Tag: Scandals

White House Refuses to Name Mystery I.T. Firm

Trish

ABC’s Brian Ross is reporting that the White House is refusing to name the company it farmed out its email management to. You know, the one whose fault it supposedly is that we can’t read Karl Rove’s email.

The White House will not identify a private company which appears to be involved in the disappearance of millions of White House e-mails.

The company was responsible for reviewing and archiving White House e-mails, a White House official told congressional staff in May, according to a letter yesterday from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Congressional investigators asked then for the name of the company and “have repeatedly requested” the information since then, according to Waxman.

Resistance is futile, thanks to Richard Nixon.

According to the White House, at least five million e-mails were not properly archived and may be lost forever, in apparent violation of the Presidential Records Act. The post-Watergate law states that communications relating to official activity in the offices of the president and vice president are owned by the American public and cannot be destroyed.

Waxman’s new deadline to stop the stonewalling is Sept. 10.

In addition to requesting the firm’s name, Waxman’s staff has also asked to see a White House report which detailed the days on which few or no e-mails were archived; the White House has been similarly unresponsive to that request, Waxman charged, and asked it provide the document by Sept. 10 as well.

Maybe the White House strategy is to stonewall it until Jan. 20, 2009 and then put Bush on one of those secret flights to Eastern Europe and send Cheney to the bunker.

Republicans Painted Themselves Into Gay Corner

Trish

When the Karl Roves and Andrea Laffertys of the world decided that the best way to get out the vote was to fire up the masses about gay rights, they never considered that some of their own were gay too. It’s kind of like forgetting that some Republicans are black, and one or two are poor. Easy to do, but a mistake nonetheless.

Houston Chronicle: “A party that harps on sexual orientation, as the Republicans now do, forces many of its own into furtive, destructive behaviors”

When reality intrudes into their rhetoric, the dissonance stings — hard. The Houston Chronicle notes the consquences for a party, “which since the 1980s has, culturally and legislatively, demonized gay men and women.”

By preoccupying the party with homosexuality…Republican strategists have helped force out or into hiding numerous lawmakers who served the party well. Instead of disclosing their orientation and getting on with their work, gay or bisexual Republicans typically have felt compelled to choose between personal integrity and political survival.

Yet heterosexuality is hardly a bedrock Lincolnesque value. [Sen. Larry] Craig’s own constituents happily re-elected him for years — despite rumors about his orientation — before he began opining on others’ sexuality.

An even better example of this dynamic is the successful career of former U.S. Rep. Steve Gunderson, a Wisconsin Republican who told voters he was gay while still in office. Then he continued working diligently for the causes they cared about most.

…Gunderson backed the balanced budget amendment. He supported President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts, approved the first Gulf War and promoted the dairy industry. Rural, conservative voters re-elected him eight times in a row for his conservative values before he chose not to run again in 1996…Gunderson never betrayed voters or himself.

In contrast, since 1980 the Republican Party has lost at least three once-closeted House members to scandals…But the scandals were at least partly fueled by each congressman’s need to deny his sexuality. Craig, now frantically trying to deny his guilty plea, may be the latest on the list.

…a party that harps on sexual orientation, as the Republicans now do, forces many of its own into furtive, destructive behaviors.

So while those caught are passing around blame — in Craig’s case to newspapers, lying cops, and wide stances — they should examine their own willingness to jump on the hate train, and partake of the payoff at the end of the line.

GOP Moral Relativism: Sen. Craig Must Resign But Sen. Vitter Can Stay

Jon Ponder

The clamor for Sen. Larry “Wide Stance” Craig to resign is growing by the minute among Republicans in Washington. The senator’s inadvertent self-outing in an airport men’s room in June has rendered him too morally impure to remain in the GOP.

So what are the moral dictates behind the decision that Craig should go but Vitter can stay? There aren’t any. It’s all politics.

But when it was revealed in July that Sen. David Vitter’s number appeared in the D.C. Madam’s call list, these same Washington Republican elites readily accepted his apology for his “sins.” No one among the capitol’s conservative elite called for Vitter to step down.

Whatever happened to the Republicans’ vaunted “moral absolutism” on matters like these?

We have two Republican senators, both vocal supporters of “family values” — both have admitted to engaging in illegal activities. One pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from an undercover cop, the other got nabbed paying for sex, allegedly had a child with a prostitute and reportedly has a fetish for diapers.

So what are the moral dictates behind the decision that Craig should go but Vitter can stay?

There aren’t any. It’s all politics. The governor of Vitter’s state is a Democrat, and she would be eager to replace him with a Democrat. The governor of Idaho is a Republican, so his seat is safe. It’s that simple.

[…]

Journalistic Ethics: When to Out a Guy

Buck Banks

In his “Everyday Ethics” column, Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute mulls over the question of when it is appropriate or germane to a story to identify a public figure or politician as gay. He notes that there were intimations that the latest scandalized pol was gay almost a year ago:

Last fall when a gay activist and radio show host claimed that Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, was secretly gay, newsrooms around the country agonized over how and what to cover. Since Roll Call ‘s revelation Monday evening that Craig was arrested in a sting operation in a men’s restroom at the Minneapolis airport, I have been fielding calls from reporters asking if and when journalists are justified in covering the sexual orientation of a politician.

Because Craig pleaded guilty, McBride argues, his alleged gayness is certainly part of the story. But on the axis of reasons to cover a person’s assumed sexual orientation, Craig also qualifies on several other measures:

  • Hypocrisy: It is fair game if a certain politician has consistently voted on public policy issues that appear to undermine the rights or the political agenda of gay and lesbian citizens and if there is evidence that he is gay himself. I actually support a higher threshold. Merely voting a certain way on issues doesn’t quite cut it. The only time the hypocrisy argument really works is when an individual has railed against gays and lesbians as a campaign platform. We don’t call women who vote against public policy that would be beneficial to other women hypocrites.
  • Honesty: If a guy says he’s not gay and it turns out that he is, he’s a liar and voters deserve to know. Here again, I believe a higher threshold is in order. Has he deceived a spouse? Has he actively created a false impression?
  • Infidelity: We don’t care if he’s gay. We care if he is having affairs and breaking his marriage vows. Then focus on the infidelity, not the sexual orientation. We’ve cared about philandering ever since the days of Gary Hart.
  • Criminal behavior: This is the clearest justification. If a politician is engaged in or charged with behavior that is deemed to be against the law, then we usually care. But go one step further and explain why such behavior is criminal, especially when it involves tapping ones foot in a men’s room.
  • The impact the rumors/story have on the voters and politics: We don’t care whether he’s gay. We report on the effect the story has on the political scene. This is a cop-out, a great way to back into a salacious story without taking responsibility for the information at the heart of the story. News editors, executive producers and political hacks, take your pick. If you’re going to cover the Senator Larry Craig story, find a journalistic purpose for the space and time and energy it consumes.

Sen. Craig Blames His Men’s Room Trysting Guilty Plea on the Media

Jon Ponder

Sen. Larry Craig, the proudly homophobic Republican who pleaded guilty to soliciting an undercover cop in an airport men’s room the summer, apologized today — but not for his behavior in the bathroom stall in June, but rather for entering a guilty plea in August. Craig said he acted hastily because he was being “harassed” by a newspaper’s investigation into allegations he is gay:

It strains credulity that an innocent person — especially one as powerful a United States senator — would plead guilty to accusations of this sort.

For a moment, I want to put my state of mind into context on June 11. For eight months leading up to June, my family and I had been relentlessly and viciously harassed by the Idaho Statesman. If you’ve seen today’s paper, you know why. Let me be clear: I am not gay and never have been.

No? Well then why such agita over the newspaper’s investigation?

Let’s review what Craig did in the bathroom stall at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport in June, according to the officer:

“Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moved his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could … see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

It strains credulity that an innocent person — especially one as powerful as a United States senator — would plead guilty to accusations of this sort. An innocent man would have hired a lawyer right away and set about to fight the charges, come what may. Craig’s first priority was managing news about his arrest, not clearing his name or declaring his innocence.

Now he’s claiming innocence, of course, and says he screwed up after the arrest because he was operating solo, without counsel from lawyers, his staff or family. It’s probably true he didn’t bring his family into it, but at some point after his arrest on June 11 and before the hearing on August 8, someone came up with the strategy that has played out before our eyes: Plead guilty as quietly as possible and then, in true Bush Republican fashion, go before the cameras and lie with all the steely-eyed fervency that can be mustered.

*

The complete text of Craig’s statement follows:

[…]

Ted Nugent Befouled Himself to Avoid Vietnam Draft

Jon Ponder

Richard Roeper:

Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene for a month and showed up for his draft board physical in pants caked with his own urine and feces, winning a deferment.

So Ted Nugent roams a concert stage while toting automatic weapons, calls Barack Obama “a piece of —–” and says he told Obama to suck on one of his machine-guns. He also calls Hillary Clinton a “worthless bitch” and Dianne Feinstein a “worthless whore.”

That Nugent, he’s a man’s man. He talks the talk and walks the walk, right?

Except when it was time to register for the draft during the Vietnam era. By his own admission, Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene for a month and showed up for his draft board physical in pants caked with his own urine and feces, winning a deferment. Creative!

Ah, but that was a long time ago. Nugent isn’t just a washed-up rocker — he’s a right-wing madman who’s not afraid to call out some of the leading Democrats in language so vile it makes the Dixie Chick Natalie Maines’ comments about President Bush sound like a love poem.

You’d think even someone such as Sean Hannity would dismiss Nugent as a macho clown, desperate for attention.

Yeah, right.

In a discussion on his show last week, Hannity refused to condemn Nugent’s remarks, saying, “I like Ted Nugent . . . he’s a friend of mine,” and even laughing loudly as Alan Colmes read the transcript of some of Nugent’s remarks.

Funny. I don’t remember Hannity being so cavalier about the Dixie Chicks went they criticized Bush.

Not that he’s operating under a double standard or anything.

Self Loathing: Voting Record of Secretly Queer Senator Is 100% Anti-Gay

Jon Ponder

The hypocrisy of the voting record of Sen. Larry Craig, the Idaho Republican who has outed himself by pleading guilty to naughty behavior in a men’s room, is just sad:

“Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.” — Sen. Craig, in 1999
  • 1996: Voted YES on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibiting same-sex marriage.
  • 2000: Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
  • 2002: Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
  • 2002: Rated 25 percent by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.
  • 2006: Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

And let’s not forget that Craig is very much married (to a woman), thus adding adultery to his catalog of sins. In 1999, he stated his feelings about the character of cheating spouses on “Meet the Press,” reacting to a question about the Clinton impeachment:

MR. RUSSERT: Larry Craig, would you want the last word from the Senate be an acquittal of the president and no censure?

SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don’t know where the Senate’s going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure reslution and it’s a slap on the wrist. It’s a, “Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You’re a naughty boy.” The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.

I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy. The question issue now is simply this: Did he lie under oath? Did he perjure himself and did he obstruct justice? And that’s where we’re trying to go now in this truth-seeking process.

In statement on his website today, Craig says he pleaded guilty too hastily:

“I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.”

But go here to read the testimony against Sen. Craig by an undercover cop, and you’ll see that pleading guilty was the only option he had.

Roll Call on Gonzalez Resignation

Trish

George, Laura, Al and Becky on Sunday, Aug. 26, 2007

Sad. So sad. I might just cry.

George Bush: “After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position, and I accept his decision. It’s sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons.”

Edwards: Gonzales “oversaw a political purge of U.S. Attorneys at the Justice Department, approved torture techniques at Guantanamo Bay and approved illegal spying on Americans. His leaving is a victory for all of us.”

Or not.

— The most concise reaction came from John Edwards: “Better late than never.”

Following the Bush press conference, Edwards expanded on that, saying Gonzales “oversaw a political purge of U.S. Attorneys at the Justice Department, approved torture techniques at Guantanamo Bay and approved illegal spying on Americans,” and his leaving “is a victory for all of us.”

— Hillary Clinton: “This resignation is long overdue, and so is the appointment of an Attorney General who will put the rule of law and our Constitution above partisan politics…Time and time again, [Gonzales] demonstrated that his loyalties lie with the President and his political agenda, not the American people or the evenhanded and impartial enforcement of our laws…from warrantless wiretaps to the firing of U.S. Attorneys.

— Barack Obama: “I have long believed that Alberto Gonzales subverted justice to promote a political agenda, and so I am pleased that he has finally resigned today. The President needs to nominate an Attorney General who will be the people’s lawyer, not the President’s lawyer, and in an Obama Administration that person will first and foremost defend and promote the rights and liberties enshrined in our Constitution.”

— Bill Richardson: “The resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is long overdue. The President must nominate an Attorney General who is a lawyer for the American people not a political arm of the White House.”

— Rudy Giuliani: “Judge Gonzales served his nation honorably and I wish him well in the next phase of his career.”

— Florida Sen. Mel Martinez (R): Gonzales “is an honorable man has conducted himself always with honesty, dedication and integrity. He is my friend and he is a good man. He and his family have my thanks for their sacrifice for serving during difficult times, and my best wishes for the future.”

Former Christian Action League Pres. Pleads Guilty to Hooker Charges

Jon Ponder

Via Pam’s House Blend, Coy Privette — the 74-year-old right-wing Christian nationalist politician, former Baptist preacher and member of the Baptist State Convention, who was fired as the president of the Christian Action League after he was arrested June 19 for aiding and abetting prostitution — has pleaded guilty to those charges.

When we first reported this story, several Privette supporters wrote in to say that, despite the fact that the charges were investigated by North Carolina’s State Bureau of Investigation, the allegations were either erroneous or trumped up and politically motivated to take down a prominent spokesman for “family values.”

Summers taped phone conversations with Privette for investigators and gave police a picture of Privette kissing her cheek, which she took with her camera phone.

Now that Privette has pleaded guilty, the preponderance of the evidence against him has been revealed:

Privette, who has made few public appearances since his June 19 arrest, had to sit in public and watch as [a prosecutor] spelled out details about investigators’ evidence that he paid Salisbury resident Tiffany Denise Summers for sex six times from May 4 through June 25.

Investigators had records from two Salisbury hotels where Privette signed in under his own name. They had separate security tape images showing Privette and Summers in the same hotels on the same days.

They also had evidence from Summers, 32, who cooperated with authorities once investigators called her in.

She taped phone conversations with Privette for investigators and gave police a picture of Privette kissing her cheek, which she took with her camera phone.

He was sentenced to 48 hours of community service and a year of probation, and is required to undergo counseling and pay court costs.

Privette still holds elective office on the Cabarrus County Commission in suburban Charlotte.

Mark Foley Doing Pretty Good in Fake Election

Trish

A poll being conducted by the Stuart (FL) News has some participants seeking career opportunities with the paper, since it is obvious employees are encouraged to drink on the job.

The question asked is, if an election were held today, would you vote for former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Ephebophile) or Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Palm Beach)? Although at one time disgraced page molester Foley led, the results are currently:

Mark Foley — 30% (83 votes)
Tim Mahoney — 69% (185 votes)
268 total votes

Who is that 30 percent? No doubt it’s the same 30 percent who would support George Bush, no matter what, even if he too were caught instant messaging teenage boys about what turns them on. And it’s that same 30 percent who think Bush is doing a helluva job, no matter how bad things are.

Some of the comments reflect this conclusion.

“Amazingly, the vote is split. This has to be either a haven for pedophiles or die-hard Republicans or both!”

“Is the 44% up there now for Foley voted by peodphiles? Do we have that many in our area?”

“No, they’re not pedophiles, they’re just dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. These are the same people who will vote for Rudy Giuliani. They’ll swallow their objections to his stands on abortion, gay rights etc. just because they think he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton. Hypocrites! All of them!”

There’s more. Take a moment and vote yourself, or just read the comments.