South Dakota legislative star-chamber is poking and prodding into the He said, He said. Apparently Sutton never heard the first Rule of Politics for Males......
DON'T GET INTO BED WITH A DEAD GIRL OR A LIVE BOY
If South Dakota State Senator Sutton ever heard that one, he must have thought it was just a joke.
The legislative hearing is a bad joke if it is not connected to proposed future legislation or legislature rules and regulations. A couple of legislators from both parties should have visited Sutton and said, "We have heard allegations of improper behavior between you and a legislative intern. We don't know if they are true or not, but do us and yourself a favor and stay away from juveniles, pages, and interns or we will revisit this issue in a public hearing."
As a matter of threat to the government and society in South Dakota, this affair is insignificant compared to the effective money-laundering done by a Republican senator pushing a theocratic intrusion of religion into politics. His action is a threat to the transparency of all government and the integrity of the election process. The Sutton-Wiese matter is a family relations problem and not a government problem.
A pandora's box has been opened by the actions of a couple senators followed by the whole body jumping into what has been called by others ...a cesspool. This has dangerous precedents for turning the will of the people in elections upside down by partisan fiat. As Barney Fife said, "Nip it in the bud."
Do that before we are treated in every session with an attempt to disqualify elected members of the legislature for partisan advantage.
*** Stay tuned for something more important...I know it is here somewhere---Doug Wiken
Doug,
I had almost completely ignored this story until today. Limbaugh read an entire AP story by Chet Brokaw, just so he could dramatically point out the fact that Brokaw didn't identify Sutton's party affiliation until the 19th and last paragraph.
It is indeed quite a contrast with the major media stories about Congressman Foley a few months ago. (By the way, Rush invariably refers to Congressman William Jefferson as "William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana".)
The Sutton AP story is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501381.html
Posted by: john | Jan 26, 2007 at 10:53 PM
John,
Interesting.. I guess to South Dakotans reading and writing about this, even if the fact Sutton was a Democrat had NEVER been mentioned here, everybody in SD would know he was a Democrat because SD legislature would not be investigating this if he were Republican. Kind of an oversight based on assumed knowledge. Just looked at my posts here and not sure I mentioned that Sutton is a DEMOCRAT either.
Now, if Rush will just read a story about the $750,000 that REPUBLICAN Roger Hunt moved around to eliminate transparency on donor, etc., I guess we will know Rush is not completely off balance.
Of course, it may also just be that Rush just loved the whole story so much he just had to read the whole thing and needed at least the semblance of an excuse to get something on that did not involve death and destruction in Iraq.
Unlike Foleygate which involved a REPUBLICAN, this case apparently had no incriminating e-mail even if one of the Wiese witnesses did claim that he kept notes on everything and hid them under and behind furniture and could not find them now.
Story has given papers here an opportunity to make their front pages look like grocery store tabloids. They have not yet however used it as an excuse to post pictures of male and female genitalia diagramed and labeled just to note the differences in "paragraph 19".
Posted by: Douglas Wiken | Jan 27, 2007 at 11:25 AM