-
Website
http://capitolfax.com/ -
Original page
http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
wordslinger
96 comments · 42 points
-
Rich Miller
147 comments · 56 points
-
LoopLady
16 comments · 6 points
-
theoriginallynns
16 comments · 2 points
-
dupage dan
28 comments · 2 points
-
-
Popular Threads
and what happened here is really no different than when we played telephone as a kid and the story changed by the time the end of the line was done
Not shocked
Larry was wise in his retracttion
others should follow, but they won't
Did I fan a rumor? Yep. Did I do it to hype my own blog? Nope. Did I generate any benefit to me, direct or indirect?
Rich, seems to think Carl Nyberg, a blogger, warrants calling out for passing a rumor--a lurid rumor, but one I believed in good faith. But Illinois Republican Dennis Hastert, who is Speaker of the House, just makes #%$@& up and Rich didn't call him out.
BTW, if the House Republicans--under Hastert's leadership--are covering up the names of two members of Congrss who were having sex with pages, is this a story Rich? Do you think the names are being held until after the election?
I thought blogs were a place to talk about things in and out of the mainstream media?
The republicans have ridden the tiger of sexual innuendo and dirty politics for years and they have fallen off............now its dinner time!
It's all well and good that folks are retracting their erroneous statements, but they should never have been made without corroboration and facts.
Rich, I, too, appreciate the way you handled this story.
A lot of anger here from Republicans, despite the fact that lies and distortions are pretty much the way they run every campaign.
I am not approving of the rumors and I sure did not participate in fanning them. I just don't see why Republicans should be so upset.
Run clean campaigns yourself and then tell others how to campaign. As Sen. McCain said in 2000: "Stop lying about [our] record."
I commend Archpundit and Mr. Miller for their fairness. There's life after this election - and Nyberg is clearly burning all bridges. One's reputation is all you have. Lee Atwater reportedly was plagued with regrets on his deathbed because he engaged in this style of politics. Through his reckless and malevolent rants, Nyberg already has much to answer for.
C'mon Rich! I've been nice to you. You delete my comments, send me unfriendly emails.
I do not HATE Jerry Weller. Hate is much too strong a word. One "hates" one's ex-husband or an old boyfriend. Hate would invovle an intimate relationship. Something of course I have never had with Jerry Weller.
I do intensely dislike and disagree with the man's politics and choice of wife, in-laws and totally tasteless wedding ceremony in an ex-dictator and genocidal murderer's home in Guatemala when the U.S. is at war and our troops are dying for what Weller himself calls "freedom and democracy." Meanwhile he's partying with General Rios Montt, and marrying Rios Montt's daughter, who considers her father an "inspiration." Congresita Zury Rios Montt's own FRG (her and dad's political party) secretary was photographed in the summer of 2003 on what Mayan Guatemalan's call Black Thursday, with a walkie talkie in her hand helping organize the FRG instigated riots. I find that quick sickening.
I find Weller to be creepy and a total hypocrite. But "hate" him? No. That would involve too much attachment and emotion there. I have fun picking on him and pointing out all his hypocrisy. It's an amusing and gratifying passtime for me. That's all.
Man, I hate partisan hacks.
All's fair in love and war, but malicious slander is still malicious slander.
"In all seriousness, Weller should hire an attorney after the election and tap a few bloggers on the shoulder about this.
All’s fair in love and war, but malicious slander is still malicious slander."
Isn't this great?
Republicans always hate the tort system, until they find somebody THEY want to sue.
Of course, it's a sad world we live in when (regardless of party) most people are quick to believe the worst in our representatives.
In that spirit, I'll say that my gut tells me there is something more to come on this Weller thing.
If they want to go after Weller, fine. Here's an idea: tell the truth! They don't have to make something up in order to make Weller look like a bad congressman. But lying like this is out of bounds.
But methinks Wonkette may need a fine attorney to defend his use of that term, what with its very conclusive nature. The blogger has already convicted the congressman.
The great thing about a blog is that you can go where you want and comment how you want. The great thing about administering a blog is that you can ban what you want and who you want. If you don't like the way Rich handled this situation, go away and start your own blog. You won't be missed!
Jaded: you sound like a little kid.
I do agree with a poster far up this thread that it is telling that Weller only chose to tell what he knew AFTER the rumor about him was circulating. Not an honorable way to go but, then again, it's what I'd expect from him.
The reality on this rumor about Weller is that this "false rumor" will probably help him at election time due to the sympathy voters throwing their undecided vote at Congressman Weller. Throwing out false rumors at election time can be a dangerous sport. It usually shows that the other candidate was desperate enough to feel compelled to use such lowly tactics.
If you can go more than 12 hours without posting something bitterly negative about Weller on your blog, then maybe people will stop accusing you of "hating" him. Just a thought.
Why so funny? Let's just say that the campaigns he has run in the past know quite well what it takes to launch a "political nuclear bomb"...
It never gets old watching the two sides accuse the other of bad politics. Never.
Fact: Steve Shearer says in an article in the Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/104152,CST-...) "There have been all kinds of wild rumors circulating over the past week,"
That fact indicates that this was known to the Weller camp before Thursday.
Fact: Shearer/Weller report that the allegation was turned over for investigation on Thursday (see Rich's post).
FACT: Shearer/Weller knew about this before Thursday and did not report it until then, after the rumor had spun wildly out of control and something had to be done to contain it.
Supposition: They were covering for somebody, i.e., the Congressman under a cloud of suspicion.
By the way, for those who care (I don't), there has been a lot of misinformation on this. Shearer admitted to Lynn Sweet that the page is, in fact, male (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/104152,CST-...).
Commentary: I come to my conclusions based on the fact that Shearer admitted to knowing before Thursday and the fact that it was not reported until Thursday.
Again I ask, why did he wait? Was he covering for someone who could potentially be in electoral trouble were this information to be released?
You can think what you want, but here's what I think. If I know that person A has made inappropriate advances to a minor and I fail to report person A, then I am at least partially culpable if person A makes inapporpriate advances to another minor. If I report it right away, there is a strong liklihood that person A will refrain from doing so, either by their own choice or by law enforcement's.
It is wrong, wrong, wrong for someone to sit on this information for even a week, as Shearer has admitted to doing, especially when Shearer/Weller initially blamed Democrats for going after Hastert. Where were they and why weren't they doing what is right?
The problem here, which Congressional Republicans are failing to understand, is that it's not the initial scandal that is a problem, it's the coverup.
Had Foley been exposed years ago when the information was first known, it would not have been electorally radioactive for Congressional Republicans, it would only have affected him.
However, Republicans did cover it up and now they find themselves in a mess. It's been the same throughout time -- pick your political scandal and it's not the initial action that causes the downfall of others, but what those others do, or fail to do in response that creates the political fallout.
Say what you want, but someone who doesn't report immediately that one of their former pages or interns was the subject of inappropriate communication is reprehensible. Not as reprehensible as Mark Foley, but still reprehensible.
I have no way of knowing right now what happened, but I will tell you that I suspect that if the rumor hadn't been circulated, Shearer and Weller would have never submitted the information for investigation. That really is the only plausible explanation for why they waited to report it.
I fully assume this comment will be deleted, since it is largely identical to what I wrote yesterday (although with less inflammatory rhetoric) and if it does, I think it's a shame, because this is a serious, serious issue.
You completely misread Wonkette. I never linked to your Weller stuff, didn't know it existed, never mentioned you in either my stories or my personal conversations. I barely know you exist.
If you read that Wonkette post again you'll see that Mr. Wonkette was referring to me, and, as usual and as with the Weller rumors, he screwed it up. I wrote that I was not exactly a fan of Weller, and he twisted that into I hate him.
Bizarre.
Your comment here and at my blog is equally as bizarre, however. Reread Wonkette, please. And also please show me where I referred to you Thursday or Friday as a Weller hater who disbelieved the rumor. How would Wonkette know that if I never wrote it, especially since I have never had a conversation with the man. I did, however, send him an e-mail telling him he was dead wrong and providing a link to my story.
Also, I only delete your comments when warranted. As others can plainly see with this current comment of yours, you can get a bit off the wall.
But the Democrats have a huge problem. They are out of ideas. National health care? That was proposed by Truman. Pull out of a global war? That was proposed by McGovern and Kerry. Work closely with the UN? Uh, Eleanor Roosevelt.
When your party stand for nothing, it has nothing to win with. What the Democrats have discovered is that sex rumors can force the Republicans to jump if the rumor is disgusting enough. It is even better when there are digital proof. If Chappaquiddick or Studds happened today, Teddy and Gary would have been booted within 24 hours a-la-Foley. So the Democrats are looking for the new Foley, regardless of how unethical this behavior is.
What the Republicans didn't learn is that by forcing Foley out like they did, they in turn, encourage the Democrats to scam even more. There is David Corn sending "gay Republican" lists out to media, while out of the other side of his mouth saying he has no problems with a congressperson being gay.
Thanks to Foley, Democrats have learned that they can up their chance of winning an election by rumor and innuendo. That is why we are seeing some of the lowest, unethical behavior.
Oh, and I'll address Illinois Democrats that claim Topinka plays the same game: ASK FITZGERALD. He already has issued one letter saying that there is credible evidence in Blagojevich's fraud investigation. He is already on record of accusing Blagojevich and friends of playing a pay to play scheme - on steroids. So, repeating what the US Attorney is saying about the cases he is handling isn't using rumors. Blagojevich's guilt is being debated anymore. At this point we are just giving him the benefit of a doubt since he claims to be supremely stupid, which shouldn't be a quality anyone should be bragging about 2 weeks before an election. "He's not guilty, he's stupid! - Vote Blagojevich!"
With two more weeks to go, this election will get as ugly as the Democrats want to make it. Time is running out and both parties will kill to win. Problem is, the voters are the one that will lose.