http://capitolfaxcom.disqus.com/NoneenTue, 24 Oct 2006 12:47:17 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054418<p>Random thoughts...In my opinion a blog is the perfect place to discuss rumors...Why would Dem's play the sexual misconduct card on a safe Republican congressional seat?... The only reason this rumor had legs was the Republican congressional leadership is perceived to be engaging in a cover up of the Foley debacle and they deserve every bit of it...Last in an age of rovian dirty tricks and swift boat assassins it warms my heart to hear Republicans moan and groan about rumor and inuendo</p>oldie opahTue, 24 Oct 2006 12:47:17 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054417<p>ArchPundit's blogging rights should be suspended. Unless rumors are completely confirmed, bloggers should not try to ruin reputations. If blogs want any credibility, people such as ArchPundit should learn how to confirm stories and check sources. His mistake was outrageous. And I am a Democrat.</p>CarolStreamKarenSun, 22 Oct 2006 15:42:19 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054416<p>The stakes are high. Democrats have been the loser party since Jimmy Carter demostrated that the Party was out of new ideas. Even at their best in 2000, 2002, and 2004 - they lost. Democrats have not gotten the majority of votes since 1976. The party is in complete decline. So stakes are high. If they fail to win Congress in 2006 - they are history.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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!"</p><p>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.</p>VanillaManSat, 21 Oct 2006 23:44:37 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054415<p>"yet another anon," your comment was held up by my Akismet spam blocker, not me. Sorry for that.</p>Rich MillerSat, 21 Oct 2006 20:13:04 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054414<p>Since "Kankakee Voice" has deleted my response to a similar strange attack she made at her blog, I'll post it here:</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>Bizarre.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p>Rich MillerSat, 21 Oct 2006 19:52:02 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054413<p>Soviet-style censorship strikes again. Since my last comment must've been deemed unacceptable, I'll try again, but a bit toned down.</p><p>Fact: Steve Shearer says in an article in the Sun Times (<a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/104152,CST-NWS-page20.article)" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/104152,CST-NWS-page20.article)">http://www.suntimes.com/new...</a> "There have been all kinds of wild rumors circulating over the past week,"</p><p>That fact indicates that this was known to the Weller camp before Thursday.</p><p>Fact: Shearer/Weller report that the allegation was turned over for investigation on Thursday (see Rich's post).</p><p>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.</p><p>Supposition: They were covering for somebody, i.e., the Congressman under a cloud of suspicion.</p><p>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 (<a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/104152,CST-NWS-page20.article)" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/104152,CST-NWS-page20.article)">http://www.suntimes.com/new...</a>.</p><p>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.</p><p>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?</p><p>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.</p><p>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?</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p>yet another anonSat, 21 Oct 2006 16:22:14 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054412<p>I think the most humorous part of all of this is that Shearer called the thing a nuclear attack...</p><p>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"...</p><p>It never gets old watching the two sides accuse the other of bad politics. Never.</p>the wonderboySat, 21 Oct 2006 12:46:36 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054411<p>Kankakee Voice -</p><p>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.</p>grand old partisanSat, 21 Oct 2006 10:46:14 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054410<p>Carl a sucker? Say it isn't so.</p>TruthSat, 21 Oct 2006 10:14:38 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054409<p>The bloggers who pushed the story owe readers disclosure on who was pushing it on them. That's the problem with MSM is they push all these stories using anon sources. I hate to see blogs I read start doing that. You just set yourself up for being made sucker.</p>Bill BaarSat, 21 Oct 2006 08:46:46 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054408<p>I like to think that when a rumor appears in the media or a blog site, that the people that "actually take the time to go vote" don't give it much (if any) credibility until it has been proven.</p><p>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.</p>BeowulfSat, 21 Oct 2006 08:36:53 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054407<p>I like you, Rich, but how can you rip politicians for funny off the cuff remarks about rumors any more?</p>TedBaxterFri, 20 Oct 2006 21:01:54 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054406<p>Kankakee Voice, I think Wonkette was referring to me, not you. Sheesh</p>Rich MillerFri, 20 Oct 2006 20:48:59 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054405<p>So people heard that a third Congressman had been accused of inappropriate behaviour towards a page. They then heard that Jerry Weller was involved in the scandal. They put 2 and 2 together. As it turns out they came up with 5, and Weller is not the accused but instead the sponsor of the alleged target. The bloggers named leapt to conclusions, which is sloppy and unprofessional. But they are bloggers not professional journalists, so what do you expect? They did not lie or maliciously slander.</p>Another AnonFri, 20 Oct 2006 20:40:35 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054404<p>Fearless Freep "....but we are professionals..." ARE we? ALL of us? Professional what? If you mean Political hacks, then no, not all of us are professionals. Some of us just like politics.</p>Way NorthsiderFri, 20 Oct 2006 18:11:50 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054403<p>...I should have said, enough campaign material that making stuff up like this on Jerry "Dictator's Son-in-Law" Weller is unneccessary.</p>Mike WilliamsFri, 20 Oct 2006 18:10:31 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054402<p>Deep Fried - I am going to be HIGHLY amused if Wonkette needs an attorney, fine or otherwise. Weller would be truly idiotic to go after the always satirical Wonkette. If he does, I would say he DEFINITELY has something to hide!</p><p>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.</p>Way NorthsiderFri, 20 Oct 2006 18:09:01 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054401<p>yes, there is enough about Weller out there that is true.</p><p>Jaded: you sound like a little kid.</p>Mike WilliamsFri, 20 Oct 2006 18:08:21 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054400<p>"We should have been allowed to comment on this rumor prior to today. It was posted at political wire yesterday morning."</p><p>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!</p>JadedFri, 20 Oct 2006 17:59:23 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054399<p>Wonkette's term for Weller - "PF" - is absolutley the funniest thing since "Ricky, get off my TransAm!"</p><p>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.</p>DeepFriedOnAStickFri, 20 Oct 2006 17:27:36 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054398<p>Capitolfax is right and handled this superbly. Heck, I am not a fan of Weller either, but we are professionals and we don't buy into baseless rumours and malicious slander. <br>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.</p>Fearless FreepFri, 20 Oct 2006 17:20:10 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054397<p>Is this Weller rumor deal really any different than commentor posts on Capitolfax - roughly every 15 seconds or so - that Blago's going to be wearing an orange jump suit, or some derivation of that?</p><p>In that spirit, I'll say that my gut tells me there is something more to come on this Weller thing.</p>PeachyFri, 20 Oct 2006 16:53:38 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054396<p>Good on you Rich for not passing along a rumor.</p><p>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.</p>doubtfulFri, 20 Oct 2006 16:31:55 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054395<p>Shame on you anon for anonymous mudslinging.</p>HoosierDaddyFri, 20 Oct 2006 16:26:19 -0000http://capitolfax.com/2006/10/20/the-rumor/#comment-18054393<p>- Anon - Friday, Oct 20, 06 @ 2:45 pm:</p><p>"In all seriousness, Weller should hire an attorney after the election and tap a few bloggers on the shoulder about this.</p><p>All’s fair in love and war, but malicious slander is still malicious slander."</p><p>Isn't this great?<br>Republicans always hate the tort system, until they find somebody THEY want to sue.</p>SkeeterFri, 20 Oct 2006 15:50:27 -0000