Well Ron, if you can't distinguish between the Washington Times and the Washington Post, not to mention the NY Times (which I also quoted), then why should anyone accept your opinion as informed, or your interpretation of the facts as more correct than the Washington Post, the NY Times, or the Boston Globe?

I mean, it's not like the paper that broke the Watergate story and brought down a president is obscure. Wonder why such a well informed person as yourself can't distinguish between the Moonies and the Washington establishment press.

I detest what the Washington Post editorial staff has done to whore themselves out to the Bush administration, but their reporters are some of the best in the biz, bar none. So I have absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of their reporting on this case. Or the NY Times, or the Boston Globe. I'm SO sure you are better informed about this story than their reporters are.

And Ron, you are getting your information from where exactly, pontificating as the Mudcat expert on this story?

And where in any of my posts did I say that this story was about gay sex? I've said repeatedly this story isn't about sex of any kind, or broken marriage vows. The guv is playing the gay sex card to deflect attention from the legal scandals engulfing his administration. I said the problem I have with the guy is he is a crook, a mobster, a pox on the people. I could care less who he sleeps with. That isn't the issue. The issue is who he puts on the people's payroll, when he takes HIMSELF off, and the reasons why he is doing that the way he is doing it. The issue is whether he was personally involved as a player in the scandals of his administration that less than a week before his "brave announcement" were sinking that administration's ship.

But Ron, being his usual mealy mouth Democrat apologist self, trys to twist all that into a vast anti-gay right wing Republican conspiracy, which is a load of crap. This is a scandal about political corruption, not a sex scandal. This isn't about partisan politics, as was the Clinton/Lewinski non-scandal, which WAS a Republican conspiracy. It is a political corruption and graft story, and the players could just as easily have been Republican as Democrat. Are the Jersey Republicans trying to take advantage of this scandal to retake control of the guv's house and gain partisan political advantage? You bet. That too is par for the course.

This scandal may or may not end up bubbling up to effect the November presidential election in New Jersey. Stranger things have happened in recent elections, to say the least. But one thing is for certain, this most definitely effects the state Democratic party, and to suggest otherwise is just plain ludicrous.

And it so NOT about gay sex, despite the fact that "gay sex" is in all the headlines. It is called a smokescreen, people. It was a card played by the guv himself, to pre-empt information that is obviously on the verge of breaking, and to stave off calls to resign before September 3rd. Once he gets beyond that date, apparently, the Democrats get to keep control of the state. Which is what this really about. The Democrats keeping control of the state.

By hook or by crook. Or in this case, both.