Today's Seattle Times updates yesterday's irresponsibly biased article about former county employee Larry Corrigan, headlined "Well-known GOP activist held in sex-predator sting" Today's article admits that Corrigan was active in campaigns for a wide variety of politicians:
including Maleng, U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, former City Attorney Mark Sidran and judges Mary Yu, Bobbe Bridge and Faith Ireland.Sidran, Yu, Bridge and Ireland aren't exactly Republicans. And Corrigan was most active for Reichert in his campaign for the non-partisan Sheriff's office. It was Ron Sims who appointed Reichert in spring 1997 expecting him to run in the fall.
If Corrigan is guilty as alleged he should be excreted from politics no matter which party he favors. But it was pretty shameless of the Times to rush to headline him as a "GOP activist" when he's really a bi-partisan government insider.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 02, 2006 12:32 PM | Email ThisPosted by katomar at December 2, 2006 08:21 AM
What, bible not shoved far enough up his butt to suit the evangetards?
Posted by: H Moul on December 2, 2006 02:57 PMSo your "Ron Sims campaign contributor held in sex sting" blog title is not "irresponsibly biased"?That was a satiric comment on the Times headline. Is my irony so subtle that I need to start flagging it as such? Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 2, 2006 03:25 PM
Child predation existed for many centuries. Over the past few decades, we've made great strides in punishing even wealthy, powerful men who rape children. (In the past, their crimes were concealed.) Sexual liberation for gays, and for single straight persons, has nothing to do with preying upon children. Stop trying to blame liberalism for right-wing child molesters.
"We all need to learn that saying NO is not only very simple, it is liberating. Our freedoms lie not in protecting every single opinion and abberation in existence, but in protecting standards of behavior and ensuring that those who break our laws or ignore those standards are shunned and pay the price for their actions."
Actually, we should protect every opinion; it's harmful behavior we should punish. Equating beliefs with actions can lead to repression, covering up the latent sickness which leads to child predation. We need to expose all such hidden desires, not condemn beliefs.
How many people who saw the GOP incriminating headline ever saw the second, low key, headline? Who even read the second article? The second wasn't nearly as riveting as the first. How deep was the second article buried compared to the first? B-14 versus A-1?
As long as the Drive-By Media vote 90% Democrat, this stuff will be happening.
Corrigan should be behind bars and the MSM has no shame about lieing. Keep hitting them over the head whenever they lie and they will pay the consequences, but not unless WE make noise about garbage like this.
Posted by: KS on December 2, 2006 08:06 PMWhy is OK for Republicans to SwiftBoat (lie and deceive) but when the paper, correctly I might add, categorizes a political insider as a GOP opperative you have a snit? This man's contributions run about 80% GOP and 20% DEM.
Wait, I know the answer. You just wish to divorce yourselves from yet another Republican pervert and in the process you want to make it appear as if he is a Democrat thereby disparaging the Dems. You get two for one that way.
Accept the fact that this pervert is one of your own and move on. No one believes that all Republicans are perverts. Nope. Just the elected and appointed ones.
I know the censors are going to snip this, but someone has to speak up.
Posted by: frogtalk4u on December 2, 2006 08:30 PMFunny, but I don't think it is true so much the other way around. That is why I believe that Democrats are more in it for principles (or what they would call principles, for we would judge what they stand for differently) whereas most Republicans when you talk about the insiders and especially the politicians are just in it for the power and the personal gain.
I must have missed the part of the story where Bush is the last man standing, anywhere in the universe, who believes "Staying the Course" is still going to work. I must have missed the part of the story where the vice-president of the United States shoots a man in the face and not only are charges not brought, but there is no investigation and the incident is expunged from the record, Its all good though. Was that because he was an R?
Posted by: frogtalk4u on December 2, 2006 09:30 PM"No one believes that all Republicans are perverts. Nope. Just the elected and appointed ones."
As long as a majority think it is not worth running for office as you will be called a pervert, only the perverts will run. Doesn't take to long and they reach the White House, Congress, our schools, our churches, etc.
We aught to be cleaning it up, starting with teaching morals in school...is is not right to steal, cheat, take drugs, be a pervert, kill, rob,abort; maybe in another 20 years we can get good politicians!
Posted by: Old Sgt on December 2, 2006 09:44 PMI was with you right up until you got to abortion. The other "sins" you mention are all crimes against the state. PLEASE lets just agree to disagree on the abortion issue. We can talk all night about it, but neither of us is going to change the others mind.
Posted by: frogtalk4u on December 2, 2006 09:48 PMSay Froggy next time you hop on down to the King County Courthouse, you might want to drop in on the office of Financial Management and ask if the analyst that was the assistant coach over at Chief Sealth who was dismissed for fraud and recruiting out of district players is still on the job. It's always comforting to know who is minding the books in Simsville. Pssst, I hear he was a Democrat too.
Posted by: Huh? on December 2, 2006 09:50 PMWe can do this all night if you wish. According to your logic, once character is called into question, you are not qualified to be on the public payroll.
Let me start at the top: George W.Bush, arrested for DUI and known to have skirted on his service commitment.
Posted by: frogtalk4u on December 2, 2006 09:56 PMHuh?
Posted by: frogtalk4u on December 2, 2006 10:04 PMSo what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30 percent more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called Who Really Cares, by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives.
The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about ''nurturing'' people who need help. The ''tax the rich'' crew can't yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money.
That may be unfair but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is ''income redistribution,'' that is big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed ''economic justice,'' things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security.
But a funny thing happened on the way to socialism. Americans who believe in ''income redistribution'' give 75 percent less to charity than Americans who don't, according to Brooks. That is a stunning differential.
I believe this is a religious thing. Secular-progressives believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and a vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it's all about you -- then you are thinking about you -- not about poor Dave down the street.
But devoted Christians, Jews and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in Scripture. Jesus was a huge ''help your neighbor'' guy. For J.C., it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession.
The statistics say that religious Americans give four times more money to charity each year than secular people and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here's another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation's blood supply would rise 45 percent.
So in this season of giving, Christmas -- a word some liberals don't like to say -- it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portray conservatives as mean, cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multimillionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The vice president gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little.
So the next time you hear a big-government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned in this column. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing. What's left is not even close.
© Copyright 2006 Sun-Times News Group | User Agreement and Privacy Policy
So much for principles.
As to character being a condition of public service I can only hope that if someone found out that a person in a position of public Fiscal Responsiblity was dismissed for Fraud in
another position, it might be of some concern.
Apparently you would let this guy do your taxes.
The whole point is that is not his party affiliation, it's his illegal behavior that should have been the lead in the article.
You are intellectually dishonest, unless you can admit that Corrigan was as much of a Democrat as a Republican operative. Did Goldstein send you over here ? Corrigan is a scumbag no matter what party he is affiliated with - so stop whining about an attempt to alternatively report something that the Times f***ed up in the first place. Stop bringing up GW Bush, and the Repubs can stop bringing up Clinton - irrelevant in both cases !
Posted by: KS on December 2, 2006 10:36 PMWhat Kool-aid are you drinking? Both parties are out of touch with their consituents. Back in the day when I was a PC and involved in dem party politics, one would work their way up the food chain. Eventually, you get invited to $500 fundraiser this, $1,500 fundraiser that. I thought the dem constituent was middle class or working folks. Not to mention those poor underprivledged kids in failing schools. I assume that Bruce and Ivan are probably dems, but they wouldn't even remotely consider solutions to help kids out of failing schools. How many working class folks do you know that go to $1,500 and above fundraisers? I'll let the pubbies make their own comments.
Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2006 11:09 PMAre you and Nancy of the "Onward Christian Soldiers" thread related? Hope this is not another case of trying to teach a mule to tango.
Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2006 11:59 PMAs I have said numerous times, I am an independent because I believe that we have the best government money can buy.
I do not work for the Secretary of State, although
I would not have a problem working there.
I do not support corruption in any form. My particular interest is making sure that low income kids from deprived backgrounds get a good basic education, so they have a chance at a good life. I don't see the dems moving in the direction to help these kids because of the stakeholders in the dem party and they rely on a permanent victim class.
I don't see the pubblies helping these kids out, incidently, competiton in education will help all kids, because they are gutless.
I believe in a government that helps people and has some ethical foundtion.
Give it up the man is a Republican.
Posted by: me on December 3, 2006 12:34 AMBill? you kidding? i know of no other pres that just CANT stay out of the limelight & interfere with a current admin to seek MORE attention. time's up. he had his day. history wont be re-written to a gentler version just because you insist on a camera angle. now PLEASE leave the stage!
pres's used to respect each other & traditions & leave when their time was up. reason why HE keeps popping up in blogs is his own past behavior, dalliances & lack of judgement & that famous "is is" dancing to try to fool the public while at the top helm of the Country. no one else is to blame for his own free actions.
party aside, any crook or illegal actor is just that. i want anyone punished accordingly. i care about actions & intergity FIRST, not parties.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 3, 2006 09:03 AMWe should encourage every person with pedopheliac desires to make those desires known publicly. These persons desperately need treatment, and we all need to know who they are, so that we can protect children from them.
"Should we protect their beliefs that is OK to have sex with children because the children benefit from the experience?"
We should denounce such lies every time we hear them. Anyone who touches a child with such intent should be punished to the fullest extent of a very tough law. Americans have the right to odious beliefs, so long as we do not act upon them. Many religious-right figures openly state that Jews (and others) will go straight to hell upon death. These "moral leaders" can preach such hate from every one of their pulpits, every week, but any attempt at forced conversions of Jewish (or other) children should get prosecuted.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 3, 2006 08:39 PMAt present, none. The forced conversions of Jewish children are a part of European history, back when "Europe" was called "Christendom". Religious-right preachers in the modern USA proclaim that all but their own followers will suffer eternal torment. Logically, forcibly converting the children of other faiths will save those kids from eternal torment, and thusbecomes the only humane option. "If you accept his assumptions, even a madman becomes reasonable."
"Do you even believe in heaven or hell?"
It matters not what I believe. We here discuss the aberrant beliefs of preachers and pedophiles, neither of whose beliefs I support. (But I respect their rights to hold, and to proclaim, those beliefs.)
"If you don't believe in the concepts, do you care what someone says regarding the subject? The First Amendment protects speech and religious speech. The Constitution does not protect NAMBLA's right to assault children."
Of course it does not. It protects unpopular speech, not harmful actions. Every child molester should receive the harshest possible sentence. Every potential child molester (like former Rep. Foley) should receive treatment, so that he does not molest a child. Proclaiming the stupid opinion, that adult molestation of children does not incur harm, should receive our immediate ridicule. As should the opinion that non-Christians will suffer eternal torment. Our Consitution protects opinions and beliefs, not the "right" to force those beliefs upon others.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 4, 2006 02:52 AMhttp://tinyurl.com/yedqzg
Let people decide for themselves what he was.
Posted by: Kari on December 4, 2006 02:20 PM