Rep. Cathy McMorris is back in Spokane, facing a tougher reelection campaign than I’m sure she ever imagined.
Peter Goldmark signs are sprouting like wheat across farm country, and campaign sources tell me that he closed the third quarter $80,000 ahead of his fundraising target. Goldmark didn’t jump into the race until April, yet he’s on track to raise over $1 million by election day, the vast majority of it from individual donors. Meanwhile, I’m hearing whispers through the grapevine that some independent expenditures could be coming into the 5th CD, further leveling the playing field. If that’s not a sign of growing confidence in Goldmark’s surging candidacy, I don’t know what is.
Anybody who expects a McMorris cakewalk simply isn’t paying attention. Goldmark is perhaps the best Democratic challenger in decades, and there hasn’t been an anti-incumbent mood like this in the district since 1994. President Bush’s approval ratings are now negative and trending downward in Eastern Washington, a dramatic illustration of the political climate change that is impacting reliably Republican districts nationwide. And if all that weren’t tough enough, McMorris comes home with her party mired in the ever-widening Predatorgate scandal.
Don’t think the backlash to the House Leadership’s coddling of a sexual predator can reach all the way into the Goldmark/McMorris race? Well, it depends on how McMorris handles it. If she unequivocally calls for Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds and others who shielded Rep. Foley to immediately step down from their leadership roles — and pledges to support new leadership should she be reelected — then perhaps McMorris can immunize herself. But turning on the GOP leadership can be a difficult thing to do, especially for McMorris who has been widely touted as on the leadership track herself. Throwing her party leaders under a bus could flatten McMorris’s leadership prospects as well.
Predatorgate changes the entire tenor of the race. Voters are losing faith in the ability of GOP to lead our nation — even voters in reliably Republican Eastern WA — and McMorris’s close ties to the House leadership has been transformed from a strength into a weakness. Now, even seemingly innocuous comments and public statements can end up raising issues McMorris would prefer not to raise. For example, on September 28, one day before the Foley scandal broke wide open, McMorris issued a press release touting her law enforcement credentials, which included the following bullet point:
- Co-sponsored the Child Safety Act to protect children from sex offenders
Yeah… co-sponsored the Child Safety Act with Mark Foley. (And to be fair, 87 other House members, but you get the point.)
On September 28 there was no downside to a boast like that. But since September 29 it raises the question of exactly what McMorris has really done to safeguard our nation’s children, that could possibly make up for her personal and professional support of the GOP House leaders who enabled Foley’s sexual predation?
Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, Alexander and Shimkus all knew the rumors about Foley — that he was a closeted homosexual who indiscreetly showered attention on young, male pages — and they clearly understood his “overly friendly” emails in that context… for why else would they have attempted to cover them up? When push came to shove, the Republican leadership chose to stand by a sexual predator.
Now McMorris needs to tell her constituents whether she stands by her Republican leaders.
Dude – don’t be one of those folks who just adds “-gate” to everything to denote a scandal. It’s more wore out than a $10 hooker.
Congress
Information compiled from the Washington Post, “Congressional Sex Scandals in History,” and other sources.
10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.
9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.
8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.
7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.
6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.
5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.
4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.
3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.
2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.
1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.
Screw you and your stolen ideas, JCH. Write your own material. If you can.
If I’m McMorris, I’m thinking…”hmmm, do I: (a) do the right thing, or (b) preserve my shot at power as my leaders go down?”
What am I saying? She’s a Republican. There is no (a).
Daddy Love and JDB, A little terrorist update for you…………………………………………………………………..If you’re a Muslim extremist captured while fighting your holy war against “infidels,” avoid revealing information at all costs, don’t give your real name and claim that you were mistreated or tortured during your detention.
Hey, I heard that the Democratic leaders told Peter Goldmark about Mark Foley ten months ago. Why didn’t he do anything?
In the FWIW department, all the members of the Washington House delegation voted for HR 3132 “Children’s Safety Act of 2005”, except for James McDermott, who voted against it:
http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....=h2005-470
The bill passed 371 YES to 52 NO.
6 JCH
Or, be innocent, don’t tell what you don’t know, and ACTUALLY be mistreated and tortured.
7 RP
Well, I haven’t read the bill, but when Republicans draft a bill and they tout it “to protect children,” why do I imagine that it also immunizes the president from war crimes prosecution, authorizes warrantless seizure of Starbucks cards from gay teachers, and funds the digging of trenches on the Arizona/Mexico border?
7 RP
Wow, thanks for that link. It’s really interesting that McDermott in Seattle, San Fancisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego joined most of Kansas and half of Texas in voting aginst the bill.
Gerry Studds
Congressional page sex scandal
Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the Congressional page sex scandal in 1983, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds’s case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.
During the course of the House Ethics Committee’s investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, “apparently was not news to many of his constituents.” Studds stated in an address to the House, “It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay.”
As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody’s business but their own.
This Democrat actually had sex with a 17 year-old minor and received a mere censure…and was defiant to the end.
Progressives have apparently “come” a long way.
Richard Viguerie is calling for the immediate resignation of the House GOP leadership. In conservative circles, says John Aravosis on Americablog, “It doesn’t get any bigger than this, short of Ronald Reagan speaking out from the afterlife.”
11 leftout
You guys are so lame. No defense, no thoughts on how the problems uncovered by this nasty business could be solved, just an Internet scouring for a Democrat to point the finger at. 23 years ago, yet. When are you going to post your “blame the Democrats who knew ten months ago” post?
And, AGAIN, no mention of the contemporaneous REPUBLICAN scandal of Rep. Crane fucking a 17-year-old girl.
And no acknowledgement that the House Page Board that the Republicans so conspicuously FAILED to use in this matter was set up in the aftermath of Studds and Crane to (what?) protect the pages. Of course, it takes a House leadership that is interested in protecting pages for it to work.
Failure of leadership after failure of leadership, the GOP is a gift that keeps on giving. Ah, the gift of failure.
Sorry. In 13, that would be “Rep. Crane fucking a 17-year-old female page…”
Not only was Rep. Crane having an affair with a 17 year old girl, but when he made a statement to say just how very sorry he was (and I bet by that time, he was VERY sorry that he got caught, anyway) his wife had to stand there & listen to him and he held his little daughter in his arms. He used his daughter as a prop to show what a great family guy he was, even though he’d been running around with a 17 year old girl. Now there’s Republican family values for you.
Daddy Love & Emily–
Keep in mind it was a DEMOCRAT-controlled House that vote to merely censure Democrat Stubbs and Crane.
Take it up with your own Party folks!
Leftout (when the children chose teams)
I guess your point is that a generation ago Democrats did not adequately punish wayward House members so they must eternally keep their mouths shut concerning contemporary transgressions. Is that right? Is that your point? What happened 23 years ago is utterly irrelevant to how the current imbroglio should be handled. Your sense of relevancy is so twisted, so partisan, that you, as always, look completely foolish.
7 That’s interesting, Richard. I’d be fascinated to know that McDermott’s reasons were for voting against it.
It may be anyone’s guess how this is going to play out in Spokane and environs in the wake of the Jim West mess.
Warning: The following post takes its tone from the Republican way of handling issues.
If you can prove that Frank, Studds, Case, and Clinton held a gun to Foley’s head and said “IM sexually explicit stuff to these young boys.” then you can bring them into the discussion. But you can’t, because Mr. Foley did those things of his own free will. If you bring up anything but Mr. Foly’s personal responsibility, you are an enemy of this country because you enable pedophiles.
If you can prove that the Democratic Party held a gun to the heads of the Republican leadership and said “Do nothing with this information about Foley.” then you can bring the Democratic Party into the discussion. But you can’t, for the Republican leadership covered this up of their own free will to protect themselves. If you bring up anything but the personal responsibility of the Republican leadership in this cover-up, you are an enemy of this country because you enable pedophiles.
McMorris also served with Foley on the Majority Whip Team, appointed by DeLay, and then kept by Boehner. She cannot say she didn’t know him or work with him. Of course she also has been a faithful servant of Pombo, working for him on eliminating environmental protections in favor of corporate business interests. She is tainted by her proximity to corruption, and her willingness to do their bidding seems to support the need to remove her from Congress. The other WA Republicans are not all that innocent either. What’s with Doc Hastings only doing those things that he is ordered to do by Hastert and Boehner? He doesn’t have an independent thought in his head; similar to McMorris, but Hastings has been there longer and should know better.
A month ago, the Goldmark race looked like one that was only serving to give voice to the minority of Democratic and liberal interests east of the Cascades. It seems now that there is a very real chance that he can be elected to Congress, and bring something different to that role–freedom from corruption and representing the interests of those who live and work in the State.
16 Leftout
“Keep in mind it was a DEMOCRAT-controlled House that vote to merely censure Democrat Stubbs and Crane.”
Tell me more about how Haster, Boehner, Shimkus, and Reynolds keeping this secret since last November is better.
A significant difference between the Foley case and the earlier Studds and Crane cases is that in the earlier cases the House leadership was only deciding how to respond to past conduct. Both Crane and Studds were censured and it was the voters of their districts who decided whether to return them to Congress. (The age of consent in DC at the time was 16 so although disgraceful, no laws were broken at the time.)
In this case, the GOP leadership was at least aware of “overly friendly” e-mails that demanded further examination. Instead of checking to see whether there was more to it, the GOP leadership buried its head in the sand and did nothing to restrict Foley’s access to young pages. That is why people are rightly upset with Hastert and company.
Daddy loves little boys…
Just you moonbats saying it over and over again won’t make it true.
24 Observer
That depends on what the meaning of the it we say over and over again is.
That goes for all your its.
26 Observer
Weak.
Oh man, this is why throwing the stooges to the wolves can, appropriately enough, come back to bite you in the ass. Kirk Fordham, the (be patient) former Chief of Staff for Rep. Foley, and more recently Chief of Staff for Rep. Reynolds of the RCCC, who has been “advising” Rep. Foley for about a week now, and who approached ABC last week to try to bribe them into suppressing the Foley IM story, was fired from his job as Reynolds CoS, and it looked like the GOP was going to try to pin as much of this as they would on him.
Well, does Fordham have the last laugh? That is, the last laugh as he’s biting them in the ass while being thrown to the wolves? (sorry) It turns out that he now says he had multiple conversations about Foley with “senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives” way back in 2004. But they did nothing.
I’m still not convinced until I see some polling numbers. So far, it’s still all “hey, there are lots of signs everywhere!”, and the primary numbers don’t convince me that McMorris is vulnerable. They didn’t have to come out like Reichert/Burner, but they needed to be CLOSE. The 5th isn’t impossible to win in a few years (because I think places like Spokane and the Okanogan are going to pick up population and make the district more D), but the demographics are tough. My feeling is it would be best to start at ground level, in things like county commissions, and work up through the Legislature before winning CD’s. You’ll note that that’s what John Tester’s career path is, for instance.
Goldmark is perhaps the best Democratic challenger in decades
Like I said before, Barbieri wasn’t a slouch- he got newspaper endorsements, was well-financed and was a very solid fit for the district in the Tom Foley tradition (well-connected Spokane businessman)… and he got buried 60-40. Which, not coincidentally IMO, is what Goldmark pulled in the primary.
Even if you figure the national mood/Foleygate is good for adding 5 points on top of what Goldmark got in the primary (a net swing of 10 points, which is pretty HUGE in the space of 6 weeks), that means he loses 45-55 in the general.
But hey, show me a poll and prove me wrong, and I’ll eat some tasty, tasty crow for a meal.
On CNN TV they just had 2 more pages admitting they got IMs that were sexual in nature from Foley.
Observer? New it.
Of course the big news now is that the GOP leadership knew about it for two or three years, not one.
Umm, did they investigate? And when I say “investigate,” I mean “DID THEY ASK THE PAGES?”
Re: Kirk Fordham
Fordham also says he’ll disclose to the FBI and House ethics committee “any and all meetings and phone calls” regarding Foley’s behavior that he had with senior leadership staffers. In other words, this is just getting started.
Go to Billmon’s site for a good take on the affair l’Studds.
Daddy boy, you sure are working up a lather here preaching to the choir.
Coward: Try here:
http://www.majorityrules.org/b.....n-5th.html
Even better is his take on the Dow “all time high” (copied with aplogies and a link:
34 Observer
Certainly facts mean nothing to you.
34
Besides, you guys are a gift that keeps on giving. The intra-GOP feeding frenzy is an appalling train wreck, but I can’t help watching.
Oh, but here’s the sliver lining to how a 10 point national swing to Ds not QUITE getting Goldmark elected works out: it makes Burner a very good shot to kick Reichert out, and it probably gives the Ds a workable House majority, because a bunch of lkean R districts are going to elect Ds… and that’s not including stuff like:
– DeLay’s district (where a former US rep is running against a write-in R AND DeLay)
– Foley’s district (where a well-financed challenger is running)
– Hastert’s district (where John Laesch is running)
– Reynolds’ district (another well-financed challenger, Jack Davis)
And polling data DOES confirm that a bunch of swing districts are going D:
http://elections.us.reuters.co.....LeftNav-17
Note that NONE of the R’s are polling above 50 percent, and a fair number are behind their D challengers.
The fat lady ain’t singing yet (still plenty of time for another October Surprise), but she’s off stage warming up.
36 If a rising tide is supposed to lift all boats, how come we’re all bailing?
35:
*In the initial ballot, incumbent McMorris receives less than a majority of the vote against Goldmark despite a vast name recognition advantage. After both candidates get their messages out, Goldmark pulls into a virtual tie with McMorris–37% for Goldmark to 39% for McMorris.
I smell push polling. No sell.
McMorris = W = Cheney = Wolfie = Rummy = Condosleezza = DeLay = Foley = Duke Cunningham = Hastert = Skunks all. Every G.D. one of them.
I laugh when the trolls try to link this current evilness to past Democratic sins. (See Dr DCH Dumbass, above) The only thing missing is the swift-boating of the kids. Michael Savage is saying this child molestation thing is because the “libral medya” won’t take on radical Islam.
I lament the days of the “honest” Republicans who have been shoved out of that once proud, clean, and truly conservative party.
And as to what I mean by that, for those of you not familiar with this terminology, push polling usually means you take an initial poll, and then say something like “Did you know Cathy McMorris participated in Satanic human sacrifice rituals? Did you know that Peter Goldmark spent his spare time working with the Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa?”, and THEN you re-poll.
(Obviously exaggerated for rhetorical effect, but you know what I mean)
You do push polling in order to convince people that “Hey, we can win this!” (while leaving unstated that like in war, political plans rarely survive engagement with the enemy). If I saw, say, a recent Spokesman-Review poll that had Goldmark within single digits and a 3-4 % MOE, I’d say “damn, he’s got a shot at this”. But a push poll from freakin’ July, after which Goldmark still got buried in the primary 60-40? Not buying it.
Gee, you guys are so, I don’t know…on topic…
I’m getting all tingly.
You know, if Kirk Fordham’s story about going to the House leadership back in 2003 about Rep. Foley is true, and he says he has phone records and e-mails to back it up, then every member of the House leadership has been lying outright to the American people from the beginning of this thing, including the guys (I’m lookin’ at YOU, Boehner) who had more than one story. Think about that for a minute.
There is the somewhat distressing thought that if all the beans on this get spilled, nobody’s save all the way back to the Founding Founders.
Well, sure Hastert lied, and Boehner lied, and Shimkus lied, and Reynolds lied, but what about Gerry Studds in 1983, huh? What about that?
Moonbat Mamma’s Boy-
Facts? Where? I only see swamp gas… I only sse you hoping the facts will back up your gas later. Most likely you’ll be disappointed again. I am sure you must be getting used to the fact that the rest of America thinks a whole lot differently than the moonbats of Seattle.
To quote my friend Dean Barnett: “Once again we get an unhindered view of the Democrats’ campaign philosophy: Offer pure bile, unconstrained by any fidelity to available facts. As has so often been the case in recent history, the last days of a campaign season are revealing the true face of the Democratic Party. It ain’t pretty.”
Observer
I’ve got a little quiz for true believers like you, who are incapable of seeing fault with anything your masters say. Please take however much time you need.
Picture this:
GW and Dick Cheney are on the front lawn of the White House barbecuing live puppies. As an unquestioning loyalist, as all good Americans should be, do you:
a) Applaud this preemptive strike upon canine terrorism;
b) Strike up a chorus of “God Bless America”;
c) Request that they give you a medium rare slice;
d) Curse Democrats’ lack of patriotism because they don’t barbecue puppies; or
d) All of the above
48 Observer
Yes, of course you’re right. We should sit back an take a judicious look at this. Because really we don’t know if Denny Hastert really knew anything or not just because the Chair of the House Page Board, and head of the NRCC, and the House Majority Leader all say they talked to him about it.
Ands jsut because it’s obvious to a five-year-old that Hastert could have investigated and discovered all this mess about Foley, the IMs, the other pages, back in November doesn’t mean he ignored that fact of teenagers being seduced in the halls of Congress, right?
And who knows, CREW could be lying when they say that they turned over the e-mails they had to the FBI back in July.
And when Tom Reynolds’ chief of Staff Kirk Fordham says he told the House leadership all about Foley back in 2003 and that he has the e-mails and telephone records to back it up and he’s taking them to the FBI…well, just another disgruntled staffer with an ax to grind, right? We all know that the House leaders wouldn’t lie to us about when they knew….right?
Moonbats look at the Drudge website. If the kid was 18 there goes your scandal!
This stinks too. http://www.radaronline.com/exc.....s-fall.php
We’ll see where the chips fall. If you donk are wrong; can you say voter backlash!
A posting of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has apparently exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser…
ABC RELEASED TRANSCRIPT OF CHAT BETWEEN FOLEY AND A MAN WHO WAS 18 AT THE TIME OF THE INSTANT MESSAGE EXCHANGE…. NETWORK GAVE IMPRESSION MESSAGE WAS TO ‘UNDER AGE’ TEEN… DEVELOPING…
‘ONLINE GLITCH’ LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER
Drudge Website.
yes well if Matt sas it’s true, it must be- right…..
Matt is right more times than Goldie!
MWS
So, why did Foley resign if he did nothing wrong? And, if it turns out one of the pages he hit on was actually legal, does that mean Hastert and his cabal had no reason to suspect he might hit on underage pages, so Hastert is thereby absolved of any failure of leadership? Because pages are juniors in high school, the vast majority of them, I would think, are under 18. Is there anything a Republican can do that you won’t excuse?
Pressure from moonbats. I said “if” moonbat. ABC released the email. I have always said let justice go forth. Moonbats want another Merry Fitzmas which never came!
Hey, MWS,
With regard to the Foley situation, would you rather be in the Republicans’ position or the Democrats’ position? Do you honestly believe the Democrats are more likely to suffer from the repercussions than are the Republicans? You are a bit unacquainted with reality, but I’m starting to think you’re actually delusional.
54 Matt is “right”, all right.
Fascinating how fickle public opinion is…..just a couple weeks ago we Dems were excoriating ABC over “Path to 9/11” and the righties were all planning trips to Disney World, and all of a sudden it’s the other way around.
If it comes out these emails are to an 18 year old, your tighty whiteys are toast. Karl Rove will come out with all barrels for the donk OCtober surprise like Caspar Weinberger.
If Brian Ross had these emails for a while ABC knew it could weather the storm and you donk would be cocksucking ABC such as you are right now!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm
ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER
FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
Wed Oct 04 2006 20:32:06 ET
A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.
The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.
ABCNEWS said in a statement: “We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names.”
SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man “under the age of 18.”
ABC headlined the story: “New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote”
But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.
A network source explains exchanges with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.
MORE…
MWS,
“A network source explains exchanges with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.” (Emphasis added)
Typical spin: bold headline says one thing that the text of the article contradicts.
Not that anyone’s paying all that much attention to this particular side show. Too many former pages have come forward.
In the FWIW department, all the members of the Washington House delegation voted for HR 3132 “Children’s Safety Act of 2005?, except for James McDermott, who voted against it:
http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....=h2005-470
The bill passed 371 YES to 52 NO.
Commentby Richard Pope— 10/4/06@ 12:15 pm
Henry Waxman, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters also voted against it. There is something wrong with this bill because these are people who don’t care about how it looks but how it reads.
Pope, you might want to tell the whole story if you want intelligent bloggers to respond.
Not sure you’re the kind of judge I want to see on the bench . . . superficiality may not result in good law.
Goldy, your little survey doesn’t tell much . . . the numbers vacillate every month and there’s nothing to surprising here. What’s going on over there? One month their polling on Saturday night when everyone’s drinking and the next they’re polling on Sunday when everyone is on the Christina best?
These numbers are ridiculous.
Goldy, maybe you oughta check out that bill yourself – find out what’s wrong with it.
You know how to tell if it is a bad bill? It is easy. If Jim McDermott voted against it, it is a bad bill. The funny thing is he would even tell you why it is bad, if you asked him. Seems kinda strange a “real” congressmen answering questions from his constituents.
If he was a Republicans, he would have to duck and weave, deflect, and of course lie…..
Geez, if we could get back to the subject here and lay off the stupid baiting for a sec, I attended a Goldmark fundraiser tonight. His wife is a knockout – when she’s talking to you, she NEVER peers over your shoulder to see who just came in the room – she’s an absolute stunner. Peter is thoughtful and sincere, and Dwight Pelz gave an interesting introduction on the state of the West and all the potential Democratic pick-us. But when Peter took the floor, he was a surprisingly good speaker, given that he’s a farm boy. He’s livid about the Foley scandal, because it exemplifies a party that is serving itself and not the 300 million Americans it is paid to represent. He said he has received a very good response from the one on one he’s been having with all the districts Eastern Wa. He didn’t beat up McMorris because, well, WHY – there’s no there there. He’s the real ticket to getting back Foley’s seat. He’s doing very well in fundraising (again beating McMorris – and by the way, have you seen those lame commercials of hers) – send Peter a buck or two – we can surely win this thing: http://www.votepetergoldmark.com
The Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a record high today: 11,727 – four points higher than the previous record, set January 14, 2000. So if you invested $1,000 in the 30 companies in the Dow six years and almost nine months ago, you’d have $1000.34 today!
But, alas, if you invested that same amount in the S&P 500 Index (which in the winter of 2000 was bubbliciously full of tech stocks) you’d have only $910.56, and if you “invested” it in the companies in the Nasdaq Composite (the souffle of ’90s equity indices) you’d have just $552.04.
Now, doesn’t that make you feel better about the economy?
Commentby Daddy Love— 10/4/06@ 2:55 pm
You forgot to put dividends paid into your equation dumba$$!!!
That is why you Lefty’s are poor and bitter.
Besides, how many people were stupid enough to buy and hold besides you Daddy Love?!!
Leftoutofthebrainline @ 71
So you are assuming all corporations pay dividends. The fact is most don’t. They pour it back into the business, dumass.
Then you are investing in the wrong businesses!
Moonbats take silver spoons and see if they are lead composite. Moonbats don’t look for the silver lined cloud, they want a lead balloon. Moonbats look at a glass as half-empty. It’s just like the economy. When their boys run Congress then it’s the greatest economy since 19XX.
Goldy, I didn’t you decry this act as bad back in June 2005. So why are you saying bad things about it now? Political convenience?
Regarding cosponsoring; you are chewing on sour grapes. It’s the same thing we’ve be saying about Maria Moonbat! She co sponsors bills then trumpets her “leadership” in TV ads. What did she do? You’ve full of crap again Goldy!
I’m surprised you moonbats didn’t elevate to the table the unions stopping the port security bill. Us neo-cons wanted to check dock workers and the moonbats. Unions said NO!