Unfortunately, he appears not to have been a (closeted? In denial?) gay Republican. Otherwise, his party affiliation may have found its way into the article. You know, eventually. From the Commercial Appeal:
His voice breaking and fighting to hold back tears, a contrite John Ford asked forgiveness Monday from his family, the public, and foremost, from the judge who holds his future in his hands.
“I accept the jury’s verdict. And I take full, total and complete responsibility for my action,” the once powerful state senator said in a hushed yet direct voice.
Speaking from a podium 10 feet away, Ford looked directly into the face of U.S. District Judge J. Daniel Breen, who will issue a sentence this morning, and told of the pain, embarrassment and humiliation he’s endured since his 2005 indictment followed by his conviction in April on a single bribery count.
“These past two years have been the most difficult in my entire life,” he said as friends and family were heard sniffling, some openly sobbing. “It has taken a lot to hold myself and my family together. I don’t even know how I’ve been able to sustain myself. …
“As I pray for forgiveness from God, I want to ask you for your understanding and whatever compassion you would have — not for me in particular but for those seven children I’m obligated to support.”
Under federal sentencing rules, a defendant can reduce his time in prison by accepting responsibility, and Ford’s statements to the court were judged nothing less than eloquent and heartfelt by supporters.
Yet he still may face an uphill battle — and possibly up to 10 years in prison — when Breen rules.
Weighing heavily in the calculation of the sentence is a decision expected from Breen on how much of Ford’s illicit conduct to hold against him.
Ford was convicted of taking $55,000 in bribes during the FBI’s undercover Tennessee Waltz sting, and prosecutors want the judge to consider each $5,000 cash payment he took as a separate bribe. Under sentencing rules, Ford would get points toward a stiffer sentence if he took multiple bribes.
Breen said he’ll rule early in today’s hearing on that request as well as a second request by the government to give Ford more points for accepting a $70,000 Rolex watch from real estate developer Rusty Hyneman. Prosecutors have called the watch a bribe, while the defense maintains Ford and Hyneman simply swapped watches.
Defense lawyer Michael Scholl expressed frustration as Monday’s hearing got underway about a presentence report done by the local probation office that recommends a stiff sentence. Although Ford has no prior convictions, Scholl said the confidential report recommends an offense level of at least 36 — which translates into a sentence of 15 to 19 years, according to federal sentencing tables.
Ford couldn’t possibly get a sentence that high because the maximum for bribery is 10 years.
“The presentence report reads like an FBI file,” Scholl complained. “I’ve got a man who has no record whatsoever. I’ve never seen anything like that since I’ve been practicing.”
Other factors boosting Ford’s points include the indisputable fact that he was an elected official — the law goes tougher for those in positions of trust and responsibility — and the hotly disputed claim that he obstructed justice. Prosecutors say Breen should consider alleged threats Ford made against FBI operatives during the investigation; Scholl says the judge shouldn’t because Ford was acquitted of those charges.
Determined Ford should pay for those actions, prosecutors replayed audio tapes on which Ford talks harshly to an FBI agent and an informant and allegedly threatens to shoot them. “I got a gun. I’ll just shoot you dead,” Ford said in a secretly taped February 2005 meeting with an informant he suspected was cooperating with the FBI.
Ford won a victory when prosecutors said they won’t try to stiffen the former senator’s sentence by asking Breen to consider charges that Ford took kickbacks from two state healthcare contractors. Ford faces six corruption charges in Nashville in connection with those allegations, and Asst. U.S. Atty. Tim DiScenza said he’ll let the court there resolve that matter.
Even then, Ford may be looking at an offense level of 29, which translates into a sentence of seven to nine years.
Trying to chip away at the total, Scholl called 14 character witnesses Monday, including Ford’s daughter and sister and two former legislative colleagues, who described Ford as a loving family man and effective lawmaker who’s done much for the community.
Yet the testimony of a couple of those witnesses appeared to backfire.
Ford’s close friend, former City of Memphis treasurer Osbie Howard, asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination when prosecutor DiScenza asked him if he had made a false statement to the FBI. DiScenza asserted that Howard may have made a false statement in April regarding Ford’s tax returns. A certified public accountant, Howard often prepared Ford’s federal returns.
The hearing climaxed when Ford stood before the judge and pleaded for mercy. Ford said he’s done much for the community but never took any bribes before. “I never had one person to ever ask for anything,” he said.
He made mistakes, he acknowledged, and one was trusting the undercover FBI agent who paid him cash for his influence. “I trusted (him). I thought people would always tell you the truth,” he said.
Ford said he was disgusted with his behavior on undercover tapes that showed him bragging, cursing and stuffing cash in his pockets: “During that trial I was completely offended with myself, just completely ashamed of myself.”
His biggest mistake of all?
“You know the worst thing about it,” he told the judge. ” I talk too much.”
Unfortunately, the Commercial Appeal’s only coverage of the Sen Larry Craig story comes from the AP, which introduces the latest — Craig’s denial that he is gay — thus:
A defiant Sen. Larry Craig denied any wrongdoing Tuesday despite his guilty plea this summer in a men’s room police sting, emphatically adding, “I am not gay. I have never been gay.”
Craig, a third-term senator from Idaho, proclaimed his innocence as well as his sexuality less than an hour after Senate leaders from his own Republican Party called for an ethics committee review of his case.
“This is a serious matter,” they said in Washington in a written statement that offered neither support nor criticism of the conservative senator.
A bit of compare and contrast. For what it’s worth.
Which is probably not much. After all, a teensy little discrepancy in standards for what prompts mention of party affiliation in stories of government corruption is not really all that important. I mean, it’s not like we’ve noticed a trend or anything, right?
Besides, Ford was just taking bribes and making threats to shoot people. Whereas Larry Craig? — he brushed his gay foot up against some cop hoping for a little bit of porcelain seat lovin.
Burn him, I say.
So that, you know, we can get back to the real issues, like the mess that is Iraq.
Thanks to Juliette for the CA link.
“I mean, it’s not like we’ve noticed a trend or anything, right?”
Here’s a report of a DUI. Party not identified. How would I go about identifying a narrative, i mean, trend here. Is this enough to invade on?
Snort.
Go back to writing about the nuance necessary to believe Craig isn’t a hypocrite. Darleen can help with that one, she has the requisite delusions.
I’m sorry, but that is just one data point. You need a lot more to prove any media bias when reporting party affiliation of politicians accused or convicted of crimes.
How many? About one hundred more than you can find should do it.
[…] Don’t call it a trackback. Posted by Karl @ 8:37 pm | Trackback Share […]
The Smoking Gun is not a mainstream media organization, markel. It is mainstream media practices which are under discussion here (and in the other post).
Here’s the AP version courtesy of the Indianapolis Star.
Two things:
1) There is an indirect mention of party affiliation (his father is now a chairman of the DLC)
2) In the CA story, he’s remorseful, fighting back tears. Not so in the AP version.
Ooh. W got a DUI before he held public office. And it’s an official record, not a news report.
The prog-trolls are really taking the summer off.
Swapping 70K watches and swapping bodily fluids ….ain’t this grand .
These AP stories include Ford’s party affiliation.
“I’m sorry, but that is just one data point”
Now I have two. Two points make a line no?
“How many? About one hundred more than you can find should do it.”
That wouldn’t do either. What would do would be to take a random sample and add it up, comparing republicans and democrats. Probably controlling for how often each side appeared total. Or one could try to change expectations, definitions and narratives so that the null hypothesis becomes the fact that there IS a trend.
OK, I’m convinced. Who’s running the parodies named “markel” and “heet”?
In geometry, yes.
heet —
Tell you what, I’ll go back to doing what you tell me to go back to doing just as soon as you piss off entirely.
I know, it’s counterintuitive. But what’s say we give it a go, anyway?
Baldilocks: A point of clarification, The Smoking Gun is owned by Court TV. That is pretty mainstream.
Paroides? Hoo-boy. I’m going to give it to you straight. You are way behind the curve on this Craig thing. The guy is out the door, pushed out by your fellow patriots. Don’t get left holding the bag or you’ll look even more like delusional dead-enders than usual.
It may be mainstream but it’s not a *Mainstream Media* organization, i.e. a daily news/opinion source. It’s a document source.
OK, now the spoofer’s gone too far. Surely someone capable of citing the scientific method would have the brains to tell the difference between official reports and press reports.
Right?
Or is markel just that dishonest?
“The Smoking Gun is not a mainstream media organization, markel. ”
Oh. I see. Sorry I’m new at this trend business. So here’s CBS’s wrong story on the fake bush documents. Back when they thought they had nailed that republican! No hits for “republican” or “gop” in the article.
markel —
Try sticking to the mainstream press.
As I noted in the other thread, I’m amazed, really, how difficult it’s been to get people to say, simply, that there should be a single standard — which would at the very least deflect away from any appearance of bias or impropriety on the part of the news organizations.
Instead, people like heet and markel keep throwing out the red herrings or the tu toques.
Why, it’s almost as if they were trying to defend a certain practice that they won’t admit even exists by quite clearly avoiding the simple, equitable solution to what, at the very least, is a problem with perception.
He placed first in the discus.
What I find remarkable is that even though your point has been proven several times now, your detractors cannot see it and will not see it.
BTW, does Senator Craig’s behavior remind anyone else here of that classic scene in Brain Candy where Scott Thompson is telling his therapist he isn’t gay?
What the fuck are you talking about? I’ve already said he should be out, for being an idiot if nothing else.
“Surely someone capable of citing the scientific method would have the brains to tell the difference between official reports and press reports.”
Its not just an official report. Its also a write up. They write stories, and executeeditorial judgment. You’re really going to pick on this?
Doing so would require intellectual honesty and the willingness to surrender a number of cherished myths.
You mean like actus’ — er, markel’s — example from CBS?
You see, they didn’t identify President Bush’s party affiliation, instead preferring to call him “one of the two candidates.” Between that and the smoking gun reports, Markel has laid waste to our collective efforts.
Nothing to see here, boys. Move along.
ALL YOUR NARRATIVE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ARE BELONG TO US!
Are you really going to stand by it?
Why not just say, “yes, there should be one, common standard for when, where, and how to give a politician’s party affiliation”? What’s your objection to that? Wouldn’t having such a standard — and sticking to it — avoid even the appearance of a double standard?
I mean, fer crissake, how many times have we heard about the “appearance of impropriety” from the press? Shouldn’t they be held to the same standards they have for others?
Being punished for accusations not proven at trial?
What, do they think he’s a rethuglican?
Tell you what, though, Markel. Go find in the Smoking Gun examples where the party affiliations of Dems were included, while in similar write ups, the affiliation of Repubs wasn’t, and you’ll have something to take up with them.
But do it elsewhere, if you don’t mind. I’m not requiring you to show your work here.
markel,
These are pretty simple concepts.
CBS is a news source. Smoking Gun is a document source. A news source often uses documents to bolster or, in the case of CBS’s laughably amateur Rathergate documents, trash its credibility, but that doesn’t make them a document source.
P.S. Anyone who has been in the military–like me–can spot fake military persons/documents pretty easily.
“Why, it’s almost as if they were trying to defend a certain practice that they won’t admit even exists by quite clearly avoiding the simple, equitable solution to what, at the very least, is a problem with perception.”
I said before of course the same standard should apply. Now I know the standard is for the mainstream media only, and that it might not apply to things people did before they held public office. But I’ll apply it wider than that.
Does CBS count? Or does it not count if the audience already knows the affiliation? Or if it turns out later to not have been a scandal?
Oh, and just so we’re clear: Ford, in Fact, is a Democrat.
I did find subsequent write-ups of the conviction, in which Ford’s party affiliation was identified by the end of the sixth or seventh paragraph. So maybe some progress is being made.
Hell, Name That Party is a regular feature over at Don Surber’s. You might get an allusion to membership in the Donks ‘long about ‘graph 23 or so…if you’re lucky.
Yes, there is a problem with perception. You refuse to perceive Craig’s gay romp as hypocritical. In a recently yanked Romney campaign video he says he supports Romney because he has “very strong family values. That’s something I grew up with and believe in.” The Republican party consistently opposes rights for gays, this makes his affiliation important. Whinging about the liberal media is a horribly transparent attempt to distract your loving yesboys.
“. Go find in the Smoking Gun examples where the party affiliations of Dems were included,”
Here’s a democrat DUI. Party identified — unlike bush and cheney — plus family. But I think you see the point that this tit for tat don’t work.
“Smoking Gun is a document source. ”
They have reporters and editors. They’re clearly news media. And would clearly qualify as such in court. Wouldn’t you think?
Look at Markel toss the red herrings about!
That’s not what I said. It just happens to be that that’s who I’m discussing, so your offering competing “evidence” from other arenas is like handing me a cantaloupe when I asked you for a bowling ball, only to have you justify it by saying that both can be used to knock down pins.
Find a deviation from standards at the Smoking Gun, start up a blog, and RUN WITH THE STORY, baby!
Now, now, Rob. You are asking the press/media to treat themselves as any other industry group with an agenda that needs to be lobbied and promoted in press releases and pressure brought on public officials.
For shame, Rob. Don’t you know that they are the unappointed unelected unregulated Fourth Branch of government answerable only to themselves?
Fucking retarded telephone pole
“Look at Markel toss the red herrings about!”
Almost. My point is to get get you off this idea of just listing these links. Because thats not how we would go about finding out if there was a trend. Because how does one compare a story or 3 or 4 that I find, even if some are about precisely the same crime/wrongdoing? Control for time spent searching? Control for how many scandals ARE occuring? How is this supposed to work? Telling stories and making narratives?
You refuse to perceive Craig’s gay romp as hypocritical.
Here, honey, here’s a wonderful little article on the meaning of the word “hypocritical.”
Hint: it’s not a synonym for “inconsistent,” “weak,” or “a sinner”:
In other words, the reason we’re not all up in arms screaming “hypocrisy” is that the charge of hypocrisy is used only by people who don’t have any moral standards to begin with.
Oops! Did I say that out loud?
So it’s settled. If the left-wing wants fair and balanced talk radio, then we should get fair and balanced reporting of party affiliation.
It’s only fair.
If you can’t find a similar DUI report on a Republican with affiliation mentioned, you have a valid complaint against The Smoking Gun’s reporting standards.
I think you should take it up with them, markel.
This has been dealt with ad naseum, heet, but you’re simply going to have to define “rights for gays” that are opposed by the Republican Party. If it’s gay marriage, you can look to Bill and Hillary, John and John, etc., on the other side of the aisle. And Craig wasn’t trying to marry anyone in the next stall.
Similarly, I never commented on the “hypocrisy” of what Craig did or didn’t do in my post, because my post wasn’t about that. I didn’t know Craig, didn’t know if he was married, didn’t know anything about his platforms, etc.
And unlike you, I don’t have a cartoon in my head that I’m forced to adhere to wherein all Republicans are the same, and so can be judged using the same criteria. Many people who post here favor same sex marriage. Others like me favor civil unions. We reject the idea that there is anything “anti-gay” about the Republican party, which, for voting purposes, has included in recent years centrist Dems, libertarians, paleocons, social cons, and independents.
Incidentally, “Whinging” about the liberal media (and God, do I love it when all the libs begin sharing each other’s words! What’s next? “Wanker”?) wasn’t meant to distract anyone from anything. It’s not like I hid anything that Craig is accused of doing, is it? If anything, your insistence that I discuss something not particularly germane to my post is the real bit of distraction.
Go make yourself a fucking blog, heet, and screech on and on about how the WINGERS WHING without FACING THE HYPOCRISY!
But I don’t answer to you, and as I’ve said a thousand times now, if you don’t like what’s written here, I wish you’d just leave rather than sticking around complaining every day like a whiny little bitch with no place else to go.
markel:
Yer killin’ me. You pull up a CBS article from 2004 and notice that CBS doesn’t mention Bush’s party affiliation. In 2004. While he’s a sitting president. Running for re-election.
Well, I noticed that they didn’t mention Sen. Kerry’s party affiliation either, and they persisted in withholding the fact that water is wet. Bastages!
Is this for related to Harold Ford Jr. ?
Markel just wants the fairness doctrine micro-instituted onto Protein Wisdom. See, it’s not so bad, just do what the little fascist says and nobody gets hurt!
I don’t know why eveyrone is caterwauling about this non-story. After all, Bush and company would have had you believe that TERRI SCHIAVO WAS GOING TO GET UP AND WALK!!
Sorry, I was channeling John Cole for a second.
I don’t rightly know. Howsabout you develop a metric and test it out, then report back.
Meantime, I’ll just have to go with what I see, because it’s the best evidence I can muster at this point. All anecdotal, but the links sure are adding up.
geek – It was not Schiavo that was going to walk, it was Christopher Reeve that was going to walk again if Kerry/Edwards won.
That’s so fucking MANLY! Also, quit trying to drum up traffic to your bloviating blog by starting whiny bitch blogwars with better blogs.
Jeff G – don’t let him fool you. Markel has no intention of actually looking at this objectively. It is simply going to be contrary to the natural assumptions one would draw from experience. Actus, but more verbose.
sheet-head – Please remove your dick from the sheep, quit using the chocolate butt plug as a pacifier, and re-insert your head into your rectum. You are far more tolerable when we do not hear from you for a few days.
“That’s so fucking MANLY! Also, quit trying to drum up traffic to your bloviating blog by starting whiny bitch blogwars with better blogs.”
The sound of a flea, realizing its impotence, yet refusing to believe it
Or, more accurately describing heet: an intellectually incurious child, proven once again by his oh-so-stinging rejoinder up above.
Though, given the previously described theories of manliness, since heet was the first to bring up manliness, I suspect him of holding the most “teh ghey” among us here.
And since I thought heet was a fool before his gheyity… gheyosity?… was displayed, and I still think so now… I think that makes me homophobic.
Still, a small price to pay for the continued knowledge that I am smarter than heet.
A very ghey-hating kind of smarter, but whaddayagunna do, eh?
See? Now there you go again, heet, telling me what to do. tsk tsk tsk.
And listen to you squeal! Tell you what. I’m going to make it simple for you to spend time at those other, better blogs.
Take care of yourself now, you hear?
You racists are only using this story and the Vick story as examples to make fun of the black man, to keep him down. You Klan types hype every article about the brothers, ignoring that your morally bankrupt theokkkrats are out sucking the cock in bath houses.
I’m not sure I understand Craig’s alleged crime. Since when is it illegal to solicit gay sex?
As for hypocrisy in politicians, I think it is rather foolish to care about it at all. Political ideals ought to be evaluated on their merits, not the character of their proponents. Even the heir to the throne of the kingdom of hypocrites can rightly extol democracy.
OHNOES – There are soggy steaming piles of goose shite in my back yard that are significantly more smart than heet.
Oh and my dos centavos on his explanation and/or excuses:
The “wide stance” reason/excuse…I think it’s classic. I bet it would have been believable if that were all, but then you have the whole reaching-around-the-divider stuff.
And then staring into the stall at the cop… That’s just creepy! Can’t a guy drop a deuce?
I thought we agreed that hypocrisy would be the standard. There’s no hypocrisy involved in being a Democrat and taking bribes.
Oh, hell. There’s no hypocrisy involved in being any sort of a politician and taking bribes.
In fact, there’s no hypocrisy involved in being a politician and humping a male prostitute costumed as Uncle Sam in the middle of Pennsylvannia Avenue, while tripping on acid, and shouting, “Allahu Akbar!”
But I might be biased.
Better blogs? BETTER BLOGS? Where? And why is this secret being kept from me by t3h p0Wurz dat be? Seriously, I am totally amazed at the hypocritical perfidy of the Green Party. They are so…..outre.
“Oh I’m a lumberjack and”…well, you know the song.
“Can’t a guy drop a deuce?”
Yeah, I don’t need Fred Astaire doing his thing in the next stall. I’m trying to concentrate here.
Ok, Markel & Heet, let’s turn this around a bit.
Could you conduct a statistically rigorous study showing that FoxNews is, in fact, a conservative news network? Please log the total of all stories reported on, how many political stories are slanted in a conservative direction, how many in a liberal direction and how many are neutral. (A focus group of, say, 100 independent voters could be used to determine how a story is reported). Then compare the percentage of stories FoxNews slants in a particular direction to the percentages slanted by CNN, MSNBC and the broadcast news shows.
If you can’t provide us this data, than the left’s claims that Fox is conservative are baseless and utter worthless.
Alternatively, people can just believe their own lying F’ing eyes.
Markel: You can’t be that dense or that intellectually dishonest. So how much does Soros pay you to disrupt center-right discussions? Is it like a job or are you doing it for the progressive cause?
Dang. That DUI is really going to hurt George W. Bush’s re-election chances.
Except that it didn’t. Twice.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*whew*
*snicker*
“Sorry, you are on the fringe, not me.”
Uh huh. Whatever helps you sleep better at night, heet. Clearly, Jeff and his reckless, insane crusade to shame the media into consistently identifying the party affiliation of politicians suspected to be involved in scandals puts him clearly on “the fringe”. It must be so, after all, because not one of you clowns can bring yourselves to agree that the oh-so-objective media should adhere to this common-sense policy.
No, no, you all assure us — the prominence of party affiliation in an article must be directly proportional to the HYPOCRISY!!! of the alleged perp’s behavior. And who gets to determine what qualifies as hypocrisy? Why, the members of the media and their wildly unpopular far-left liberal ideology, of course!
“No, it’s because you are barking mad fuckwits with zero influence on events.”
Then why expend so much time here, heet? Are you just friendless? A sociopath? Do you really expect us to consider you anything other than impotent when you choose to squander a major part of your life embarrassing yourself in an online forum where no one likes or appreciates you?
Why, that’s about the saddest thing I’ve ever seen.
Apparently the Commercial Appeal’s bias in favor of Democrats is so strong that they launched an investigation of Ford that led to his indictment for fraud, in order to hide their bias:
The 23-page indictment there charges Ford with wire fraud and depriving citizens of their right to receive honest services from a public official.
The indictment alleges that Ford was paid $800,000 for “purported consulting services†performed for TennCare contractors Doral Dental and OmniCare, an HMO now known as UAHC Health Plan.
————————————–
The case stems from a 2005 investigation by The Commercial Appeal that found Ford had failed to publicly disclose $237,000 he received from a shell company in Pennsylvania.
Sorry: Link.
And now for the parody of the leftist trolls:
No Democrat is *evah* a hypocrite. After all, we’re *progressives*. For you stupid conservatives, progressive means *progress*. We’ve left criminality behind in the dust with all other traits of socialization that the ebil white male heteronormative patriarchy has created. Just look at Kennedy, McKinney, Ford (a man whose name *screams* white male heteronormative oppression, and all the nicey-nice librul Democrats. After all, we *all* know the sex scandals are only on *your* side , right? Giggity, Giggity, awright!
The real ideas: WTF? Republican does wrong and his affiliation is splashed all over creation. Democrat does wrong, and NOT ONE MENTION? Screw the idiots who say there’s no liberal bias.
“Is this Ford related to Harold Ford Jr.?”
Yep. There’s a ton of crooked Tennessee Ford’s. Not Ernie, though. I don’t think he’s related.
After a thorough examination of that link I remain appalled that a Green Party member would engage in such heinous behavior. Are you getting a clue yet?
Did anyon else notice on Dubya’s arrest card at the smoking gun in markels first post that the birthdate is 07/06/76 making GW 2 months old when he was arrested?
heet, you stick around because you’re a fucking loon, and not a terribly bright one at that.
Sit down, have a pudding cup, and shut the fuck up.
This has nothing to do with the Commercial Appeal and it’s necessary leanings, Hubris. It has to do with standards and consistency, and is meant as a follow-up to yesterday’s post.
Get with the program.
Hmmmm, the second Bush article and the Chaney artical that link from markels link both mention party…… just sayin’. With the one dem in the link at #34 it’s still a 2:1 ratio. Hmmmmmmm…
Wait… type slower. I’m still having a hard time figuring out how a smokescreen fucks.
Howsabout you develop a metric and test it out, then report back.
In two or three years.
Think Thorough, markel.
I should also point out, to be fair, that the Commercial Appeal might just have assumed that the party affiliation was known by those in Tennessee.
Still, they have a web presence, so the story can go national, which means that they should probably adopt a policy that either includes party affiliation in such stories or excludes it.
I was contemplating that maybe it’s a good policy to always identify, up front, the race, religion, and political affiliation of anyone cited in the news. But why?
I agree that Repubs are more prominently identified in reports of moral turpitude. I also sense that more of thise reports (on both sides) are coming out, so to speak. (An impression only; no research involved.)
What strikes me as profoundly sad is the fact that these politicians (you can argue their fucked-upness) get sucked into the giant sausage machine that is the marriage of the spasmodic internet with the wavering MSM. They are constantly trying to cancel each other out, left and right alike, at the expense of any and everything.
Doesn’t matter what I think of his behavior or fitness to do his job (doubtful), I find the rapid, politically expedient reactions to be the most disruptive. It truly is a battle for not so much the narrative, but for attention. Which is transient, and is all we have left.
I hope Craig’s family is doing OK. What a shitty thing to be put through, by any side or at any level.
As with Jeff Lebowski’s car finally getting ruined, so goes Jeff Goldstein’s wit in comment #41.
So much potential, such a great mind, and yet not able to muster more than a Carlos Mencia level retort.
My God Sir, what have they done to you?
Lickskillet Tennessee is, I believe, where Robert Ford fled to escape publicity after he shot Jesse James in the back.
The dirty little coward.
I posted this in Karl’s pub thread (and I am going to cross post at Ace’s) but this “Guess they party” is a bit of a beaut
AP – nowhere does it describe party affiliation-
back-grounder
According to an FBI affidavit made public in March, Phipps and Stipe frequently made illegal campaign contributions through other people, called straw donors.
Those people would give money to political campaigns under their own names but were reimbursed by Stipe or Phipps, the FBI document alleges.
Phipps’ accountant, Rita Benson, previously told The Oklahoman she was given money by Phipps for her $3,200 contribution to McMahan’s 2002 campaign.
all Democrats – in fact I think Phipps, a former state ofice holder, has already been convicted of the “Straw donor” thing…and isn’t “Straw Donor” sitch what that lawyer did in Edward’s campaign, and what is suspected in Hillary’s today?
http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/articles/2007/08/28/news/state/news130.txt
Jeff
–I should also point out, to be fair, that the Commercial Appeal might just have assumed that the party affiliation was known by those in Tennessee.–
I wondered, but peeps can’t find the US on a map (such as) so I don’t think that cuts it – especially given that Harold Ford is a face and leader of the democratic party – ANY former GOP state politician with a prominent son or daughter as high profile as Harrold, would be front page on the NYT’s
” For those who ask, I stick around because I am incredibly curious about the kinds of people who would defend these twits and obfuscate their actions. The delusion, self loathing, and petty vindictiveness are truly awe-inspiring. ”
Not to mention the projection…
“No. If he doesn’t get enough traffic, he gets all emo, alludes to quitting, and all the fluffers here beg him not to. That’s much more annoying than the periodic blogbait.”
So I guess we owe you a big “merci beaucoup” for sticking around to drive up traffic.
Well, to start with, they made me gay.
It never ceases to amaze me how much those on the Left really despise us.
Given the pattern of identifying party affiliation, wouldn’t “a man with close ties to Republican officials” be identified as a Republican if he were not, say, a Democrat?
must not click listen
–obfuscate–
Liberals way over use this word, it’s so fucking stupid.
You get the felling they can’t afford a thesaurus or something such as the South Africans or Iraqi’s and only parrot the “buzz” words they fed to them from their
cult leadersindependent thinking Townhouse bloggers.Glad to hear from Cynn, if it isn’t too boot-licky, I always find you bring level-headed oxygen to any discussion.
Which, could someone get me a tank of that? I have a fever, and need to go to bed.
Happy
I light of all the past (it’s NOT a trend) of hiding Democrat affiliation, I think it’s funny the prudish press needed to affiliate the anonymous source even.
But then we learned with the Libby trial the press really lies about their sources. However, I am firm that this came from the GOP – and Rove and Gonzo’s departure was straight from the admin and with big fan fare that has the press core chasing their tail and scratching their heads
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5533.html
Leftwing yellowbellies live in a fascinating construct that changes as fast as the one in the Matrix. Too bad all the psychotherapists are stuck in this same place!
Question: I wonder if libs hate their conscience as much as they hate religion?
Question: Anyone think Rosie has her angry bloat on because of all this homophobia?
Question: Where would YOU feel more comfortable?
1. Taking a dump in Craig’s double-stall home bathroom.
2. Chillin on Barney Frank’s[D-MA : )] sofa bed.
BTW… both have quilted “eco-friendly” toilet paper & wet wipes.
Dr. Michael Reece: Well, uh, I think you can tap your foot in, a, numerous ways depending upon what you want to achieve. The … the notion of foot tapping within a space where two people might be seeking to have sexual interactions with one another, uh, really is a ritual that developed out of the need for some sense of privacy. Uh, if you think about two people sitting side by side in a public restroom, uh, the only visible part of the body would be the foot. Uh, it’s a silent, uh, way of letting someone next to you know that you’re uh, maybe there for reasons other than, uh, what the space is intended for.
…I think one of the important things to point out here is that there’s no need for mass panic…
If you assert that the “descriptive double standard” you referenced yesterday is independent of allegations of bias, accepted.
In the subject case, however, there doesn’t appear to be strong evidence of a double standard–the alleged contrast is with an AP story identifying GOP party affiliation; the AP stories I cited above identify Ford’s party affiliation.
I should also point out, to be fair, that the Commercial Appeal might just have assumed that the party affiliation was known by those in Tennessee.
A fair point. Also, Ford was identified as a Democrat five times in these Commercial Appeal stories.
BTWx2… both are NOT gay! : |
: )
Jeff, it’s obvious why they’re gunning for you tonight: they thought they had something to cheer about with Larry Craig’s guilty plea, and you pissed in their corn flakes.
Like a fucking Clydesdale.
Someone needs to pay CREW back for their Soros dumpster diving – I’d donate to a fund dedicated to following around Melenaie Sloan and the Ship of Crew around with a video camera morning, noon and night ala Soros -George Allen — any takers? Video camera in the public bathroom wherever Melanie pees, catch her pathetically mistreat her nanny or some such if it happened (she worked for Conyers – he charged his staff to raise his children – apples don’t fall far)
I’d actually prefer to donate to this vs. a candidate.
I’m not sure I get you, cynn. Wouldn’t the expedient reaction be to immediately resign so that this episode might be more transient?
If he doesn’t have a robust defense to offer, I’m not sure what he can possibly be hoping to accomplish that won’t embiggen the story.
Oh flicker – Hubris (again – way over used word by Liberals – I thought they were the imaginative party) – you’re all hung up – early stages- see the here https://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=182
and commense your debunking.
Heet – WTF do you mean that Republicans consistently oppose ‘rights’ for gay persons? Since when did one’s bedroom preferences confer ‘rights’ upon one?
And, in any event, I don’t think Republicans generally oppose gay rights, I think they generally oppose gay preferences. A subtle but important distinction.
Probably one you don’t get.
Isn’t this just throwing down the Gary Hart gauntlet? How long before “man with close ties to Republican officials”‘s silhouette is on 60 minutes talking in the creepy voice distortion?
Happy – I largely agree, but I am pasting a comment I left at JOM – I will not be one wit surprised if Craig leaps ala Vitter in the polls now (and recall, Clinton’s numbers went up with prying sex life scandal)
———Ok – this is pretty funny – out doing some errands, listening to AP radio news — they present the Craig story and then say there are a few disappointed Idahoans (is it that or Idahoians?) — let’s listen to what one had to say –long pregnant pause –“I guess it’s disappointing – not real clear on his record but I think he’s been good for Idaho” — announcer comes on “but still there a few who sympathize with the Senator” – “I can’t speak for all in Idaho, but I certainly feel bad for him and think most in Idaho are sympathetic and it will ultimately be forgotten because of all the really good things he’s done for Idaho”
Paraphrasing of course, but the “disappointed” Idaho person didn’t really quite capture what AP was angling for – is that the best they could find?——–
Oh. Well, the zeitgeist hasn’t been returning my calls lately, so you could be right. I like your way better.
Independent of allegations of violence in this case, sure. Like I said, I had only the AP report published in the same paper to compare it to.
But in general? No, I think there’s a descriptive double standard that is, in fact, tied into bias — oftentimes tied into placement of party affiliation.
I think they generally oppose gay preferences. A subtle but important distinction.
Amen. However, if gays community had there way, swiping the under stall in a bathroom or tapping a foot would not be illegal — might need to re-think GOP strateegery, since Liberals criminalize everything.
“I think one of the important things to point out here is that there’s no need for mass panic…”
Never fear. President Bush just issued the following statement:
These acts of sexual depravity violate the fundamental tenets of foot-tapping. And its important for my fellow Americans to understand that. The face of sexual depravity is not the true face of foot tapping. That’s not what foot tapping is all about. Foot tapping is peace. These sexual perverts don’t represent peace. They represent cock sucking.
When we think of foot tapping we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that’s made brothers and sisters out of every race. Out of every race.
America counts millions of foot tappers amongst our citizens, and foot tappers make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Foot tappers are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.
Women who tap their feet in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear tap shoes must not be intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.
I’ve been told that some fear to tap; some don’t want to dance for their families; some don’t want to go about their ordinary daily soft shoe routines because, by wearing taps, they’re afraid they’ll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.
Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.
This is a great country. It’s a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and tapping feet. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They’re outraged, they’re sad. They love foot tapping just as much as I do.
I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. And may Fred Astaire bless us all.
I thought we agreed that hypocrisy would be the standard.
Uh, no, everyone with more than six braincells to rub together thought that was the most retarded idea we’d ever heard, for the many unrefuted reasons discussed in small words for you on the other thread.
Let’s address the “local paper assumes the reader knows” argument, because it comes up all the time.
First, as Jeff notes, the Internet makes the local global.
Second, the AP has left out Ford’s “D” in the past also.
Next, let’s address the “two points make a line” nonsense. There are at least 20 examples listed on PW; that’s ten times two, for the math-challenged. And as noted above Don Surber has an entire category on his blog entitled “Name That Party” which catalogs stories where party affiliation is missing or buried. He’s even got comparison posts of contemporaneous scandals.
Thenn let’s address the “but __________ identified him as a Democrat in some other story.” The claim is not that the MSM in every instance omits the “D.” Rather, it is that when the MSM omits party affiliation it is more often a “D” than an “R.” So when you have more than 20 examples of Republicans not identified as such by the MSM, get back to us.
He always knows what to say when I need to know that everything is going to be ok.
“Uh, no, everyone with more than six braincells to rub together thought that was the most retarded idea we’d ever heard, for the many unrefuted reasons discussed in small words for you on the other thread.”
I was attempting to be humorous. If you go back and read what I said in the other thread, I was one of the ones who disagreed with the hypocrisy standard. My position is that affiliation should be included for all politicians in all stories, negative or positive.
Pow! It just hit me: Bender admitted that I have more than six brain cells to rub together!
lol
Thanks karl– because when me Jane see an “A” and then a “P” next to each other me thinks of wire cable communications that comes from me wheel that made that pony express thing.
Hubris (again – way over used word by Liberals – I thought they were the imaginative party)
Interesting–can you point out something in my comments that marks me as liberal? Perhaps newspapers don’t need to point out affiliation for anyone, since the markers are so readily apparent. Ask JD about what an ardent leftist partisan I am.
Incidentally, since I’m an American I’m precluded from even the possibility of being in the “Liberal party.”
you’re all hung up – early stages- see the here https://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=182
and commense your debunking.
Why would I do that? I’m not invested in debunking a theory. I was pointing out where its application was, in my view, strained.
In general, I would say local papers have a natural tendency to play up “in your FACE” party identification in a way that caters to their audience (incidentally, this paper is sold here). I have a higher expectation of consistency for a national news source.
Oh, sorry, wrong room. Thought this was the Mensa meeting….
–Incidentally, since I’m an American —
Yeah, I used that one when Liberals were calling me a fascist or nazi – but hey? cute try- shoe, foot and all that.
———–
oh man  Glenn Greenwald is feverishly consulting Townhouse to respond to this spank
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/2d8c0ffa-b168-40af-9c49-160bb9b2f6ba
AKA – Liberal religious bigots/ haters should – and will it looks like – be treated the same as Homophobe’s – which looks to be the Dem party too – so? good stuff, good stuff.
For the record, markel–I don’t think you want to get in a sampling, regression, or econometrics argument with me. So leave off on the pseudo-statistician crap.
Jeff’s case is base on actual observations. And it’s a trend that I’ve been observing since the Abscam days. There are REAMS of studies that confirm a left-leaning bias in the media. Start here: Groseclose and Milyo, Quarterly Journal of Economics November 2005, Vol. 120, No. 4: 1191-1237….and then get back to us.
And cynn, stick your head in the blender and hit “puree.”
uhohs. cynn? Say something…
Cynn – Mensa circle jerks daily at dogswamp – your mistake. We still love you though.
I’m thankful for the AP as it’s help me understand gay folk. Having grown up in the arts community, I’ve had many gay friends and took them at their word that their condition was natural and genetic. Being gay was a normal outcome and something we’ve tought our kids is a normal condition that some people simply become. While I didn’t personally aspire to hit on other dudes (and appreciated the male-to-female ratio my gay friends enabled), I respected their nature and individual choice.
To my dismay, the wise people at the AP have explained that gays are perverts, sex-fiends and deviant sicko losers. They can’t help but accost another person in a public bathroom stall, seeking perverse sex. To be gay is to be obsessed with sex, and worse yet, ANAL sex. Gay men are incapable of anything but fantasies about screwing other men, anywhere, anytime. God forbid you walk into a public restroom with one and tap your foot, or send instant messages to one saying he’s cute. That’s the mark of a deviant to be exposed and ridiculed. To be gay is to be a sex-obsessed pervert.
Guess I’ve gotten a lot wrong…
thanks redherkey
Knowledge is press power!
someone at Ace sorta raise an interesting question – seeing as the charges come down to feet tapping and foundling stall bottoms – he seems to wonder what his defenses are and thought arming himself with a camera to document might not be allowed- invasion of privacy.
UM RODNEY KING
I said he could thank the likes of Mike Rogers and Glenn Greenwald- but cameras are your only weapon, especially in a court of law – so here it boys – start enforcing Greenwald’s campaign to rid the world of casual tapping – start filming all men in bathrooms – every fricken tap, film the sideways looks, Licking lips? DEFINITE solicitation- everything they do. You need to protect yourselves. It will ensure Greenwald’s dream of puritanical relationships are seen everywhere!
topsecret – In my experience, Hubris is as level headed as they come, and far from a liberal. Actually, in general, Hubris and Jeff would likely agree way more often than they would disagree. If someone could be described as playing things down the center, I would say that he does.
The Gleeeeeeeeeens are mental midgets. Or should that be a singular form, midget.
The Gleeeeeens most recent rant was a real doozie. Wow. Just, wow.
JD, you’re just jealous of Glenn Greenwald, the famous Constitutional Scholar, because of his meteoric rise to blogging prominence after only nine months online, the fact that he’s a bestselling author, that his blog posts have led to major articles in some of the nation’s most prominent newspapers, and since his posts have been read on the Senate floor.
GOOD DAY, SIR!
Maybe they do, actually, have something to cheer about. I see this point of Jeff’s as being only related to the extent that the trend that he’s noting applies.
Why they’d be cheering, in this sort of situation, is beyond my ken. It’s not as if Craig was caught taking large sums of money in exchange for government services, after all.
From my point of view, if he’s soliciting sex in a public restroom, he’s either got personal problems that (to my way of looking at it) make him unfit for office, or he’s lost whatever sense of propriety he might have had, and is thus unfit for office. It’d be nice if our representatives didn’t manifest some mix of our worst behaviors, wouldn’t it?
That aside, it appears an earlier observation I made still holds: there’s no prudes like closet prudes.
Comment by heet on 8/28 @ 5:32 pm
You refuse to perceive Craig’s gay romp as hypocritical…The Republican party consistently opposes rights for gays, this makes his affiliation important…
Putting aside the exact definition of hypocrisy, double-standards, inconsistencies, etc.; neither heet nor any of the other trolls has ventured an opinion as to why being a lying, corrupt, thieving political whore is expected behavior for Democrats.
So, being a hypocrite means a person falls short of his ideals. I guess the only way not to be a hypocrite is to have really low standards…kinda like your average troll.
Every pol who gets in in the news should have a party ID tag behind their name/rank the first time they’re mentioned in an article. And that definitely wasn’t happening with this Ford, that I could see – I looked through every article in Google including Forbes and AP and didn’t find it.
Not to change the subject, but one mainstream cable news network has a tendency to either drop the affiliation tag or change it to the other party whenever someone from their side gets in trouble – can you guess which network? Hint – it’s closely associated with Bill O’Reilly…
Putting aside the exact definition of hypocrisy, double-standards, inconsistencies, etc.; neither heet nor any of the other trolls has ventured an opinion as to why being a lying, corrupt, thieving political whore is expected behavior for Democrats.
“The reason any conservative’s failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It’s an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.”
-Ann Coulter
We all know the Mark Foley incident. Can you site some more? I mean, if we’re going to describe something as a ‘tendency’, surely it has to have happened on more than a few occasions.
I was quoting B Moe above.
Papers in my neck of the woods just like putting “gay” and “Republican” in the same headline.
Agent W,. it happens all the time. Don’t worry about verifying it. It is the New Received Troof. Do not question The Narrative™.
That is all.
Pow! It just hit me: Bender admitted that I have more than six brain cells to rub together!
My bad. Not for the brain cell thing, but for confusing you with markel. Apparently, four of my brain cells were busy thinking about Jessica Alba or something.
Speaking from a Christian Social Con perspective (which tars me as intolerant, fantasist, myth hugger, purveyer of unreason and “I only care about abortion and teh gay,”) I’m way more concerned about politician foibles that relate to the office than I am about personal pecadillos. Larry Craig in a bathroom is disturbing and that fact that he’s aggresively denying everything makes me wonder about his personal spiritual health but none of that relates in a meaningful way to his duties. The Foley case was different because he was corrsponding with congressional pages which raises an instant fitness concern. Thus I wanted Foley gone for job related failures while I might look closely at Craig to see where this goes.
Having , hopefully, deflated the whole hypocrisy heavings of the Church of the Progressive Misery Pimpage I’m perfectly content to have every politician involved in any news story identified as Joe Blow R-WI or whatever. Public office requires public disclosure and a first identifier marking of party and position should be par for the course for all politicians.
[…] by crushliberalism on August 29th, 2007 A little compare and contrast from Protein Wisdom: Former State Senator convicted of taking bribes in Tennessee Waltz […]
“Glad to hear from Cynn, if it isn’t too boot-licky, I always find you bring level-headed oxygen to any discussion.”
You haven’t been here long, have you?
Only about five years. Did I miss something?
[…] Some folks are constantly alleging bias by the press for noting the party affiliation of politicians involved in unsavory cases more when those politicians are Republicans rather than Democrats. Les Jones isn’t buying this assertion necessarily but sees an easy fix: This seems like an easy problem to solve with a style rule. Style rules are the rules publications have for punctuation, spelling, abbreviations, grammar, etc. The Associated Press Stylebook is the best known collection of style rules for newspapers. […]