Republicans rejoiced over John Kerry's timely word vomit likening the members of the US military to uneducated losers. However their excitement was short lived. Today Rev. Ted Haggard resigned after a Colorado male prostitute claimed that Haggard had been paying him for sex and snorting cocaine for the past three years. Haggard was president of the National Association of Evangelicals and the leading lobbist in Colorado against gay marriage. Democrats could not have asked for better "post-October surprise" -unless they finally gave made a pact with the devil- which though tempting, is highly unlikely.
Harggard states that the claims are UNTRUE! "I've never had an affair with anybody. I am steady with my wife. I am faithful with my wife," he said. Too bad the head pastor of his church disagrees. "I just know that there has been some admission of indiscretion, not admission to all of the material that has been discussed, but there is an admission of some guilt," Rev Ross Parsley told local TV stations today.
What is really unfortuante about all of this is that Foley and Haggard are only two men that represent themselves and not the ideals of the Republican party as a whole- comical considering they were paid to do the opposite. Hopefully, though, the vote is not swayed in anyway by Haggard's situation. I would hope that voters are solid enough on their platforms this close to the election that emissions as the aforementioned mean nothing to them whether they are democrat or republican.
On a related subject I think I understand why both Haggard and Foley were so outwardly agaisnt what they themselves practiced. They probably thought that if they were the forerunners in these categories no one would suspect them of the very same behavior. Or perhaps their shame caused them to fight so courageously against homosexuality. By this they thought if they could purge the world of this behavior then they could purge themselves of it in the act. I am not psychologist, but I think that the aforementioned is a strong analysis of the situation.
To read more on the Haggard Hullabaloo vist http://www.guardian.co.uk/midterms2006/story/0,,1939439,00.html
Ted Haggard, Mark Foley analysis
By debatechick - Posted on November 3rd, 2006
Tagged: News and politics
• Society
• Opinion
• Linguistics
• Effective government
• Personal freedom
The irony of the whole situation is very fascinating. Many people couldn't care less what the hell either of them are doing in their free time. Any why should they? It is only after Haggard's of the world have whipped people into a homophobic frenzy, that people pay any attention to other people's sexual behaviors.
Maybe it is time these homophobes realize how shameful their hate mongering is, before they all get caught in their own game of "Cover up." i.e. Senator Santorum from Pennsylvania! He is a Closet Case if I ever saw one!
I'm not a psychologist either, but I'll put my money on the former. Cowardice is what's at play here, not courage! "Hypocrisy" is also another very appropriate word to describe the whole situation.
I'm going to agree with Art. They are both a prime example of both cowardice and hypocrisy. While I could care less what either of them do behind closed doors with adult partners, it's absurd to preach and rail against something while doing exactly what they were speaking out against. Democrat, Republican, Green... doesn't matter what party you are from... hypocrisy and cowardice are universal.
"We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us." -Marcel Proust
Ya, the courageous statement was meant to be satiric, lol. I dont think its corageous at all . . . But I really do think that maybe they believe that if they fight against it outwardly, inwardly they will begin to change as well.
Francesca Chambers
These two are perfect examples of the political elites who feel that they are so much better than everyone else that they will not be "caught" doing what the scum who are beneath them are doing! Oh yeah, don't forget, people just buy meth and turn around and throw it away! I promise I never took it- I threw it away. Yeah Right!
Peace n Bike Grease~Sara
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3326/816/1024/haggarddobson.jpg
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
You equate a pronoun "us" with word vomit.
Interesting that your psychoanalysis of a Republcan Pediphile was much kinder. And the analysis of a Christian leader whose very words caused anti-gay sentiments around this country if not world AND who met daily with the Republican president of the US--was much less condemming of his behavior. Your bias is showing, and for a person who said she wanted to be a journalist, that is a big no-no.
So according to Debatechix-- a missing "us" is worse than lying about war, torture, illegal spying, pediphiles and coverups, gaybashing and hate speech...
There is vomit around here. But it's not John Kerry's. It's the vomit of moms and dads who see the coffins of their children arriving home.
It's the vomit of the wives and children as they hear the news from the soldier at the door that their husband, wife, father, or mother has died in Fallujah.
It's the vomit of National Guard Reservists who come home missing limbs--and discover that they don't qualify as a Veteran under Republican 'support our troops' control
It's the vomit of watching the casket being lowered to the ground.
It's the vomit of watching children in Iraq born with extra arms and legs, missing eyes, and other cancerous diseases fromt he depleted uranium that the Bush administration has used in Iraq and Afganistan.
It's the vomit of our soldiers suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome living in the streets and/or committing suicide because they received brain injuries or they just saw too much. But they're no longer covered under Veteran health services thanks to Bush's hand-outs to the rich. (yeh...they call those 'tax cuts.")
That's vomit, Debate chix. The word "us" is a pronoun. And if you feel the need to psychoanalyze, please give us the pyschoanalysis on why the whole Republican Party has lost their moral footing. So much so that the NYTs is not endorsing any Republicans at all, for the first time in their history.
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
Wow- you really know how to make friends. First of all, just because I want to be a journalist does NOT mean I cant write opinion pieces. You dont know anything about me. So dont specualte, it just makes you look like . . . unnice. I am majoring in J because I want to do an opinion column or be a copy editor. So I can be as opinionated as I want. The entire blog was aimed at analysis not to make either party look bad or good. And if you dont like what I have to say, then dont read my blog. I am not going to waste my time psychoanalyzing either party if I dont want to. And I dont! I only write blogs when something comes to my attention that I want to write a blog on. No one wants to read a blog that goes on and on and on. I chose to focus on a issue, which happened to be the recent republican-homosexual outages-- which is what a good write does. Not jump around. I am not going to say any more of the subject because its not worth it. My job on this site isnt to spend all my time defending my blog and if I say anything more I am going to get myself into trouble, so I will just leave you with what I said before- if you dont like how I write- dont read my blog. But if you do read my blog, dont treat me as if you are somehow superior just because my opinion differs from yours. So if you comment back nastialy- dont expect another reply.
Francesca Chambers
as a personal attack. Only two sentences may have been construed as a personal attack even if not intended to be, , but the rest of the comment was legitimate. You yourself have told people you want to be a journalist. Well, journalist use facts not fiction, unless they work for Fox News Network.
Now if you want to write op-eds, that is different. It's not journalism. It's opinion. Opinion is quite different. Your opinion, as stated in your above op-ed showed how you were much kinder to a pediphile and a gaybasher who was gay, who used illegal drugs who met with the President daily, and who designed the way 11 states voted to discriminate against gays on November 2, 2004 and 8 states in 2006.
That's vomitous in it's own right.
Now if you write opinion pieces and you leave off facts and use inflated words instead, then you get pushback. And that's what happens on a blog as well. You're not singing to the choir, debate chix. A blog is an interactive debate with the commenter needing to support her ideas with convincing evidence of why her statement is valid.
My comment was pushback against both 'arguments' you presented in your piece, which also included attacking the logic of how you presented your argument.
1. You argued incorrectly that Kerry's comments were vomit. I explained why they weren't. I explained what was vomit and that his comment didn't qualify. And I explained that as a journalist and a debater, you should know to use fact not opinion. So now I know based on your above comment that you don't want to be a journalist, you want to be an op-ed writer.
2. Your op-ed treated two people who are guilty of much more serious AND CRIMINAL misdeeds kinder than you treated a person who mangled a sentence and left out the word us. Last I looked, missing prounouns are clumsy but not criminal.
So my original point stands, vomit is not the missing pronoun. Vomit is everything listed above. But furthermore, vomit should be your reaction to Foley, Haggard, and even Hastert.
Vomit--is the feeling a parent has when they send their child to Congress and discover that the chairperson of the 'missing and exploited children' committee is in fact a person who sexually exploits their children. Do you have any idea of the long term psychological damage that Foley has done to those other kids?
Vomit is knowing that you call the Capital Police to stop the child pediphile and that the leadership of any party would not only allow it to continue but would participate in coverup something that has damaged your child for many years to come.
Vomit--is the feeling Mathew Shepard's parents had when some 'religious' people decided to beat the living crap out of him and then tie him to a fence to die in the cold. Why? because he was gay. And yet one party, one Christian leadership with high up political connections made sure to stir up the anger and hate against Gays. Now that is vomitous. Check out their picture of Mathew Shepard on that website, debate chix. http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html
And if my comment above sounds angry, it is angry.
I've dealt with victims of hate crimes and have had to support their families too. I've dealt with victims of child pediphilia. And I've dealt with many missing pronouns too. And I can flat out tell you that your op-ed presented sympathy to the wrong side. You attacked the person guilty of a missing pronoun and you showed kindness to a pediphile and a gaybasher and drug user.
I found that quite offensive. And I would find the comparison equally offensive if the partys involved were switched. A missing pronoun is not a crime. Exploiting children is. Buying and using illegal drugs is a crime. And using prostitutes is a crime as well.
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
You took the blog way to seriously. Kerry's word vomit was merely a vivid adjective. So chill out, seriously. And secondly opinion is journalism. Im in the school of journalism, are you? Because if you were, you would know that. Tahts all I ahve to say on the subject, this debate is over because its my blog and I can say whatever I want whether its biased or not and should be able to do so without worrying that I am personally going to be attacked- and yes, that is EXACTLY what the whole thing was whether you originally meant it to be or even thought it to be and I have better things to do than put up with it. You can feel free to do so on YOUR blog- where I wont be coming to personally attack you. Please drop the subject.
Francesca Chambers
You leave out bias. And you deal with only facts and present only facts. It's not creative writing class and it's not the same as an op-ed.
You may be learning opinion as part of your degree program so that you may write op-eds for newspapers as a carreer choice; however, I would hope that your school would be teaching you the appropriate times on when to use each voice.
No--I'm not a journalism student. Yes, I've had journalism classes. Would you like my resume?
Secondly, if you're feeling personally attacked then that is you. I have not personally attacked you or I would have written comments like those that "thatgayconservative" always made across threads far and wide on progressiveu. Did I call you an idiot or a m-f or a b- or anything?
No.
I FIRMLY informed you that as a journalist you were repeating spin. If your hope is to become a journalist, then I hope you'll learn what a talking point is and when you are being violated into reporting a talking point as a fact instead of delving deeper into why you're being fed a 'line.' And I hope you'll see that exagerating the talking point takes away credibility from your whole overall point.
Nobody attacked you. I certainly haven't followed you in a 'virtual harrasment' type of way, across threads or across comments in other blogs. I responded to your main post. That is the point of a blog.
I'm sorry that it gets frustrating when others disagree with you. I'm sorry if my words came out too harsh. And I'm sorry if you thought the word 'vomit' and the repetition of spin was no big deal. Frankly, as an English teacher, I would have encouraged you to leave off that sentence anyways. I would have asked you to formulate more a precise thesis. statement. It would have tightened your overall analysis of those two men who were the actual topic of your post.
You're welcome to post comments on my blog even if you disagree with my views. We're human Debatechix and sometimes our comments provoke unintended reactions in others. Sometimes we just have to respond to the points others have made or sometimes we have to ignore them. Blogging is not a newspaper where you never receive your audience's reaction. It's one of the difficult parts of blogging..the feedback.
Will I return to your blog? I have no idea. But I would point out that if you only want to sing to the choir, then you're in the wrong place.
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
There is a difference between someone disagreeing with an opinion of yours and someone acting like they know more about writing than you did. Disagreeing with me would have been I dont think that what Kerry said was bad- not- if you were a GOOD writer you would never have said that. I warned you to back off but you wouldnt, so I shutting off comments. BY the way, when someone asks you to stop and you dont- that is harrassment.
Francesca Chambers
You said you used a vivid adjective. Fox's point to you was that your vivid adjective was not appropriate in the time and place that you used it. That's not a personal attack. That's attacking the argument within your piece.
You were using a chronological setup and your use of a 'vivid adjective' resulted in someone saying, "Hey! That's not true! That's spin."
If Fox wanted to 'attack' you, as you claim he/she did, then he/she would have called you a name or made a threat against you. Fox did neither.
Fox pointed out that you claimed you wanted to be a journalist and as such you were not following any traditional rules that legitimate journalists follow.
Key rule of journalism:
Keep the bias out.
Key rule of op-ed:
Say it's an op-ed.
Maybe Fox should have assumed it was an "op-ed" but even op-eds have to be based in facts.
Looks like Fox disagreed with your facts and your use of vivid adjective in the time/place your opted to insert your bias.
And that is not a personal attack.
This is the most ridiculous argument I have EVER heard! PROGRESSIVE U IS ENTIRELY OPINION! THAT IS THE POINT! THESE ARE BLOGS! NOT NEWS STORIES! OMG! I DONT HAVE TO SAY ITS AN OPINION! THATS A GIVEN!
Francesca Chambers
but it's not just reflected in the Foley-Haggart-Hastert incidents. It's reflected in the whole party. This party of hawks, show the same cowardice towards war and they show the same cowardice towards sending their children to war. It's why they had to jump on a missing pronoun to smear the statement. Even though without the 'us' the whole issue of supporting the troops, who serves in war, and what the Republicans have done with NCLB is a valid and true issue.
Don't just take my word for it. Read this op-ed--
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ruth_lop_061103_why_kerry_was_right.htm
Kerry was -- inadvertently -- right. His "joke" may have been mangled; but there was truth in what he said. And what he said is something the GOP doesn't want Americans to think about: who is joining today's military? Who isn't? And why?
The Bush Administration has claimed a doctrine of infallibility regarding our troops. They can do whatever they want to the troops; send them into unnecessary wars, use them for photo ops, or as fodder for political attacks, blame them for Iraq, even manufacture fake war stories, as they did with Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. And always to benefit the GOP's political needs, never to benefit the troops.
They also think the troops should not be made up of them or their children. Today's GOP leadership is overwhelmingly filled with people who have made their careers feeding at the public trough but who have never served in the military.
They don't want attention drawn to this, especially right before this election, when they are mired in scandals, corruption and the damage inflicted by the worst President in modern history. Because the truth is this: the Bush Administration's treatment of our troops is not much better than their treatment of Katrina victims.
They have deliberately exploited certain segments of our society to fill the ranks of our ground forces. Bush's vaunted "Leave No Child Behind" program actually requires public schools to give students' personal information to military recruiters or the schools won't get their Federal funding. "Leave No Child Behind" should more accurately be called, "No bodies, No bucks".
Recruiters are trained to focus on those most likely be receptive to offers of financial and educational assistance; in other words, poor students from poor schools.
Many of these young people join the military with unrealistic and uneducated expectations. They are driven by many factors: lack of opportunity, poverty, ignorance, jingoistic propaganda, thrill-seeking and, yes, honest patriotism. These are largely unworldly, undereducated kids. Recruiters are trained to take advantage of this with slick salesmanship and not-to-be-kept promises.
Are these kids really prepared for extended and repeated tours in the quagmire Iraq has become? The answer to that is in the increased rate of suicides, PTSD, desertions, assaults, murders, rape, divorce, domestic violence, and substance abuse among our troops.
Demand for replacement bodies to fill the ranks of our ground forces is such that recruiters have been caught falsifying enlistment forms to meet the quotas they deny having, even though enlistment standards have been lowered, and those who once couldn't enlist for reasons including felony convictions and the inability to pass minimal educational standards can now sign up.
And, for the first time in the history of our military, there is evidence that gang members are joining. Gang sign graffiti has shown up in Iraq, as well as other military bases. They are said to be joining to get tactical and weapons training which they then bring back to their street wars here at home.
If our ground forces are being increasingly filled with kids who are disproportionately from the lowest economic classes, poorly educated, barely literate, felons, and/or gang members, what kind of military will we have? The Best and the Brightest or the Dregs and the Drop-outs?
Meanwhile, religious schools, and expensive private schools -- the kind of schools Congress and the Republican donor base send their children to - are exempt from having their students preyed upon by quota-driven military recruiters. Their kids are going to college, not war.
But if the terrorist threat isn't serious enough to compel the children of the Bush Administration and his Republican Congress to the defense of their country, why is anyone else's child dying for it?
That's why Kerry's gaffe struck such a nerve with the GOP. They don't want us to look at the fact that their kids are safe at home, enjoying the good life, partying on campus, in spite of mushroom cloud threats, Dick Cheney, and "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" rhetoric.
Bush and the Republicans know that the unnecessary war they have hyped is fought by other people's children, not theirs. They know they have cut funding for essentials our troops need while ensuring their children will have elite educations, cushy jobs and tax free inheritances. They know that if they can't sell military service to the poor with apocalyptic threats of imminent terror attacks, false patriotism and enticements of a better life in exchange for military service, we will have no military at all -- without a draft.
They know all this, and they don't want America talking about it.
Kerry didn't insult the troops. He just came a little too close to the unspoken reality of today's military; who's joining -- and who isn't.
****
So you see...their cowardess and hypocricy are not just centered around the gay issue. It permeates most of their rhetoric.
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***