Pigs in the WH wanted to send a message to the democrats so they could say later that they're as bad as them

Kay that was the thing that was weird to me as well, the timing. I mean I'm sure it could have been coinkydink at the timing of the storm troopers, but that is always questionable. I mean after all, with nothing but repukes showing up as criminals, perhaps the wanking chimp had to single out ONE dem that he could produce as a crook

One corrupt(?) dem as opposed to the HUNDREDS of corrupt repukes? I mean that is something that can be thrown back in the repukes faces big time.

Ooops! must be the weed. . .

JJ, your stupidity and propensity for lying is nothing short of amazing. Never have I said that Jefferson's actions should be overlooked -- in fact, I've said the guy looks guilty to me, and that I think the Democratic leadership has shown they will make the hard decisions and do the right thing when the time comes.

That is in sharp contrast to conservative hypocrites such as yourself and your fellow sockpuppet trolls, who are quick to condemn Foley for his wrongdoings -- but are just as quick to ignore the fact that Hastert has been found negligent in his duties and responsibilities and duties. Hastert was found by the ethics committee to have been a responsible party who could and should have acted to stop Foley's wrongdoings.

Hastert knew what Foley was up to.
Hastert looked the other way, giving tacit approval to Foley's actions.
Hastert lied to the ethics committee about what he knew and when he knew it.

In defending Hastert, you defend the man who knew what Foley was doing and could have stopped him, but instead he allowed it to continue. As a family-values Republican you apparently see no conflict in that.

At no time have I defended Studds wrongdoing. On the occasion of his death I noted that the conservative hypocrites were quick to say nothing but bad things about Studds, despite his record of public service. As you've shown through my quote, what I said was that the people who knew Studds best, his constituency, re-elected him to office for many more years despite what he had done -- and that suggests that as a public servant the man must have done something right.

Hastert was found this last week to have been guilty of covering and facilitating Foley's actions. The fact that you see nothing wrong with that is exactly one of the reasons why the Republicans lost the election this last November.

The fact that you will defend Hastert further, and twist the facts and lie in an effort to defend Hastert, is exactly the reason why Republicans will lose the White House in '08.

Let's discuss it some more, JumpinJoe, in fact -- let's keep this dialog going right up until election day, what do you say? This kind of Republican hypocrisy needs the light of day, every day.

JJ, your stupidity and propensity for lying is nothing short of amazing. Never have I said that Jefferson's actions should be overlooked -- in fact, I've said the guy looks guilty to me, and that I think the Democratic leadership has shown they will make the hard decisions and do the right thing when the time comes.

Anyone reading your drivel up to this point can clearly see this is another Lee thread hijacking by shifting the subject to Hastert / Foley just to make the point Republicans are hypocrites. I repeat, it is a stupid argument.

The real point is liberals like yourself can claim Jefferson is bad news, but you should be calling for his ouster NOW and not later.

The Hastert end of the Foley resignation comes nowhere near the Jefferson scandal. And after weeks and weeks of investigation by the ethics committee they had nothing to charge Hastert with. I don't think that going to happen with Jefferson so your argument is completely and utterly moot.

On the occasion of his death I noted that the conservative hypocrites were quick to say nothing but bad things about Studds, despite his record of public service. As you've shown through my quote, what I said was that the people who knew Studds best, his constituency, re-elected him to office for many more years despite what he had done -- and that suggests that as a public servant the man must have done something right

How sweet of you Lee to be so sensitive towards a Congressman that had sex with a page and got a standing "O" from Democrats during his censure.

Because of your sensitive nature I'm sure you have the same accolades for Foley too. Oh, and let's not forget Hastert while you are raining down praise for the good work of these men. Right?

Or are those accolades just reserved for Democrats that f**k the underage non-paid help.

Lee, if I were you I would quit right here seeing how embarrassing your logic has been. DumbAss!!

For shits and giggles I went to your left wing blog to see how the left was criticizing Jefferson. I plucked this stuff off without getting very far down the thread.

I linked to the blogger, dumbass, not the comments. Shall we now have shits and giggles about the right based on comments from LGF?

The republicans in this country will do anything in their power to screw over the democrats to make themselves feel better.

Well, actually that comment is true:

Referring to the former House majority leader, Wamp recalled: "If Tom DeLay said it one time, he said it 15 times: 'The most important thing we can do for the American people is keep our Republican majority.' That was just wrong, and it had to catch up to us in the end."

I linked to the blogger, dumbass, not the comments

There was no article on your link dumbass. Just a comment section. But I do thank you for linking to it because I did get some good belly laughs. Three's nothing funnier than "moonbat" conspriacies. The theme seemed to be Jefferson was set up by "gasp" President Bush just to make Democrats look bad.

There was quite a bit of "weed" referencing there too. Mmmm, maybe there is a connection between weed and liberal conspriacies. Or the talk degenerated to weed because they forgot what they were talking about.

Here, excerpted from Powerline, is another fine example of Democratic hypocrisy:

Jefferson isn't the only shady Dem to be easily re-elected this year. Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia is under investigation for setting up a network of nonprofit organizations to administer the millions of dollars appropriated to various endeavors in his district, and using them to skim off a portion of the money. During the period in question, Mollohan's assets grew from no more than $565,000 to at least $6.3 million.

Mollohan won re-election without difficulty. And now, reportedly, the Democratic leadership will allow him not only to keep his seat on the Appropriations Committee, which he used to steer the money into his district (and ultimately into his pocketbook), but also to assume leadership of a subcommittee through which he can control the purse strings of the the FBI (and the rest of the Justice Department) which is investigating him.

Thanks Nancy! Thanks for ending the "culture of corruption" Good Job!

There was no article on your link dumbass. Just a comment section.

Then what did I quote in my post, if there was nothing there to read? There was no comment section visible on that page. You chose to ignore the page I pointed you to and go to comments instead. Feel free to jump there and read around, if you wish (personally, I don't). I'll just assume it's your way of trying to regain some dignity after being shown up as a liar.

Brian, check your own frigg'in link pal. There is nothing there but the words "Open Thread" and then the comment section.

What's the matter, are you embarrassed by your fellow lefties posting how the Jefferson scandal is the work of President Bush? I wasn't supposed to see that I guess.

That pretty much blows holes in your notion that Democrats don't support Jefferson. The kooks sure seem to support him as long as they can blame Bush.

Keep trying though. Someday you may score, but today's not that day.

Check your link dumbass.

Brian, check your own frigg'in link pal. There is nothing there but the words "Open Thread" and then the comment section.

You truly are a moron. Here's the text from that page:

Believe it or not, William "$90k in the freezer" Jefferson is leading in Louisiana. Wow. The results are coming in at www.nola.com.

11:11 PM Update: The local ABC channel has called the race for Jefferson. Again, wow. So, I guess we know who is in the running to be the first member indicted in the next Congress.

Check your link dumbass.

You truly are a moron.

I'm reading what this fool JumpinJoe has to say and I just have to comment.

Hey idiot - no one here is defending this guy Jefferson! Not a single left-leaning person is defending him - and if his constituency wants him back, that's their bag - not the rest of the country.

And it's NOT indicative of anything other than his own locals wanting him back. As far as any democrat who posts here - including the ones who've told this to you in no uncertain terms - no one is a fan of this guy. If he committed a crime, if he did something unethical, the sooner he leaves, the better.

That's how democrats view their government. We see these people as our employees, not our wards or our parents. Many republicans (not all, as I will offer), on the other hand - as is evident of your posts - will defend their criminal elects till the last breath. Talk about hypocrisy.

So enough with this hardheadedness. READ the posts. Not what you THINK the posts should say.

And if you feel the need to respond back with that same "stupid moonbat" crap, you're a pathetic child - and unworthy of a response from anyone.