Well I'm expecting to see a list about how vile the Republicans are. You know one of those cut and paste lists that starts off with national level politicians but then starts padding the list with a switch to state level senators, then county executives and ends up with a plumber that worked at the town dogcatcher's one time.

One of those lists with so much local politics, you could never compile a competing one from the interweb and can only be put together at partyhack central.

The democrats embrace deviant behavior. ww

Doesn't that list usually come from barney or larkin or one of the donkey cockroaches?

jpm100, SteveC, I dunno if it's a competition between them or they take turns, but it is fairly predictable...

The goal, I think, is to bury the most recent scandal that makes Democrats look bad in a pile of irrelevant bullshit. And, shame on us, we often let them get away with it.

Nice move, though -- pre-empting them.

J.

Ah yes, Mr" Independent"t sees a 'vast left wing media conspiracy' in the works. Too funny.

But if the issue is who is naughtier then the answer is clearly neither side. Human nature with its attendant weaknesses happens to folks from all walks of lives and all political party.

I think this asinine debate about which side is morally superior is, well, asinine - and that's an understatement.

Ah yes, Mr" Independent"t sees a 'vast left wing media conspiracy' in the works. Too funny.

But if the issue is who is naughtier then the answer is clearly neither side. Human nature with its attendant weaknesses happens to folks from all walks of life and all political parties.

I think this asinine debate about which side is morally superior is, well, asinine - and that's an understatement.

Shorter version of JFO : 'Everyone does it, so let's not pay attention when a Dem gets caught.'

Longer version of JFO Nessman since you assume you know what I really think.

I hope Spitzer resigns. I want all the facts out. If he did anything criminal he should be prosecuted.

Jay..I noticed straight away the news reports didn't have Spitzer's party affiliation.( a fair point). Moreover nor did the original Wixbang/ Jempty post, based mainly on the AP wire from yesterday. Was that an oversight? Most of those cited are better known Governors, the Republicans are lesser know congressmen..Hey but this is big, big story about Spitzer- run with it..

Hillary who sought Spitzer's endorsement has no comment about the scandal and said she will wait and see how this plays out in the nest couple of days.."Only dead fish swim with the stream".

Don't forget Gary Condit.

It's almost CUTE how JFO makes everything about me. Notice how he doesn't offer any kind of an explanation for the phenomenon. He doesn't even dispute it. He just wants to mock me.

JFO reminds me of a chihuahua frantically humping away at a leg. It's cute and funny as hell -- unless it's your leg.

Anything to say about the facts I noted, JFO? Or do you just want to keep frantically humping away?

J.

I'd hate to think that whoever put this list together at ABC was this forward thinking, but the missing party affiliations would also skew any studies of sex scandals based on that criteria, should anyone use rather superficial internet searches to back up their arguments in the future.

Actually, JFO's post is completely tangential. It's not about "who's naughter".

The topic is whether party affiliations are listed in some negative news reports and not in others - which is 'yes'. It's obvious that the there is a lack of consistency. So, is there some tendency that correlates with the subject's party affiliation ? My anecdotal experience says 'yes'.

It's almost sad that JFO is so Pavlovian partisan he not able to read and comprehend. I fully expect him to follow up with another completely tangential and pointless post.

FYI - Wilbur Mills of Arkansas was of the Democrat variety.

Try as I might, I can't come up with a consistent, impartial rationale for why certain people got their affiliation listed, while others did not.

Seems pretty obvious.

With the exception of Mills, Congresspeople had their affiliation listed, and others did not.

It's assumed to be common knowledge that perverts are from the Democrat party, hence no label needed. It's only news when they're Republicans.

Brian, you said it yourself: "with the exception of Mills."

If there's an exception, then it ain't a valid explanation. Especially when there's such a small sampling.

J.

Spkng f whrs. Dd s tht Bb Nvk nd nn Cltr wnt t n dt? wndr wh pd whm?

nd fr ths tht skd hr s th xtnsv lst f rpblcn sx scndls.

< hrf="http://dkspd.cm/wk/Rpblcn_Sx_Scndls" rl="nfllw">http://dkspd.cm/wk/Rpblcn_Sx_Scndls

Right, Jay. It's a guy from 34 years ago that no one has heard of, but it makes for such a delicious VLWC!

I assume you'll now retract all of your previous posts with analyses that were based on "with the exception of", especially those with an even smaller sampling of events.

...and BarneyG wins the booby prize!

Brian, "obscurity" simply doesn't wash as an explanation. I'd never heard of Jim West (outside of The Wild Wild West), and I had to double-check the spelling of "McGreevey." And I STILL think to call Cunningham's disgrace a "sex scandal," and he was only tossed in there to put another Republican in -- especially when Mel Reynolds is available.

But then, it turns out that ABC has a long history of disinterest in Mr. Reynolds' bad points, so his omission is understandable. Inexcusable, but understandable.

J.

Jay, you hit the nail on the head with the chihuahua label. That's exactly what JFO reminds me of.

Being horny is apparently a bipartisan thing.

Jay

I'm so hurt that you think i mock you. It's not true, not true, not true.

I'm just mocking the post. What do I have to offer re the point in your post? The same thing I said before - you obviously see some vast left wing media conspiracy. Otherwise why would you write what you did?

Who the hell knows why they left off some of the party affiliations? Here's a guess. Usually when a congressman/senator is named in an article , their party affiliation is tagged next to their name. Maybe the author was too lazy to look up the rest.

WHO KNOWS? WHO CARES? Only those of you who believe in the vast left wing media conspiracy - usually right wingers but occasionally an alleged "independent."

Who the hell knows why they left off some of the party affiliations? Here's a guess. Usually when a congressman/senator is named in an article , their party affiliation is tagged next to their name. Maybe the author was too lazy to look up the rest.
-------------------------------------
Just another dishonest post from a well-known dishonest liberal who was not honest enough to admit who he is. He is too dishonest to admit the obvious. He dare not question the obvious liberal dishonesty, which he freely drinks from.

I think it is easier to list Republicans because Democrats are not claiming moral superiority. Except for Spitzer, of course, which is a disgrace.

Democrats do not claim moral superiority, so, um ... yeah - that makes it really hard to add the (D) next to their name.

Democrat: But I never claimed to be moral.

Media: Oh, now see? You've gone and made it hard for me to add the (D)!

So, Oleg, you're saying that we should EXPECT the Democrats to be scumbags? Because they don't pretend to be anything else?

Thanks for clearing that up.

J.

"Right, Jay. It's a guy from 34 years ago that no one has heard of, but it makes for such a delicious VLWC!"

Perhaps its an "age thing", but the Mills scandal was by no means obscure when it happened as it was front page news while the scandal ran its course. The events also forever altered what pops into the minds of people old enough to remember when they now hear the words "tidal basin".