yup, he's a democrat
mark sanford has often been at odds with south carolina republicans, once going so far as to bring a drove of pigs into the republican-dominated legislative chamber to highlight his distaste for their profligate spending. at last, i'm sure to the south carolinian republican party's collective delight, it can be finally be confirmed that mark sanford isn't, in fact, a republican at all!
nope, while awol in argentina these past few days, instead of doing the republican thing and trolling for gay sex partners in airport rest rooms, it's finally been admitted that mark sanford went most of the way to the south pole in order to canoodle with an unnamed adult heterosexual woman. nope, the republican way is not for mr. sanford. there were no grammatically challenged sexual text messages to teenage boys from the congressional page program. (nods to mr. foley). no snorting crystal meth and cavorting with male prostitutes in denver, colorado. (nods to mr. haggard). no trying to slip an undercover cop a twenty for a BJ in a public park. (nods to mr. allen). no plying fellow young republicans with liquor and then reviving them in the middle of the night with a little surprise mouth-to-penis resuscitation. (nods to mr. murphy). no discoveries of child pornography on home computers (nods to mr. mckee) or collections of self-videotaped sex with male prostitutes (nods to mr. barclay) or sexual solicitations of 5 year old girls (nods to mr. atchison) nor even sexual abuse of his adopted children (nods to mr. bryan).
nope, mr. sanford cannot possibly be of the party that spent more on kenneth starr's investigation of bill clinton's wayward heterosexual penis than they did on the 9/11 attacks. now, don't get me wrong, i'm not forgetting things like barney frank's little shop of horrors with steven gobie--i'm just saying that between that and his felonious oversight (both senses of the word) of fannie and freddie to match the happy hall pass given to wall street bankers by the deregulatory mccainiacs, the man is OBVIOUSLY a republican.
ok, all seriousness here: sanctimonious partisanship on all sides of this aisle situation we have in our politics these days has officially jumped the shark and gone completely science fiction. argentina? are you serious??? our elected officials are run so far amok that it's not even possible to make sense of how outrageous their behavior has actually become. and it has NOTHING to do with whether or not they're sporting a D or an R after their names. (the R examples above are chosen specifically because the hypocrisy factor on the R side is way off the charts, and not because it isn't plenty easy to find D examples, though i will say, from a rough unscientific sampling, those republican guys sure do get around).
family values??? puh-leeeeeeeze.
the D guy, tim mahoney, who took R guy mark foley's house seat, wound up paying off his ex-mistress slash campaign staffer to the tune of six figures just last fall. to his credit, the sex was heterosexual and between consenting adults, but, honestly, is this our new standard of public conduct??? it's all officially ri-DONK-ulous.
nope, while awol in argentina these past few days, instead of doing the republican thing and trolling for gay sex partners in airport rest rooms, it's finally been admitted that mark sanford went most of the way to the south pole in order to canoodle with an unnamed adult heterosexual woman. nope, the republican way is not for mr. sanford. there were no grammatically challenged sexual text messages to teenage boys from the congressional page program. (nods to mr. foley). no snorting crystal meth and cavorting with male prostitutes in denver, colorado. (nods to mr. haggard). no trying to slip an undercover cop a twenty for a BJ in a public park. (nods to mr. allen). no plying fellow young republicans with liquor and then reviving them in the middle of the night with a little surprise mouth-to-penis resuscitation. (nods to mr. murphy). no discoveries of child pornography on home computers (nods to mr. mckee) or collections of self-videotaped sex with male prostitutes (nods to mr. barclay) or sexual solicitations of 5 year old girls (nods to mr. atchison) nor even sexual abuse of his adopted children (nods to mr. bryan).
nope, mr. sanford cannot possibly be of the party that spent more on kenneth starr's investigation of bill clinton's wayward heterosexual penis than they did on the 9/11 attacks. now, don't get me wrong, i'm not forgetting things like barney frank's little shop of horrors with steven gobie--i'm just saying that between that and his felonious oversight (both senses of the word) of fannie and freddie to match the happy hall pass given to wall street bankers by the deregulatory mccainiacs, the man is OBVIOUSLY a republican.
ok, all seriousness here: sanctimonious partisanship on all sides of this aisle situation we have in our politics these days has officially jumped the shark and gone completely science fiction. argentina? are you serious??? our elected officials are run so far amok that it's not even possible to make sense of how outrageous their behavior has actually become. and it has NOTHING to do with whether or not they're sporting a D or an R after their names. (the R examples above are chosen specifically because the hypocrisy factor on the R side is way off the charts, and not because it isn't plenty easy to find D examples, though i will say, from a rough unscientific sampling, those republican guys sure do get around).
family values??? puh-leeeeeeeze.
the D guy, tim mahoney, who took R guy mark foley's house seat, wound up paying off his ex-mistress slash campaign staffer to the tune of six figures just last fall. to his credit, the sex was heterosexual and between consenting adults, but, honestly, is this our new standard of public conduct??? it's all officially ri-DONK-ulous.
Labels: politics
posted by kad barma at 3:34 PM
4 Comments:
in its hasty sloppiness, fox news actually showed a (d) beside sanford's name today, after his bizzaro-world sobbing press conference.
and don't forget the broken vows of promise keeper congressman ensign. also boinking a chick, but, hey, the pentecostal angle adds dramz.
Kad,
With Starr's investigation, it was the Supreme Court who ruled 9-0 to press ahead even though the expansion of the Whitewater inquiry into the Paula Jones harassment case would be going against a sitting President.
The Omnibus Crime Act from 93 or 94 specifically outlined how in cases of sexual harassment or abuse, defendants' history of said behavior could/would be used in making determinations...the Paula Jones thing was mostly he said/she said but it was during that that questions arose about a possibly improper relationship with a White House intern.
The Kenneth Starr inquiry so often gets portrayed as one man's obsessive witch hunt that seemingly sprung up from nowhere, but I think that's an unfair characterization of what it was, and unfair to Mr. Starr..
best,
gp
"the party that spent more" was meant to imply exactly that, and nothing more. remarkable how defensive people can get about who and what ken starr is. (the investigation, later admitted by ken starr himself to have been in error to be allowed to jump over into the paula jones matter, cost taxpayers $40M).
to correct and amplify some facts:
ken starr was appointed by the three judge "special division" panel--not commissioned by the supreme court. (the only supreme court ruling related to the matter was a 9-0 confirmation that sitting presidents are, indeed, not immune to civil suit).
the law used to specifically empower the investigation was the "independent counsel" law (since repealed)--not any omnibus crime act.
the panel to appoint starr was led by federal judge and jesse helms political protege david sentelle, who could reasonably be construed to have been directed to appoint starr on a political basis after a meeting in the senate cafeteria with jesse helms and lauch faircloth in july of '94. the three denied things when first questioned, but sentelle later allowed that the upcoming appointment "may have come up". it's on this basis that i conclude that the investigation was politically motivated and influenced, especially in expanding to matters related to paula jones, which, as i've cited before, was admitted by ken starr himself to have been a legal error. here's a link in case anyone wants some background reading: http://mediamatters.org/research/200412030011
i'm saying that i believe that the investigation was one party's obsessive witch hunt that sprung specifically from the mind of party insiders like jesse helms, and that kenneth starr was hand selected as the lap dog, i mean man, to conduct it.
he's also been retained to contest the control powers of the public company accounting oversight board (part of the sarbanes-oxley act that requires officers of public companies to sign their financial statements and remain liable for fraud and misrepresentation) and to defend blackwater in the case of the four "independent contractors" who were killed and dismembered in fallujah back when even the us army wouldn't send their people in there.
Kad,
Never mind that I never said Ken Starr was appointed by the SCOTUS, nor what originally empowered the investigation that eventually led to the impeachment articles..
If we're going ad hominem here (disagreement equals defensiveness, or irrationality, or whatever), I'll happily tap the mat!
best,
gp
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home