Internal Polling Suggests Hastert Could Devastate GOP

Chris --
It's only a matter of time with you, isn't it?
Sooner or later, the rules of the board get in the way of your tantrum-tossing and we have to go around and around on this again.
Look, like what I post, don't like what I post. I don't care.
Believe you know who I am, go ahead.
But, in case you haven't noticed, Barone really doesn't write very well. He's yanked the Almanac all the way to the right since 1980, which was the first year I bought it. He published a book this year about tough Red America and soft Blue America that was outdated approxomately from the moment it hit the stands. He's a predictable, boring commentator. He's a hack.
And there are at least 15 people on this board who write better than he does.

 

I haven't outed you in the least. I will point out that Barone has a BA from Harvard, a law degree from Yale, is the senior writer for US News & World Report and author of the Almanac of American Politics (the bible for many political operatives).

That's the man you call a hack - simply because you disagree with him. Instead of refuting what he had to say - you call him a hack.

That's the way you operate and it is a serious character flaw. If you disagree with someone - you start calling names. I grant that some of the names are imaginative but all of them are mean spirited. Maybe you need to step away from anonymous boards because they make you into a complete asshole.

 

No, it's because I read the Almanac every time it comes out that I can tell you that he's tanked it to the right.
It's because I read US News that i can tell you that being a senior writer there doesn't impress me.
Although I think it's charming that you've become so impressed with Ivy League credentials all of a sudden.

And this sentence, because it conforms not to the facts on the record, but to a current GOP talking point, is what makes him a hack.
"Democrats or their sympathizers can withhold information politically damaging to Republicans until a time when disclosure seems likely to do the most damage."

 

The truth makes someone a hack? Well, F-B, you then have no worries about being a hack.

 

Because he's right (meaning correct) doesn't mean he's Right.

A number of posters here - including S_F Express (who I respect for being even handed more than maybe any poster on the board) - thought it odd that the story was sat on for at least 10 months. If you recall the "boy" in question spoke to the St Petersburg Times LAST November. That information was withheld until now. I guess that makes everyone at the St Petersburg Times a hack too. Or it just means that maybe Barone was just pointing out the obvious which seems to be lost to you because you are blinded by political bias.

Your penchant for posting anything that could remotely be damaging to Republicans is a running board joke and though you consider yourself a professional - you are turninging into a joke too.

And by the way - if Barone is such a "hack" why do you go out of your way to read his work everytime the Almanac comes out? For the heck of it - I may send him an email to ask if he's ever read anything of yours or even heard of you.

 

James Dobson — evidently having seen nothing since, oh, 2003 that registers on his scale of presidential embarrassment and wickedness — finally weighs in on Foley:

An excellent column during the farce that was Campaign 2000:

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/04/morality/print.html

Six years later, the story is the same.

 

Go ahead. Tattle to a second-string pundit from the third-most-influential news magazine in the country. What's next? Sending someone's plate number to Victor Davis Chickenhawk?
Of course, the Almanac still contains valuable breakdowns of every congressional district, and election results going back two or three cycles, so its data is still important to have. So, I still read it. The commentary has lurched to the right under Barone. I read that, too, which is how I know how it's changed. I'm sorry my board persona bothers you so much. Not m uch we can do about that, I guess.
Ask the St. Pete paper why they held the story, unless of course the St. Pete paper is another Soros-funded lefty smear operation. They may have stayed away because the story was icky, or because they didn't think there was anything there. Ross says all his sources are Republicans, and there certainly seem to be a lot of GOP legislators diving under desks when Hastert walks by.

 

So Michael Barone is not just a hack - now he's a second string hack? You are pathetic.

And I guess you are referring to Dr. Victor Davis Hanson (Ph D Stanford) who has had a number of books on the New York Times best seller list. Tell us again - how many books on the New York Times best seller list have you had? Hey - zero? That's the same number as me!

Why do you think it is necessary for you to try and drag down accomplished people like Michael Barone or Victor Davis Hanson? Does it make you feel smarter? Do you think it makes you more popular? Does it make you feel brave tossing your barbs on an anonymous board? Does it help you get an erection? Really - I'm curious.

Are you that insecure in your own intellectual abilities that you have try and tear someone down to make yourself feel better?

Pathetic.

 

"Intellectual insecurity"
"Tearing down more accomplished people"
"How many bestsellers etc. etc."
From you?
Now that's hilarious.
I think I'm finished now with the debate over the intellectual giant that is Michael Barone.
You may admire who you wish to admire. However, and here's a tip, sometimes they're wrong.

 

Here's a tip for you - your worth as a person is not dependant upon you winning every argument on an anonymous Internet board.

It is OK to admit you are wrong once and a while and it is also OK to engage in debate without gratuitous name calling (no matter how clever you may think those names may be).

 

For those saying Foley never had sex with the page, check out this new allegation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061008/wl_afp/uspoliticschildsexscandal_061008141247;_ylt=AoqFwnr_Ezb4RW4byTLioVmGbToC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Is there probably some element of sitting on the story until it would be most damaging? You'd have to be naive to say no.

However, that doesn't change the story itself. He used a position of power to correspond sexually with an underage (at the initial time) employee. If he worked at any major company and this came out, he would be fired, or at least placed on unpaid leave before anyone knew what was happening. And if there was evidence that people higher in the food chain had similar knowledge, they would be gone as well.

The sex apparently occured when the page was of legal age, and hey, if he wants to do that, it's his own business. But the way the relationship apparently developed is totally inappropriate for anyone, much less a person entrusted with creating laws for this country.

 

I love how Newt Gingrich can go on television and say, "We couldn't do anything about Foley because we'd be accused of gay bashing."

Are you shitting me? When has the Republican party ever cared about coming across as anti-gay?