Add to the list of prominent people linked to Deborah Palfrey's call-girl ring: Democratic activist and lobbyist Bill Broydrick. He called Palfrey's number three times in 2004.
Who the heck is Broydrick?
A former state lawmaker and longtime Democratic activist, Broydrick is considered one of the most influential lobbyists in Wisconsin and Washington.
Broydrick and Associates, the firm owned by Broydrick and his wife, Cynthia, consistently ranks among the highest-paid lobbying firms in the state and has offices in Madison, Washington and Tallahassee, Fla.
Broydrick declined to comment on the finding. One interesting twist: His lobbying firm is a joint venture with his wife, Cynthia. If there's any personal fallout, it could turn professional as well.
No evidence of hypocrisy just yet, though.
Wisconsin, Palfrey, Broydrick, politics, midtopia
16 comments:
Oh thank God: no apparent hypocrisy. Guess he and his wife had an open marriage and he---or they---- saw nothing wrong with it.
Vitter immediately apologized for a "serious sin" and acknowledged what he had done years ago was wrong. Evidently the Democrat doesn't feel the same way---since he has no comment.
JP5
I just looked him up. He's been known to use Democrat Congressman David Obey and Democrat Senator Kohl to get his "earmarks" in.
Maybe we should go on a witch hunt and see if they are involved.
JP5
Just to remind you of my ground rules for judging the people who appear on the madam's list:
While infidelity is nothing to be proud of or cheer about, it's generally a private matter between spouses. I don't mind voters taking it into account -- all things being equal, cheaters should suffer the consequences of their cheating -- but I'm not going to be the one flagellating them over it.
And I'm libertarian enough to think we should consider decriminalizing and regulating prostitution.
So I don't generally care if a politician is hiring hookers.
The exception is if they're "family values" types who have made a career admonishing the rest of us for the motes in our eyes. Then they're hypocrites, in my book.
Moynihan, from what I understand of his career, would be at least partly in the hypocrite camp, having been a little bit of a family values champion.
So would Bill Clinton be "at least partly in the hypocrite camp." He also touted family values. And yet I saw no Democrats back then thinking he should resign or step down over it or starting multiple threads on debate boards blasting him for it. In fact, on the boards I debated on back then, the Democrats----virtually 100% of them---circled the wagons and defended him.
Not to mention, while campaigning in 1992, Bill Clinton told us, the public, that he had caused pain in his marriage, but all that was behind him. So that made him both a hypocrite AND a liar!
JP5
Clinton was a hypocrite, though he was hardly a major social conservative.
But what exactly is your complaint? Have I called for Vitter to resign or step down?
"Clinton was a hypocrite, though he was hardly a major social conservative."
So what does that mean? That ONLY "social conservatives" should be harshly condemned when they go astray? Wow, that sure gives the libs and Dems a free pass out of jail card, doesn't it? Just don't ever act like you're against infidelity or morally superior and then you won't be condemened when you go astray?
Which reminds me.....I recall all too well seeing those pictures (planned photo ops) of Clinton coming out of that church each Sunday--Bible in hand. On the SAME days---we later learned----he was calling and hooking up with Monica. What is that----IF NOT trying to portray a morality that he did not possess???
JP5
Personally I just think it's fun to watch 'em squirm, regardless of party.
But that a phone number is associated with someone isn't determinative. Office staff have been known to be bad boys and girls too, and there's always the potential that one camp paid the "escorts" to spy on others. We just don't know.
But it's still fun to watch 'em squirm. If nothing else, it indicates a lack of intelligent discretion on the pol's part.
So what does that mean? That ONLY "social conservatives" should be harshly condemned when they go astray?
They should be condemned more harshly than others.
Wow, that sure gives the libs and Dems a free pass out of jail card, doesn't it?
When you don't try to tell other people how to live, fewer people will be standing in line to rub your face in it. That's just how it works.
Just don't ever act like you're against infidelity or morally superior and then you won't be condemened when you go astray?
I didn't say they wouldn't be condemned. I said they weren't hypocrites.
Clinton was roundly condemned for his actions. Even people who defended him generally didn't defend what he did.
Would I vote for a drug abuser and serial philanderer? It would certainly predispose me not to. But it would depend on the person. And the fact that they weren't hypocritical about it would be a point in their favor.
Get your own house in order before worrying about mine.
"When you don't try to tell other people how to live, fewer people will be standing in line to rub your face in it. That's just how it works."
Yeah, I can see that. It's like the Al Gore's of the world and the liberal elite trying to tell the rest of us what to drive and how to live environmentally---when they go around the world routinely in their private jets and they live in their 15,000 square foot homes.
JP5
Yeah, I can see that. It's like the Al Gore's of the world and the liberal elite trying to tell the rest of us what to drive and how to live environmentally.
Same sort of thing. If someone tells you to drive a Prius while they drive a Hummer, they deserve a severe thrashing.
Of course, some of the things Gore is attacked for aren't actually hypocritical, especially because he's never actually said people shouldn't own big houses or fly planes or things like that.
"Of course, some of the things Gore is attacked for aren't actually hypocritical, especially because he's never actually said people shouldn't own big houses or fly planes or things like that."
Oh, he's very much a hypocrite. George W. Bush has a much more environmentally-friendly home than Al Gore does. And he doesn't run around making a big deal of it either. Bush walks the walk; Gore only talks the talk.
JP5
I agree Bush has done a good thing. But there are significant differences.
Bush's house is brand new, which makes being green much easier. Gore's house is nearly 100 years old. You simply cannot expect the latter to be as energy efficient.
Bush's house is out in the middle of nowhere on a 1,600-acre ranch, which makes some green features -- like a water cistern and geothermal heat -- not just attractive but useful and even necessary.
Gore's house is in an urban area, where such things might not even be allowed under code. Not to mention that you can't use geothermal systems everywhere. The geology has to be right.
Could Gore do more to walk the walk? Sure. It certainly appears, for instance, that he wasn't moving very fast to make his house more efficient and reduce his carbon footprint before media coverage embarassed him.
But remember that Gore has never said we shouldn't own big, old houses or fly planes or live our lives. He's simply said that whatever lifestyle you maintain, try to use energy wisely and reduce your carbon footprint. Many attempts to paint him as a hypocrite start with putting words in his mouth that he has never said.
Well, I contend that it's hypocritical to continue one's energy inefficient lifestyle and simply buying credits for it. Buying the credits from another polluter and continuing to pollute is real hypocritical. It doesn't address the problems. If he's going to preach to me about the SUV I drive, then by God, he should STOP wasting energy flying across the country in his private jets. Which, BTW, use more fuel in ONE TRIP than I do in my SUV in one whole year.
WHO listens to anyone like Al Gore???
JP5
Well, I contend that it's hypocritical to continue one's energy inefficient lifestyle and simply buying credits for it.
That's not really hypocritical. And it's better than not attempting to offset one's consumption.
Rich people will always use more energy than poor people. If you like older houses, they will always be less efficient than newer ones. Flying planes is a more energy-intensive hobby than fishing. That's life, and Gore has never really criticized any of that.
One can criticize the idea of "carbon credits" and whether they actually work, but unless Gore is knowingly perpetrating a scam he's not being a hypocrite.
If he's going to preach to me about the SUV I drive, then by God, he should STOP wasting energy flying across the country in his private jets.
Case in point. He hasn't called for SUVs to be eliminated; he's simply asked people to consider whether they really need one, because they are inefficient for most uses and our love affair with them has been very wasteful, energywise. Some people do need them; many people don't.
As for the jets, you're essentially arguing that someone who worries about carbon emissions should never leave home, which is just silly. He has to travel to speaking engagements, and private jet is often the most efficient way to do so, either timewise or securitywise. Unless he's flying downtown to do his grocery shopping or otherwise being totally gratuitous in his use (and the occasional just-for-fun trip isn't a sign of that) it's not hypocritical.
I beg to differ. Gore is a huge hypocrite---anyway you cut it. You say he "needs" his private jet trips. Well, guess what??? Many people "need" their SUV's. And even if they didn't need them----it's their right to drive whatever they choose to...and to live in any house they choose. Just as it is for Al Gore.
By buying "carbon credits" Gore is saying, "I'm rich and important, therefore I can pollute more." Smug, elitist and hypocritical.
And just like you who can't stand the hypocrisy of someone who preaches morals, but isn't perfect in that area----I can't stand Al Gore and other hypocrites like him.
JP5
You say he "needs" his private jet trips. Well, guess what??? Many people "need" their SUV's.
As I noted above. But many people don't.
And even if they didn't need them----it's their right to drive whatever they choose to...and to live in any house they choose. Just as it is for Al Gore.
Agreed, though my point (and Gore's) would be that wasting energy is exactly that -- a waste -- with potentially serious global consequences.
But the point is, Gore doesn't disagree with you either. He's *asking* people to reduce their energy use, not demanding it.
Post a Comment