A remarkable commentary in the Washington Times by three conservative women activists uses the choice of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to deliver the Democratic response to the president’s State of the Union address as an excuse to assail Sebelius about abortion and Paul Morrison’s sex scandal, labeling Sebelius another “feminist standing behind a man accused of sexual harassment.â€
Ignoring the fact that the attorney general is not a cabinet post, they wrote: “The Democratic Party’s choice to elevate Mrs. Sebelius to national stature in the midst of a scandal within her administration is both curious and brazen. Either party leaders believe the national media will ignore the story because, after all, it’s just Kansas. Or they believe the media are so fixed on a Democratic victory in November that they just don’t care.â€
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- gster on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
36 Comments
You shouldn’t blame the Governor for Morrison. She might have had info on him as a high level Democrat during the campaign, but it doesn’t matter. It’s not her job to point out flaws in her party’s candidate. She is just as partisan and the next gal.
The real scandal is the investigative journalism in Kansas. How can you run for a major office like AG while having an affair with a subordinate? It makes you wonder if the papers (TCJ, KC Star, & WE) knew but didn’t write a story or just didn’t investigate the candidate at all.
Morrison was an elected official and his indiscretions were a result of his own flawed decision making. Indicting Sebelius because of the behavior of a Kansas elected officials is preposterous. Had the current Secretary of State engaged in the same behavior as the former Attorney General, the conservative columnists wouldn’t have written their commentary…because the current Secretary of State (in Kansas) is a Republican.
Once again this is a bait and switch tactic used by Washington insiders to try to turn the nationals attention away from the problems in Washington. Good try but the partisan manipulation by the media is uncovered. Don’t underestimate the intelligence of fair minded, responsible Americans to sniff out the facts in the commentary hullabaloo.
Illicit affairs are clandestine by nature. It was a stupid commentary, whose purpose undoubtedly was to smear Sebelius, and by extension the dem. party. Having said that, it’ll probably be accepted by the RW as reasonable.
Achieve and maintain power at any cost is the motto of Sebelius.
At least no one got shot in the face while hunting and drinking!
What it shows is the blatant propaganda shilling for the reich-wing the Loonie-Moonie Times is . . .
Of course it is preposterous. What else would you expect from the Moonie Times?
If the shoe fits…
This commentary is just like OATS! If you want fresh oats, go to the grain truck or the horses head, IF you want this kind of drivel or “processed” oats, go to the other end of the horse.
“IGNORANCE IS BLISS!” If this is true, this country has some “REALLY HAPPY” people in
Washington.?
Blame Sebilus for Morrison, blame Republicans for Moron!
It is a fact, folks:
“Sexual Harassment” is just a weapon that liberals use against conservatives.
The actual act does not matter, if it is a “pro-choice” politician who is guilty of the act.
Radical Feminists would endorse a convicted rapist over a prolife woman, if given the chance.
Also, it is a distinction that does not matter, that the KS AG was elected and not appointed.
Kathleen Sebelius was actively involved in recruiting Paul Morrison, and in helping Morrison defeat Kline.
NONE of the pro-choice activists in this state ever gave a rip about the clear evidence, available before the election, that Paul Morrison had a problem in this area.
Not even the activist media!
She should have known better than recruit from the Republican side, she did use poor judgement there!
Phantom
Kathy is the “RINO Hunter” and she is very good at it!
Ben,
EXACTLY. No surprise to see the usual Wingnuts falling in the usual line behind the ultimate messianic nutjob, Sun Young Moon.
Sure thing PaulTheCon. That is why Morrison is still in office.
Is there a differenc between a Moonie and a Bushie? Other than who leads the cult?
Ben
What, exactly, did Paul Morrison do that Bill Clinton did NOT do?
Morrison did not have the political roots, within the Democrat Party, to sustain himself, in his scandal.
As some Democrats have noted, If Bill Clinton had put his Party AND his Country first, Bill Clinton could have made Al Gore the President, by Clinton’s resignation.
Morrison faced forcred removal from office, if he had not resigned.
The Democrats who wanted Morrison to step down were looking out for their own skins
These women who wrote this piece belong to organizations who say their voice doesn’t matter anyway. Their whole platform is the REDUCTION of women’s rights, to put them back in the homes to be baby incubators. They don’t even have all of the information correct. So this is what good Christian women do.
Bill Clinton was probably getting a BJ when the military was trying to launch a cruise missile attack against Osama Bin Laden. They couldn’t get a hold of him – like, finding someone in the White House is that difficult.
The Mooney Times doesn’t have time for the facts. It’s the Fox News of print journalism.
Sebelius another “feminist standing behind a man accused of sexual harassment.”
What is NOT factual about this statement?
And so what? Aren’t Democrats proud of Billary?
PaulTheCon – you seem to again confuse ‘accused’ with ‘proved’. Interesting though that when there is a calim against your guys (such as McCain’s against Bush/Rove/BobJonesU) you demand iron-clad proof.
What is a Billary?
Doug – it is the term the psychopath Hillary-haters use to describe her.
Having an affair and sexual harassment is NOT the same thing. This woman seems very hell bent on getting back at Morrison for not leaving his wife for her. So you can stop with the ‘victim’ thing. She’s a victim sure, but she also was a player in the game. There is a real victim, it’s his wife and the husband of the couple having the affair. So the adulteress can stop playing the whole boo=hoo game, she is undeserving of any sympathy.
What’s wrong with adultery?
Clinton’s love it!
And so do Rush and Rudy!
Ya, but Rush and Rudy are not running for POTUS.
“The Mooney Times doesn’t have time for the facts. It’s the Fox News of print journalism.”
That’s way, way too kind a comparison for the Washington Times.
And I despise Faux News.
I do not understand the filters on this Blog.
I was not able to use the word “r@pe” but Tom just used the “F” word?
Strange!
Libs
Conservatives did not invent the term “Billary” — it was invented by the Arkansas press, long ago.
And Ben
There is absolutely, positively NO proof, Hell, their isnt even any strong evidence, that George Bush did anything nasty or personal against John McCain, ever.
Somebody, still nameless, told McCain about a “push poll” — that persons name is NOT in evidence, is it?
And, what good is a “push poll” when only one person’s hearsay claim says that it did happen, at all?
McCain never released his phone scripts, when challenged to do so by George Bush.
George Bush released all of his telephone scripts.
And, folks, “consent” has little or nothing to do with the law, where sexual harassment in the workplace is concerned.
Here’s a novel idea. Let’s assign blame to the perps. and let it end there.
“Econ101
Posted February 4, 2008 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
And, folks, “consent” has little or nothing to do with the law, where sexual harassment in the workplace is concerned.”
Paul – when I took Employment Law we were told it (consent) has a LOT to do with the law. They use the term “unwelcome”; if there is “consent” then it is not “unwelcome”.