Sunday, April 29, 2007

Not Wrong Yet

"Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing." ~ Abraham Lincoln

According to news reports, A top Bush administration official, Randall Tobias, has been named as one of the clients of the DC Madam, Deborah Palfrey.

-------------------------------Randall Tobias---------------------------

ABC News reported late Friday that Tobias said in a Thursday interview that he had used the Pamela Martin and Associates escort services for massages, but it reported that he said there had been "no sex."

Recently, I made some predictions regarding what may be found when the contents of the DC madam's "little black book" is made public. Now that a couple of names in her records have been leaked, it would seem to appear that maybe my predictions were wrong.

It would appear.

But let's not jump to conclusions here. For one thing, let's try to remember that ABC news is one of several news outlets that would like nothing better than to prove all Republicans corrupt. They are, after all, Liberally biased.

Let's also not forget that as of yet, only two names on the list have been revealed. There is no doubt that there are indeed Republicans listed in that book. But it by no means suggests that only Republicans are on it, or even that Democrat names don't outnumber Republican's.

I never suggested that there wouldn't be any Republicans listed. So the jury is still out concerning the accuracy of my predictions.

Here are some additional thoughts, however:

I want to get this one out of the way first: Mr. Tobias stated that no sex occurred during his visits to the Madam's escort service. If you believe that one, I have some land in Florida to sell you. Whether there was sex involved or not, he did the right thing in immediately resigning. On the other hand, not only should he not have patronized the escort service in the first place, he should have resigned before it became known he was a client. Now it simply appears as he only resigned to save the Bush administration embarrassment.

Which, of course, he did. That was stupid, in my opinion.

Now. It doesn't fit the Liberally biased media's agenda to reveal the names of Democrats on the list, so it isn't surprising in the least that no Democrat's names have as yet been revealed.

ABC will not reveal Democrats names. They will cover them up at all costs. But if, somehow, ABC accidentally leaks any Democrats names, You can bet the Democrats involved will not resign. Instead they will return triumphant to their posts to the thunderous applause of their constituency and colleagues.

The Democrats will exploit the Tobias story to bolster their ridiculous notion of a "culture of Corruption", indeed, the left wing blogs (although I don't visit or read them) are no doubt already celebrating yet another stunning victory.

So, my predictions have not been proven wrong. I stand by my original predictions.


mudkitty said...

Yes - what ever we do, let's not jump to conclusions here...unless they're democrats. Even if the indicted person is a republican.


Jim said...

Why and how could ABC news keep any names from leaking out? Are we to believe that only ABC has this information?

mudkitty said...

Come on - get real.

Mark said...

Miss Kitty, "Yes - what ever we do, let's not jump to conclusions here...unless they're democrats. Even if the indicted person is a republican."

Now who's jumping to conclusions?

No one is under any indictments except Ms Palfrey, but rest assured, the Liberally biased media will campaign for indictments...unless they are democrats.

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks for having the honesty and integrity to bring this up, Mark, even though it starts to undo the assertions by which you still stand.

You know, I WAS a republican until the Reagan years began to make it clear that these people are not any more honorable, honest nor Christian than the Dems. That, in fact, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite.

Maybe these sorts of revelations will begin to do for you what the Reagan administration did for me...

Dan Trabue said...

Mark said:
"indeed, the left wing blogs (although I don't visit or read them) are no doubt already celebrating yet another stunning victory."

I entered: "Tobias scandal prostitute" and found the first page or so to have only news story about the story, no "left wing blogs celebrating a stunning victory..."

Just to be fair...

BB-Idaho said...

"escort services for massages, but it reported that he said there had been "no sex." ...sounds familiar..
oh, yeah..."I didn't inhale!"

Marshall Art said...


If you would, please explain how "...the Reagan years began to make it clear that these people are not any more honorable, honest nor Christian than the Dems. That, in fact, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite." Also, does the evidence suggest they ARE more honorable? Contradictory statements.

Gayle said...

Give them time... they will celebrate. It's a given.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"That, in fact, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite."


Mark said...

Well, Dan, I googled Randall Tobias scandal, and found several left wing blogs celebrating this news. My favorite headline so far? "The Sex Scandal We’ve Been Waiting For Is Getting Closer! Another Bush Administration Jesus Talker, Randall L. Tobias, Bites The Dust" Libs have been waiting for it, eh? Bill Clinton's scandal wasn't juicy enough for you Libs, eh? I'll leave you to explain the apparent Christian bashing from your friends on the left.

Mark said...

What I think is really hilarious is that the left is so gleeful about this revelation from a left wing media outlet.

They had better wait for the other (left) shoe to drop before they celebrate or they are going to place an enormous foot in their mouths.

Remember, only two names have yet been revealed and they were revealed by a Liberally biased news organization. As I pointed out, they won't reveal names of Democrats until some mole leaks them, and then they will minimize their importance.

Lone Ranger said...

You would think that the Democrats would be shaking in their boots -- just like any Republican would be. But there's a difference. When a Republican is caught doing something like this, he's gone. Tobias is gone. But when a Democrat is caught, his security is assured. If you're a Democrat, you don't have to sweat 90 thousand dollars being found in your freezer. You can have affairs without fear of consequences (unless her name is Chandra and she turns up dead in a park). You can get high as a kite on prescription drugs, crash a car on Capitol Hill at 3 a.m. and face no charges. You can even leave the scene of an accident and let a girl die at the bottom of a pond and you won't even get a wrist slap. Republicans don't have that shield of invulnerability. They are held to a higher standard. And rightly so.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall asked me:

Also, does the evidence suggest they ARE more honorable? Contradictory statements.

I'm not sure where it's contradictory, Marshall. I supported Reagan. I saw his administration's crimes and misdemeanors (32 convictions, if memory serves right), their conviction of a War Crime for their actions in Nicaragua, their selling WMD to Iraq AND Iran AND the terrorists in Nica, I saw all of this (along with their assault on the environment, the homeless, etc) and came to the conclusion that they were NOT any more honest, capable or moral than the Dems and, in fact, that the record showed that - with at least that administration - they were much less honest and moral.

Where's the contradiction in that?

mudkitty said...

Oh I'm sure he's an innocent as a baby lamb. They all are, right? As long as they're republican...

Liam said...

Gee, you guys get so worked up over anything you can divide down party lines and have a mud-slinging match over. It doesn’t matter if they’re liberal or conservative; they are men. At the end of the day there will be just as many democrats in the book as republicans. Stop agonising about what politicians do when they’re out of the office and start caring about things that actually matter to real people!

BB-Idaho said...

We will likely know soon enough:
"The "DC Madam list" now resides in the hands of the ABC correspondent, Brian Ross, who released this:

Also on Palfrey’s list of customers who could be potential witnesses are a Bush administration economist, the head of a conservative think tank, a prominent CEO, several lobbyists and a handful of military officials.”

A full report is planned for Friday’s edition of 20/20.
....according to one internet source.

Marshall Art said...


It was actually a dig at your use of the King's English.

You said, "these people are NOT any more honorable" and then said the evidence showed the opposite to be true. Get it?

However, you've only stated what you believe to be true. Do you have any objective links to support your stuff? We've touched on it in the past regarding the contra thing, but a cursory search found a less than convincing piece. Of course there were tons of left leaning sources, so I didn't bother with them. Thus far it seems you're hanging your hat on the legality of the Reagan Admin's dealings as opposed to the morality of it. So objective sources would be helpful.

Marshall Art said...


Worked up? Hardly. For me at least, this is a slow news issue, just perfect for mocking the other side. At the same time, typical partisan dynamics are indeed in play. It wouldn't be surprising to learn that ABC was quicker to divulge negative news about conservatives and wait to be perfectly sure before releasing damaging info regarding the left. It's a given.

Plus, it's not a stretch to believe that one who is unethical in one's personal life might be prone toward unethical behavior in public life. It's all part of the package regarding an individual's character. I know that's not important to some, but it is to many.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm too tired to do the research for you. It's no secret that Reagan's administration sold weapons to Iraq. We supported Saddam because Iran was the "bad guys."

But then, because the Reagan administration - or people therein - "needed" money to sponsor the terrorists/contras in Nicaragua, we also illegally sold weapons to Iran!

And THEN those players gave that money to Contras. They had to do this because Congress had told Reagan that he could no longer support the Contras because of the reports of terroristic actions. So, Ollie North sold weapons and gave support to these contras. (Google Iran Contra Bolan Amendment).

Additionally, the CIA mined the harbor at Corento, for which a World Court found us guilty of war crimes, which Reagan promptly ignored - NOT because we didn't do it (no one denies that) but because the Reaganites placed the US above the law.

It's all a matter of record.


When I first heard about this story the quote from "Casablanca" where Louie was closing Rick's Cafe came to mind, "I'm shocked, to see gambling here.' Here's your winning sir."

Honestly, I'm a little surprised that congress hasn't legalized prostitution in the district, at least for politicians.

If anyone's guilty prosecute them, otherwise I don't want to hear it. The way the news is getting it becoming more and more like Greek Mythology where it's just a cult of personality and where the voyeristic attitudes of this country just keep wanting more sensational stories to enterain us. There is something wrong when real news programs are covering American Idol.

I'm taking the same stance with steriods in baseball I just don't care who did what. If their guilty prosecute them and punitsh them to the full extent of the law. It's not like it's some shady deal on a arms appropriation committee, a shaky land deal, crooked dealings with a savings and loan, or writing bad checks. When they are convicted just tell us until then I don't care.

mudkitty said...

Oh, and I don't recall any of you not jumping to conclusions whenever Bill Clinton's penis was concerned.

mudkitty said...

Dan - are we the people, and our leaders so stupid as to not recognize blow back? Either when it happens or when it's being created.

A temporary fix on a problem, such as Iran, by creating a worse problem down the line, is not successful leadership. Which is what happened when Reagan and Rummy propped up Saddam in power.


What to do now? Well, for starters, you don't let the people who screwed things up in the first place, claim that they are the only ones who can fix it.

Mary said...

Brian Ross gives me the creeps.

The way Ross handled the Mark Foley thing and the IM chats was so weird.

It's no surprise that ABC is teasing its audience.

Marshall Art said...


"I'm too tired to do the research for you."

Well, rest up, buddy. As I stated, I've not found any objective links as yet. Apparently, you have none either. Thus, any personal opinion on the motives and actions of the Reagan Administration by you are decidely worthless, as they are tainted by your obvious bias. If one is to judge another, and then seek to present one's opinion on the matter to others, some kind of support is helpful, if not required. It isn't enough to say what Reagan did. It's easy to sit back as an observer and pretend to have a lock on the right and wrong of it without being in his chair. Yeah, the Dems worked against him, but why? Does their actions determine whether or not Reagan's actions were moral or just legal? David was wrong legally for taking food meant for the priests, but he wasn't wrong morally. Were we wrong to side with Stalin against the Nazis?

mudkitty said...

Actually Marshall, why don't you just do your own homework?

Why don't you just go do what a good parent tells a child to do..."look it up." Wouldn't hurt you, you know.

Should Dan do Marshall's homework for him? Or not?

Dan Trabue said...

"any personal opinion on the motives and actions of the Reagan Administration by you are decidely worthless, as they are tainted by your obvious bias."

Well, as I've stated several times, I was a Reagan supporter. It was reading about his and his administration's behavior that made me reject his idea of morality. But that sort of blows away your "bias" theory, doesn't it?

Or, are you saying that it was my bias IN FAVOR of Reagan that caused me to find his actions immoral? But then, that would make no sense...

Any source I'll give you will be considered "tainted" and "biased," so I'll not bother. Read the facts of the case or not. It's your responsibility for whom you support or not and you'll have to answer for it.

Marshall Art said...

"Should Dan do Marshall's homework for him? Or not? "

Should Marshall give any credence to such opinions as Dan gives without Dan supporting his opinions? As I've stated more than once, I've looked for and found very little in the way of objective links regarding Iran/Contra or other "evil" activities by Reagan or his admin. Dan insists there's nothing but nastiness there. I've heard from conservative sources something much different. Thus, I've set aside that which colored MY opinion and have requested that Dan provide for his. I'm not about to wade through countless links from obviously left-wing sources. I already know what they believe about the issue. But since Dan brought it up, again, it's only proper that he support it. But apparently, he chooses to believe that I will automatically reject his source. It's either a lefty source, or he's being judgemental. He should be a standup guy and admit one or the other, or, take a chance a provide the source(s).

Hey, it's only fair. I try to do as much for my positions. If I'm stating my humble opinion, I tend to say as much. Otherwise, I try to provide a link in anticipation of counterpoint. Case in point, Mark's other blog. I made a statement and presented it as my belief and admitted I had no support. Dan, merely rejected my statement and I was cool with it since I was only stating what I thought was correct. Now, Dan makes statements about Reagan and I ask for support and get nothing but crap. Thus, I must assume his opinion is unsupportable lefty drivel.

It's similar to Mud's cracks about Gingrich. She provided no support for the charge regarding the alleged divorce scene at the hospital where his wife was laid up. It's a charge I've often heard, but never heard anything to support it.

I guess what it means is, it's cool if I say that Dan likes to wet himself and Muddy likes stompin' on puppies. If anyone wants proof, they'll have to look it up themselves, because apparently it isn't up to the accuser. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Life is now a little easier.

OK. I'm done with this off topic rant. Thanx for listening.

mudkip said...

So, i herd u liek me!

Dan Trabue said...

I agree with you, Marshall, that it's appropriate to provide links. The thing is, I've done it before and the links aren't adequate for you.

Whether it was CNN or Amnesty International, these were not objective enough for you. The facts are what they are and I don't think you dispute the facts (we sold weapons to Iran AND Iraq and gave support to the contras; we also mined the harbor at Corento).

What you dispute, I guess, is that all of this - while you appear to agree that it was clearly illegal - was wrong. Good luck with that.

mudkitty said...

In other words, no, Marshall is not willing to do his own homework. If he had, he would have given credence to Dan's positions. But that would have required Marshall to make an effort to expose himself to something other than rightwing blather.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"I'm too tired to do the research for you."


Dan Trabue said...

"But that would have required Marshall to make an effort to expose himself to something other than rightwing blather."

Well, in his defense, he said he was setting aside what he considered to be Right Wing sources as well as Left Wing sources.

The problem is, if CNN or Amnesty International are "Left Wing" sources - as well as firsthand reports I've heard from people in the villages attacked by the contras! AND including the firsthand report I heard from a FORMER contra!! - what does that leave as a credible, unbiased reference?

If you eliminate everything as "biased" then it is fairly safe to say, "well no UNBIASED sources confirm what you're saying..." and that relieves you of the responsibilty to take action or form informed opinions.

Marshall Art said...

Well, Dan, it's like this: there have been atrocities by individuals of either side in most wars. I recall a tale of Americans executing a group of Korean civilians during the Korean War, there was the My Lai situation, there were reports of nastiness from both sides in the Civil War. Yet overall, American intent has been honorable in every war it has fought. Next, we hear an occasional soldier from this war crapping on our efforts, yet the vast majority of our people support our involvement. Finally, there are Iraq civilians, and civilians from other wars that have trashed our soldiers as butchers, but they supported the people we were fighting.

The point being, that your anecdotal stuff doesn't carry the weight you think it should for the reasons above, as well as the fact that I don't know you from Adam. All things being equal, I've no reason to doubt your sincerity, but as support for your views, such things beg for more. And yes, CNN and AMnesty Intl are decidedly left leaning orgs.

Dan Trabue said...

So, WHAT would be a legitimate unbiased source? I'm just curious what it would take.

FoxNews? They weren't reporting back then and they're not the type to investigate an old story, right? Who does that leave that you would accept as an unbiased source?

Marshall Art said...

That's exactly the problem with which I am dealing. What I know for certain is that there are two takes on the issue. What I would like to see is an objective rendering of events. Who are the principles? What did they do? What were their intentions for doing so? For example, why did the contras revolt? What type of government were they revolting against? Why did Reagan side with the contras? Why did the Democratic Congress side with the government?

Thus far, I've found only one site that seemed to provide some details without any noticable political bias, but it was very short. It only went so far. But after a few pages of google listings, I saw mostly lefty sources. If you think you have a source that is objective, I'll give it a shot.

My basic point was that just because Reagan acted against the edicts of Congress, it doesn't make his actions immoral, only illegal (if indeed it even was that).

mudkitty said...

Marshall, did you actually say that Reagan may have acted illegally? But that acting illegally isn't immoral?


Call me crazy. I thought we were a nation of laws, not men.

mom2 said...

mudkitty, were you thinking that when Clinton was in office?

Marshall Art said...


As I'm sure you know, Congress can pass a bill, have enough to override a veto, and from that point, actions contrary to the mandate of the bill would be considered illegal. Yet, Congress can work towards law that many find unworkable, ill conceived or immoral. Laws don't always reflect morality. If a bill is to stop or prevent the implementation of a plan that was already in progress, to carry out the plan would be illegal even if the actions taken are moral. Killing in self-defense is an example: to kill to prevent your own murder is not itself considered murder. At one time, hiding a run-away slave was frowned upon, but wouldn't doing so be moral? So Reagan was acting in a manner he felt was righteous and proper, he considered the actions moral, and many agree. So even if his actions were technically illegal, they may still have been the right thing to do.

But another way to answer the question "...acting illegally isn't immoral?" is to say, in general, yes, but not always.

Anonymous said...

Deborah Palfrey deserves the Pemberton Award for Good Governance.
Palfrey list is like the black book of 1918.
That trial of the century is deleted from all books.
The list there had 47000 names.
The list here is 46000 phone records.
The listed are not womenizers or machos or ordinary sinners.
They are power brokers, gay lutheran agitators of all wars.
These wretches are only one dirty cover for the real pimps deep underground.
A curse on kingpins, Justice Charles Darling then and judge Adolph Kessler now.

Noel Pemberton-Billing
Trial of the Century 1918