Patterico's Pontifications

10/4/2006

Rick Ellensburg: The Master of Innuendo

Filed under: General,Scum — Patterico @ 6:21 pm

When we last checked in on “Mr. Civility” Rick Ellensburg, he was falsely accusing my guest blogger of having stalked his ex-girlfriend.

Today we learn that Ellensburg doesn’t seem to like Rush Limbaugh:

If the term “moral degenerate” has any validity and can be fairly applied to anyone, there are few people who merit that term more than Rush Limbaugh. He is the living and breathing embodiment of moral degeneracy, with his countless overlapping sexual affairs, his series of shattered, dissolved marriages, his hedonistic and illegal drug abuse, his jaunts, with fistfulls of Viagra (but no wife), to an impoverished Latin American island renowned for its easy access to underage female prostitutes.

Ah. So innuendo is the game, is it?

If we’re talking prostitution, I note that, according to Wikipedia, “Street-based sex work is illegal all over the world except for Brazil, New South Wales, and New Zealand . . .”

If we’re talking sex tourism: “Popular national destinations for sex tourists includes: Germany, The Netherlands, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Cuba, Thailand and Cambodia.”

One country keeps popping up: Brazil. Apparently, if you’re interested in both legal prostitution and sex tourism, one country fits the bill: Brazil — where, perhaps not coincidentally, one Glenn Greenwald spends a good part of each year.

Was the preceding a conglomeration of baseless insinuation? Well, sure! But it’s about as reality-based as his innuendo-filled diatribe against Rush Limbaugh — in a post most of his commenters consider brilliant!

107 Responses to “Rick Ellensburg: The Master of Innuendo”

  1. “Was the preceding a conglomeration of baseless insinuation? Well, sure! But it’s about as reality-based as his innuendo-filled diatribe against Rush Limbaugh.”

    Obviously Greenwald was being a sleaze, and there are innocent explanations, but I think we all know there’s a difference between visiting a potentially sleazy country, and visiting a potentially sleazy country with Viagra but without your wife. Just ask a wife. Or ask a sleazy guy whether he’d ask his wife to pick up his prescription (of Viagra) and pack it in his suitcase before his next business trip… anywhere.

    dwpittelli (87ad39)

  2. What if you don’t have a wife and visit a country where prostitution is legal and carry a suitcase full of viagra. Is that ok? Limbaugh doesn’t have a wife at the moment but with his humor and money + a suitcase full of viagra he could have most people’s wives in about 10 minutes, your’s included, if you have one. LMAO

    Scrapiron (9f37aa)

  3. Add if your wife isn’t mud duck ugly.

    Scrapiron (9f37aa)

  4. Limbaugh doesn’t have a wife at the moment but with his humor and money + a suitcase full of viagra he could have most people’s wives in about 10 minutes, your’s included, if you have one. LMAO

    This is all so hilariously weak.

    actus (10527e)

  5. carry a suitcase full of viagra

    A suitcase full of viagra?

    An entire suitcase?

    SMG

    SteveMG (b96bba)

  6. “This is all so hilariously weak.”

    As was Greenwald’s post.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  7. Oops, that’s Ellensburg. So hard to keep up with ’em.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  8. What if you don’t have a wife and visit a country where prostitution is legal and carry a suitcase full of viagra. Is that ok?

    Pardon me if this is not something anyone wants to read about, but my understanding is that viagra is sometimes used for masturbation as well.
    Not that it’s anyone’s business what Rush has in his suitcase and what he does in his private life.

    Whatever the case, no one can defend Greenwald’s baseless innuendos, but his readers always seem to support his constant B.S., lies, smears, and innuendos, and sock-puppetry. It’s too bad Greenwald missed the opportunity to show how much he cares about the privacy of our citizens. He could’ve made himself look very principled had he condemned the partisan abusers of power in Florida who violated Rush’s privacy. But I guess it’s hard to look principled when you’re un-principled.

    LoafingOaf (9f37aa)

  9. Patterico, why do you waste your time with all of this b.s.? Don’t you have to wash your hands after one of these kind of posts?

    RJN (e12f22)

  10. RJN asks Pat: Don’t you have to wash your hands after one of these kind of posts?

    Jeebus dude, I’m going to have to take offense to your spreading of this type of innuendo againt my bro Pat. It’s not like he has a Greenwald obsession or anything.

    Macswain (5b310d)

  11. For my part, I am very glad to see this unqualified condemnation by Mr. Greenwald of the liberal lifestyle. Perhaps he should not have personalized it as he did by using Mr. Limbaugh as an example, and Patterico is right that Mr. Greenwald himself may be a flawed messenger. Nonetheless, the general message is what social conservatives believe and I am glad that Mr. Greenwald agrees. Leaving the ad hominem against Mr. Limbaugh aside, the behavior described is moral degeneracy (the recreational use of Viagra included). I praise Mr. Greenwald for his steps towards moral redemption and offer him my best wishes for the day that he finds a nice girl, marries and settles down to raise his children in accordance with traditional family values.

    nk (4cd0c2)

  12. For my part, I am very glad to see this unqualified condemnation by Mr. Greenwald of the liberal lifestyle.

    Liberal lifestyle? I know a lot of liberals. Not many of them engage in viagra filled vacations.

    actus (10527e)

  13. Be that as it may, actus, we should praise and not discourage Mr. Greenwald’s tottering first steps to social conservatism.

    nk (2ab789)

  14. Be that as it may, actus, we should praise and not discourage Mr. Greenwald’s tottering first steps to social conservatism.

    The liberals I know also don’t like hedonistic drug use or shattering marriages. We may not like the legal response to these things, and we may not like the response from moral majority hypocrites on their mass media, but we can also tell moral from immoral.

    We can also, for example, take issue with cartoonish views of liberals and social conservatives.

    actus (10527e)

  15. I say to you good DAY, sirs!

    Good Lt (cf8676)

  16. “The liberals I know also don’t like hedonistic drug use or shattering marriages. We may not like the legal response to these things, and we may not like the response from moral majority hypocrites on their mass media, but we can also tell moral from immoral.”

    I don’t doubt that liberals dislike the things you listed above. The problem is that their depictions of conservatives of ALL stripes in the media (whether it be news or entertainment) is that conservatives who espouse traditional values (whether it’s the sanctity of marriage or something else) are always portrayed as hypocrites, especially if there is some failing in their life (such as a divorce). That conservatives are human, too, and have mistakes or failings in their lives doesn’t make the points about the importance of marriage or other issues less pressing. But the cartoonish portrayals of conservatives really shows the lack of desire or the inability of liberals to look beyond the messenger to the importance of the message.

    “We can also, for example, take issue with cartoonish views of liberals and social conservatives.”

    You haven’t proved that you do, Actus. When someone defends traditional marriage, you try to paint them as homophobic or point out the problems that unmarried couples living together have with domestic violence laws. You constantly snark on this site and others about virtually any conservative comment left. It’s difficult to take anything you say seriously since, quite frequently, your comments are designed not to create dialog but to simply be nasty.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  17. Say what you want about Glenn, I think we can all congratulate Patrick Frey for taking the high road here.

    Paul (397d61)

  18. I’m just glad actus condemned Socky’s baseless, sleazy innuendo, just as I do.

    Oh, he didn’t. But aren’t fans of Socky supposed to be into condemnation and distancing oneself from sleaze like this?

    Karl (06a05f)

  19. Well, anyway, everybody is missing the point here. Poor Glenn Greenwald has dared to make a statement which, if it did not reference Rush Limbaugh, would have the George Soros/Howard Dean wing of the Democratic Party throwing burning bags of dog feces on his front porch and painting swastikas on his lawn. We really should rally behind him and encourage him in his new-found cause against moral degeneracy. Let’s cut him some slack on the Viagra thing, first of all. I too am not clear whether he meant: 1. It is unnatural and probably against the will of God who imposed impotence as a punishment for libidiousness; 2. It should be used only when the purpose is the begetting of childen; or 3. It can be used by married people within the conjugal relationship even if procreation is not the goal. Like I said, these are his first steps as a social conservative. He will need time to develop a coherent philosophy as his conscience dictates.

    nk (d7a872)

  20. Say what you want about Glenn, I think we can all congratulate Patrick Frey for taking the high road here.

    The “high road” through a swamp still goes through a swamp.

    [Oh, I think that “Paul” was trying to be ironic. I think he’s trying to say I was taking the low road. Funny, no condemnation for Greenwald’s sleaze, but ironic praise (meaning condemnation) for my pointing out his sleaze. — P]

    Rick (c4e376)

  21. Gee, thanks for making me break my irony line, Rick. The only one who is, and has been, living in a swamp is Glenn Greenwald. Who the f#$% is he to talk about “moral degeneracy”?

    nk (8214ee)

  22. The only one who is, and has been, living in a swamp is Glenn Greenwald.

    It was Mr Frey who chose to sink down and visit him there.

    [What utter nonsense that is, Rick. Greenwald made a sleazy insinuation and I mocked him for it, by using a parallel example — expressly labeled as irony — to show how I could use the same lawyerly techniques to label Greenwald a sex tourist interested in prostitutes. That’s not descending into the muck. It’s criticizing someone who did. You’re smart enough to know the difference. So why pretend otherwise? And why no criticism for Greenwald’s sleazy slander? I don’t appreciate your disingenuous arguments. — P]

    Rick (ea2ac3)

  23. The only one who is, and has been, living in a swamp is Glenn Greenwald.

    It was Mr Frey who chose to sink down and visit him there.

    Comment by Rick — 10/5/2006 @ 2:49 pm

    It sounds like you don’t think too highly of Glenn Greenwald. What do you dislike about him and why would you make insinuations about him being a swampdweller?

    Adam (20136d)

  24. The taylormarsh site is … strange. He refers to the Dominican Republic as a major sex tourism destination but posts pictures from whythailand.net. You’d think someone who researched this as much as he did would find photos from a DR sex tourist web site instead.

    h0mi (cbedfa)

  25. More with the innuendo nk. Why can’t Glennwald talk about moral degeneracy? Spit it out.

    [Paul claims to abhor innuendo? Then, if he is honest, he will denounce the sleazy innuendo of Greenwald. I won’t hold my breath. — P]

    Paul (9abfca)

  26. “Patterico”,I have no condemnation, ironic or otherwise, of your pointing out Gleenwald’s innuendo which you find sleazy. I actually agree that Glenn was wrong on both counts of the innuendo you highlighted. Your guest blogger’s situation and Limbaugh’s trip, as relating to underage prostitutes.

    I find you just as wrong in engaging in the same kind of sleazy innuendo about Glenn and Brazil when he has stated he lives there for the partnership laws, and even more wrong in portraying Greenwald as Ellensburg if you don’t know that for a fact.

    I know that it is the nature of the beast in blog attacks to take one line of a long blog to discredit the whole blog or blogger and I guess that is fair game. Everyone does it including me and if your complaint was Glenn’s innuendo then it only makes sense to attack the part of the line in the blog where he engages in it. I would just say that I think the rest of Glenn’s post on Rush and Hastert was right on. Rush is a big time sleaze any way you cut it wheather or not his trip with Viagra had anything to do with prostitutes, of which I could not care less. Prostitution, if regulated and not involving minors does not strike me as wrong, especially with an unmarried person.

    To the morality question, that is between you and god. We all must live according to our ethical standards and societies laws (if just) so I could do without all the “moral degenerate” talk. What is important is the issue of hypocrisy in which I beleive Glenn’s post points to many examples. Rush constantly attacks others for things like drug use (not so much anymore but he used to), infidelity, sexual proclivity, lying, hypocrisy, on and on, while engaging in these practices on a massive scale.

    By the way, I thought you did a good job on the Guantanamo articles.They were interesting and Stashiu was well spoken. Of course you took a different slant than I would have and emphasized certain points over others I thought were more important but that is certainly your call.

    Paul (9abfca)

  27. It sounds like you don’t think too highly of Glenn Greenwald. What do you dislike about him and why would you make insinuations about him being a swampdweller?.

    There is a lot I admire about Glenn Greenwald, and I follow his blog, Unclaimed Territory, closely.

    Imho, Greenwald is a brilliant man with great insight and analytical ability, but Unclaimed Territory is too often marred by ad hominems such as the ones that triggered the posts here. Comments about Rush Limbaugh’s Viagra follies may be entertaining, but they detract from Greenwald’s otherwise excellent commentary. True, many conservative bloggers and pundits do much worse, but that’s no excuse for imitating their sophmoric nonsense. As Patterico has so nicely illustrated for us, uncivil attacks just seem to invite more of the same.

    Rick (ea2ac3)

  28. “Paul claims to abhor innuendo?”

    Let’s don’t get petty Patterico. Where did I claim to abhor innuendo?

    Paul (9abfca)

  29. What utter nonsense that is, Rick. Greenwald made a sleazy insinuation and I mocked him for it, by using a parallel example expressly labeled as irony to show how I could use the same lawyerly techniques to label Greenwald a sex tourist interested in prostitutes. Thats not descending into the muck.

    Then you and I just disagree, as I think it is.

    Its criticizing someone who did. Youre smart enough to know the difference. So why pretend otherwise?

    Yes, I do know the difference; you saw what you thought was an opportunity to smeer Greenwald and then did so. There are many ways you could have chosen to criticize Greenwald’s blog, and you chose a bad one.

    [I didn’t “smeer” Greenwald, nor did I “smear” him. You didn’t understand my criticism. I *thought* you were smarter than that. I was wrong. Either that or you’re willfully disingenuous; take your pick. — P]

    And why no criticism for Greenwalds sleazy slander? I dont appreciate your disingenuous arguments. P

    My criticisms were directed at the arguments from both of you, and there’s nothing disingenuous about it. Your insistence that both Paul and I take special care to criticize only Greenwald is unseemly, and in my case, will be refused. Because you mimicked his style, any criticism of Greenwald is equally deserved by you as well.

    [Yes. Because to Rick, there is no difference between mimicking someone to mock them, and imitating them. To the rest of the world, there is. But not to Rick! — P]

    Rick (ea2ac3)

  30. Paul, #25: I don’t like it when Dennis Prager talks about “moral degeneracy” either. All moralizers make me wince. Mr. Greenwald used it as a dishonestly loaded term to attack Dennis Hastert for choosing Rush Limbaugh’s radio show as one of his forums. Even if Limbaugh’s lifestyle were relevant to the issue Mr. Greenwald was purportedly addressing, a more fair and honest statement would have been that Limbaugh’s lifestyle does not reflect that of a social conservative so much as that of a liberal. I have said that, myself, on this site. If you imply that I question Mr. Greenwald’s authority on “moral degeneracy” because he is admittedly gay, the answer is definitely, unequivocally “NO”. That is a personal thing and in my opinion it is not a “moral” issue. Morality is a much greater concept which concerns itself with each person’s behavior, for good or ill, towards his fellow human beings.

    nk (947b03)

  31. P.S. Which is also why I took umbrage with some Republican bloggers who presented the Foley scandal as merely the “outing” of a gay man.

    nk (947b03)

  32. The problem is that their depictions of conservatives of ALL stripes in the media (whether it be news or entertainment) is that conservatives who espouse traditional values (whether it’s the sanctity of marriage or something else) are always portrayed as hypocrites, especially if there is some failing in their life (such as a divorce).

    A lot of people moralizing about these “values” are. Gingrich? I really dont care to hear him tell me about family values.

    I’m just glad actus condemned Socky’s baseless, sleazy innuendo, just as I do.

    Condem? no. Sleazy? sure. Baseless? naah.

    actus (10527e)

  33. What is absolutely hilarious about part of this crap is that Viagra is one of the biggest blockbuster drugs of the past decade. Indicating that an incredible number of American men are moral degenerates?

    Discuss among yourselves.

    moneyrunner (a77b40)

  34. Indicating that an incredible number of American men are moral degenerates?

    Taking a vial of it to a third world country is different than using it in a monogamous relationship. You caught that part right?

    actus (10527e)

  35. No kidding, MoneyRunner, awesome point!

    I’m in my 30s and have no need of Viagra.

    But if I’m 50-something and if I happen to be single at the time, well guess what… I still would hold out hope, however unlikely, that I may “get some” from time to time (and experience suggests this often happens very spontaneously when you least expect it)… and when I travel to a foreign country on vacation… yep… I’ll pack some Viagra if I think it may come in handy.

    Turning this into a scandal is just bizarre. A smear to end all smears and disgusting beyond belief.

    Guess what… it is possible that when I travel somewhere there may be prostitutes in the other country… because, believe it or not, there are prostitutes in every country. Even fundamentalist Islamic ones and they’re notably strict.

    To put two and two together and go “viagra” plus “place where there are (underage or otherwise) prostitutes is a slimy awful allegation.

    Many men who may read this from time to time may have a bit of viagra on hand… and they ain’t on vacation… and they aren’t planning on sleeping with prostitutes anytime soon.

    People like Rick Ellensburg and Actus are pukey bomb throwers and dirty as hell.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  36. It is obvious to some that you used your innuendos towards Greenwald in order to smear him and not as you say you did, in order to point out the error of his ways. By engaging in the same type of behavior that you critize, you are not simply mimicking to mock. The proof of that is the content you used in your innuendo which was sleazy and targeted towards smearing Glenn, not just innocent mimickery as you now pretend.
    As Rick pointed out, there were so many other ways you could have made you point without resorting to what you did. You could have simply pointed out Glenn’s sleazy innuendo and let people make up their own minds about it. By using the tactics of the “enemy” you can sometimes become that which you “hate”.

    [Shorter Paul: Greenwald sleaze good, Patterico mocking it bad. — P]

    Paul (9abfca)

  37. Actus has a rule against taking Viagra across national boundries for sexual purposes.

    Pardon me while I split my sides laughing.

    And Paul, stuff a sock in it … sorry could not help the pun.

    moneyrunner (a77b40)

  38. Actus has a rule against taking Viagra across national boundries for sexual purposes.

    Actually, now that you mention it, the FDA might have those. But those are probably stupid drug laws that the right to privacy should override, or so i’ve heard rush tell me.

    However, There is a difference between taking viagra, and taking a bunch of it on vacation to the third world.

    actus (10527e)

  39. You’re a pig, Actus.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  40. Via Drudge, the Tribune has fired the publisher of the LA Times. ( http://www.latimes.com/business/la-100506johnson,0,3972238.story?coll=la-home-headlines) Now that’s a better story.

    [My Mom’s in town and we went to dinner after work. — P]

    nk (f58916)

  41. Yeah, Patterico, I second nk. You better be locking up some crooks or doing something else worthwhile to miss the firing of the Dog Trainer’s publisher!

    Christoph (9824e6)

  42. So now it looks like the right wing bloggers have been hard at work trying to defend Foley. In an attempt to discredit ABC who claimed that Foley sent dirty IMs to a 17 year old, right wing bloggers have been searching for the identity of the young man who sent the dirty IMs to ABC.

    Well, they found him and posted his name and picture on a web site. Turns out he was a congressional page and is now working for a republican congressman. It also turns out he was 17 and 18 when he got the IMs and ABC was proved right.

    So in this feeble attempt to circle the republican wagons another innocent life is screwed. Instapundit and Drudge, two of the biggest right wing sites, have been pushing this disgusting effort and gleefully linking to the site where the young man was outed.

    What more can I say. After all the attacks for Greenwalds innuendo how about some for actual repugnant action.

    Paul (9abfca)

  43. “A lot of people moralizing about these “values” are. Gingrich? I really dont care to hear him tell me about family values.”

    Like most on the left, you are determined not to separate messages from messengers. And that people have personal failings doesn’t stop the messages they sent from being true, whether it is about the importance of marriage, the damage of divorce, or the terrible societal consequences of indifference to adultery. Or maybe to the condemnation of certain members of society about personal failings while shouting that it doesn’t matter when it’s someone with whom one agrees for political purposes.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  44. No, Paul, #42. Very few Republicaans defend Foley and most conservatives condemn them for doing it along with him for what he did. We do defend Hastert and the rest of the House leadership against baseless accusations that they were Foley’s enablers.

    nk (50d578)

  45. “Instapundit and Drudge, two of the biggest right wing sites, have been pushing this disgusting effort and gleefully linking to the site where the young man was outed.”

    Drudge has enough people reading him that the question of whether he is right-wing or not is common knowledge. Instapundit, on the other hand, is a right-winger only if you consider advocacy for Second Amendment rights and approval of the Iraq war as definitive right-wing credentials. The man has done volunteer work for the ACLU for crying out loud.

    nk (50d578)

  46. Paul, it’s been a while since I’ve run into anyone who thinks in cartoons. Any chance of getting your take on the Paris Hilton/Shanna Moakler kerfuffle?

    I’m sure we’d all be much obliged.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  47. Like most on the left, you are determined not to separate messages from messengers.

    I’m just curious to know who this guy’s audience is, if not himself.

    As “Bob” Dobbs said: “I don’t practice what I preach because i’m not the kind of person i’m preaching to.”

    The man has done volunteer work for the ACLU for crying out loud.

    And the ACLU has done work for nazis for crying out loud. They’re not left wing if instapundit is not right wing.

    actus (10527e)

  48. Sorry Pablo, you will have to keep reading the inquirer for you news on that.

    nk, I agree most republicans are not defending Foley as much as tying to downplay what he did in order to minimize the damage of the scandal. I always took it as common knowledge that Instapundit was a right winger. He has been selling out all his libertarian beliefs in his support for Bush policies. Be that as it may I think this attempt to minimize the scandal by discrediting ABC and outing the pages is going to blow up in the GOP face and I was just wondering if any of the regulars here who are so quick to criticize lefty sites had the integrity to criticize righty ones. Not yet.

    Paul (4553ae)

  49. “I’m just curious to know who this guy’s audience is, if not himself.”

    I think you’re being purposefully obtuse. It’s not that “this guy’s audience” doesn’t include himself. But the message remains true whether he follows it always or not. That’s what I mean by refusing to separate messages from messengers.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  50. actus, #47. Yes. “Right-wing/left-wing” are not adequate to describe the ACLU’s absurd devotion to abstraction in contravention of all common sense. How about Yeats’s “widening gyre” from “The Second Coming”?

    Paul, #48:
    “… I was just wondering if any of the regulars here who are so quick to criticize lefty sites had the integrity to criticize righty ones.”

    I did, here in a previous thread (without identifying the site because I have no business starting a blog war here). Actus can verify it. I had an exchange about it with him. I also left a comment in an even ruder vein on that site.

    nk (50d578)

  51. “I was just wondering if any of the regulars here who are so quick to criticize lefty sites had the integrity to criticize righty ones.”

    Any regulars here know I have disagreed with Patterico. I have also had my share of brawls on other righty sites as well as one or 2 lefty ones. I’ve sort of given up on lefty sites after being told 2 things: 1) that Bill Clinton’s personal conduct didn’t matter because he supported abortion (and other so-called “women’s rights” which was just cover for more abortion) and 2) that Gerry Studds’ behavior with a boy was ok because it was “welcome and consensual.” There just comes a point where you realize some people are neither logical nor rational.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  52. P.S. It’s funny that when ABC aired “The Path To 9/11″ it was viciously attacked by the Democrats, up to having its licensed threatened, for being the propaganda organ of the Right. Now that it’s dished up some dirt on Republicans, the Left finds that the ABC’s behind is kissing-sweet again.

    nk (50d578)

  53. I’d love to be rich enough to travel to an exotic location and f[expletive altered]k a bunch of good looking expensive whores legally.

    God bless any man who can afford it.

    Hugh Beaumont (181f3d)

  54. God bless more the man who can afford it, but chooses not to.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  55. But the message remains true whether he follows it always or not.

    More accurately, the message remains true or false, as the case may be, whether he follows it or not. But what does change with his following it is his power, and whether he is someone we should be listening to, and whether he is someone that should be on TV saying it. So yes, I do shoot the messenger, with his message.

    actus (10527e)

  56. “More accurately, the message remains true or false, as the case may be, whether he follows it or not. But what does change with his following it is his power, and whether he is someone we should be listening to, and whether he is someone that should be on TV saying it. So yes, I do shoot the messenger, with his message.”

    This wouldn’t sound so self-serving and hypocritical if I were certain you applied the same standard to people on the left. But I guess the difference is that I don’t have to throw the message out with the messenger on the left, since the message is crap as well.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  57. This wouldn’t sound so self-serving and hypocritical if I were certain you applied the same standard to people on the left.

    I most certainly do. I don’t want to hear bill clinton lecture me on morality. I don’t like hearing Joe Biden, mr. Bankruptcy bill, lecture me on economic justice issues.

    actus (10527e)

  58. Denny Hastert is smack in the middle of one of the tawdriest and ugliest sex scandals in American political history.

    I couldn’t get past the first sentence. That is beyond hyperbole, how in the hell can anyone take such ignorance seriously?

    B Moe (66c3f0)

  59. “I most certainly do. I don’t want to hear bill clinton lecture me on morality. I don’t like hearing Joe Biden, mr. Bankruptcy bill, lecture me on economic justice issues.”

    If this is true, then I expect to see a few more posts excoriating Clinton the next time sex scandals come up (and they will).

    sharon (dfeb10)

  60. If this is true, then I expect to see a few more posts excoriating Clinton the next time sex scandals come up (and they will).

    For some reason, clinton was brought into this scandal. I can’t quite figure that one out.

    actus (10527e)

  61. I’m puzzled by that one too, Sharon; why would you expect or even want more posts excoriating Clinton the next time sex scandals come up?

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  62. Patterico, I have to ask: are you really that surprised and offended that someone so vitriolic, who paints liberals with broad, non-factual brushes in order to conjure up maximum shock-and-awe, has managed to elicit a gratuitous innuendo-laden potshot on a prominant liberal’s blog? Really?

    Consider who you’re defending. Limbaugh may be entertaining, but I think Greenwald’s central point still stands: How ridiculous that THIS is the man who was chosen by Hastert to help woo the “values voters.” Perhaps, some might say, he could have chosen someone who is NOT an odious, lying, arrogant, hypocritical gas-bag instead.

    (Notice: I did not employ innuendo in the precedeing statement. That was an outright ad hominem attack.)

    Tom (eb6b88)

  63. …that people have personal failings doesn’t stop the messages they sent from being true…

    Sharon, this is an interesting comment. You are, of course, correct, but in the case of Rush Limbaugh, I would like to point out that it is that many of his messages are falsehoods that stops them from being true, not so much his personal failings.

    If I may project a little here, it seems as if you are assuming that we on the left revel in the hypocritical actions of the right because they effectively “kill” those messengers AND their messages. Well, not quite. We “revel” because, in many instances, they serve to validate our positions. Consider the typical case wherein some poor, anti-gay-seeming Republican congressman gets outed by bloggers, then has to resign because neither his party nor his virulently anti-gay Republican constituency will back him subsequently. What draws liberal excitement in stories such as these is not merely the downfall of another Republican hypocrite, but really the fact that it is precisely situations like these which illustrate the need for exactly that which liberals have been advocating (in this case, equal rights regarding marriage, children, on-the-job benefits, and general destigmatized, fair living and treatment).

    In the case of Limbaugh, he built his entire career out of false dichotomies, liberal-bashing and abusing those who are less fortunate than he. It’s interesting then, the level of compassion his listeners afforded him in his time nof need. How much compassion does he encourage people to have for, say, poor drug addicts who lack the resources (or whose communities lack the social programs) to help themselves in the same way? Again, Limbaugh’s failings illustrated the need for the liberal notion that we have a moral obligation in society to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. The fact that he made a hypocritical ass out of himself at the same time is humorous, but admittedly less relevant.

    Tom (eb6b88)

  64. “For some reason, clinton was brought into this scandal. I can’t quite figure that one out.”

    I didn’t bring Clinton into the discussion but it really shouldn’t be hard for you to figure out why he would figure into any scandal that involved young people, old-enough-to-know-better people, and sex. The most interesting argument made for bringing up Clinton is the “it’s just about sex” argument that was used constantly by Democrats to defend Clinton. It’s a decent argument to ask that if the Lewinsky matter was “just about sex” how much more “just about sex” are naughty IMs?

    “I’m puzzled by that one too, Sharon; why would you expect or even want more posts excoriating Clinton the next time sex scandals come up?”

    See my answer to Actus. More than just posts excoriating Clinton’s zipper problem, I like it when people are consistent. So, if Clinton’s behavior was ok because it was “just about sex” and he was actually chivalrous (I saw this description of Clinton’s deceptive answers on a lefty blog), then it seems to me that sending dirty IMs to an adult would still be “just about sex” if one were being consistent, right?

    “If I may project a little here, it seems as if you are assuming that we on the left revel in the hypocritical actions of the right because they effectively “kill” those messengers AND their messages. Well, not quite. We “revel” because, in many instances, they serve to validate our positions. Consider the typical case wherein some poor, anti-gay-seeming Republican congressman gets outed by bloggers, then has to resign because neither his party nor his virulently anti-gay Republican constituency will back him subsequently. What draws liberal excitement in stories such as these is not merely the downfall of another Republican hypocrite, but really the fact that it is precisely situations like these which illustrate the need for exactly that which liberals have been advocating (in this case, equal rights regarding marriage, children, on-the-job benefits, and general destigmatized, fair living and treatment).”

    I’m saying that the reason the left revels in scandals from the right, and, indeed, calls for much harsher punishments than anything done by a lefty, is that leftists can then tell themselves that the message has been discredited as well as the messenger. So, let’s say a conservative lectures about the value of marriage and the tragedy of divorce, then gets divorced. Liberals will not only disparage the person getting divorced, but then the idea that lifelong marriage is possible or even desirable and that divorce isn’t so bad.

    Let’s take the case of Foley. Here we have a homosexual man who was evidently rather well-known for it although he hadn’t made any formal declaration (all the early stories said this). He’s then said to have sent some questionable e-mails (which were not terribly out of the ordinary) and he resigns his position. Then salacious IMs and other, much worse e-mails are released. The problem for liberals is that the subject of the attack is gone, history. Now they want to spread the pain to help them regain the House, so they attack Republican leadership and say they SHOULD have known and done something about it.

    I don’t recall this same line of reasoning from liberals when Gerry Studds was diddling a 17-year-old and then saying it was “welcome” and “consensual.”

    Furthermore, your comments about “virulently anti-gay Republican constituency” is mere speculation on your part. There’s absolutely no evidence that his constituency did not know he was gay or that it, in fact, mattered. This is more projection from the left. I suppose you never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans, which would explain this homophobic stereotype.

    On top of that, Foley’s downfall does nothing to strengthen any of your arguments about “marriage, children, on-the-job benefits, and general destigmatized, fair living and treatment.” You might try being a bit more coherent in your next attempt.

    “In the case of Limbaugh, he built his entire career out of false dichotomies, liberal-bashing and abusing those who are less fortunate than he. It’s interesting then, the level of compassion his listeners afforded him in his time nof need. How much compassion does he encourage people to have for, say, poor drug addicts who lack the resources (or whose communities lack the social programs) to help themselves in the same way?”

    You might try listening to Rush Limbaugh’s program so that you have an idea of what he says. What he denounces is government funding of such programs. If you choose to fund them privately, then it really doesn’t matter if they work or not, does it? But when you are advocating the use of taxpayer dollars for programs that are ineffective at best, then it is a different story.

    “Again, Limbaugh’s failings illustrated the need for the liberal notion that we have a moral obligation in society to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. The fact that he made a hypocritical ass out of himself at the same time is humorous, but admittedly less relevant.”

    As is usual with liberals, you can’t even get the moral of the story right. Society doesn’t have an obligation to help drug abusers continue in their lifestyle. Limbaugh doesn’t illustrate society’s “obligation to care for those less fortunate than ourselves.” He illustrates that drug abuse is a personal problem that should be dealt with by the individuals involved. No amount of government interference will change the fact that this is personal behavior. THAT’S the moral to the story. I knew a liberal wouldn’t get it.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  65. Sharon posted:

    So, if Clinton’s behavior was ok…

    That’s a really big “if”. Who here said Clinton’s behavior was okay? I don’t think what he did was “okay”; I think it was bad. But why do you apparently feel that obligates bringing up his name when someone else does something wrong?

    Limbaugh illustrates that drug abuse is a personal problem that should be dealt with by the individuals involved…

    ..by demanding that they be jailed??? That was Limbaugh’s stance prior to his bust; maybe Tom isn’t the only one that should listen to what he says more closely.

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  66. Tom says:

    Consider who you’re defending. Limbaugh may be entertaining, but I think Greenwald’s central point still stands: How ridiculous that THIS is the man who was chosen by Hastert to help woo the “values voters.” Perhaps, some might say, he could have chosen someone who is NOT an odious, lying, arrogant, hypocritical gas-bag instead.

    Greenwald could make his “central point” without making speculative, sleazy, nasty insinuations — insinuations, I might add, that have alienated some of his intellectually honest former fans. I hear Jon Henke has completely washed his hands of Greenwald as a result of this incident.

    Too bad some of his fans are sticking with him. Hey, as long as you’re on the left, make up any stupid fantasy you like, as long as the target is a despised righty like Limbaugh. It’s A-OK with Tom!

    Tom will just say that Patterico is “defending” said despised lefty!

    The worse the target of the untrue sleaze is, the better this cheap rhetorical trick works.

    Consider the following hypo:

    Glenn Greenwald: Hitler was a known serial rapist who personally raped and killed 16,412 women.

    Patterico: Uh, no he wasn’t, you idiot.

    Tom: Defending Hitler, are we, Patterico?

    It is not “defending” Limbaugh — whom I have said before I don’t particularly like (though I think he’s a talented broadcaster who is not as bad as he is portrayed) — to point out that Greenwald’s attack on him is unsupported innuendo. It is simply correcting and mocking Greenwald. Which he richly deserves.

    This tactic works great for you guys in the Foley scandal, too. Let anyone point out that Democrats are lying about any aspect of the scandal — such as when scads of your top bloggers outright pretended that Hastert knew about the sexually explicit IMs, which was a dirty lie — and we’re “defending” Foley.

    Good times.

    Patterico (de0616)

  67. He’s then said to have sent some questionable e-mails (which were not terribly out of the ordinary) and he resigns his position.

    This is where your story goes wrong. Because I think it is out of the ordinary for a person in the position of a congressman to be cruizing pages.

    You might try listening to Rush Limbaugh’s program so that you have an idea of what he says

    He also said there was no such thing as the right to privacy. Then his lawyer — and the ACLU — argued one for him.

    He illustrates that drug abuse is a personal problem that should be dealt with by the individuals involved.

    And it helps if you’re a millionare.

    actus (10527e)

  68. Let anyone point out that Democrats are lying about any aspect of the scandal — such as when scads of your top bloggers outright pretended that Hastert knew about the sexually explicit IMs, which was a dirty lie — and we’re “defending” Foley

    Good point, Patterico; that approach is not all that dissimilar to the bloggers and republican leaders who outright pretended that the House leadership didn’t know anything about Foley’s behavior; that, by the way, also appears to have been a lie, though it’s a tactic that hasn’t worked all that well for those guys. Of course, that just means that we’re defending Clinton.

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  69. And the Foley saga continues to grow. From this morning’s Washington Post:

    A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe’s press secretary, Korenna Cline.

    The revelation pushes back by at least five years the date when a member of Congress has acknowledged learning of Foley’s behavior with former pages. A timeline issued by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested that the first lawmakers to know, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the House Page Board, and Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), became aware of “over-friendly” e-mails only last fall. It also expands the universe of players in the drama beyond members, either in leadership or on the page board.

    Good thing Republicans are demanding that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats testify under oath about when they first learned of Foley’s indiscretions. And speaking of “sleazy innuendo”:

    In a sharp exchange on “Fox News Sunday,” Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), the vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, insinuated that Democrats were behind the revelations of Foley’s actions and the release of electronic messages showing Foley having sexually graphic or highly suggestive conversations with former pages.

    “What I don’t understand is where have these e-mails been for three years? Are we saying that a 15-year-old child would have sat on e-mails that were triple-X-rated for three years and suddenly spring them out right on the eve of an election? That’s just a little bit too suspicious, even for Washington, D.C.,” Kingston said.

    Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) shot back, “If there’s any evidence that you need that the values in Washington have turned upside down, you could just hear what Jack had to say. Only in Washington, D.C., can you take a group of people in charge of the House and basically have evidence that they’ve been looking the other way while a predator has been . . . going after 15- and 16-year-old pages, [and] they somehow . . . have the audacity to turn that into a political attack against Democrats.

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  70. in re: sharon, Post #54,

    This is admittedly a little off topic, and I apologize, but the problem with Limbaugh is that he has been caught (two or three?) times with painkillers that should’ve put him behind bars, and is still a free man.

    It’s a double standard. Limbaugh wants to lock drug users up and throw away the key, but when he gets caught in the act he negotiates ludicrous plea-bargains and then asks, with a straight face, for the sympathy of his listeners.

    That’s hypocrisy any way you slice it.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  71. “That’s a really big “if”. Who here said Clinton’s behavior was okay? I don’t think what he did was “okay”; I think it was bad. But why do you apparently feel that obligates bringing up his name when someone else does something wrong?”

    Oh, please. There were LOTS of people claiming that what Clinton did was ok, that it was between consenting adults and was nobody’s business. You can start with James Carville, Paul Begala and half the Clinton White House. And I don’t “apparently feel that obligates bringing up his name when someone else does something wrong.” I think it’s instructive that liberals stated publicly that it was nobody’s business and it was just about sex when it was the POTUS that they liked but that they want to hang every Republican in sight when a Republican engages in behavior that is far less egregious. Let’s say, for the moment, that Clinton “did not have sex with that woman…Ms. Lewinsky” in the twisted reading of the word “sex” that liberals enjoyed during the impeachment hearings. In the same vein, Foley didn’t have “sex” with anyone, either. He already resigned, which is MORE than Clinton did. Why is that not enough?

    “..by demanding that they be jailed??? That was Limbaugh’s stance prior to his bust; maybe Tom isn’t the only one that should listen to what he says more closely.”

    I have no problem with jailing him…if the prosecutor can make that charge stick. Which he didn’t.

    “This is where your story goes wrong. Because I think it is out of the ordinary for a person in the position of a congressman to be cruizing pages.”

    Actus, exchanging e-mails with a page is not out of the ordinary. If it is, there must be a lot of Democrats sweating it out now, too.

    “He also said there was no such thing as the right to privacy. Then his lawyer — and the ACLU — argued one for him.”

    Yep. There’s never been a Democrat who made an argument until it was convenient for him to argue in the alternative, either. They don’t teach that in law school, do they?

    “And it helps if you’re a millionare.”

    And it hurts if you’re a famous radio talk show host.

    “have the audacity to turn that into a political attack against Democrats.”

    Gosh, I guess it wouldn’t have anything to do with the perfidy Democrats have shown over the last 20-30 years, would it?

    sharon (dfeb10)

  72. Gosh, I guess it wouldn’t have anything to do with the perfidy Democrats have shown over the last 20-30 years, would it?

    So now it’s the fault of Democrats when a Republican resorts to sleazy innuendo??? A Republican representative resigns in disgrace, another Republican makes baseless insinuations against Democrats, and the Democrats are to blame for it???

    I mean, really now, aren’t you just a little off-message here, Sharon: are’t you supposed to be blaming Clinton?

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  73. And it hurts if you’re a famous radio talk show host.

    I don’t think he’s hurt that bad, no. I think he’s got his job, he’s got access to pricy treatements. I think hes doing better than your average person unfortunate enough to be addicted to drugs.

    Actus, exchanging e-mails with a page is not out of the ordinary

    I don’t know how often congressmen chat with pages. But I think its not that often that they cruise em.

    There’s never been a Democrat who made an argument until it was convenient for him to argue in the alternative, either

    Its not a question of arguing the alternative, its about the deliciousness of making millions and having a career about being wrong but still being saved by being right.

    actus (10527e)

  74. “So now it’s the fault of Democrats when a Republican resorts to sleazy innuendo??? A Republican representative resigns in disgrace, another Republican makes baseless insinuations against Democrats, and the Democrats are to blame for it???”

    It’s the fault of Democrats when they complain about political attacks after 20-30 years of political attacks by Democrats. The problem for Democrats is that Republicans finally got the memo and now use the same tactics.

    “I don’t think he’s hurt that bad, no. I think he’s got his job, he’s got access to pricy treatements. I think hes doing better than your average person unfortunate enough to be addicted to drugs.”

    It is, of course, your opinion whether he’s hurt by being a radio talk show host. I’m sure it does, since that is, after all, what he is famous for and why anyone gives a rat’s ass about him using drugs. It’s also why they probe every corner of his personal life for inconsistencies that they can then use to discredit anything he says. I’d say that’s a direct result of him being a very successful talk show host, not about how much money he makes doing it.

    “I don’t know how often congressmen chat with pages. But I think its not that often that they cruise em.”

    Given that this is only the latest sex scandal involving Congressmen and pages, I think you’re a little off the mark here.

    “Its not a question of arguing the alternative, its about the deliciousness of making millions and having a career about being wrong but still being saved by being right.”

    Of course it’s about arguing in the alternative. It is his lawyer which makes the arguments for his case and it has nothing to do with what he says on the radio. There’s another thread around here that discusses a lawyer’s duty to his client to do what is best for him, not necessarily what the client desires. But it is quite delicious watching liberals get so angry that Rush gets away with things and his ratings stay high, isn’t it?

    sharon (dfeb10)

  75. Given that this is only the latest sex scandal involving Congressmen and pages, I think you’re a little off the mark here.

    There was one in 1973 that I know about, with Studds. Like I said, I don’t think its often that pages get cruised by congressmen.

    It is his lawyer which makes the arguments for his case and it has nothing to do with what he says on the radio.

    All that it has to do with what he says on the radio is that it is wrong.

    It is his lawyer which makes the arguments for his case and it has nothing to do with what he says on the radio.

    I’ve come to terms with the fact that blowhardism, not the truth, makes money and fame.

    actus (10527e)

  76. “I’ve come to terms with the fact that blowhardism, not the truth, makes money and fame.”

    Naah. Rush is entertaining. I agree with about 20% of what he says, go apoplectic with another 20%, and stay to listen to the other 60% because I’m tired of music. He has a preselected audience and formats his show to what they want to hear. He has never been a convincing social conservative, some aspects of his fiscal conservatism are what make angry, but his political commentary is fun to listen to. Strike “entertaining” — he is an entertainer.

    nk (06f5d0)

  77. “There was one in 1973 that I know about, with Studds. Like I said, I don’t think its often that pages get cruised by congressmen.”

    I’d think you might like to get your facts straight, given that you really come down hard on others who don’t:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2509889

    “All that it has to do with what he says on the radio is that it is wrong.”

    You brought up that his lawyer made an argument that was different from what he said on the radio. It has everything to do with it. He may fully believe there’s no right to privacy, but that’s the best argument in court for his attorney to make.

    “I’ve come to terms with the fact that blowhardism, not the truth, makes money and fame.”

    I’ve come to terms that those who can’t make the money and have the fame are the ones whining about blowhards.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  78. I’d think you might like to get your facts straight, given that you really come down hard on others who don’t:

    So two in 30 years. Don’t think thats ‘often.’ And seeing as how they faced censure, I don’t htink thats normal.

    It has everything to do with it

    I know. The lawyer is correct. Rush is wrong.

    actus (10527e)

  79. “So two in 30 years. Don’t think thats ‘often.’ And seeing as how they faced censure, I don’t htink thats normal.”

    Actually, that’s 3 scandals (there were 2 in 1983). And those are the page scandals we are aware of. Judging from what has been happening, it’s probable that there’s far more “interaction” between Congressmen and pages than we know about, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more that just haven’t come to light.

    And even if it were only these 3 men, what is your point? That his behavior is unusual? I think most people would say that. So?

    “I know. The lawyer is correct. Rush is wrong.”

    There are many people who do not believe in the right to privacy. That a lawyer must argue that there is one while his client doesn’t agree with it doesn’t make this the problem you say it is. And who knows? With a more conservative court, this so-called right to privacy could be severely curbed, making your point obsolete.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  80. Actually, that’s 3 scandals (there were 2 in 1983).

    2 in 1983. 1 of which (Studds) was for sex he had in 1973. So 2 in 30+ years.

    Judging from what has been happening, it’s probable that there’s far more “interaction” between Congressmen and pages than we know about, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more that just haven’t come to light.

    Ya but I don’t think that people hearing about mor page cruising is goign to make people feel that it is more ok. Rather they’re going to feel that the problem is worse. But I will allow that there is more that we don’t know about.

    There are many people who do not believe in the right to privacy.

    I know. And they are incorrect. In many ways, we have one. Rush just had an opportunity to learn about it.

    actus (10527e)

  81. “2 in 1983. 1 of which (Studds) was for sex he had in 1973. So 2 in 30+ years.”

    Actually, that’s 3 that we know of.

    “Ya but I don’t think that people hearing about mor page cruising is goign to make people feel that it is more ok. Rather they’re going to feel that the problem is worse. But I will allow that there is more that we don’t know about.”

    Did someone say it was ok? I haven’t heard that argument.

    “I know. And they are incorrect. In many ways, we have one. Rush just had an opportunity to learn about it.”

    They’re no more incorrect than the people who believe in an unfettered right to abortion.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  82. Let’s set aside the whole “Viagra in a suitcase” thing for just a second and ask: How many times has Limbaugh been married?

    (I’m not sure, someone feel free to let me know)

    I think that he’s been married at least three times.
    That seems to send a contradictory message to all those who tune in to his show hoping to hear screeds on why the Republican party is the party of family values.

    Whatever.
    Like I said, let me know how many times he’s been married (and, consequently, divorced).

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  83. “I think that he’s been married at least three times.
    That seems to send a contradictory message to all those who tune in to his show hoping to hear screeds on why the Republican party is the party of family values.”

    I have no idea how many times Limbaugh’s been married. It’s nowhere close to Liz Taylor. Is your argument that if a person has been married more than once that they shouldn’t discuss marriage? And would it be ok for Limbaugh to discuss marriage if he had only been married once but fooled around multiple times?

    Like Actus, you seem to miss why people consider the Republican party to be the party of family values. It’s not necessarily so much what the Republicans are but what Democrats aren’t. Because is a person IS concerned about family values (in the traditional sense), that person sure wouldn’t find much comfort among Democrats.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  84. I second Sharon. Those are personal issues. Do you have a Limbaugh ex-bride claiming that she was victimized in any way? You lefties sneer at conservatives for not living up to the high standards they have while you, yourselves, have no standards at all. Do you like it when busybodies stick their noses into your personal life? What is more hypocritical? Failing to live up to a high standard you set or criticizing someone else for not living up to a standard you refuse to accept for yourself? At least apply the same standard to Limbaugh that you apply to yourself.

    nk (8214ee)

  85. I’ve said this before, guys: there is such a thing as a Christian Democrat. We have moral standards just like you do, and expect public figures (like Limbaugh, and Foley, and Studds, and Clinton) to walk what they talk.

    That said… # of marriages? Anyone?

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  86. That seems to send a contradictory message to all those who tune in to his show hoping to hear screeds on why the Republican party is the party of family values.

    Your concern is so heartening. Whatever shall we do for those poor, poor confused and disappointed people? Lynch the serial marrier? Declare God dead? Vote Democrat?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  87. Did someone say it was ok? I haven’t heard that argument.

    Someone might minimize it by saying it happens often. I think finding that out would tend to make people more upset, rather than less.

    They’re no more incorrect than the people who believe in an unfettered right to abortion.

    We most certainly do not have that. Just look at Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But belief? Wanting? Thats resilient to facts, and somewhat orthogonal to them. Want away!

    actus (10527e)

  88. What difference does it make how many times he’s been married? Has he ever criticised divorce? If you believe in marriage, and the one you’re in isn’t working, then you get divorced so you can try again, hopefully this time with the right person. The question is whether he’s ever cheated on any of his wives while he was married to them, and I know of no evidence for that (and no, the mere possession of viagra while away from his wife doesn’t mean anything at all).

    Milhouse (61ed0f)

  89. Foley’s IMs and emails were to former pages. I.e. young men who were not working for him or subordinate to him in any way, and were of legal age. He could have had sex with them without breaking any laws; instead, he talked dirty with them. I really don’t see the problem. And I’ll bet it’s not uncommon for Congressmen, D or R, to chat up attractive young members of the appropriate sex, who don’t work for them.

    Milhouse (61ed0f)

  90. Has he ever criticised divorce?

    Yes. I think he also may have said that marriage is for making children. I don’t think he’s done that with any of his marriages. What other purpose could there be?

    The question is whether he’s ever cheated on any of his wives while he was married to them

    I think he’s started relationships with married people. Don’t know how heavy they got while they were still married.

    actus (10527e)

  91. What other purpose could there be?

    You can’t think of any other purpose? Seriously?

    I think he’s started relationships with married people.

    What sort of relationships? Is this an innuendo?

    77GangGreen (e60151)

  92. What sort of relationships? Is this an innuendo?

    Correspondence. Thats how he met one of his wives.

    actus (10527e)

  93. “I think he also may have said that marriage is for making children.”

    That sounds moderately unlikely, actus. Everybody will say something stupid on occasion but Rush’s show is usually too well scripted for something so asinine. Are you sure he was not talking about society’s endorsement of marriage because of its utility in the raising of children in the context of one of the few discussions he has had on gay marriage? That sounds more like him although I don’t think his heart is really into those discussions. Like I said before, he is not a very convincing social conservative. And he is certainly no hateful bigot like Michael Savage.

    nk (4d4a9d)

  94. Are you sure he was not talking about society’s endorsement of marriage because of its utility in the raising of children in the context of one of the few discussions he has had on gay marriage?

    Probably. But gays can certainly raise children. Why wonder what he saw as the purpose of his marriages. What he said was: Marriage is about raising children. That’s the purpose of the institution

    actus (10527e)

  95. “Someone might minimize it by saying it happens often. I think finding that out would tend to make people more upset, rather than less.”

    I don’t know anyone who has minimized what he did because there have been other scandals. I certainly haven’t. I have seen liberals try to excuse the Democrat scandals by saying the abuse was “welcome” and “consensual.”

    sharon (dfeb10)

  96. I don’t know anyone who has minimized what he did because there have been other scandals.

    Really? You must run in some clean circles.

    I have seen liberals try to excuse the Democrat scandals by saying the abuse was “welcome” and “consensual.”

    I heard that studds’s affair was with a page that said it was consensual.

    actus (10527e)

  97. “Really? You must run in some clean circles.”

    Ya. Pretty much.

    “I heard that studds’s affair was with a page that said it was consensual.”‘

    And we’ve never heard of 17 yr olds making very bad decisions based on being 17. Or old men abusing their power and status.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  98. And we’ve never heard of 17 yr olds making very bad decisions based on being 17

    And by the time they’re 27? when they say the relationship was consensual? more evidence that it wasnt a bad decision.

    Or old men abusing their power and status.

    Always a problem. Which is why we have to get details of each affair. For me, lots of uncomfortable cruizing is worse than 1 consensual affair.

    actus (10527e)

  99. …This is more projection from the left. I suppose you never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans, which would explain this homophobic stereotype.

    sharon, in my hypothetical example I created a scenario that was, as it turns out, hypothetical. You might try interpreting my words as they are written next time, rather than interpolating anything about my assumptions.

    (However, I do want to give credit where it is due: I am impressed that you can cite a single gay Republican group as evidence that Republicans are, on the whole, welcoming to [political support from] gays and lesbians. I am completely overwhelmed in the face of this evidence: the mere existence of the Log Cabin Republicans completely neutralizes any claim that the Republicans have anti-gay elements. Employing this brilliant logic, I’ve discovered that Mormons are gay-friendly as well, due to the existence of their LGBT group.)

    Tom (eb6b88)

  100. Patterico,

    Last time I checked, Greenwald is a liberal attorney with a blog. When did he sign away the privilege of employing rhetorical devices such as innuendo when referencing a much-reviled icon, in passing, whose primary rhetorical devices are equally fallacious?

    In short, why are you insisting that Greenwald be held to the highest journalistic standards in a passing, obviously-exaggerated reference that does not purport itself to be high journalism?

    [He certainly hasn’t signed away the “privilege” of carelessly hurling sleazy and thinly sourced accusations. He retains it and exercises it frequently. But hey — as long as the target is a reviled conservative, he can say whatever dishonest crap he likes and you apparently won’t say boo. — P]

    Tom (eb6b88)

  101. …But hey — as long as the target is a reviled conservative, he can say whatever dishonest crap he likes and you apparently won’t say boo.

    Yes and no. If you’re suggesting I would do otherwise if the target were a liberal blowhard, you’re wrong. But it is true that I’m not really concerned about this type of “accusation,” being that it is *clearly* subjective, aiming to be provocative, and not the sort of news I would otherwise expect to be at a significantly higher level of discourse.

    In short, I also don’t feel the need to point out Rush Limbaugh’s logical fallacies and hyperbole anymore–because his audience is primarily his own choir, and no one would give a damn other than a bunch of other liberals.

    You cited a guy who got mad at Greenwald over this and fell out, but I can think of a guy who left Limbaugh too for the same reason. But by and large, the end result is the same: the people who frequent these sources for their “news” will continue to do so, and what the rest of us do on the sidelines will remain largely immaterial.

    Tom (385ec8)

  102. You cited a guy who got mad at Greenwald over this and fell out, but I can think of a guy who left Limbaugh too for the same reason.

    Well, maybe Greenwald and Limbaugh are similar then. But you and I aren’t. I am willing to criticize Limbaugh. You pretty much defend Greenwald.

    I could sit here and say: well, who really expects more from Limbaugh? But if he says stupid stuff — and he sometimes does — I’m going to criticize him.

    If Greenwald says stupid and even offensive and sleazy stuff, you’re going to defend him.

    That’s the difference.

    Prove me wrong.

    Patterico (de0616)

  103. Everyone says stupid stuff. Even John Kerry.

    You deal with it and move on. Unless you’re Bill Clinton or Glenn Greenwals or Kurt Cobain or something… then your groupies just defend you forever.

    For example, for an understanding of politics proper, few people can touch Rush. When I listen to some of his military “analysis” like I was the other day on North Korea I cringe.

    His view is that the American military can do anything and, well, they can’t.

    Very capable (I love the American military), but there are limits to what military power can accomplish and the U.S. does not have limitless military power to begin with. Rush understands this, of course, but still has a rather unrealistic idea of what can be done and what the costs for doing a given operation are likely to be.

    I tend to see the operations he suggests as higher cost, but in some cases worth it anyway.

    So that’s criticism, but it’s balanced criticism. In almost any area of life, leftists appear unbalanced to me. Not necessarily nutso, just unrealistic and one-sided. Not nuanced.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  104. *Greenwald

    Christoph (9824e6)

  105. Understand, Patterico, that I don’t know Greenwald, nor have I read his book or his blog. I could care, frankly, WHAT he writes.

    Not attacking him over this (as you are) is not the same as defending him:

    Glenn Greenwald: [Makes sleazy innuendo about sleazy personality.]

    Patterico: [blog post] What sleazy innuendo over there! What a moron!

    Tom: Why is this worthy of notice?

    Patterico: Defending Greenwald, are we, Tom?

    Maybe it’s just that I’m lazier than you, P. I just don’t seek to correct everything I come across that needs it; I tend to choose my battles instead. It’s not insignificant that this is the only conservative site I’ll bother to post on anymore.

    Tom (eb6b88)

  106. […] Radley Balko takes on Greg Sargent’s attempt to turn John Tierney into a right wing partisan shill for a relatively mild example. The King of bad faith however, is Rick Ellensberg, uh, Glenn Greenwald or as he is readily conceded to be, the King of Sock Puppets. I have discussed Greenwald and Ann Coulter’s particular brand of bad faith before, and if you want a thorough dissection of their rhetorical tricks you should certainly start there, but some things deserve regular attention. So we should begin with a few links to some of the petty, but nevertheless telling ways the man works, whether it is misrepresenting a sequence of events and calling someone a stalker or intimating that someone you don’t respect is a pedophile. The high minded, morally above the herd, King of Sock Puppets can do these things and still beat the drum of his moral superiority because, well, I guess it is because he hates Bush. That seems enough for some people. […]

    A Second Hand Conjecture » The Politics of Bad Faith (f55714)

  107. Well she did it, she cheated. I still can\’t believe it.

    Cheating Girlfriend (4f8f8f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4382 secs.