Senators Husband Admits Paying For Sex

[red states rule]

Is this an epidemic among liberals?

The irony is the co-founder of the liberal talkUSA radio network and husband of a democratic Senator is caught with a hooker

I'll bet he's real supporter of equal rights for women.



Senator's husband admits paying for sex

TROY, Mich. - The husband of U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow told authorities that he used the Internet to arrange a $150 sexual tryst with a prostitute at a metropolitan Detroit hotel, police said Wednesday.

Thomas Athans, 46, co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network, was stopped by police who were investigating prostitution at the hotel, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

Athans, in a statement issued by his attorney, apologized and said he "fully cooperated with law enforcement. My family and I are dealing with this matter in a personal and private way."

Stabenow, D-Mich., said in an interview with The AP that she wanted "folks to know that I'm grateful for their prayers and support and this is a family matter that is very difficult but we are going to work through it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_on_re_us/senator_s_husband_prostitute;_ylt=Aou0uAc.OAKXnw4h 59pRYg6yFz4D

[avatar4321]

Meanwhile the Senator from NY's husband is laughing at them for having to pay for it.

[gabosaurus]

At least he wasn't in a airport bathroom, looking for male prostitutes. :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

At least he wasn't in a airport bathroom, looking for male prostitutes. :rolleyes:

Amazing how libs excuse bad behaviour by using other bad behaviour

[red states rule]

He may have paid for the hooker with money he stole from the NYC Boys Clubs. No use in arguing, just like Al Gore talking about saving the planet from one of his four huge houses, John Edwards talking about two Americas from his 35,000 square foot compound, Hillary talking about integrity in government or Obama talking about racism.

[mundame]

He may have paid for the hooker with money he stole from the NYC Boys Clubs. No use in arguing, just like Al Gore talking about saving the planet from one of his four huge houses, John Edwards talking about two Americas from his 35,000 square foot compound, Hillary talking about integrity in government or Obama talking about racism.


You are talking about hypocrisy, or double standards, right, RSR?



<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 225634" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>gabosaurus</TD><TD class=alt2>At least he wasn't in a airport bathroom, looking for male prostitutes.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



Amazing how libs excuse bad behaviour by using other bad behaviour


It's an interesting issue, I think. Does WORSE behavior by a Republican make bad behavior by a Democrat not worth taking an interest in? I think most people would consider either Sen. Larry Craig's or Rep. Mark Foley's behavior wildly worse than standard prostitution patronage.

So their strange and astounding behavior in restrooms or with pages make this ho-hum, even though it's pretty awful for the female Senator and wife: her husband caught in such an act?

It's a betrayal of both their marriage and her political career.

[red states rule]

You are talking about hypocrisy, or double standards, right, RSR?



<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 225634" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>gabosaurus</TD><TD class=alt2>At least he wasn't in a airport bathroom, looking for male prostitutes.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



It's an interesting issue, I think. Does WORSE behavior by a Republican make bad behavior by a Democrat not worth taking an interest in? I think most people would consider either Sen. Larry Craig's or Rep. Mark Foley's behavior wildly worse than standard prostitution patronage.

So their strange and astounding behavior in restrooms or with pages make this ho-hum, even though it's pretty awful for the female Senator and wife: her husband caught in such an act?

It's a betrayal of both their marriage and her political career.


The point is all three are bad. Libs seem to want to ignore their own and pounce on the Republcians who get caught

look at how the Dems tried to spin Gov Spitzer. The liberal media would not mention his political affiliation for days

[mundame]

The point is all three are bad. Libs seem to want to ignore their own and pounce on the Republcians who get caught

look at how the Dems tried to spin Gov Spitzer. The liberal media would not mention his political affiliation for days


I suppose all this bad behavior becomes a political football for both sides. Dems do seem much more into female prostitutes and group sex than the ........wide menu indulged in by some of the Republican politicians.

I suppose that means the party whose politicians do the really splashy stuff that no one even HEARD of before (I swear to god I had never heard about that toe-tapping in restrooms business, and I am still extremely puzzled about how they would have gotten together for any kind of sex in one of those stalls. Probably better if nobody tells me.........thanks.)

Now, I did hear at once that Spitzer was a Democrat, on TV and in the news. I take it you heard the story repeatedly without any political references being given, RSR.

[red states rule]

I suppose all this bad behavior becomes a political football for both sides. Dems do seem much more into female prostitutes and group sex than the ........wide menu indulged in by some of the Republican politicians.

I suppose that means the party whose politicians do the really splashy stuff that no one even HEARD of before (I swear to god I had never heard about that toe-tapping in restrooms business, and I am still extremely puzzled about how they would have gotten together for any kind of sex in one of those stalls. Probably better if nobody tells me.........thanks.)

Now, I did hear at once that Spitzer was a Democrat, on TV and in the news. I take it you heard the story repeatedly without any political references being given, RSR.

For days aftger the Spitzer story broke the networks did not mention he was a Dem. The front page story on USA Today did not mention he was a Dem

Now with Republicans, at the end of his/her name they put in the "R"


Here is one example

For Second Night, ABC and NBC Refuse to Utter Spitzer's Party ID
By Brent Baker | March 11, 2008 - 21:44 ET

Just as occurred Monday night, viewers of Tuesday's ABC and NBC evening newscasts never heard the word “Democrat” applied to New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, nor did they even put a “(D)” on screen by his name as ABC did briefly Monday. CBS didn't announce his party either on Tuesday night, but Katie Couric had done so Monday night. The ABC and NBC newscasts, however, did put “(R)” on screen over soundbites from Republicans and NBC's Mike Taibbi twice referred to the reaction from “Republican” politicians.

Fill-in ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas avoided any party tag: “New York's Governor, Eliot Spitzer, spent most of the day today huddled behind closed doors debating whether to resign after being linked to a prostitution ring.” On NBC, substitute anchor Ann Curry led: “Tonight, the investigation of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's fall from grace is broadening...”


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/11/second-night-abc-nbc-refuse-utter-spitzers-party-id

[mundame]

For days aftger the Spitzer story broke the networks did not mention he was a Dem. The front page story on USA Today did not mention he was a Dem

Now with Republicans, at the end of his/her name they put in the "R"


Here is one example

For Second Night, ABC and NBC Refuse to Utter Spitzer's Party ID
By Brent Baker | March 11, 2008 - 21:44 ET

Just as occurred Monday night, viewers of Tuesday's ABC and NBC evening newscasts never heard the word “Democrat” applied to New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, nor did they even put a “(D)” on screen by his name as ABC did briefly Monday. CBS didn't announce his party either on Tuesday night, but Katie Couric had done so Monday night. The ABC and NBC newscasts, however, did put “(R)” on screen over soundbites from Republicans and NBC's Mike Taibbi twice referred to the reaction from “Republican” politicians.

Fill-in ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas avoided any party tag: “New York's Governor, Eliot Spitzer, spent most of the day today huddled behind closed doors debating whether to resign after being linked to a prostitution ring.” On NBC, substitute anchor Ann Curry led: “Tonight, the investigation of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's fall from grace is broadening...”



Well, darn. You amaze me, RSR. I guess you did prove your point! :bow3:

We'll have to watch for that stuff. Or at least I will; I guess you and others are watching for it now. :tinfoil:

[avatar4321]

At least he wasn't in a airport bathroom, looking for male prostitutes. :rolleyes:

yeah, they just hire an "escort service" for that.

[avatar4321]

You are talking about hypocrisy, or double standards, right, RSR?



<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 225634" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>gabosaurus</TD><TD class=alt2>At least he wasn't in a airport bathroom, looking for male prostitutes.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



It's an interesting issue, I think. Does WORSE behavior by a Republican make bad behavior by a Democrat not worth taking an interest in? I think most people would consider either Sen. Larry Craig's or Rep. Mark Foley's behavior wildly worse than standard prostitution patronage.

So their strange and astounding behavior in restrooms or with pages make this ho-hum, even though it's pretty awful for the female Senator and wife: her husband caught in such an act?

It's a betrayal of both their marriage and her political career.

Actually, I still think Mark Foley got railroaded. Yes he sent inappropriate emails pages who were over the age of minority. that was wrong. but everything else he was attacked on was a bunch of bs.

I dont see how sending emails is worse than hiring prostitutes.

[red states rule]

Well, darn. You amaze me, RSR. I guess you did prove your point! :bow3:

We'll have to watch for that stuff. Or at least I will; I guess you and others are watching for it now. :tinfoil:

The liberal media bias is something to behold

USA Today Never Labels Spitzer as Dem, But Tags Craig and Vitter
By Brent Baker | March 11, 2008 - 17:13 ET

In 1,760 words, Tuesday's front page USA Today article on New York Governor Eliot Spitzer never identified him as a Democrat, not even in photo captions, though the online version was updated with his party affiliation, yet described Senators Larry Craig and David Vitter as Republicans in the first mentions of their names in the story. Here's the lead of the hard copy edition delivered to the MRC's offices Tuesday morning:

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was the brash Wall Street corruption buster who made ethics his trademark. He was on many lists of future presidential contenders. On Monday, he apologized after he was accused of meeting a high-priced prostitute in a Washington, D.C., hotel last month.

However, in the online “print edition” posting (not the updated throughout the day USAToday.com site) of the March 11 newspaper, “he” was updated to “the Democrat” so the online version begins:

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was the brash Wall Street corruption buster who made ethics his trademark. He was on many lists of future presidential contenders. On Monday, the Democrat apologized after he was accused of meeting a high-priced prostitute in a Washington, D.C., hotel last month.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/11/usa-today-never-labels-spitzer-dem-tags-craig-vitter

[mundame]

I dont see how sending emails is worse than hiring prostitutes.

I think I can answer that, as a woman:

It was gross, persistent, confusing, upsetting sexual harassment.

And from a MAN! Homosexual harassment to teenagers who were taught to behave with the utmost respect to a congressman, so they really had no defense. And it was incredibly taboo besides, and their parents and friends would have been shocked. This was supposed to be such a high-status job, but Foley turned it into a dogpile, and the kids didn't know what to do to stop him.

That's why the kids all came on TV to complain about it: one after the other, a whole lot of them voluntarily communicated with news media and several testified on TV about Foley's practices. They were angry; they were fed up. He had taken advantage of them.

This happens to women a lot, though not as much as it used to, since they passed the laws, thank God. Used to be, as every older woman here remembers, there was no way to stop the office sleazeballs from sneaking around day after day after day after day with their dirty insinuations, with their unfunny dirty "jokes," with their nasty suggestions that we have sex with their repulsive selves.

Sexual harassment is cruel and victimizing, and that's what Foley was certainly doing, at least. What he was into, the constant dirty harassment, was worse than if he'd just found some willing homosexual teen and did him.

[red states rule]

I think I can answer that, as a woman:

It was gross, persistent, confusing, upsetting sexual harassment.

And from a MAN! Homosexual harassment to teenagers who were taught to behave with the utmost respect to a congressman, so they really had no defense. And it was incredibly taboo besides, and their parents and friends would have been shocked. This was supposed to be such a high-status job, but Foley turned it into a dogpile, and the kids didn't know what to do to stop him.

That's why the kids all came on TV to complain about it: one after the other, a whole lot of them voluntarily communicated with news media and several testified on TV about Foley's practices. They were angry; they were fed up. He had taken advantage of them.

This happens to women a lot, though not as much as it used to, since they passed the laws, thank God. Used to be, as every older woman here remembers, there was no way to stop the office sleazeballs from sneaking around day after day after day after day with their dirty insinuations, with their unfunny dirty "jokes," with their nasty suggestions that we have sex with their repulsive selves.

Sexual harassment is cruel and victimizing, and that's what Foley was certainly doing, at least. What he was into, the constant dirty harassment, was worse than if he'd just found some willing homosexual teen and did him.

Then I am shocked to see so many libeal women defending Bill Clinton, and now supporting Hillary

BTW, Dems sat on the Foley emails for about 3 months so they could release them right beore the election. So much for protecting the pages

[mundame]

BTW, Dems sat on the Foley emails for about 3 months so they could release them right beore the election. So much for protecting the pages

Well, no one has ever, EVER been able to prove that. I watched and watched for it, because how could that timing POSSIBLY be an accident??

My personal belief is that it WAS leaked indeed but that whoever did it covered their tracks brilliantly. I just don't believe in that profound a coincidence.

You know, RSR, polls showed that "corruption" was a bigger influence in the 2006 election results than the Iraq War, which surprised a lot of analysts. It didn't hugely surprise me --- I was pretty disgusted at the Foley thing. But it did surprise me a little.

[red states rule]

Well, no one has ever, EVER been able to prove that. I watched and watched for it, because how could that timing POSSIBLY be an accident??

My personal belief is that it WAS leaked indeed but that whoever did it covered their tracks brilliantly. I just don't believe in that profound a coincidence.

You know, RSR, polls showed that "corruption" was a bigger influence in the 2006 election results than the Iraq War, which surprised a lot of analysts. It didn't hugely surprise me --- I was pretty disgusted at the Foley thing. But it did surprise me a little.

Democratic Leadership Knew About Foley E-mails

December 08, 2006 5:51 PM

Rhonda Schwartz Reports:

The House Ethics Committee Report includes new information that top Democrats were also aware in 2005 of Mark Foley's inappropriate e-mails to congressional pages at about the same time as outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert's office was informed.

While the report is critical of Hastert and his staff for not taking sufficient action, nowhere is there any evidence that the Democrats followed up.

According to the Committee's report, "the communications directors for both the House Democratic Caucus and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee" in the fall of 2005 also had copies of e-mails written by Mark Foley to a congressional page, which the high school student described as "sick, sick, sick, sick."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/democratic_lead.html



and so far all the promises the Dems made to get elected have long been forgotten.

[mundame]

Then I am shocked to see so many libeal women defending Bill Clinton, and now supporting Hillary


Well, speaking not as a liberal woman but as a feminist (yes, those can be separate), the thing about Bill Clinton was that it was dirty and shame on him and I STILL am too embarrassed to look at him on TV, but -------- it wasn't sexual harassment. I mean, darn, the girl delivered a pizza to him and showed him her thong!!!! And she was fully 24 years old at the time --- I mean, what can one really say, you know?

I blame her mother.

As for Hillary, why not support her? Bill's bad behavior had nothing to do with her, and the whole world knows she was furious and upset and he had to sleep on the (White House) couch.

I'm shocked to see some people insisting that Hillary has to divorce Bill. What? I'm pretty sure marriage is still legal; I'm pretty sure there is no law saying anyone has to get a divorce no matter what. That there is somewhere still a bias in favor of people staying married.

I don't have a problem with it, anyway. It's their business if they want to stay married.

[red states rule]

Well, speaking not as a liberal woman but as a feminist (yes, those can be separate), the thing about Bill Clinton was that it was dirty and shame on him and I STILL am too embarrassed to look at him on TV, but -------- it wasn't sexual harassment. I mean, darn, the girl delivered a pizza to him and showed him her thong!!!! And she was fully 24 years old at the time --- I mean, what can one really say, you know?

I blame her mother.

As for Hillary, why not support her? Bill's bad behavior had nothing to do with her, and the whole world knows she was furious and upset and he had to sleep on the (White House) couch.

I'm shocked to see some people insisting that Hillary has to divorce Bill. What? I'm pretty sure marriage is still legal; I'm pretty sure there is no law saying anyone has to get a divorce no matter what. That there is somewhere still a bias in favor of people staying married.

I don't have a problem with it, anyway. It's their business if they want to stay married.

What about Paula Jones, Kathy Willey, and Wonetta Broderick? I ams sure there are others that Bill harrassed and/or assualted

Hillary is a serial liar for starters. And she is another tax and spend liberal like Obama

It does not matter if she stayes "married" to Bill. They deserve each other

[avatar4321]

I think I can answer that, as a woman:

It was gross, persistent, confusing, upsetting sexual harassment.

And from a MAN! Homosexual harassment to teenagers who were taught to behave with the utmost respect to a congressman, so they really had no defense. And it was incredibly taboo besides, and their parents and friends would have been shocked. This was supposed to be such a high-status job, but Foley turned it into a dogpile, and the kids didn't know what to do to stop him.

That's why the kids all came on TV to complain about it: one after the other, a whole lot of them voluntarily communicated with news media and several testified on TV about Foley's practices. They were angry; they were fed up. He had taken advantage of them.

This happens to women a lot, though not as much as it used to, since they passed the laws, thank God. Used to be, as every older woman here remembers, there was no way to stop the office sleazeballs from sneaking around day after day after day after day with their dirty insinuations, with their unfunny dirty "jokes," with their nasty suggestions that we have sex with their repulsive selves.

Sexual harassment is cruel and victimizing, and that's what Foley was certainly doing, at least. What he was into, the constant dirty harassment, was worse than if he'd just found some willing homosexual teen and did him.

I am not sure they ever even revealed what the emails said. just that it wasnt appropriate. im not trying to make light of sexual harassment. I just dont like seeing someone punished for doing more than what he actually did. Maybe I was a defense attorney before I even realized it.

[mundame]

Democratic Leadership Knew About Foley E-mails

December 08, 2006 5:51 PM

Rhonda Schwartz Reports:

The House Ethics Committee Report includes new information that top Democrats were also aware in 2005 of Mark Foley's inappropriate e-mails to congressional pages at about the same time as outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert's office was informed.

While the report is critical of Hastert and his staff for not taking sufficient action, nowhere is there any evidence that the Democrats followed up.

According to the Committee's report, "the communications directors for both the House Democratic Caucus and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee" in the fall of 2005 also had copies of e-mails written by Mark Foley to a congressional page, which the high school student described as "sick, sick, sick, sick."

Yes, I read that. However, as it says, "nowhere is there any evidence that the Democrats followed up."

And I believe in the Tooth Fairy, too. http://macg.net/emoticons/grininvert.gif

Basically, we are in agreement about that RSR. How could such a coup possibly have been a coincidence? Somebody was very clever.



and so far all the promises the Dems made to get elected have long been forgotten.

Yes.

The new thriller mystery by liberal Stephen White, Dead Time, has his protagonist saying the same thing, sadly, that nothing came of the hope from the 2006 elections. Too true.

[mundame]

I am not sure they ever even revealed what the emails said.


OOOOOOOh, yes, they did. Omigod. Google it, you WILL get an eyeful. Not at work, I suggest. There was a whole lot of it all over the Internet at the time. It was bad stuff.

[red states rule]

Yes, I read that. However, as it says, "nowhere is there any evidence that the Democrats followed up."

And I believe in the Tooth Fairy, too. http://macg.net/emoticons/grininvert.gif

Basically, we are in agreement about that RSR. How could such a coup possibly have been a coincidence? Somebody was very clever.




Yes.

The new thriller mystery by liberal Stephen White, Dead Time, has his protagonist saying the same thing, sadly, that nothing came of the hope from the 2006 elections. Too true.

Yes, the Dems knew about the emails and did nothiing about them. They waited and had an October surprise

Dems got what they voted for - nothing

And now they want America to vote once again for nothing

[mundame]

Dems got what they voted for - nothing

And now they want America to vote once again for nothing


It is a good, and worrying, argument. Believe them once, shame on them.....

But twice? Does that make sense?

Personally, I am so disheartened that I am awaiting Bob Barr's announcement with more interest than I have in any of major parties.

[red states rule]

It is a good, and worrying, argument. Believe them once, shame on them.....

But twice? Does that make sense?

Personally, I am so disheartened that I am awaiting Bob Barr's announcement with more interest than I have in any of major parties.

I am not happy with McCain. I can't vote for him

But if you want higher taxes across the borad, government run health care, surrender and appeasement to terrorists, more pork, more federal spending on handouts, more government regualtion on business, amnesty for illegals, and liberal judges who make up law from the bench - then Dems are your choice

[Classact]

I am not happy with McCain. I can't vote for him

But if you want higher taxes across the borad, government run health care, surrender and appeasement to terrorists, more pork, more federal spending on handouts, more government regualtion on business, amnesty for illegals, and liberal judges who make up law from the bench - then Dems are your choiceHurrah! Give the guy a break the senator is four ax handles across the ass.

[red states rule]

Hurrah! Give the guy a break the senator is four ax handles across the ass.

No matter who wins in November, we will be stuck with a damn liberal as President