How about the Republicans dumping Hastert because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO rather than if it will help them politically? Wouldn't that be novel?

Uh I think that this kind of crap needs to be vetted a bit better before it is posted. IF you had been listening to Hugh Hewitt yesterday afternoon you would have heard Ken Mehlman asked about this BOGUS newstory WHICH he completely refuted as FALSE. Therefore I respectfully request you remove it from the site and link to Mehman's interview as transcribed at www.hughhewitt.com. Best All!

Uh I think that this kind of crap needs to be vetted a bit better before it is posted. IF you had been listening to Hugh Hewitt yesterday afternoon you would have heard Ken Mehlman asked about this BOGUS newstory WHICH he completely refuted as FALSE. Therefore I respectfully request you remove it from the site and link to Mehman's interview as transcribed at www.hughhewitt.com. Best All!

What an idiot.

Bogus will invariably works it's way into this whole thing. I saw a TV clip of Foley on FOX with "DEMOCRAT" captioned under it.

Truth is now subjective. I care neither for the left or the right, and both get their cum upance whether it is a cigar in some whitehouse helper, or a boy.

It is up to us to evaluate who treats the situation better, and to weigh the matter morally (legal age girl -vs- young boys).

I'm certain the GOP "ethics" committee will find many people innocent, as would a democrat committee if democrats were in the crosshairs.

Truth has been relegated to history, it has been replaced with "self interest".

Actually, T.STENGER, if you bother to READ the transcript of Mehlman at Hugh Hewitt, you will note he only denies there was a BRIEFING to that effect.

HH: Ken, there are stories on the internet, Lucianne.com, Mark Steyn mentioned this as well, that the Republican caucus was briefed today, and warned of a fifty seat loss in the House because of Foleygate. Your reaction?

KM: That is inaccurate. Two thoughts on that. First of all, there was not a caucus briefing...there was not a caucus meeting today that occurred. But second of all, I see literally every single public poll, and every single private poll that is taken. And there is no such briefing. Any pollster that suggests that there is would be someone who's either A) trying to extrapolate from national numbers in individual districts, which you can't do, or more likely, somebody that spends more of their time in green rooms, trying to get on television, than they spend actually looking and analyzing polling data. Obviously, this is a very serious situation, needs to be taken very seriously. I think that the Speaker stepping up today and saying the buck stops there, and the steps he's taken are critically important. We need to get to the bottom...they need to get to the bottom of the investigation. When I say they, I mean the authorities. And they need to have a system to make sure this never happens again.

Just where in there does he say the POLL doesn't exist? I don't see it. He simply tries to change the subject to a "briefing," and other matters, without categorically denying the reported result. It's spin. That happens sometimes in politics . . .

I think the phrase "That is Innacurate" sums it up or do you wnat to play semantics here. I also refer you to the Pew poll that shows no change and interestingly to a poll taken in the district adjacent to Foley's showing an increase for the Republican there. The sum total of this is that it does not alter the landscape one bit.. except that people like myself are so used to this Dem crud that if need be I will be taken by stretcher into my polling place to vote Republican. Semper Fidelis Republicanus

I think this whole think is bunk. First of all, the GOP isn't going to lose 20 seats to begin with. And know they're talking about 50 if Hastert doesn't resign?

Look, I'm just one of the conservative base but I can tell you that my vote will not change no matter what Hastert does. This election is about who will better protect this country from terrorists and this firestorm notwithstanding, the GOP will maintain control for that very reason.

I'm also a Christian and this tactic by the libs to supress my vote will not work either.

"Religious conservatives aren't stupid. ..." - LOL, that's got to be one of the best one-liners I've ever read. Here's a little quiz: What fraction of science Nobel prizes have been awarded to religious conservatives? How many life-saving medicines have been discovered by r.c.'s? How many of the inventions that we rely on in `modern' (i.e. non-Old Testament) times were invented by religious conservatives? BTW, how many r.c.'s have actually read the entire Bible/Quran/Torah/Geeta ... (we're equal opportunity here) and actually implement all of their favorite text without `interpretation'? They're not stupid ... they're brain-dead.

I take it then that you have done an exhaustive study of these various Nobel winners and contacted living ones to verify their political views and stances. I take it that you must have simply overlooked Theodore Roosevelt who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1905 and I am positive that in the history of mankind not one inventor, scientist or scholar has ever been a conservative based upon your comments. And finally I commend you for once again proving that if we follow your line of thought that as a member of the left, every individual on the left is a jackass. Have a nice day.:)

No, it's true. Religious conservatives take great pride in being American, but what precisely are they proud of? They have contributed nothing of significance in the way of math, science, art, etc...or I'd challenge T. Senger to refute that claim....?

dan

I have a leader in my Cub Scout Pack that is a doctor. That is one Religious Conservative that is making a huge contribution to this country. As for science... many pioneers and 'fathers' of science have been Religious Conservatives... I can start with Carl Linnaeus ('father' of Taxonomy). I could list literally hundreds that I know of. I suppose people making such a claim have no grasp of history in academics. Just becuase a liberal socialist mentality has overtaken those persuits at the moment doesn't mean they always have or always will. My goodness I cannot believe such nonsense gets posted by people.

Oh yes, and Religious Conservatives from the Mayflower to the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution have contibuted almost everything to America existing as the great Nation it is today. But I guess that doesn't count...

Actually, I'm a scientist who has written a number of papers on the history of science. Linnaeus doesn't make your point because his theology is tangential to your modern Neochristianity, which is left with little theology after, "go GOP." This is because Neochristians argue *from* their premises (i.e., the GOP is right), and don't examine contrary evidence. Neochristianity is really without theology at all, and therefore lacking the will and a moral compass to respond to scandals in their midst, it's losing all credibility.

Whenever I run across this silly board I always wonder why the Whizbangers aren't relieving our troops of their 3rd and 4th tours...

I'm bored. Your bore me. Goodbye.

da Vinci, , Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle were practically the FOUNDERS of modern science in their fields.

Throw in Newton, Mather, Parkinson, Faraday, Babbage, Roget, Morse, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Carver and countless others...and we have yet another example shown of religious bigotry and stupidity walking hand in hand as seen by the earlier poster in this thread

I know our public schools are horrible, but it is hopeful that said poster would have heard of at least some of these men.

Actually, the comments only prove my point. The comments seem to not understand that interesting word `fraction', perhaps proving my point. If you bring up Newton as a religious conservative, you might want to place him within the spectrum of belief at that time in history, and similarly with the other scientists. Are you willing to say that Unitarians are religious conservatives? Newton was one. I know some very smart r.c.'s, my parents are r.c.'s, my undergraduate thesis advisor is a brilliant strictly observant Jew and my thesis advisor is a Nobel laureate, the guy who gave me a postdoc is a Nobel laureate, and so on. And I specifically wrote `science Nobel prizes' because the other prizes are very subjective. You can do all the research you want, the fraction of r.c.'s who have contributed something concrete and innovative to modern life is miniscule. Christianity, like all religions, promotes any number of wonderful values - the ten commandments are perfectly fine statements of a society's values. Instead of paying lip service to them, like that smart congressman who didn't know the commandments but wanted them placed prominently in public spaces, try living those values. Like all religions, it too is subverted by organizations like the Iranian ayatollahs, the Vatican and the SBC to their own ends.

You left out Descartes. Certainly he'd have to go on your list?

Yes, education is needed, and BADLY. NONE of the men you cite make your case. Neochristianity is a POLITICAL theory, NOT a THEOLOGY, and these men were absolutely NOT "religious conservatives" (i.e., Neochristians) as any Whizbanger understands them. The original comment was on 'religious conservatives,' which I take to mean this new bread of Bush Christian. READ YOUR HISTORY.

Oh, nevermind. It wouldn't matter. But the real telling thing is that you Whizbangers sit and complain and do nothing about educating yourselves, or you'd be represented in the halls of academia too, nor do you sign up for the wars you support from your armchairs. I see a pattern emerging.

Now go whine some more. I'm done with you.

Actually, I'm a scientist who has written a number of papers on the history of science.
--------------------------------
Actually, all that makes you is a historian...

If you care to point us to your published scientific research, then we can evaluate your credentials further - since you use them in support of your assertion.

Or put another way - if someone like myself said I am a Bible scholar, would that be sufficient to end any challenge you might have with the Scriptures.

This "I am right, you are wrong because I am a scientist" argument works both ways - and it is quite flimsy at best.

NONE of the men you cite make your case. Neochristianity is a POLITICAL theory, NOT a THEOLOGY, and these men were absolutely NOT "religious conservatives" (i.e., Neochristians) as any Whizbanger understands them.
-----------------------------
This is the internet version of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la,la,la,la" while someone destroys your argument.

I cited men of science who believed in the Bible as God's revealed Word, Christ as God incarnate and man's Savior and lived Christian lives.

I am not interested in arguing against new definitions made up out of whole cloth by religious bigots.

I sir, am done with you...

You can do all the research you want, the fraction of r.c.'s who have contributed something concrete and innovative to modern life is miniscule.
-----------------------------
I do not see the standard you are trying to set. Does the work of the average Nobel Science winner REALLY add something 'concrete' to 'modern life' (of the average individual) - while certainly it may be innovative.

And is life only about science. Surely you recognize the countless treasures of art done by religious people. Does that add nothing 'innovative'

How about the millions of people who have been set free from drug addiction, alcohol, pornography and the like due to the ministry of religious people. Millions who then become productive members of society, tax-payers, contributors to the common social fabric of our country? Is that not 'concrete' How about prison ministry done by religious conservatives? Is that meaningless in this discussion?

If the question is simply 'nobel science winners' I would only state that science did not begin with the nobel prize (as shown in my post above). I would also add that we live in an age where the term 'scientist' is being redefined and one has to fit a narrow ideological field to qualify. Sort of like asking why The Passion did not get nominated for Best Picture if it was such a great movie.

I have before listed PhD holding scientists, working and teaching at major universities today who hold religious conservative views - only to be dismissed by saying they aren't "real" scientists then. It gets old.

You might check out some of the documented cases of academic 'persecution' for one's beliefs within the scientific community of academia if you are interested in broadening your horizons on this topic. It is not universal of course, but no bigotry is - but it exists nonetheless.

I neglected to mention the millions and millions of dollars annually spent worldwide on humanitarian aid by Christian conservative organizations.

Frankly, I think to the people receiving this assistance, it is more concrete than pontifications about Bib-bang theory.

Feel free to link to the various atheist organizations providing similar relief worldwide.

papalovesmambo comments on foleygate on another board:

"i find myself in the uncomfortable situation of wondering if the gop can hold onto even one house of congress in the wake of foleygate. the charges of hypocrisy against the dems for their treatement of the stubbs case many moons ago rings hollow across the blogosphere. the "we didn't know how bad it was" defense being brought out by hastert and company merely cements the vision of the gop as incompetent. blaming the messenger and trying to re-frame it as a hit job from the left will gain absolutely no traction. the scandal will as podheretz notes today in the post (ny not washington) depress gop turnout as they are hoisted on their own gay ppetard. the issue that helped them win in '02 and '04 will sink them in '06 as the faithful puke their collective guts out that their party at the very least didn't catch a wolf in the fold and at the worst allowed him to prey for political power (no the irony is not lost on me).

i don't see any way out. i was never a believer in the promise of rove's "october surprise" and thought it was being hyped by the other side in a brilliant strategy to minimize any effect it could have. if i tried to spin this the only thing i could come up with was that foley was a sacrificial lamb that was offered up in the knowledge that the investigation would yield far more democratic names. but even i don't buy that one. nope, we need a miracle and i don't think turd blossom's got one. if they knew, and knowingly allowed him to stay in power, they deserve every bit of the fallout. i still hope that the inconceivable might happen and the gop might stay in power as i fear for the future of the country should the democrats be handed the reins (despite all of this i still trust the gop more in a time of war), but i am no longer the optimist that i was.

btw, i'm not actually blaming the glbt community for this catastrophe in any way shape or form. that was purely a sarcastic take on the situation and an opportunity for an entendre.

gee, how many folks around here would have had a few extra bucks in their pockets had they had more faith in their party?"

-papalovesmambo

I'd take this poll with a grain of salt since it was done by "Faux News".

The only revelation here is that the Republicans are confession to the reality of the situation before the fact. Even if it's unofficial (and I doubt anyone would have the balls to fess up to this one either).

The facts are Hastert has skated by this far by doing what he's in trouble for - absolutely nothing. You couldn't pray for a worse followup to Gingrich or even DeLay.

If you look at historical polls, http://www.pollingreport.com/h-j.htm#Hastert you'll find that the largest percentage of responding Americans across several polls hadn't even heard of Hastert; and that of those who have, most felt unfavorable towards him.

So you have those who didn't like him when they knew of him and now his introduction to the other half of America is this. Well, yeah. It's not rocket surgery, Republicans.