Subscribe for 33¢ / day

WASHINGTON — Call the CDC. Alert the surgeon general and put the National Institutes of Health on standby.

We’re having a severe outbreak of whataboutism.

In mild forms, the primary symptom is a vulnerability to false equivalencies. Virulent strains, such as the current one, can cause victims to lose all moral perspective.

After I wrote about the grotesque spectacle of President Trump and Kellyanne Conway throwing their support behind accused child molester Roy Moore in Alabama’s Senate race, Trump fans answered with a flurry of whatabouts:

What about Al Franken?

What about John Conyers?

What about Bill Clinton?

“You write these words without even mentioning Conyers, Franken (who both need to go) and of course Bill Clinton,” writes a retired Air Force colonel. “Crickets from you on a louse like Bill.”

Another (of many) asked: “Where was your indignation and outrage due Bill Clinton? And how can you justify electing his enabling and complicit partner Hillary?”

I would have thought the best treatment for this faulty logic would be to ignore it, but it seems to be infecting the commentariat, too, to some extent: We are now hearing that the Conyers and Franken cases are muddying the waters and causing Democrats to lose the political high ground.

But there should be no muddiness here, and it has nothing to do with politics. Here’s “what about” Moore that is different: He has been accused, credibly and repeatedly, of sexual misconduct with children. Franken, Conyers and Clinton (Bill and Hillary), and, for that matter, Republican Joe Barton, have not. As Ivanka Trump put it: “There’s a special place in hell for people who prey on children. I’ve yet to see a valid explanation, and I have no reason to doubt the victims’ accounts.” (Her father, The New York Times reports, “vented his annoyance” over these words, asking aides, “Do you believe this?”)

I don’t excuse Franken’s alleged groping of women or Conyers’ alleged sexual harassment, and I disagree with Nancy Pelosi’s “due process” defense of Conyers. As for Bill Clinton, I wrote in 1998 and 1999 about his “sleaziness,” his “chronic dishonesty,” his “moral problems,” his “moral lapse,” his “unconvincing” argument that he didn’t commit perjury, his inability to “show real contrition,” his “puny” stature in the presidency, the way he “humiliated himself by his own conduct,” the unseemly spectacle of feminists turning “a blind eye to the president’s behavior,” and the “personal hostility” Clinton deserved.

But it shouldn’t be controversial to say that sexual misconduct is worse when it involves children. Until now, accusations of sexual abuse of children have been met with swift, severe and bipartisan responses. Recall the revulsion over Denny Hastert and Anthony Weiner, Mark Foley and David Wu. Predators aren’t solely Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives. No partisan or ideological lens applies — only a human one.

The presumption of innocence has its place, of course — in a courtroom. But this isn’t about whether Moore should go to prison; it’s about whether he belongs in the Senate. Many women who didn’t previously know each other and who didn’t have anything to gain by coming forward have said he pursued them when they were teenagers as young as 14 and he was a grown man. Moore denies the allegations of sexual misconduct but has not denied that he was involved with girls half his age when he was in his 30s.

Weaker strains of whataboutism had already found many hosts this year, as criticisms of Trump are invariably met with a so’s-your-mom rejoinder. What about Hillary’s emails? What about the Clinton Foundation? (Answer: She isn’t the president.) But surely even the most ardent make-America-great-again nationalist can recognize that child molestation has a unique status among cliches of awfulness.

That’s why Republican Ed Gillespie, in his Trump-style gubernatorial campaign in Virginia, ran an ad falsely accusing his opponent, Democrat Ralph Northam, of calling “restoring the rights of unrepentant sex offenders one of his greatest feats.”

The conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, a Trump favorite, was so concerned about a nonexistent pedophile ring operating out of a D.C. pizza restaurant that he kept hammering at it until an armed man showed up at the restaurant to investigate.

Now Trump and his whataboutist followers would turn credible accusations of child molestation into just another both-sides-do-it argument. But both sides don’t do it. Nobody else has been accused of what Moore has been accused of — and nobody so accused has been granted the privilege of high office. Yet.

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.
0
0
0
0
0

(63) comments

Hey19

Re: all of kingman's comments directed at me in this thread:
You're killing me, kingman! LOL
Who writes your material for you? oldhomey? LOL

For the record, my 9 p.m. post today addresses the mistake I made about kingman. I said you were lying, and then found evidence you were not. I corrected the record and apologized. I may, or may not - how do you know? - have small hands. But, unlike you and oldhomey, I am man enough to admit my mistake.

PST - what other lies, as you suggest at 9:07, have I told in this thread, kingman? Or anywhere else, for that matter? Put up or shut up, dude. LOL

kingman and oldhomey 2020*

kingman10

why don't you just state your opinions hey19 on topics such as this one about sexual misconduct. Its easy to lay low and not offer a real opinion, that way no one can question or argue and challenge your ideas. I guess if your too thin skinned to do so you should stay off these sites. There are so many more real important topics to discuss, like taxes or health care or foreign policies etc.. Calling someone a liar and trying to prove that by digging up archives of previous posts is such a waste of time and energy. But hey if that's what you get your kicks at, then go ahead and pick on me all you want, you have that right, doesn't bother me in the least. But it does show your shallowness and vindictiveness that normal people don't find flattering. This "you said he said I said" game is total madness on your part.

Hey19

Good news for kingman, who did call for Franken to resign. He did so in the Kathleen Parker Nov. 20 column as linked below. Apologies to him for my mistake.* I missed that column. (Swimming in groper-infested waters.) So, he is exonerated.

Meanwhile, oldhomey isn't. He backpedals and now suggests I couldn't find any of his comments to support his claim because I only included the news stories. He says he rarely comments on those, but does in the opinion pieces... Well, I included relevant columns in my initial string, and added a few more columns here in these two posts. None of them back up oldhomey's statement that prior to Nov. 28 he has been calling for Franken to resign for MANY DAYS.

Oldhomey first did so Nov. 27. That doesn't constitute MANY DAYS, unlike what he's continues to suggesting this week despite being caught lying. And prior to the 27th, oldhomey made no comments that Franken should resign. Oldhomey's statement is false.

Pst. Oldhomey? Don't worry about the burden on me to provide these links. It doesn't take much effort to prove you are still a liar.

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/gina-barreca-things-to-know-about-sexual-harassment/article_eb6e826e-4e56-5400-9761-5926e652400a.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/catherine-rampell-are-voters-truly-judge-and-jury/article_5b903de3-245e-5d4b-bf7f-3a7182bbd4b2.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/james-parker-the-harassment-problem-isn-t-complex-just-very/article_100cb1d8-6ccc-56a6-be76-7dacce9ef31e.html

* I wonder if kingman will apologize to crank for calling him a liar, despite the fact that information crank provided regarding Mel Reynolds was correct?

kingman10

apology accepted hey19. Now instead of bashing someone based on false evidence, its much more prudent to focus on elected officials. What crank wrote about Mel Reynolds only has a grain of truth. Reynolds served from 1993 to 1995 in the house. That is one term, but I may of drawn the wrong conclusion that he was not reelected. No matter, he never served his second term. Crank made it sound that Clinton pardoned him (actually commuted) on his sexual misconduct charges, which he did not. Now digging up archives on what people wrote is a foolish waste of time, and childish. Focusing on the politicians who were elected to serve us is where you should put your energies.

crank

He was re-elected. Even oldhomey conceded that the facts I reported there were accurate after he called me a liar. The fact that Mel Reynolds was re-elected was reported by NPR (they used the word re-elected) and I think it is even on Wikipedia (that damned alt-right info source [whistling]) about Mel Reynolds. Your issue, therefore is not with me lying. It is with inconvenient truths which were accurately reported and repeated by me. You also said they were alt-media. These sources are not alt-media. You said they were not true and called me a "filthy liar". Still, you are not being truthful. #doublestandard #excuses #parsing

Further, you resort to semantics in fussing about the word I used to describe Bill Clinton's leniency for a dirty, rotten child molester. Whether commuted or pardoned for molesting a 16 year-old girl or for related cases of bank fraud where he tried to get away with said 'molesting' by silencing the victim of his crime, Bill Clinton let him go early. #doublestandard

You preach on [innocent][innocent][innocent] , "Now digging up archives on what people wrote is a foolish waste of time, and childish. Focusing on the politicians who were elected to serve us is where you should put your energies." #fingerwagging #doublestandard #bullsh¡t

Is this why you brought this "commuted versus pardoned" thing up again and continue calling me a liar? This was corrected yet here you are "digging up archives" and telling the same lie. You never really answered me when I asked, "What difference does it make? (pardoned vs. commuted)" I'm not looking for a cut and paste from Websters dictionary (semantics). I want an explanation as to why you seem to think Mel Reynolds (the dirty rotten child molester) deserved the shortened sentence or any sort of clemency from Bill Clinton.

Shouldn't you focus on the misdeeds of those politicians elected to serve (and re-elected) thereby practicing what you preach? #hypocrite

Tell us, kingman10, why you seem to be defending and finding excuses for an unapologetic dirty rotten Democrat child molester (a convicted one, at that) while an unapologetic dirty rotten Republican child molester is deserving of the full brunt of public scorn and a seat in that special section of hell reserved for dirty rotten child molesters. Is it because Reynolds is black (AKA white guilt/virtue signalling)? ...wrongfully accused? Or does it come down to party politics for you and nothing more; i.e. Democrat versus Republican/good versus bad guys. #bothbadguys #doublestandard #partisanship

Hey19

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/kathleen-parker-key-words-i-believe-the-women/article_354c54e0-6a87-53e5-919a-7296188de41a.html?mode=comments

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/francis-wilkinson-a-clinton-reckoning-likely-will-come/article_68da0979-d077-5d64-9200-017b088490a5.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/ann-mcfeatters-topics-to-avoid-this-thanksgiving/article_b71d5780-6fc4-5333-8405-5a4d0f8c8b4d.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/kathleen-parker-swimming-in-groper-infested-waters/article_d8e645db-f08c-5f2c-b5d8-546359a3dc57.html

oldhomey

Keep them coming, Hey19. I have been trying to retrieve all the opinion columns appearing in the Trib dealing with Franken since Nov. 16. I can access very few through Google. Do you think Buggs and his contact people at the Tribune could roll them out for me?

Hey19

TODAY'S ADDENDUM
Re: Hey19, 12-1-17, 2:56 p.m.

In addition to stories regarding sexual harassment/Al Franken from Nov. 15-Dec. 1, I also searched those regarding Conyers, Moore, Lauer, Weinstein, Keillor, Dingell and Winston. Came up empty in those stories, too, regarding kingman10/oldhomey's FALSE claims...

oldhomey

Well, Hey(Sob!)19, I can only keep track more or less in my head what I have posted on here, so I can't speak for kingman, who seems quite capable at speaking for himself. So speaking for myself, please tell me what FALSE (your caps, a dramatic flourish, indeed!) I made regarding Conyers, Moore, Lauer, Weinstein, Keillor, Dingell and Winston. My memory being what it is, I could be mistaken, but I don't know if I made any comments at all about Weinstein, Keillor, Dingell and Winston (?excuse my ignorance, but this name is new to me, I believe). Could you please provide them for me so that I might have a crack at defending my honor, which in your iron trap mind seems to be crumbling in front of your mighty assault? As for Conyers and Moore, I don't believe I made any "claims" that could be construed to be false. You will have to provide some evidence on that, too. Please continue with your tireless research.

Hey19

re: oldhomey Dec 1, 2017 8:43pm
I really wish oldhomey (dodger) could read. But he proves yet again he can't. He hasn't been reading his Dick and Jane Holiday Reader.

And oldhomey (liar) distorts what is on the record here. I never said the dumba** made any false statements about the others. {Conyers, Moore, Lauer, Weinstein, Keillor, Dingell and Winston}. Only about Franken, which I have now proven ad nauseam.

As noted, in addition to stories about Franken, I also searched columns/stories about those guys (all dealing with sexual harassment, etc.) to see per chance if oldhomey made any comments in them that Franken should resign. He did not. He is still a liar.

oldhomey 2020*
*Still playing the fool, and being played for the fool he is...

oldhomey

I think Hey(Sob!)19 is somewhat younger than new3Lax, but perhaps they are related or somehow learned to write from the same teachers, as they both have a unique and puzzling ability to think they make perfect sense when they demonstrably do not. Take what HeySob writes in his 9:22pm post:

"And oldhomey (liar) distorts what is on the record here. I never said the dumba** made any false statements about the others. {Conyers, Moore, Lauer, Weinstein, Keillor, Dingell and Winston}. Only about Franken, which I have now proven ad nauseam."

It would take impossible mental gymnastics, however, to look at his earlier statement to that effect and agree with him:

Hey19 Dec 1, 2017 3:16pm

TODAY'S ADDENDUM
Re: Hey19, 12-1-17, 2:56 p.m.

In addition to stories regarding sexual harassment/Al Franken from Nov. 15-Dec. 1, I also searched those regarding Conyers, Moore, Lauer, Weinstein, Keillor, Dingell and Winston. Came up empty in those stories, too, regarding kingman10/oldhomey's FALSE claims...

kingman10

wow it is flattering that little hands Hey19 hangs on to every post I ever wrote. He loves to search and see what I've written, hanging on to every word likes its sacred. I'm glad I can be of service to him. However like most experienced tea baggers, he loves to lie and twist things around. Saying I didn't condemn certain politicians from sexual misconduct is just a flat out lie. I know what I wrote and I know when I wrote it, and I certainly don't have to answer to pea brains like his. I know what i say is critically important to hey19 for he follows my every word. But I feel no obligation to answer to him and his falsehoods and smear tactics, those are just feeble attempts from a desperate tea bagger. Hey19 should stick to what he does best, going for a hike and pretending to be rambo. He's got the lying part down pretty good, I do have to give him that.

Hey19

LIAR ALERT!
RE: kingman10 - Nov. 30, 2017, 3:41 p.m. (if you read any of my posts you will see that I have condemned Frankin and what he did and call for his resignation.")
Hey19 - Nov. 30, 2017, 9:18 p.m. - where I dispute claims that he and oldhomey (who claims he's been doing so for MANY DAYS, when he hadn't) have been doing so from the get go...
AND their most recent responses:
oldhomey - Nov. 30, 2017, 10:24 p.m. (" I have been on here talking about Franken, as you and crank would know, daily since this scandal appeared.")
kingman10 - De. 7, 2017, 7:08 a.m. ("I have condemned Frankin for his behavior, called for him to resign just as soon as the story broke."

TODAY'S NEWS: kingman10 and oldhomey are flat out LYING. Prior to this week - after they were called out for their lies - these two have not done what they've claimed in these forums. Where are their posts in these stories to back up their claims? Liars they are...

BACKGROUND: (For those interested in the origins of oldhomey's lies, you can go here: http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/cass-r-sunstein-prosecuting-rivals-is-bad-policy/article_4390d8c2-99c5-5834-838c-c9ff4df25fc3.html?mode=comments)

TODAY'S SUMMARY: Oldhomey has challenged me to bring back his/kingman's words to support their claims. I notice an absence of responses in these stories... Perhaps he can point them out in this list of stories??? Else, they are still liars....

THE LIST:

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/wi/walker-won-t-comment-on-allegations-against-trump-franken/article_4873bc44-17cb-59cd-86a1-9a26fa727abd.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/ethics-wants-records-on-payments-to-settle-harassment-claims/article_2da83923-bab3-5c1c-93b6-4e2c0343574d.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/allegations-of-sexual-misconduct-roiling-congress/article_8de945e5-3dfd-5f32-8b9c-e339c97bb7dc.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/search/?sd=desc&l=25&s=start_time&f=html&t=article%2Cvideo%2Cyoutube%2Ccollection&app=editorial&nsa=eedition&q=Al+Franken

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/the-latest-conyers-urged-to-quit-franken-probe-begins/article_e47098d6-14f7-5877-be02-ecb7ad106cd1.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/senate-ethics-panel-announces-it-has-opened-preliminary-inquiry-into/article_020fd88e-f9a7-5c4d-9d97-08b251c50e30.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/nancy-pelosi-calls-on-conyers-to-resign-amid-sex-allegations/article_c79aa028-606f-5029-95e8-01d41d5b084c.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/wi/wisconsin-politicians-grapple-with-questionable-donations/article_0e605b2c-6607-5c27-8eaa-523ddac56b5e.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/nancy-pelosi-calls-on-john-conyers-to-resign/article_7c6ea158-ee2b-504f-8627-8a54d25982b5.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/report-sen-franken-groped-army-veteran-during-uso-tour/article_e84850cb-5cf5-5271-82b6-126dafcf2312.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/facing-pressure-house-oks-anti-harassment-training/article_ff6fcc44-8b36-5fd1-b509-2b64df329ab3.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/the-latest-house-oks-anti-harassment-training-bill/article_4d167839-c609-50b0-b42a-30221225c016.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/the-latest-franken-asks-health-nominee-about-women-s-care/article_b2fadf89-ff0a-518e-8409-a63093745b55.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/more-pressure-on-conyers-to-resign-after-new-accusations/article_7db51d2e-d750-5f8d-8ef7-76afbf5a83b1.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/correction-sexual-misconduct-democrats-story/article_f232c65e-5898-5d47-b598-5da95010c86f.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/assembly-speaker-calls-meeting-with-staff-to-address-sexual-harassment/article_e35f4839-e565-5fe6-b0f4-79dbd24ea604.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/at-capitol-franken-apologizes-and-sees-long-fight-for-trust/article_797c44e8-f427-5352-ab99-b994ef7c0c81.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/the-latest-former-conyers-aide-alleges-sexual-misconduct/article_128d2614-2be3-5f6e-965e-456a4fe4e015.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/franken-says-he-let-a-lot-of-people-down-with/article_20a3606a-ca97-5e5e-b6b2-4e59609f93e9.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/franken-says-he-let-a-lot-of-people-down-with/article_d8014fce-0ac7-5c88-9125-5dd22fbd78c3.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/the-latest-franken-says-he-let-a-lot-of-people/article_d89f962c-8286-5763-a061-b71cfba70481.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/franken-ashamed-amid-groping-claims-will-return-to-work/article_036c9c7f-fea4-5bed-b4ed-ab2aaf12f702.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/trump-campaign-created-own-rules-on-sexual-harassment/article_24515c57-98b4-54ce-aed6-7e55705ccce6.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/state-and-regional/ashamed-sen-al-franken-says-he-ll-return-to-work/article_df91258a-879a-5b64-9457-576f9585b2b4.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/the-latest-franken-says-family-continues-to-support-him/article_c2417615-bd68-5b4a-b7ac-465a73839696.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/franken-ashamed-amid-groping-claims-will-return-to-work/article_abb9f543-14ae-5b03-aa60-f461809f66ea.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/conyers-steps-aside-from-judiciary-post-amid-sex-allegations/article_3e903065-a8a9-5706-8e5d-c2754bfe8dfd.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/minnesota-sen-al-franken-tells-newspaper-he-ll-return-to/article_a1918d10-6faf-56f5-8dc6-cbed18f45790.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/state-and-regional/sen-al-franken-vows-to-regain-minnesota-s-trust-after/article_054233f8-b32f-5fcc-9687-8e16e6210e7e.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/house-to-vote-next-week-on-required-anti-harassment-training/article_ccec2793-3291-534c-a5b8-d0276c8891bb.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/weinstein-s-impact-list-of-men-accused-of-sexual-misconduct/article_482c9f82-468c-5428-82b1-62800ebc4f50.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/franken-apologizes-for-making-some-women-feel-badly/article_c40a1edd-1168-5119-b753-cfd848cc1376.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/catherine-rampell-are-voters-truly-judge-and-jury/article_5b903de3-245e-5d4b-bf7f-3a7182bbd4b2.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/franken-s-rising-political-star-obscured-by-accusations/article_3910059a-feb9-5e71-88f5-f43f0888ab21.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/report-women-claim-franken-touched-them-inappropriately/article_3389bfd5-1b52-5953-8b0e-ac85d3cc1657.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/dayton-reaches-out-to-franken-amid-misconduct-stories/article_5aa0f1ec-5f69-512b-9d3f-b0bf7b18e238.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/minnesota-lawmakers-to-resign-amid-misconduct-allegations/article_10edafde-1627-5e12-ab9f-58976545fe8c.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/ethics-probe-begins-after-conyers-confirms-harassment-deal/article_ad7f5ded-6d16-5079-9dcf-dcff51286cfe.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/past-snl-performers-staff-sign-statement-supporting-franken/article_0c5b7da5-6baa-5a09-b5a4-d570e0d005f3.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/new-allegation-against-franken-this-time-met-with-silence/article_2a82bdd3-7db4-5800-8db9-2b05eb694171.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/new-allegation-against-franken-this-time-met-with-silence/article_af1ce12b-49dd-502e-812b-0570079bf403.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/the-latest-mcconnell-asks-again-for-franken-ethics-inquiry/article_57764876-44b6-5eb4-b96a-e63e5c2b932d.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/the-deafening-silence-of-al-franken/article_ff18c33b-565f-5cba-8b99-edc7a90748d6.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/kathleen-parker-swimming-in-groper-infested-waters/article_d8e645db-f08c-5f2c-b5d8-546359a3dc57.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/entertainment/senator-al-franken-cut-from-pbs-david-letterman-tribute/article_34be0358-9bd8-5e01-9334-3d2273ddbc71.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/francis-wilkinson-a-clinton-reckoning-likely-will-come/article_68da0979-d077-5d64-9200-017b088490a5.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/senate-s-ethics-panel-could-be-busy-next-year/article_dda87266-be6b-5c85-8b86-7971dc23871a.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/franken-tells-woman-in-letter-he-s-ashamed-of-himself/article_e117002c-ac96-5da6-805c-ac4c29ea0a28.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/as-sex-scandals-topple-the-powerful-why-not-trump/article_0a840806-6fac-5aee-aa69-d55b07749651.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/as-sex-scandals-topple-the-powerful-why-not-trump/article_b84f5c3b-f16d-525d-a89a-a6f2f804f724.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/trump-avoids-talk-of-roy-moore-blasts-al-franken/article_27e3e00e-a5f2-532d-9f4c-350797891110.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/congress-paid-million-in-workplace-violation-settlements/article_06db6edc-52be-5e7c-ac72-b95170f8fb43.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/franken-apologizes-to-woman-who-says-he-kissed-groped-her/article_8cc9f413-6114-5990-9600-26124612efa7.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/the-latest-sanders-says-trump-franken-cases-are-different/article_08ac59cf-c0b1-5600-bd85-e98673765968.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/in-minnesota-franken-feels-heat-but-no-broad-call-to/article_bc56c7b9-b165-52db-8e2e-29ac85d83142.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/the-latest-ex-staffers-vouch-for-franken-after-allegations/article_2d514815-a3ec-535c-920f-1986b7351c84.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/the-latest-gubernatorial-candidates-ask-franken-to-resign/article_b473d6ed-790e-5bf8-a063-b60159f7417c.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/franken-faces-ethics-probe-after-woman-says-he-groped-her/article_c5b671b4-0737-5a66-a295-6b520fe7a796.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/franken-faces-ethics-probe-after-woman-says-he-groped-her/article_6f00f5d2-59c4-5506-95b6-9f5fe4d7739a.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/the-latest-trump-ridicules-franken-over-groping-charge/article_41e21a04-e4e7-558b-8bae-434a677dcecc.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/al-franken-accuser-i-ve-been-angry-about-it-for/article_daae0c9d-3043-5439-9458-84e2e6c4a9bf.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/tammy-baldwin-backs-ethics-probe-into-al-franken-sexual-misconduct/article_ed807dc5-a00d-5679-8869-29a0b6a9b20f.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/wi/wisconsin-democrats-donate-money-given-to-them-by-franken/article_2307f5f9-6d0a-5593-80b1-7fac400413b9.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/minnesota-dems-sharply-criticize-franken-over-allegation/article_a7c3a343-5ab9-5c85-b103-f8d0a4129344.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/heitkamp-supports-ethics-investigation-into-franken/article_518bc30b-0878-5579-8f1a-f57d03d821e0.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/sen-warren-sen-franken-s-alleged-actions-unacceptable/article_059411df-6f5d-55f1-89fa-0b2d5a17dcad.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/klobuchar-condemns-alleged-franken-behavior/article_7a56fcc2-8d47-5a3e-a58d-d5a967b82c13.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/woman-alleges-franken-groped-kissed-her-without-consent/article_379b9936-4f7a-551c-a820-91e1ddbec708.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/mn/statement-by-sen-al-franken-on-sexual-harassment-allegation/article_4c77a0a7-8eed-52a4-a73c-c58d56b34fef.html

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/top-senate-democrat-calls-allegations-against-minnesota-sen-al-franken/article_3df3522f-170c-5777-a867-751ddcf0103a.html

oldhomey

My, what a fool's errand that you assigned yourself to, Hey(Sob!)19. I don't know how many news stories you bother to append your comments to. I rarely comment after news stories, not even one a day. I am interested in political opinion, so I DO, in case you have not noticed it, frequently make comments after political columns appearing in the Tribune. Besides expressing my own opinion, you might have noticed that I also take exception when others make specious statements based on obvious lies and false information, and in those cases try to set the record straight. I know you think that is "bullying", but i don't think advocating for accurate information is bullying. But of course that is just my opinion. Now, can you recover all the opinion columns for the last ten or twelve days where I would likely have expressed my opinion on what Franken should do? I tried, using Google, but I got nowhere with it.

kingman10

poor hey19 must be feeling lonely these days, he is striking out with more lies and will soon be braggin about kicking someone's arse again. Such a pathetic little mind to match his pathetic little hands.

oldhomey

Oh kingman, why did you have to dredge up those painful memories of Hey19 kicking my arse again? I felt SO bad! The man couldn't the side of the Goodyear Blimp if he swung his foot at it. He got so frustrated, he tried to make people feel sorry for him by making up a crock and bull sob story about how he chose his screen name. THAT memory is even more painful to me!

crank

Oldhomey disappeared "into the weeds" as he often likes to say on this other article after being caught in a lie.

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/cass-r-sunstein-prosecuting-rivals-is-bad-policy/article_4390d8c2-99c5-5834-838c-c9ff4df25fc3.html?mode=comments

Now, here in this article, he seems to be re-writing/re-inventing that exchange. Here he is demanding Hey19 prove that he lied and document for him again his ever-changing position on Franken's resignation. Here you are, oldpompous...

I'll ask again, if we are in agreement on this, why do you see the need to contest nearly everything I've written on this until you have yourself painted into a corner until you have no option but to agree or disappear into the weeds? After post after post after post debating me on this in another article, it cluminated in these final two posts. Here are those comments which you again claim you cannot seem to locate:

oldhomey Nov 28, 2017 3:52pm
Let's put it this way, crank: I see merit in some of what you are saying, and I have been saying the same things myself in my comment on this unfolding sexual harassment drama. I agree and have said already that Franken should resign. I believe Conyers should go, too, but both men have the right as Congressmen to have their cases first go before an ethics committee investigation. If they want to go in that direction, fine, but if at the conclusion it still looks like they behaved as their accusers have said, they should go or face serious censure. Why don't they save the public all the pain and just resign now if they have already more or less confessed to their bad behavior?

But it is you who I find continually tries to frame it into a partisan argument. You ignore (or simply don't read) responsible news sources that already are saying what you are saying and instead bellyache about a double standard. And, while I am not offended, you say only one "liberal" poster on these Tribune sites has taken the stand against "liberal" sexual predators, you are simply wrong. I have been saying this all along, and I have seen several others, too. You are making accusations up out of wind sauce and air pudding.

crank Nov 28, 2017 4:58pm
Since you love to parse the things I say, let's focus on what I wrote not what you say I wrote. Let's be precise.

My comment..."When the Franken story broke, Tim Russell was the only guy from the trib-lib tribe to call a spade a spade and say he should step aside."

oldhomey's spin on what I wrote, "...you say only one "liberal" poster on these Tribune sites has taken the stand against "liberal" sexual predators... Except, that isn't what I said, is it?

The story broke on November 16th. You didn't say that day or and haven't said in many days since that Franken should resign until your comment here today under this article. If you have, please provide a link to it. Instead, you have replied as you usually do...

oldhomey Nov 16, 2017 8:06pm
Crank, re-read the story, but move your lips while doing it so that you get a little better comprehension of the words. I believe it says Democrats in Congress are asking for an investigation of this, too. He'll have to take his medicine on this.

Congress investigates, hearings and a flogging with a wet noodle. What would he get? Censure??? Whoopdeedoo! The politicians will lock themselves in a room and pontificate then do nothing. Franken will keep his seat. You made no mention of Franken resigning when the story broke. Don't lie about it now.

The next day you wrote:

"oldhomey Nov 17, 2017 5:48pm
Well the picture clearly shows his hands are NOT on the flack jacket over her breasts, that he is hamming it up for the photographer. That doesn't excuse him. He was belittling the woman all the more because she was asleep while he posed for the picture, making her unaware of what was happening and unable, unfortunately, to physically give him a good kick in the groin, which is what he deserved. She accepted his apology and says she does not want him to resign because of this, but I think that is too late for her to give him that out. It now depends on the reaction of his constituency in Minnesota."

Here you still seem to defend the man (sort of) and STILL no hint that you think he should resign. Excuses, excuses...

Homey's true confessions apeared days later. I removed the stuff about how you handled women back in your youth for the sake of brevity.

Still, there is no call for Franken's resignation from you. You called his behavior bafoonish but your comments still fall short of saying that you think he should resign.

"oldhomey Nov 20, 2017 8:53pm
... I don't know if something like Al Franken's buffoonish behavior is something that rates legal prosecution, but it certainly calls into question the depth of his empathy toward his fellow human beings. ..."

Today is the first time I have seen any statement from you calling for Franken to resign. Using a search tool to locate your comments on Franken-related articles since Nov. 16, I've reviewed dozens and dozens of comments from you. (God it was torture!) In most, you resort to name calling and ridicule of Buggs and others but not once (that I was able to find, anyway) did you say you think Franken should resign.

If you did make such a statement, I'd like you to provide a link to it. Until you do, I say #balderdash #yourpantsareonfire.

You CIA guys probably have a better tool for this sort of thing than I used. If you wrote it, you should have no trouble finding it. Maybe you can use [Ahem] Google.

oldhomey Nov 28, 2017 10:26pm
Well thank you, crank, for very carefully documenting my earliest feelings about Franken's behavior. I think it clearly shows deep disapproval of it and of him. I did not, as you can see, initially say that he should resign. I think I was torn initially, because it didn't seem like we knew quite enough about what happened and the circumstances in which it happened. In the interim, we indeed have learned more, and it is a bit puzzling, because the woman herself was just as guilty as he was of the sexual horseplay during this particular tour. But I eventually came around to the conclusion that her horseplay may be have been consensual with the guitarist, but she did not invite Franken's horsing around with her. So I ended up thinking, and I have been saying it for many days on these posts, that he should resign. If you think you have embarrassed me with your findings, I am not. I feel you have underscored by negative feeling for what Franken did from the outset.

Now tell us some more about how the Tribune ignored the Conyers story.

crank Nov 29, 2017 8:07am
Nah, I think I'll stick with my original point about the #doublestandard you vigorously deny exists though you're trying desperately to deflect and send me in another direction . From the start, you have tried to man-splain and excuse what Franken did while you wouldn't have done that for any Republican.

Let's focus for a moment on the fact you lied about calling for Franken's resignation. #doublestandard Let's move on...

...to this. You blame the woman for what Franken did to her? Good Lord! You're still trying to excuse/explain what he did and not one trib-lib has called you on this! There really IS a #doublestandard.

After I called him out for not only lying but then placing blame on the victim of Franken's misdeeds, POOF he was gone! #intotheweeds

FWIW: It should be obvious to any reasonable person that the CIA comment was sarcasm. Here again, you're being willfully obtuse and cannot be accused in any way of being reasonable. Crank says I'm CIA! Parse...spin...spin...spin... Will you do the same thing on the next column? I expect you will.

Tim Russell

I still agree that he should resign. However, you keep talking about the #doublestandard but you have yet to comment on my avatar. This picture is the same woman in the Franken photo while on the same USO Tour. I think it is a huge double standard for her to get so hurt by some meaningless photo while it is clear she was sexually harassing the guitar player during the same trip.

Tim Russell

Apparently crank has disappeared into the weeds. Again.

kingman10

wow hey19 and new2 need to get a life. posting these long long articles in order to corner someone somehow, shows you have way too much time on your hands. You seriously think anyone is going to take the time and read all that BS. If you do you are delusional as buggs, and a bigger liar and as dumb as they come.

oldhomey

Ahem. crank, I have been on these boards every day, day in and day out week after week, month after month, much to the disgust of my wife who tells me I am wasting my time. I guess I am, but here I am, again. Given my constant presence here, pray tell when I have ever hid from a comment made by you? Are you pulling another Hey(sob!)19 stunt of waiting until a column times out and disappears from the website, then start attacking me so that you can crow about how I am hiding out from comments I have never seen?

As for this lengthy complaint about me 1:26pm complaint about me, I find it a wonder that you could earlier in this same string complain about me (in your own words): "I can see this turning into another of those pointless threads containing dozens and dozens of comments about how you think I'm wrong owing to the fact I used the wrong word and using it as a straw man to invent another reason to argue and call me names."

Is that what you call a double standard?

My point has been through this, as is the point of the Milbank column, this who sexual abuse of others by people in positions of power is not a partisan issue. It happens on all sides of all fences, and it should not be tolerated. You are the one who insists that I and liberals and Democrats in general are using a double standard to condemn conservative abusers while defending liberal abusers. You might make a case against some people for that, but, sorry, the record is clear with me and with Milbank.

As for Franken, I may not have demanded he resign in my initial comments after the charges became public, but you have provided my comments yourself, and they very clearly condemn him and agree he is going to rightfully get whacked for what he did. It didn't take more than a day or two, however, when I started posting that I thought he should resign. I have tried to pull up those comments, but Googling for them, which disappeared when the columns they were under disappeared from the Tribune website, has turned up nothing. Too bad, but my initial comments should be strong enough, anyway, to defend my stance.

I find your righteousness in condemning me for "blaming the victim" vis a vis the woman who initially charged Franken with unwanted sexual attention is laughable. Context is everything in life. You can righteously bellow when you find somebody else's terd in the punchbowl, and you would be right. But if you are caught on videotape of leaving a terd of your own in the punchbowl, too, it certainly would be reasonable, would it not, to question why you are complaining in the first place?

You are making a very vigorous case that you have caught me in some sort of lie, and then you write: "After I called him out for not only lying but then placing blame on the victim of Franken's misdeeds, POOF he was gone! #intotheweeds"

Now THERE is a lie if ever there was one.

Hey19

re: oldhomey: Dec 1, 2017 9:59pm
Ahem? Oldhomey (dodger)? I have provided links to the columns/stories about anyone who has been accused of sexual harassment/misconduct/misbehavior that has been posted on the Tribune website since Nov. 15. They have not disappeared, dude.

YOU DID NOT call for Franken to resign within a day or two of that news breaking. You first did so on Nov. 27. That STILL makes you a FLAT OUT liar, old dude (dodger)...

As for crank's case about you being called out? He did so Nov. 29. in the Cass Sunstein "Prosecuting rivals is bad policy" column. You ran and hid in the weeds on Nov. 28. Funny how there seems to be a pattern of oldhomey (dodger) doing that... {Watch him twist all over again, folks!}

oldhomey 2020*
*still dazed and confused...
Pst: You really should listen to your wife about wasting time on here. Unlike crank and I, she is probably concerned about you. Or at least get her to help you read what has been written by others, and have her help you compose responses. You'd probably tell fewer lies if she proofed your material. You'd save yourself a lot of the embarrassment that you bring upon yourself, too. Although you seem to have no shame. So, never mind...

carry on, dude.
This will be my last post regarding the tag team duo of kingman/oldhomey vs. crank/Hey19 and this matter... I have proven my case, and really do have better things to do that to waste my time with you two fellers. Bye, dudes...

oldhomey

Ahem. Hey(Sob!)19, I already pointed out to you that I very rarely comment after news stories, and that is what you listed. You have not summoned up the opinion columns that I would have commented on, as far as I can see. I have tried to find them through Google, and very little is accessible.

oldhomey

Oops! I signed off on your 10:49pm post too soon, Hey(Sob!)19. I replied so far as I know to everything you or crank challenged me with after the Cass Sunstein column. Seeing this now, I just Googled Sunstein's column, and it popped up with all comments still under it. It seems that the column aged out and disappeared from the Tribune web site on November 29. Somehow, however, crank found it and took the following jabs at me:

crank Nov 29, 2017 9:50am

Then, after caught in his lie, he continued twisting. The latest is he actually suggests Tweeden was to blame for what Franken did to her. #blamethevictim Really?

#doublestandard
crank
crank Nov 30, 2017 2:10pm

Seems the windbag finds himself empty.


Good one, crank. This is the same tactic Hey(Sob!)19 used on me a few months back. He got into an old comment section of a column that had long disappeared from the Tribune website, made accusations against me and on other, live comment strings, bragged how he was kicking my "arse" and I had run away to hide because of it. I finally found the old string and exposed him. I am doing that to you here. How could I answer you when I am unaware of your challenges? Gosh! That is one clever way to win an argument, I guess. Do your arguing in a discussion string that your opponents are not even aware is there.

Anyway, I am SO relieved that Hey(boohoo)19 has signed off on this matter. Perhaps crank should, too, before he embarrasses himself even more, also.

crank

Given my constant presence here, pray tell when I have ever hid from a comment made by you? Are you pulling another Hey(sob!)19 stunt of waiting until a column times out and disappears from the website, then start attacking me so that you can crow about how I am hiding out from comments I have never seen?

No, this is actually your M.O. Mr. "hiding in the weeds." As for when, I already posted the link to the article. Review the timestamps on the spitired exchange between you and I. Every few hours you responded to each of my posts as a retriever chasing a slobber-covered tennis ball. When I showed the videotape of you placing "the term in the punchbowl", first you attempted to deflect and dodge as usual. You tried to change the topic to Conyers in your post of Nov 28, 2017 10:26pm and actually went after Tweeden.

I replied a few hours later at 8:07 AM the next morning though you say I waited until "the column timed out and disappeared". This, in fact, is another dodge…a lie. Is this what you do, Mr."In The Weeds"?

As for this lengthy complaint about me 1:26pm complaint about me, I find it a wonder that you could earlier in this same string complain about me (in your own words): "I can see this turning into another of those pointless threads containing dozens and dozens of comments about how you think I'm wrong owing to the fact I used the wrong word and using it as a straw man to invent another reason to argue and call me names."

Isn't that what happens each time. I suspect the only people reading these posts, at this point, are us.

Is that what you call a double standard?

"You are the one who insists that I and liberals and Democrats in general are using a double standard to condemn conservative abusers while defending liberal abusers." It's true! When the news about Moore broke, when they were only allegations, you and many other tribes-libs demanded he drop out of the race. This was immediate. You, by your own admission, waited for more information on Conyers and Franken before finally conceding after the #doublestandard was thrown in your face that they should resign.

With Milbank, from the outset, my issue has been his mis-stating of the facts. "This have never happened…" No, Mr. Milbank, it has happened. I posted factual documentation to support this and you along with kingman10 picked it apart and called me a liar. It's true. You liberals call it partisan and whataboutism in spite of them being true. I asked repeatedly, "Why not simply agree? All of them should resign." You dodged this and dodged this because you, face it, respond as though by reflex when someone who doesn't share your political views. Don't deny it. You might have simply agreed at the start that I was correct calling for Franken's resignation but, somehow you cannot bear the thought of it. Here we are…

As for the rest of your attempt to ridicule me "As for this lengthy complaint about me 1:26pm complaint about me…" I posted your comments in full and in context with timestamps because of your tendency to mis-state what was written. So… I played the videotape of you dropping a term in the punchbowl by posting your words. Still…you deny doing it.

Generally, you deflect by beginning said comment with a condescending AHEM, GOSH! or of Gee... as you have done here.

"You are making a very vigorous case that you have caught me in some sort of lie, and then you write: "After I called him out for not only lying but then placing blame on the victim of Franken's misdeeds, POOF he was gone! #intotheweeds"

Now THERE is a lie if ever there was one.

Let's go to the 'videotape'… (in context, verbatim, emphasis added so you can't miss YOUR words)

oldhomey Nov 28, 2017 10:26pm
Well thank you, crank, for very carefully documenting my earliest feelings about Franken's behavior. I think it clearly shows deep disapproval of it and of him. I did not, as you can see, initially say that he should resign. I think I was torn initially, because it didn't seem like we knew quite enough about what happened and the circumstances in which it happened. In the interim, we indeed have learned more, and it is a bit puzzling, because the woman herself was just as guilty as he was of the sexual horseplay during this particular tour. But I eventually came around to the conclusion that her horseplay may be have been consensual with the guitarist, but she did not invite Franken's horsing around with her. So I ended up thinking, and I have been saying it for many days on these posts, that he should resign. If you think you have embarrassed me with your findings, I am not. I feel you have underscored by negative feeling for what Franken did from the outset.

Embarrassed because you blamed the victim? Perhaps… In any event, POOF! you were gone! #intotheweeds


oldhomey

Forgive me, crank, but this is becoming extremely tiresome and fruitless. You can swear up and down that I "ducked" something you said in a very long and long-standing string of comments after a Cass Sunnstein column. I answered every one of your comments in that column, but now you are telling me that I "ducked" you from a comment you apparently made on the column after it disappeared from the Tribune online webpage. Sorry pal, but when they age out, that column is gone. You and Hey19, the great 21st century tragedian, apparently like to find those timed-out columns so you can continue to comment on them and claim those who do not respond are "in hiding". Great strategy.

As it was, once you brought up the comment you say I ran away from, I answered it for you. And of course the only people reading these lengthy exchanges are you and I. Who in God's Kingdom could have the remotest interest in it?

But then you persist in going into another long-winded whine, and since you are prone to claiming I am running from you in the truth if I don't respond, I will go through this again with you.

Your claim:

"You are the one who insists that I and liberals and Democrats in general are using a double standard to condemn conservative abusers while defending liberal abusers." It's true! When the news about Moore broke, when they were only allegations, you and many other tribes-libs demanded he drop out of the race. This was immediate. You, by your own admission, waited for more information on Conyers and Franken before finally conceding after the #doublestandard was thrown in your face that they should resign."

My response: I don't think I demanded immediately that Moore resign from the race because of the allegations. I read the Post story, however, and it seemed pretty clear that there was a strong case against him, and soon we had folks in his own hometown recalling how he was known to be bothering young teens and had to be barred from the shopping mall for his behavior there -- a 32-year-old district attorney hitting on young teen girls. Yes, I thought, he should drop out.

I didn't know what to think in the initial allegations against the whole laundry list of politicians, actors, newsmen, artists and executives that has flowed into the public record the last couple of months. But once I read the evidence and hear the denials or the mea culpa apologies, I, like most people, more or less formed my opinions on the people who I pay attention to. It is not instantaneous. Perhaps it is for others, not for me. Don't generalize.

As for the final five paragraphs of your 9:34am post, I simply can't follow what it is you are trying to set up and say. It is nonsensical. How many times and in how many ways do I have to tell you that I found Franken's behavior despicable and that he should resign? How many times and in how many way do I have to explain to you that you can blame me for blaming the victim, but the record is quite clear that she was not exactly the best person to be protesting moral outrage for reckless horseplay during this USO tour. You have never, by the way, responded after being apprised of her own horseplay on the same stage. Does it excuse Franken? No. But it does shine a different light on the whole episode.

And finally, crank, in any event, POOF! I was not gone #intotheweeds. You might wish for that, but here I am, buddy.

tower

So Dudley doesn't know the difference between pardon and commute in dealing with a conviction. Then simply glosses over it by saying "What's the difference?". Well genius the difference is one wipes out the felony and one ends the time in jail. And to think Franken and Moore/Trump are in the same boat shows his shallow understanding of the issue. Maybe using your absolutely stupid reasoning we should dig JFK up and stone him. Child molesters should be publicly drawn and quartered. To think all molesters are equal is both stupid and chilish. Dudley is the perfect example.

crank

Oh, toddler... You should head back to the kiddie pool. You are WAY over your head on this, little fella.

"Child molesters should be publicly drawn and quartered. "

This is why Bill Clinton commuted Mel Reynolds' sentence, I suppose? ...so the public would be able to get to him for drawing and quartering.

"To think all molesters are equal is both stupid and chilish. "

Aren't all molesters equal, toddler? Are some cases of 'molesting' OK in your view, little fella? Should members of congress engage in any sort of 'molesting' or should all 'molesting', regardless of political affiliation, be universally condemned?

kingman10

another lie crank, Clinton commuted Reynolds's sentence on bank fraud. He served his whole sentence for statutory rape. Of course don't let the facts get in your way.

crank

I didn’t lie. I said Bill Clinton commuted the prison sentence of a child molester. This is a true statement. Though I didn’t specify which charge, the idea that a scumbag like Reynolds should get out of jail early is troubling, especially since child molesters are the most reviled human beings on the planet deserving a )special place in hell. (Unless they’re Democrats?

crank

"I don’t excuse Franken’s alleged groping of women or Conyers’ alleged sexual harassment, and I disagree with Nancy Pelosi’s “due process” defense of Conyers."

So... What about them? (Politics aside...) Go ahead and say Moore is worse (your own version of "whataboutism". Why not write your column about the hypocrisy of Pelosi, Franken and Conyers? Why not demand they resign as NONE of them are fit to be members of Congress.

Then this whopper... "But both sides don’t do it. Nobody else has been accused of what Moore has been accused of — and nobody so accused has been granted the privilege of high office. Yet."

Yes, Mr. Milbank, BOTH sides do it. There are a number of cases where men accused and proven to have committed sex crimes involving children have been elected to and remained in high office. Here are examples you may classify as "whataboutism" but what about them??? Actions speak louder than words. These guys in high office talk and talk about high morals but the truth is often the opposite of what they say. When caught, they get protection (Honor among thieves?)

REP. DAN CRANE (R-Ill.) and REP. GERRY STUDDS (D-Mass.):
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages The House voted to censure them, the did not expel them. Censure???? Crane’s district voted him out in 1984, butStudds won reelection with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.

REP MEL REYNOLDS (D-Ill.):
Reynolds became a Congressman in 1993 and was indicted on Aug. 19, 1994, on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker and then pressuring her to lie about it. Reynolds, who is black, denied the charges and said the investigation was racially motivated. He still won re-election. He was convicted and sentenced to serve 5 years in prison but Bill Clinton PARDONED HIM!

kingman10

crank the pervert, still has that poor woman in his profile picture, still getting his jollies from it.

crank

If you examine this issue fairly, you'll see it's Franken who is getting his jollies at the expense of this poor woman. Yet, you're criticizing me and not him. #doublestandard

kingman10

if you read any of my posts you will see that I have condemned Frankin and what he did and call for his resignation. We all know what Franking did, he admitted it, apologized, but I still think he should resign. Now your constantly posting that poor woman as your profile picture is not flattering or respectful of that woman. Did you get her permission to constantly post that picture?If not I would suggest you just find a picture of your buddy Frankin, leave that lady out of it. That is if you respect her and women in general, and have any scruples, which I highly suspect.

Tim Russell

Do you mean the same woman in my picture shown sexually assaulting the guitar player?

kingman10

oh hey 19 is up to his old tricks. I have condemned Frankin for his behavior, called for him to resign just as soon as the story broke. Your lies are not gong to change anything.

kingman10

well that's just a flat out lie hey19. And I expect as much from you. See my comment above. Little hands hey19 is up to his tricks again kicking arse and taking names. Such a funny little man.

Hey19

Hey Crank? You'll get a kick out of this. Just for sh*ts and giggles I searched as many stories/columns with Franken's name (and Conyer's, too) since Nov. 15. Guess what I found? Like is the case with oldhomey, I didn't find any comments prior to today from kingman10 condemning Franken and calling for his resignation.

Perhaps kingman did so yesterday and I missed it? That's entirely plausible, since I erred when I called out oldhomey for posting, for the first time, the same sentiments on resignation on the 28th, when he'd actually done so Nov. 27...

I guess oldhomey (dodger) - "I been saying it for many days on these posts, that he should resign." - NOT! - is using new, fuzzy, math, whilst kingman10 is using an alias to post his thoughts on Franken?

oldhomey

Well, I don't know if you share crank's opinion (and Bugg's) that I am a CIA agent with the vast resources of the U.S. intelligence community at my disposal Hey(sob!)19, but seeing you are tracking back how long I have been saying on these posts that I thought Franken should resign, I put my super-spy intelligence gathering skills to work. I Googled "La Crosse Tribune oldhomey al franken" and a couple of other headings adding the word "resign" and "scandal". I have been on here talking about Franken, as you and crank would know, daily since this scandal appeared. When I Google that information, I only get two days showing up, I believe the 16th and 17th. I did not come right out and say in those earliest days that he should resign, but I condemned him and said his goose was cooked, in so many words. I know I have been talking about him resigning for several days, but I can't recover any more than those two days off of Google. If you have found more days of my comments, bring them on. I also know kingman has been opining that Franken should quit, too. If you can come up with opening up those days we can't get into, bring it on.

johnnybragatti

off top of the topic ,
just a tad

kingman10

crank you are a liar too. Reynolds never was reelected, he was elected the first time because no one ran against him. You fail to tell about his later bank fraud charges that he was convicted for too. Here it a quote from wiki leaks: "Reynolds served all of his first sentence, and served 42 months in prison for the later charges. At that point, President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a halfway house." So Clinton commuted his sentence, did not pardon him, after he serve 42 months on bank fraud charges. You are such a filthy liar that no one should ever believe what you post. He did resign from office when he was accused of having sex with a minor. Get off the alt media sites and quit lying.

crank

"Reynolds never was reelected, he was elected the first time because no one ran against him."

You're mistaken... In spite of the charges, he campaigned and won re-election. It seems Democrats don't care if they vote for child molesters. He resigned over a month AFTER his conviction but prior to serving his second term in Congress. He didn't step down when he was accused. He played the race card even though the allegations against him were proven to be true.

NPR can hardly be considered alt-media in the view of trib-libs so I provide you with this... (which Milbank says has never occurred.)
1995: Mel Reynolds (D-IL) – convicted of sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse and obstruction of justice. Reynolds was first indicted on these charges in August of 1994, but he was re-elected that fall without opposition. He was convicted of the charges on Aug. 22, 1995.
Resigned: Oct. 1, 1995.
Succeeded by: Jesse Jackson Jr. (D) in a special election on Dec. 12, 1995.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10770284

I suppose I could have gone on and on about Reynolds but the bank fraud thing seemed irrelevant. I didn't want to be accused of piling on. Commuted or pardoned? Does it really matter? You don't seem to see a problem with Mel's behavior but think nothing of parsing what I shared in order to call me a "filthy liar". #doublestandard

I think the facts as I've presented them stand for themselves. I won't bother waiting for an apology from you.

My point was and is, Mr. Milbank mis-spoke (lied) when he wrote, "But both sides don’t do it. Nobody else has been accused of what Moore has been accused of — and nobody so accused has been granted the privilege of high office. Yet."
It simply is not true...Mel Reynolds was accused, convicted AND re-elected to Congress. He resigned before serving the second term for which he was, in fact, re-elected. A special election had to be held to fill that seat [per the alt-media source I cited].

So... bank fraudster AND a child molester elected and re-elected to Congress. You really made your case for the high standards by which you measure an honorable member of Congress, kingman10.

Did you also know this convicted child molester (etc. etc.) dared to try running again for Congress in 2004 and again in 2013 even after these convictions? He didn't make it past the primary either time. The balls on this guy, though. ...real stand up guy.

kingman10

commuted or pardoned, does it really matter. Well of course it does. Look up the definition of each and compare.

oldhomey

Well, crank, you seem to be in overdrive these days with uncovering partial facts that fit your point of view, ignoring fuller disclosures that negate your point of view: "There are a number of cases where men accused and proven to have committed sex crimes involving children have been elected to and remained in high office. "

There may be "a number of cases" of child molestation in Congress, but it would be a pretty small number, as it is a rare event. I recall the Dan Crane/Gerry Studds episode, too, but only dimly, so I had to Google to refresh my memory. I don't recall that any criminal charges were place against either of them. There certainly should have been, but evidently not. They WERE censured, which is I guess the Congressional way of letting the people who put them into office pass judgement. I think it stinks; if caught having sex with minors, they should be summarily busted and thrown out of office. But that isn't how it is done.

Crane, who was in a relationship with a 17-year-old female page, was promptly voted out of office by his constituency. Studds, who was gay, was caught in a relationship with a 17-year-old gay male page. He went home to Massachusetts to face voters in a couple of town hall meetings and got standing ovations at both, then was re-elected I believe eight times. Go figure, the liberals in Massachusetts have nothing on the Alabama supporters for Roy Moore.

As for another creep, Rep. Mel Reynolds, he resigned soon after he was caught in a relationship with a teenage girl. He was subsequently criminally charged and convicted for sexual abuse of a minor, sentenced to five years in prison. In the interim, he was also convicted on unrelated charges of, I believe, bank fraud, getting an additional 42 months tacked on to the five years. He served the entire five year term in prison for the sex crime. Clinton PARDONED HIM (sorry, I don't know how to underscore to replicate your supposed moral outrage) from serving out the full bank fraud sentence.

Now would you be able to tell us about more child molestation charges against Congreesmen? Dennis Hastert, the former Republican speaker of the house? He is similar to Moore in being accused decades after the events by boys he had coached on a high school wrestling team. Like Moore, it is unlikely that those crimes, which seem absolutely to have taken place, Hastert will ever be charged directly for them. Long after his departure from Congress Hastert was convicted and served time for illegal financial transactions he was using to pay off one of his victims with "hush" money.

I guess you know about other cases. If you list them, please be a little more complete in your descriptions of each case than you have been. Generally, it seems, even Congressmen have to pay a steep price for child molestation, contrary to how you are painting the picture.

crank

Reynolds resigned over a month after he was convicted, not when he was accused. Either way, you don't seem to have a problem with Reynolds' conduct. (Or do you?) Are you and Kingman so obessed with arguing that you cannot simply agree with example I've given instead of parsing.

You bring up Dennis Hastert. He is another great example! Did you expect me to classify this as "whataboutism" or simply agree that Hastert had no business being in high office, as Milbank puts it? For the record, I agree that Hastert had no business being in high office.

I don't believe censure is enough. What the hell is censure good for??? You said the other day you thought Franken and Conyers should resign. Were those just words? Why are you parsing the examples I've given and suggesting my descriptions do not provide enough detail? They did what they did. Censure, re-election, pardons????? Do you think he deserved to have his sentence commuted? These people have created their own protected class for each other. Why are you trying to defend or explain what happened as though it (in any of the cases) is OK?

Explain to me again how/why you might think it is OK for a congressman to have sex with a subordinate staffer who is also a minor as you have clearly tried to do in Crane's case. This is sexually exploitive, statutory rape or both. Is it OK because he's gay or because he's a Democrat...both? You did present this scenario with Crane as though it was acceptable but in this same post you bring up Hastert's behavior with minor boys as though it isn't OK. #doublestandard #whataboutism

Why list more cases? I gave examples including both Republicans and Democrats. I gave enough detail to make my point. Milbank was incorrect! You and kingman are grasping at straws because you cannot seem to resist the impulse to argue.

What's next? Do you want to make a list of every sexual predator classified by whether children were involved separated by party then tally them up so you can say one side is "worse" than the other? Why not just agree that none of these people are worthy of high office?

I can see this turning into another of those pointless threads containing dozens and dozens of comments about how you think I'm wrong owing to the fact I used the wrong word and using it as a straw man to invent another reason to argue and call me names.

You and kingman10 parse and say Reynolds' sentence was reduced for the bank fraud charge but that he had served the full 5 years for sexually assaulting a 16 year-old girl as though lessens the seriousness of either of these convictions. What difference does it really make? #childmolester

Do you believe a Congressman being convicted of sexual assault of a 16 year-old girl or bank fraud is OK? How about BOTH of these crimes committed by the same guy? Does it matter if said congressman is Republican or Democrat, black or white, gay or straight, liberal or conservative? If you don't think it's OK for any member of Congress to engage in this sort of behavior, why not simply say, "Good points, crank! I agree!"

#triggered #doublestandard #whataboutism #partisanship

crank

Before you fly off the handle, I wrote Crane when I intended to write Stubbs.

250000 New Jobs

#double standard is grabbing the guitar player by the arse and then complaining about some stupid picture.

oldhomey

I stand corrected, Reynolds was re-elected, putting his constituency in the same league as Studds' and Moore's constituencies. You now want to say that I give Reynolds a pass? How do you parse what I said, since you seem to be in a parsing mood, what I said about him: "As for another creep, Rep. Mel Reynolds, he resigned soon after he was caught in a relationship with a teenage girl. He was subsequently criminally charged and convicted for sexual abuse of a minor, sentenced to five years in prison."

You are the one who is arguing that Democrats have double standards on the issue of Congressional pedophiles. I am simply pointing out that you are full of it.

oldhomey

I replied too quickly, crank. As I read lower in your amazing post, I found a couple of remarkable observations by you:

One. "Explain to me again how/why you might think it is OK for a congressman to have sex with a subordinate staffer who is also a minor as you have clearly tried to do in Crane's case. This is sexually exploitive, statutory rape or both. Is it OK because he's gay or because he's a Democrat...both?" First off, please show me how I endorsed what Crane did? I said he should have been prosecuted. And by the way, I hope this doesn't spoil your day, but Crane is a rock-ribbed Republican, always has been. Are you sorry now that you brought up his transgressions?

Two. "You did present this scenario with Crane as though it was acceptable but in this same post you bring up Hastert's behavior with minor boys as though it isn't OK. " Ahem. You were mistaken about me saying what Crane did was acceptable, but here you seem to take exception to the fact that I disapprove of Hastert attacking young teenage boy? Did my position on that upset you?

Two. "Why list more cases? I gave examples including both Republicans and Democrats. I gave enough detail to make my point. Milbank was incorrect! You and kingman are grasping at straws because you cannot seem to resist the impulse to argue." I was bringing up the fact, crank, that you were setting out an argument that pedophilia in Congress is a common crime, but I was pointing out that you had to scramble hard to find the instances that you did. The only one in addition to yours that I could summon up was Dennis Hastert, and his crimes took place before he went to Congress, kind of like the Roy Moore of his time. You won't produce any more instances, I am guessing, because you can't find any more.

Let's put a third one in for good measure: You say "You and kingman10 parse and say Reynolds' sentence was reduced for the bank fraud charge but that he had served the full 5 years for sexually assaulting a 16 year-old girl as though lessens the seriousness of either of these convictions. What difference does it really make?" I didn't defend Reynolds, nor did kingman from what I can see. Look back to your own original post and how you declared that Clinton let Reynolds off the hook for sexual assault of a minor. You have a lot of chutzpah to claim I or kingman is turning this into a partisan argument. That is what we are objecting to about your approach to this.


Do you believe a Congressman being convicted of sexual assault of a 16 year-old girl or bank fraud is OK? How about BOTH of these crimes committed by the same guy? Does it matter if said congressman is Republican or Democrat, black or white, gay or straight, liberal or conservative? If you don't think it's OK for any member of Congress to engage in this sort of behavior, why not simply say, "Good points, crank! I agree!"


What's next? Do you want to make a list of every sexual predator classified by whether children were involved separated by party then tally them up so you can say one side is "worse" than the other? Why not just agree that none of these people are worthy of high office?

I can see this turning into another of those pointless threads containing dozens and dozens of comments about how you think I'm wrong owing to the fact I used the wrong word and using it as a straw man to invent another reason to argue and call me names.

You and kingman10 parse and say Reynolds' sentence was reduced for the bank fraud charge but that he had served the full 5 years for sexually assaulting a 16 year-old girl as though lessens the seriousness of either of these convictions. What difference does it really make? #childmolester

Do you believe a Congressman being convicted of sexual assault of a 16 year-old girl or bank fraud is OK? How about BOTH of these crimes committed by the same guy? Does it matter if said congressman is Republican or Democrat, black or white, gay or straight, liberal or conservative? If you don't think it's OK for any member of Congress to engage in this sort of behavior, why not simply say, "Good points, crank! I agree!"

#triggered #doublestandard #whataboutism #partisanship

crank

Perhaps you should read my comments more carefully. Each of these points you bring up has been asked and answered.

I noted in my original post that Crane was Republican. "...REP. DAN CRANE (R-Ill.) and REP. GERRY STUDDS (D-Mass.)... In a later post, I noted that I had mistakenly used Crane's name instead of Studd's name in a response and corrected that knowing you would pounce on it and make this non-issue and issue. #strawman #sopredictable

"crank Nov 30, 2017 3:54pm
Before you fly off the handle, I wrote Crane when I intended to write Stubbs."

You dug into this via Google and commented, "Crane, who was in a relationship with a 17-year-old female page, was promptly voted out of office by his constituency. Studds, who was gay, was caught in a relationship with a 17-year-old gay male page. He went home to Massachusetts to face voters in a couple of town hall meetings and got standing ovations at both, then was re-elected I believe eight times. Go figure, the liberals in Massachusetts have nothing on the Alabama supporters for Roy Moore." Please explain how this result isn't indicative of a #doublestandard which has existed for a long, long time.

Two: "I was bringing up the fact, crank, that you were setting out an argument that pedophilia in Congress is a common crime..." NO SIR!!! Don't spin what I have written very clearly several times including my original comment to stand up a #strawman which you can knock down. Here it is again from my very first comment...

Milbank: "But both sides don’t do it. Nobody else has been accused of what Moore has been accused of — and nobody so accused has been granted the privilege of high office. Yet." My point is, was and has been that this is false.

My original comment: Yes, Mr. Milbank, BOTH sides do it. There are a number of cases where men accused and proven to have committed sex crimes involving children have been elected to and remained in high office.

I gave several examples from both parties. You gave another. Milbank mispoke. There is no need for more when these facts I've presented are enough to prove my point. Why belabor this and why not simply agree?

Third: The issue of Bill Clinton was brought up because Milbank went on and on about making note of the special place in hell for child molesters. Our friend toddler thinks they should be drawn and quartered. Everyone here seems to agree that child molesters are the worst sort of humans. It begs the question, then, why would Bill Clinton give quarter to someone who perpetrates such a crime. The argument/ response/defense kingman10 gave was part semantics (pardoned versus commuted) and the fact his sentence for bank fraud was shortened. To me, it doesn't matter. The guy did what he did and if we're all singing from the same hymnal about child molesters, he didn't deserve any sort of mercy owing to the tough talk offered up by Milbank and others; e.g. special place in hell, drawing and quartering, etc. Why not simply agree?
#triggered #youjustliketoargue #indefensible

Regarding this, "You have a lot of chutzpah to claim I or kingman is turning this into a partisan argument."

If not political, why are you arguing on and on about this? You acknowledged the example I gave in my very first comment to point out Milbank mis-spoke was, in fact, accurate and that you were mistaken...why continue? Why persist in calling my post political? It was factual. Kingman10 called me a filthy liar for saying something which you have acknowledged was true. He has not and has not apologized. If not for purely political reasons, why argue with me on this? #triggered #partisanship #factsdont matter

Chutzpah, thy name is oldpompous. It ain't me, it is thee. #doublestandard

kingman10

I just don't know why you insist on digging up old dirt on democrats 25 years ago. Are you hoping to somehow prove democrats are worse than republicans on this issue of sexual misconduct? If you are you are desperately trying to prove some point that doesn't exist. Both parties are equally at fault in this type of behavior. You constant bashing on only one party shows your ignorance and blatant bias. You can keep digging up all kinds of mud on democrats, and someone else can dig up more on the republicans, then you can dig more up on democrats, then on and on it goes. After its all said and done nothing is really proven that both parties are equally at fault. both parties are made up of humans and carry the same responsibilities to their voters, but often they fall short, no matter what party they belong to. So your double standard of only bashing democrats shows your lack honesty while turning a blind eye to the republicans doing the same

crank

Asked and answered... I stated this in my original post. I'll say it again. These examples are provided to counter Milbank's falsehood, "But both sides don’t do it. Nobody else has been accused of what Moore has been accused of — and nobody so accused has been granted the privilege of high office. Yet."

For the record, I gave examples from both parties. Oldhomey even offered up another example in Dennis Hastert (a Republican). So, your BS about only blaming one party doesn't hold up. Does it?

Aren't you reading these comments before you respond? It seems like you're only seeing what you want to see. This is the essence of the #doublestandard

Me: "You bring up Dennis Hastert. He is another great example! Did you expect me to classify this as "whataboutism" or simply agree that Hastert had no business being in high office, as Milbank puts it? For the record, I agree that Hastert had no business being in high office." (He's a Republican.)

"These guys in high office talk and talk about high morals but the truth is often the opposite of what they say. When caught, they get protection (Honor among thieves?)" (Did I mention party?)

"These people have created their own protected class for each other. Why are you trying to defend or explain what happened as though it (in any of the cases) is OK?"

There is another article about this same sort of BS being proposed in the Wisconsin legislature by leadership in BOTH parties. #hushhushbill http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/state-and-regional/senate-leaders-sexual-harassment-records-should-be-kept-private/article_9a19eaba-fbdb-5fa0-ba8f-833ee357dcdc.html

"Does it matter if said congressman is Republican or Democrat, black or white, gay or straight, liberal or conservative? If you don't think it's OK for any member of Congress to engage in this sort of behavior, why not simply say, "Good points, crank! I agree!"

#triggered #partisanship #triblibs

oldhomey

crank, I am just another mope who gets on these boards to express my opinions and to take exception when others on here use lies and false information as a basis for their opinions. I am not sure why you so desperately want my endorsement for your "good points". I think I have in the past told you when I agree with you, but you politicize so many things that should not be politicized, and in this instance of arguing against adverse public reaction to Roy Moore's candidacy, whom you claim to despise but whose candidacy you seem to defend, you go out of your way to politicize that which should not be politicized. Why else would you take such exception to Milbank's column?

To wit: You insist he made a terrible lie with the last three sentences of his column:

"But both sides don’t do it. Nobody else has been accused of what Moore has been accused of — and nobody so accused has been granted the privilege of high office. Yet."

The implication you make out of this is that Milbank is claiming that Roy Moore, a Republican pedophile candidate for the U.S. Senate in Alabama is the only pedophile ever to run for such a high office and that is a lie.

You ignored the sentence that came in front of those last three sentences, and the sentence you ignored is the crux of Milbank's point: "Now Trump and his whataboutist followers would turn credible accusations of child molestation into just another both-sides-do-it argument. But both sides don’t do it. Nobody else has been accused of what Moore has been accused of — and nobody so accused has been granted the privilege of high office. Yet."

He is saying, crank, that Trump and Moore's supporters are saying, in effect, well everybody has a few creeps in their woodpile who diddled minors, so this is no big deal. Well, it IS a big deal, and it should be dealt right out of the game. As for your insinuation that Milbank ignores other politicians who in the past were caught up in sexual abuse of minors, you ignore another key paragraph in the same column in which he quite clearly is saying others have done it in the past, we don't need to put another abuser into high office. That paragraph is:

"But it shouldn’t be controversial to say that sexual misconduct is worse when it involves children. Until now, accusations of sexual abuse of children have been met with swift, severe and bipartisan responses. Recall the revulsion over Denny Hastert and Anthony Weiner, Mark Foley and David Wu. Predators aren’t solely Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives. No partisan or ideological lens applies — only a human one."

He is quite clear that this should not be a partisan, political issue, it should be an ethical, moral, humanist issue. You are the one who falsely accuses Milbank of making it into a political fight.

So, sorry, for your stand here, you will not be hearing me praising you with "Good points, crank!" Make some good ones, I might.

crank

"crank, I am just another mope who gets on these boards to express my opinions and to take exception when others on here use lies and false information as a basis for their opinions."

Except... I posted FACTS which were true! You and kingman10 declared them lies. Kingman10 called me a filthy liar and called my source (NPR) alt-media.

I am not sure why you so desperately want my endorsement for your "good points".

Another dodge... don't flatter yourself. I object when you frame my opinion as based upon lies by lying yourself. I have vigorously defended my opinion with facts and documented examples. Here again, you're still calling them lies and now say I'm doing this for your endorsement? #youmightbeabitnarcissist

"I think I have in the past told you when I agree with you, but you politicize so many things that should not be politicized, and in this instance of arguing against adverse public reaction to Roy Moore's candidacy, whom you claim to despise but whose candidacy you seem to defend..."

Another LIE... I have never expressed any opinion which "seemed to defend" Roy Moore. I said from the moment the story broke and big Republican honcho Paul Ryan said the case against him seemed credible and that Moore should step aside, I agreed and said so.

You say it is me who is politicizing this but, in fact, it is Milbank and others (even you) who are doing this. I have been consistent in my statements condemning these sexual scandals and wrong-doing by BOTH Republicans and Democrats. You, however, have not. You made excuses for your guys. You blamed Tweeden for Franken's misdeeds (though I think you regret doing so) the same way Hillary Clinton called Bill's accusers Trailer Trash and Bimbos. #blamethevictim #waronwomen These are facts. It is and has been an undeniable #doublestandard when it comes to these matters.

Milbank calls it #whataboutism when the issue of Franken and Conyers and Clinton (who set the standard) then dares to say "Politics Aside" in the headline of this piece.

You started this most recent comment by stating (righteously) that you, "...take exception when others on here use lies and false information as a basis for their opinions." AHEM!!!! I declare #bullsh¡t

What about Milbank? He wrote a blatant falsehood in his opinion. In my very first comment on this article I corrected that mis-statement by citing examples backed up with facts and citation. You throw insults and parse what I wrote only to discover it was TRUE and FACTUAL. Then, you continue arguing/bashing me and you say it is me "politicizing"? Good Lord! You really do see only what you want to see. #doublestandard

I'm done here but I expect once I'm gone you'll insist I've disappeared into the weeds. Nobody is reading any of this anyway.


oldhomey

I agree, crank. You are done here. I showed you explicitly how Milbank's column cuts down your argument, but you continue to insist he is lying. The record shows he is not. It is good that you are done. I remain, your mope.

crank

GOSH! [ohmy] I stopped by to see and here we have this. I've caught you doing what you have accused others of doing, oldpompous. This, as I've stated, is your M.O. (read above).

You wrote:
oldhomey Dec 2, 2017 10:04pm
Forgive me, crank, but this is becoming extremely tiresome and fruitless....

I replied and agreed:
crank Dec 2, 2017 10:07am
...I'm done here but I expect once I'm gone you'll insist I've disappeared into the weeds. Nobody is reading any of this anyway.

True to form, you slinked back in here a couple of days later and we find you slipping this tμrd into the punchbowl , you sneaky so and so: [sneaky][batman]
oldhomey Dec 4, 2017 12:45am
I agree, crank. You are done here. I showed you explicitly how Milbank's column cuts down your argument, but you continue to insist he is lying. The record shows he is not.
#coward #howhomeywinsdebates

Then you dare to direct this at someone else? [innocent]"Gosh! That is one clever way to win an argument, I guess. Do your arguing in a discussion string that your opponents are not even aware is there." #projecting #guilty #hypocrite #doubletalk #tripletalk #re-handed #oldhomey #practicewhatyoupreach

oldhomey

Holy cow! crank has rolled out the heavy artillery here -- his emoticons -- in his desperation to win. I guess he really IS finished. His emoticons say nothing and nothing he says in the post changes anything.

Tim Russell

How is preying on children "whataboutism" to sexually harassing an adult?
I know you probably have underwear older than the examples of others you gave but going back to 1983 is hardly representative of voters today.
If you can't see the difference, you are living in a bubble.

crank

I guess I'm missing your point, Tim. Are you saying it was OK for Congressmen Crane and Studds to have sex with minors back in 1983 but it isn't OK now? How 'bout 1993 when Congressman Reynolds had sex with a 16 year-old? Was it OK then?

These are the examples I gave (Republican and Democrat). They occurred and are well documented and offered in response to Milbank's claim,"But both sides don’t do it. Nobody else has been accused of what Moore has been accused of — and nobody so accused has been granted the privilege of high office. Yet."

His statement is not true. Not only did it happen, according to oldhomey the nice folks in Massachusetts gave 'their' child molester congressman a standing ovation (twice) and re-elected the guy after he was censured for having sex with a minor. (I didn't ask for his source.)

Here's what he wrote, "Crane, who was in a relationship with a 17-year-old female page, was promptly voted out of office by his constituency. Studds, who was gay, was caught in a relationship with a 17-year-old gay male page. He went home to Massachusetts to face voters in a couple of town hall meetings and got standing ovations at both, then was re-elected I believe eight times. Go figure, the liberals in Massachusetts have nothing on the Alabama supporters for Roy Moore."

(Read what he wrote again because it is one of the better examples of the #doublestandard I've seen. He laid it out for us in just a couple of sentences too. ) [ohmy] ←oldpompous loves it when I use these too.

Many states throw guys who do that in jail and it earns them a spot on a sexual offender list. Not back then and certainly not "the liberals in Massachusetts. You must be right. Back in 1983, times were very different. Perhaps not so different? #doublestandard (...that darned bubble, right? [huh])

Let me ask you this.... If going back to 1983 invalidates the examples I've given owing to that 'old underwear clause' you're using to negate them, what about things that occurred even further back? ...say 1979, for example? [whistling] #doublestandard

Tim Russell

All of your examples are HORs. Not a one was in the Senate. Furthermore they were re-elected, not elected to their position for the first time.

Tim Russell

Again, being re-elected to a HOR position is not the same thing as getting elected to a position for the first time in a state side election.
You should avoid going on the $25,000 Pyramid TV Game Show. It is based on knowing things that are the same. It is not something you are very good at.

Slider

It actually goes the other way. A Liberal Democrat gets accused and the trolls here at the Tribune keep saying "What about Trump, What about Moore?".

oldhomey

Slider, I could say something snide in return because you generally deserve snide treatment, but in this case you are not entirely wrong.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe or log in to continue.