October Surprise: GOP de-Foley-ation

It’s over. —Republicans will now lose both houses of congress. Speaker Hastert will resign. Rumsfeld will resign. In fact, in the face of the Foley scandal Bush himself will resign in disgrace (crimes against humanity). Then Democrats will be allowed to merely nominate the next President and (s)he will be installed as President-for-life.

The constitution will be rewritten to allow this and outlaw corporations and the GOP; then all will be right with the world.

In the real world it's just as likely that the series of “October Surprises” Democrats have planned, such as Foley-gate, will backfire. Eventually.

I've got to admit though that I'm impressed. Enormously impressed with the Democrat's smear machine. I have never seen such an effective dirty tricks campaign waged by the normally hapless Democrats. They actually appear to have an organized and effective dirty tricks campaign in operation. Usually, they are just as likely to shoot themselves in the foot as harm their political opponents. But it's becoming clear that Democratic operatives had these emails and released them on schedule.

Does this absolve Foley? Absolutely not.

I suspect that the run up to the election will hold a few more, “October Surprises” from Democrat operatives.

Law of diminishing returns

But alas, we can already see Democrats over-reaching a bit; and if they're not careful they will destroy any benefit they could have gained from these planned disclosures.

Law of diminishing returns, you ask? “...as more of a variable input is applied, each additional unit of input yields less and less additional output.”(from wikipedia)

The thicker democrats lay it on, and the more they try to conflate Foley as if he were the entire Republican party, the less benefit they will see from their efforts. For instance...

Did Speaker Hastert "Protect A Predator"?

When Democrats say that Hastert, “endangered our families,” by choosing to protect a sexual predator, are they being objective?

Fifty years from now, when historians write about the social problem of sexual predators in early 21st Century America, they will put a photo of Cardinal Bernard Law next to a photo of Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

These are men who had the chance to protect our children, but chose to protect a predator instead.

They did more than just fail as leaders--they endangered our families.

...The Speaker of the House of Representatives--the third most powerful person in our federal government--cannot keep his job now that America sees he knowingly protected a sexual predator.

Hastert protected his predator. And now that America knows--America must protect itself from Hastert.

The United States House of Representative simply cannot survive with a leader who chose to protect a sexual predator rather than protect our children. ~DailyKKKos.com

Pardon me, but I have absolutely no sympathy for Foley. And neither do any Republicans. Anywhere. Yet it doesn't appear to me that Hastert is to blame for Foley's homosexuality and deviant sexual behavior. And it is simply too early to demand the resignation of Hastert.

The sad thing is that Foley should have resigned long before he was caught. Hopefully, he will go to jail. (I shouldn't have to mention what kind of punishment he would receive from me. In fact, my lawyer advises me that I cannot give you such an account.)

New Democrat standards?

Are Democrats going on record here as saying that the Speaker of the House must make sure that any hint of sexual impropriety by any member of the house needs to be met with the harshest inspection, investigation, and judgment? Or is there a different standard for Republicans and Democrats?

By all accounts the initial email messages were not enough for Hastert to 'fire' Foley from Congress. Even liberal papers who normally don't need an excuse to make things up in order to smear Republicans thought there wasn't enough there.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — At least two news organizations were tipped off to e-mail messages sent by Representative Mark Foley long before the story of his sexually explicit remarks to teenage pages broke last week and forced him to resign.

...At the same time, the papers’ decisions not to report the accusations are being cited by Republican leaders as justification for why they themselves did not step forward earlier to try to stop Mr. Foley.

“He deceived his in-state newspaper when they each questioned him,” Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said Tuesday. “He deceived me, too.”

...Brian Ross of ABC News said he learned about the e-mail messages in August but was too busy with Hurricane Katrina and the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue them immediately. None of the organizations seemed to anticipate how big the story would become.

I never thought it would lead to his resignation,” Mr. Ross said.

When The St. Petersburg Times received its first tip on the e-mail messages in late 2005, the editors decided it was “friendly chit-chat,” with nothing overtly sexual, but nonetheless assigned two reporters to find out more, according to an editor’s note.

The reporters tracked down the teenager, but he refused to let them use his name in a story. They found a second page who had corresponded with Mr. Foley and was willing to let them use his name but said he did not have a problem with the messages, undercutting the premise.

When the newspaper asked Mr. Foley about the messages, he “insisted he was merely trying to be friendly,” Scott Montgomery, the newspaper’s government and politics editor, wrote Saturday in a note to readers.

The editor of The Herald, Tom Fiedler, said the initial messages did not seem to justify writing a story. “We determined after discussion among several senior editors, including myself, that the content of the messages was too ambiguous to lead to a news story,” Mr. Fiedler was quoted in his paper as saying. ~nytimes.com

The Liberal Hypocrisy

I completely expect Democrats to make as much out of this as they possibly can, but it does seem odd that when we look at the history of Democrats regarding exactly the same kinds of scandals we see a very different reaction.

When Democrats are in the majority do they, “protect our children,” rather than, “sexual predators,” in the manner they seem to expect Hastert to have done? No they don't.

Any moral outrage evidenced by Democrats about this is largely political in nature. Historically, they do not find Foley's “alternate lifestyle,” to be any of our business.

The fact is that Republicans actually punish their members far more harshly than Democrats. Conservatives and their constituencies apply moral sanctions to such behavior, Democrats, by and large, do not.

In 1994, Democrat Mel Reynolds not only denied that he was a sexual predator but he went on to win re-election in an overwhelmingly democratic district despite the cloud of scandal over him. I guess the fact that he was a sexual predator didn't matter to Democrats.

In August 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer. Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected in November 1994. Reynolds initially denied the charges, which he claimed were racially motivated. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He [finally] resigned his seat on October 1, 1995.

Reynolds was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be released in 1998. However, in April 1997, he was convicted on 15 unrelated counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges. At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a half way house. ~wikipedia

So after being re-elected by his predominantly democrat district, and being pardoned by Bill Clinton, where does this sexual predator convicted of preying upon a sixteen year old child as well as 'soliciting' child pornography work now? He works for Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.

Is what Foley did actually reprehensible to Democrats? I'm not so sure. I suspect that the fact that Foley is a Republican is more reprehensible than the emails or instant messages are. After all, it's just a private sexual matter.

The one thing that the Republicans have done is by scrutinizing the president's personal behavior - and nobody could possibly condone his behavior - it is absolutely reckless and should never have occurred in the Oval Office - but Republicans, I think, have made a very significant mistake here by invading the boundaries of privacy. And I think this is something that the party is going to have to live with as part of what is driving down party perceptions right now, and Republicans are really going to have to figure out a way to talk about family values without appearing to gaze into a person's private life because that is private and separate. ~pbs.org

Are we to believe now that Democrats are incredibly incensed about such private and separate matters?

When Democrats were in control of congress in 1983, two congressman, one Republican and one Democrat, both had sex with underage congressional pages. The impact of each of these scandals tells us everything we need to know about the differences between Republicans and Democrats.

The ways each lawmaker handled the scandal — and the consequences they faced afterward — were very different. Crane apologized for his actions, saying, "I'm human" and "I only hope my wife and children will forgive me." He was subsequently voted out of office in 1984.

Studds, who was openly gay, said the relationship was consensual and charged that the investigation by the House Ethics Committee raised fundamental questions of privacy. He won re-election the following year — in a more liberal district than Crane's — and served in Congress until his retirement in 1996. ~abcnews.com

The response of the Democrat is in line with decades of Democratic behavior in scandal. Likewise for the Republican.

Studds, however, stood by the facts of the case and refused to apologize for his behavior, and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man, who was 17, consented. Studds had taken the adolescent to Morocco to engage in sexual activity, and therefore did not break any U.S. laws in what he called a "private relationship."[1] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996.[2] ~wikipedia

Republican Newt Gingrich called for both men to be expelled from the congress. But what was the punishment given out by the Democratically controlled congress? Censure.

So will Democrats, “protect the children” more than Republicans? Or is their feigned outrage more geared toward winning an election than, “protecting the children?”

Posted by Eric Simonson at October 4, 2006 12:35 PM
Comments
Comment #186176

What a crock.

He’s a scumbag who has been protected by immoral and incompetent fellow republicans for years now. There’s no debate about those facts. But I’m loving the fact that this gets turned on dems because they are on the attack. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

Most importantly, Eric, how is it that you can actually feel good about taking a strategic political approach to such a universally unconscionable act? Just because your overly partisan and underly moral “leadership” in congress takes that reprehensible approach doesn’t justify it coming from you, who doesn’t even have power to lose.

I’m not calling for resignations quite yet. BUT, I think it would be nice to actually see a genuine response rather than seeing congessional leaders trying to be strategic. Morality should NEVER be strategic. Right, Eric?

Once the congressional “investigation” is complete, the facts will be so distorted that no one will learn anything from it. The IM’s were clearly sicko. First hand reports are coming in from politicians and former pages about this guy’s reputation for exactly this kind of thing. How is this defensible? Even for you, Eric, this should clearly be a non-partisan issue that has obvious partisan consequences. Dems have absolutely nothing to do with it. ANY individual who knew something and didn’t report it is a scumbag. ANY individual who didn’t think it was a big deal is a scumbag. Eric?

And I think that any individual who points to past acts by dems to take the edge off this set of facts is a scumbag too. That’s just a little pre-emptive attack, since I know you love them so.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #186177

Eric -

What smear campaign? I just finished reading the headlines and news stories and I have not heard or read one Democrate making any comment on this. They are smart enough to be quiet and lay low while The Republicans fight it out amongst themselves and the press.

“Dirty Tricks campaign”? What dirty tricks? Foley is caught soliciting sex from a minor and the Democrates are up to dirty tricks. But I guess the Republicans weren’t up to dirty tricks when Clinton had sex with Monica.

The shoe is on the other foot. How does it feel to be a victim of the same tactics Republicans have been using against Democrates?

We are now watching the Republican party implode. The party of values. We will see how quickly they will comprimise values for elections.

Posted by: Stefano at October 4, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #186179

Eric,

Nice try. In attempting to indict Democrats for skewing messages and deflecting the matter you are doing exactly the same.

I think, if you look at the most vocal proponent of Hastert’s resignation you’ll find it is not democrats. It is instead the Washington Times. The Washington Times’ editorial board is headed by Tony Blankley, not exactly Mr. “Uber Liberal”.

What the Congressman did (besides the illicit IMs and emails)was betray the trust of the parents who allowed their children to become pages. What the congressional leadership did was to attempt to hide it and not bring the matter to light and solve the problem.

Are there democrats who’s personal proclivities are as bad anything that Foley has done? Of course. Aberrant behavior has no exclusive party affliation.

The democrats will perhaps get the congress back. I for one (as an Independent) would welcome divided government. The entire process has become a cesspool of corruption regardless of party. But in this case, you cannot deflect the pathetic job the Republican leadership has done in handling this matter.

Posted by: Dennis at October 4, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #186183

Eric! This post is fanstastic. Finally! Someone has pointed out the double standards and the real “agendas”.

The Democrats aren’t protecting the children. They are protecting their votes. Hypocrites.

I’m sick to death of always hearing how the liberals cry and whine about the injustice to the children, but they don’t protect those same children before they are born.

Posted by: Dana J. Tuszke at October 4, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #186184

Eric,

I don’t think it’s that Dems are using this as much as this is something that crushes the Republican, Evangelical, morally superior, conservative, protectors of virtue crap the GOP has hypocritically been peddling to the flock.
Conservatives (Not Republicans) or Democrats want the GOP head honcho to step down. Dems want his head on a platter but not immediately. Conservatives want him, Foley and this scandal to go away. Republicans just want the scandal to disappear.
Good luck blaming the Democrats for a clearly
Republican scandal.
Good luck trying to spin “Are you horny?”
You might as well have Cheney in a trench coat exposing himself to girl scouts with kittens during the annual Easter egg hunt.
The Republican facade is no more.
Circling the wagons against children and to protect itself from self destruction at all costs just exposes the corrupt, morally bankrupt jerks who comprise the GOP.
The longer Hastert is in charge the more it will benefit Democrats.
The more the GOP apologists try to spin this the more the party is exposed.
Have a nice day Eric.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 4, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #186186

I’m sick to death of always hearing how the liberals cry and whine about the injustice to the children, but they don’t protect those same children before they are born.

Posted by: Dana J. Tuszke at October 4, 2006 01:19 PM
————————-


This statement is a crock. First of all as Liberal, I don’t cry or whine about anything. I have an attitude that I trust women to make the correct choices with regard to their bodies.

Posted by: Dennis at October 4, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #186187

Dana-

I think you are very confused. The religious right have always been the ones trying to make everything about the children. Then they always turn out to be the biggest offenders.

Your turning this on democrats is disgusting and shows loyalty above morality. Par for the course.

This is not a democrat power play, this is republicans handing them an issue on a platter before an election. Yes, Dana, they will use it. Rightfully so. Nothing partisan about it except the results.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #186191

Its not necessarily certain if Foley actually broke a law by his conduct, it really depends on what the FBI finds.

I completely agree that Clinton commuting that sentence was wrong, and I think its one of MANY things Clinton did that were politically motivated and bad for America.

I also think Newt Gingrich is an amoral monster. Any man who divorces his wife who is just recovering from cancer, then marries another woman who he eventually leaves for a staffer is not a moral compass for America.

Guess what, politicians are liars and murderers. Not some of them, all of them.

What can you do, voting with the GOP or the Deomcrats doesn’t work. Move to England? Its there too.

There is only one solution. I’m converting to radical Islam and moving to Iran…oh wait they have serious problems with morality in public office there too…

Maybe I’ll just become a monk.

Posted by: iandanger at October 4, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #186194

Oh, and in response to your comment that its an october surprise on the part of the Democrats, ABC didn’t reveal much about their sources, but its a Republican that handed them the story.

Someone had the moral authority not to let this guy get away.

Posted by: iandanger at October 4, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #186195

My Name Is Roger:

Does any one know how to spell HYPOCRITE.

I am a Conservative Christian Rupublican, and it does not make any differance to me if it is a Rupublican or Democrat………………….

What Foley did was wrong.

What Foley did was a sin.

What Bill Clinton did with Monica was wrong.

What Bill Clinton did with Monica was a sin.

W H Y ?

W H Y is it when Billy Boy did it, the Democrats say little and did nothing. Now that Foley did it that are screaming get the pervert out of here.

W H Y ?

W H Y is it that when Billy Boy did it, the Rupublicans were screaming get the over-sexed pervert out of here. Now that Foley did it they say we did not know, if we had of known we would have done something about it.

If Hastert knew, and did nothing…. he should be Gone With The Wind, and everone else who knew and said nothing and did nothing.

The same thing is true with clergy.

If a Priest a Minister a Rabbal did something like that…. they should be Gone With The Wind, along with everyone else who knew and said nothing and did nothing.

If we as Rupublicans get fleshed down the toilet with the rest of the crap it is our own fault.

I have said this before and I say it again……..

We need to hold our Elected Officials to a higher standard, and if they do not meet that standard…… GET RID OF THEM, both Rupublican and Democrat.

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 4, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #186197

We need to hold our Elected Officials to a higher standard, and if they do not meet that standard…… GET RID OF THEM, both Rupublican and Democrat.

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 4, 2006 01:48 PM
————————————

Roger, as a Liberal, Agnostic Independent, all I can say about this is AMEN Brother. Excellent post.

Posted by: Dennis at October 4, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #186198
The Democrats aren’t protecting the children. They are protecting their votes. Hypocrites.

I’m sick to death of always hearing how the liberals cry and whine about the injustice to the children, but they don’t protect those same children before they are born.

This message is perfect for illustrating the confusion and madness of right wing. Aside from being completely void of fact, it demonstrates how even when faced with the demise of one of their own on what is advertised as a core value and talking point of the movement, they will tow the party line, try to divert attention and point fingers at the people sitting on either side of them… all this while throwing their own principles and morals out the window.

As humorous as it is, it’s gotten old. Time to learn a new tune.

Posted by: Taylor at October 4, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #186201

When your enemy is destroying himself, the last thing you do is get in his way.

It’s truly, truly comical to watch the Republicans (the so called favorites of the “values voters”) sink up to their necks in their own hypocrisy.

Watching them attempt to throw each other under the bus is getting really funny. Why, already, Boehner has changed his story multiple times. Just now, House majority whip, Roy Blunt said he “would have done things differently if he’d known about it.” (He was the acting majority leader when the complaint was raised.)

When the AP story on this has lines like, “among the excuses given by the Republican leadership are:,” you know they’re in trouble.

Keep throwing garbage at the wall and trying to make it stick; it won’t work. Now, pay attention:

1. Republicans are in charge of Congress.

2. They, “the anti-gay party,” kept the fact that Foley was gay well “closeted” from his constituents.

3. They’ve known about the “sick, sick, sick” email story for a long time now. (They probably knew more. Perhaps they should be waterboarded until they talk, eh?)

4. They deliberately hid the facts from the Democratic members of the house (there is no denying this).

5. They did nothing to protect the other pages who serve in the house.

6. They are the party who claims they can better protect America (yet they can’t even protect house pages from predatory Republican congressmen).

7. There is much more to come…

Suck it up. Your party is run by people who don’t really care about morality issues at all. All thay care about is their own power.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at October 4, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #186204

“Be sincere, be brief, be seated.”

FDR

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 4, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #186206

Much is being made by the fact that the most offensive e-mails, IM’s were sent AFTER the matter was brought to the leadership’s (and I use the word loosely) attention. In the first e-mail there was a request by Foley for a picture to be sent to him of the young adult.
My question to all those who are defending the Republican leadership (mostly by saying they are just as bad as the Dems) is: May I have a picture of YOUR children?

Posted by: Charles Ross at October 4, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #186209

The following is a great example of what makes people so very sick to their stomachs when having to talk politics:

“What Foley did was wrong.

What Foley did was a sin.

What Bill Clinton did with Monica was wrong.

What Bill Clinton did with Monica was a sin.”

What on earth does 1 and 2 have to do with 3 and 4. Completely different in every way, most importantly in the sense that one is in the past and completely irrelevent, and one is confronting us right now.

Anyone calling themselves “moral” should not be looking to the past. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I don’t care what Clinton did, if you believe in Natural Law, then it doesn’t matter right? Right is still right and wrong is still wrong. Period.

The only way we’re going to find out anything of substance is to put non-partisan pressure on those who actually can do something. But instead of doing that, all the “moral” republicans are dredging up the Clinton scandel. WHY oh WHY are you so blatently partisan? It doesn’t help America, it doesn’t help Christianity, and it doesn’t help this specific investigation to employ a “wait and see” strategy. It only helps republicans currently in power.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #186210

Eric,
The Washington TIMES was the first to call for Hastert’s hide - that is as conservative as it gets. Typical of you to blame democrats for a Republican problem.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 4, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #186212

“I completely expect Democrats to make as much out of this as they possibly can, but it does seem odd that when we look at the history of Democrats regarding exactly the same kinds of scandals we see a very different reaction.”

You know, you would’ve thought that the REP leadership would’ve learned by example. It’s never the actions of the scandal that burns representative’s butts - it’s the cover ups they attempt.

Go ask Clinton. Or Libby. If you are not honest with the voters, they will (eventually) send you home. And - it’s usually the cover up that garners legal action.

BTW - this is an “October surprise” simply because the Republican leadership failed to address this issue promptly. End of story. Had they reacted appropriately with Foley in 2005… they would’ve looked like heros. “We will not tolerate this type of behavior within our party.” they didn’t… so now they’re making desperate spins to minimize the fall out. Too little… too late.

As far as the DEMs go - they’ve been pretty quite about it all. they’ve had no reason to jump into this mess… the REPs a screwing things quite well on their own.

Posted by: tony at October 4, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #186213

So Eric aren’t you special with the feature article? Why is it blue?

I believe that anytime there is some wrongdoing in govt office, the offender should make a personal decision to resign or fight. I think Foley is still innocent until proven guilty, and if he wanted to stay in office, fight it and let the voters decide, I’d be all for it. I find it offensive that your major problem with him seems to be that he’s gay.

If he is a sexual predator, then sexual orientation is totally unimportant, and you are trying to cloud the issue by showing your homophobia(notice I did say IF)


BTW, One of the reasons anyone found out about Gerry Studds is because he continued to have a consensual relationship with the page for nearly 10 years, who, by the way, stood by him when he apologized after being censured.

You seem to have a real problem with the democratic process when it doesn’t turn out your way. If Studds stayed in office, it was because his constituents thought he was the best person for the job, and didn’t care about his homosexual relationship with a consenting partner. IOW, they didn’t give a f**k about Eric’s opinion.

Posted by: Loren at October 4, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #186215

Eric wrote: “I suspect that the run up to the election will hold a few more, “October Surprises” from Democrat operatives.”

I am sure you are correct. Republicans have been giving them ammunition to unload for quite a few years now. So, is it the fault of the Republican scandal makers, or the Democrats for pulling them out with a sense of timing like some SwiftBoat campaign? Hmmmm!

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 4, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #186216

Eric:

Don’t lose your cool, just because the Republicans have lost their message that Democrats are “soft” on security.

With your hysterical post you are proving what I always suspected: Republicans always apply their worst faults onto Democrats. Republicans, under the leadership of Karl Rove, are MASTERS of deceit. They are number one when it comes to swiftboating Democrats.

You know damn well this is no Democratic smear campaign. Foley did wrong, the Republican leadership kept its collective mouth shut, and now primarily Republicans - not Democrats - are calling for the resignation of Hastert.

The only thing Democrats like myself are concerned with is the outrageous hypocrisy of Republicans.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at October 4, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #186218

Speaks for itself…

Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:36 PM): actually usually i dont do it in the shower
Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:42 PM): just cause i shower in the morning
Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:47 PM): and quickly
Maf54 (7:52:50 PM): in the bed
Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:59 PM): i get up at 530 and am outta the house by 610
Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:03 PM): eh ya
Maf54 (7:53:24 PM): on your back
Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:30 PM): no face down
Maf54 (7:53:32 PM): love details
Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:34 PM): lol
Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:36 PM): i see that
Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:37 PM): lol
Maf54 (7:53:39 PM): really
Maf54 (7:53:54 PM): do you really do it face down
Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:03 PM): ya
Maf54 (7:54:13 PM): kneeling
Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:31 PM): well i dont use my hand…i use the bed itself
Maf54 (7:54:31 PM): where do you unload it
Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:36 PM): towel
Maf54 (7:54:43 PM): really
Maf54 (7:55:02 PM): completely naked?
Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:12 PM): well ya
Maf54 (7:55:21 PM): very nice
Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:24 PM): lol
Maf54 (7:55:51 PM): cute butt bouncing in the air

Posted by: Max at October 4, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #186219

BTW, this is yet another example of the GOP policy of letting the fox watch the henhouse.

Posted by: Loren at October 4, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #186220

Roger,

Clinton didn’t break the law by getting oral sex from a 22 year old, and it isn’t considered abnormal to sleep with staffers, look at Newt.

Sin doesn’t matter, everyone sins, if sinning was enough to get you tossed out of office, we wouldn’t be able to make quorum in any legslative body in the country.

Sin, the bible, religion, have nothing to do with the law. What is immoral is not always illegal. Gambling is wrong, but it isnt and shouldnt be illegal. Hell, I don’t really think it should be controlled by the government any more than they can make sure the games are not rigged and the money is fully taxed.

What Clinton did was a sign of personal weakness, but its not the same as a fifty year old asking a sixteen year old how he masturbates.

Posted by: iandanger at October 4, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #186224

Republicans have built themselves up as the family values alternative to the Democrats, implying that the Democrats stood for all that was immoral and unclean in America. So, when something like this comes out about a leading member of the Republican leadership, it gains significant attention.

If you didn’t claim you were better that the Democrats on these things, you wouldn’t have to prove it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #186227

Eric and others,

Another tragedy here is that we will never know if the Republicans lose on the issues.

We can speculate forever the motives behind this information being released at this time. Personally I think it was release too soon. But nevertheless, if the Republicans are going to lose, then we will all look back at this and not on the issues of the day. The War on Terror, protecting the rights of detainess and combatants, winning in Iraq, following bank transactions of terrorists along with their phone calls, fixing Social Security.

Of all the items we have to deal with today, some Instant Messages may be the one that causes it. Not the issues. Sad…..

Posted by: MAW at October 4, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #186231

This is a joke, right?

Posted by: Trent at October 4, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #186234

If that is what you think.

Posted by: MAW at October 4, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #186236

Stehphen-

I agree Republicans should be held to a different standard based on their platform.

Foley is out and that’s good. If he gets charged that’s even better, but at least he is out.

I do think the Democrats are overreaching by trying to parley this into getting Hastert, Reynolds, Shimkus, etc. One seat could swing control of the Congress and they’ve put a solid GOP seat in play; pushing this too far might backfire.

Posted by: George in SC at October 4, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #186237

Even if that novella had any truth to it, I would simply infer that the Dems are guilty of using a Carl Rove script.

Posted by: Art at October 4, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #186240

“I do think the Democrats are overreaching by trying to parley this into getting Hastert, Reynolds, Shimkus, etc. One seat could swing control of the Congress and they’ve put a solid GOP seat in play; pushing this too far might backfire.”

Most of this is coming from The Washington Post and conservative groups. I’ve not seen much at all form the DEMs.

Posted by: tony at October 4, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #186241

Eric a couple things wrong with your post. First Hastert and others knew years ago what Foley was doing yet they did nothing. They could have forced him out, but honestly they should have told the police as Foley is a predator. Instead of doing the right thing Hastert and the others that knew did nothing

Second on Foley as all in the House/Senate, they don’t want to resign due to all the bennies, pay etc they get. They figure since they are in power who will go after them? Power corrupts PERIOD.

Now this has happened maybe it’s time for the citizens of the US to force Congress into term limits, so people do not make a career out of sucking the average joe to death, where the power in the beltway does not corrupt them.

There are bad in both parties and maybe this will be a wakeup call to them,but I doubt it.

Posted by: KT at October 4, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #186244

Eric

Thanks for the great laugh, that has got to be the funniest thaing I’ve read in long time. What? You’re serious? HA HA HA, that’s even funnier!

Posted by: mark at October 4, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #186246

Eric,

so… the Washington Times is now a democratic smear tool? Nice try to lay this at the feet of democrats. Don’t pretend to be so morally superior (if by morals you mean gay bashing, making up welfare queens, torture, and other family values). Don’t act like you are morally superior.

Roger,

How anyone in their right mind can compare Clinton/Lewinsky with Foley/16-year old pages is beyond me. If you insist I’m sure you’ll want Hastert to be impeached for allowing this guy to continue preying on minors.

Posted by: Chris2x at October 4, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #186247

I can’t believe all the stupid arguments by the left.

Clinton was OK, Foley is evil??
What kind of logic is that?

The Dem leadership didn’t need to do anything about Clinton’s actions or other members of their own party, but Republicans MUST do something about their members?? What kind of logic is that?

The Republicans are to be held to higher standards merely because they hold themselves to higher standards?? What kind of logic is that?

Get real! Stupid is stupid. If its OK for one party, its OK for the other. IF the DEMS want to be held to a higher standard, all they have to do is hold the REPS to a higher standard.

I say, DEMS should clean their own house before throwing stone one at the REPS. That’s logic.

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #186248

MAW
Thanks for the reality check. All this is is a diversion from the “real issues” that are intrinsic to this election—war on terror, taxes, etc.
Let’s face it, there’s plenty of corruption to go around on both sides of the aisle these days, and ‘wrong is wrong’ no matter who does it. This Foley thing is not a Republican or Democrat issue, it’s an issue of rampant moral corruption in our society at ‘all’ levels! There’s been plenty of moral corruption from such notables as
Wm. Jefferson Clinton, Barney Franks and many others who as I recall are not Republicans.
If we are to have outrage, let’s have equality of outrage on both sides.
These notable examples are just a microcosm of the extaordinary explosion of depravity and moral decline that’s taking place in our society at large. It’s not, I repeat a Republican/Dem issue, or a House/Senate issue, or a government issue….it’s an issue for all of us and our children and grandchildren. The timing of this exposure is extreemly suspect, but it is another sign of our times.
This along with the systematic killing of children-in the womb and out-it’s all a sign of moral and cultural decline.
Whether depravity starts with self hatred, bad manners and disrespect, and disolves from there, whether goodness starts with the self and self respect something is very wrong, something is grossly missing. Children killing children in our schools, adults killing and defiling children in our schools…what the hell is going on in this country????
Sure Foley is a hypocrite, how many others walking around in our midst are the same? Are the Democrats ‘pure as the driven snow’? I think NOT. This is called selective outrage and serves noone. Libs don’t care about this though, because it’s all about their own self/serving attempt at election sabatage.
And attempting to incriminate Hastert is grasping at straws. It’s not going to work.
People in this country need to wake up and see the real problem —- and that is the problem that exists within the hearts and minds of members of our society in the name of “liberation”.

Posted by: linda at October 4, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #186258

Eric - this is one amazing explanation of events: The Democrats did it all as a dirty trick!! WOW, clever bastards. Let’s take a look at that….First they would have had to convince a long term Republican to become gay..er “Choose a homosexual lifestyle” and then have him go after young boys. Hmmm, how to do that? I know…offer him money, Republicans love money, that’ll work. And of course they told him he could just claim he WAS abused as a kid, so that will ultimatley blame someone else and not himself. Then they had to convince another Republican to turn him in, by giving ABC the emails and IMs. Of course getting the media to go after him was easy since Dems own the media (not sure what happened during those Clinton years when he was all over the media, but hey that is another topic). These Democrats are Brilliant!! I mean if they can pull something like this off, then solving the Middle East problems and terrorism is a snap. We should definately elect these guys to run the country. They got my vote. Sure they might be ethically challenged, but hey they are brilliant!!

Posted by: SteveK at October 4, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #186262

SteveK -

Thanks for playing the fool. Now, what do you really think?

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #186264

What could get very interesting is if Foley is charged and convicted. Then, Hastert et al would not be covering up a political scandal, but aiding and abetting a pedophile. And with the recent comments by Foley’s former aide, looks like that is exactly what will happen!

Posted by: David S at October 4, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #186275

David S -

More foolishness!

First, Foley has not been charged with molesting a teen. Second, it is unclear whether suggestive IM’s are even criminal. Third, it appears that Hastert, et.al., knew nothing of the damning IM’s, only about some creepy e-mails. That makes your comments incredibly inane and foolish.

Why don’t you rush ahead to judgment and string up Foley et.al. No need for a trial, you are prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman.

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #186277

There was an easy way out for all concerned. When they learned of this, Hastert and the others could have quietly eased him out, then replaced him. If they had lost then, they would at least have spared themselves the current controversy.

Of course, that would mean risking an electoral loss. When winning becomes paramount, there’s little surprise in either party to what kind of malfeasances will be over looked. Winning, the lesson goes, isn’t everything.

This is what finally killed the legislative dominance of the Democrats in 1994, and what seems to be killing it for the Republicans now.

You have to take care of these issues in a timely fashion, and in a publically defensible fashion. Every skeleton in the closet you know about is a potential scandal that could get in the way of your electoral fortunes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #186279

Kirk Fordham just resigned as Congressman Reynolds chief of staff, stating he notified Hastert’s office 2 years ago, urging them to investigate Foley’s inappropriate behavior toward the pages.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 4, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #186281

Don-
Don’t bother jumping to Foley’s defense. The party members are distancing themselves, and they likely know more than they’re telling you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #186282

Great post Linda. Way to blame the guy’s actions on society. Now abortion is to blame? Now there’s the definition of grasping at straws. How about personal responsability? And NOT trying to sweep this stuff under the rug like all the congressional leaders were and even continue doing.

You’re right, it is not a partisan issue at all. It is a question of people doing and saying the same things. The party of “family values” needs to get its house in order before they start talking about how things like abortion causes damage to common morality. If what is on display in Washington today is at all representative of common morality, then I’d argue it’s not worth protecting.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #186283

Don, what is good for one party is good for the other. So it is ok to break the law, and then say the other party started it. Now that is sure childish to say the least, let alone down right dumb.

If Foley is so innocent then why all of a sudden did he resign, turn himself into rehab(I have a drinking problem booo hooo), then say he was molested 30 yrs earlier? Also with what is coming out now, other republicans and their aids knew what is going on. Foley did no more then what NBC or whatever news agency does with their to catch a predator on TV, and those guys are arrested and charged for the emails. Yes Clinton was wrong on Monica but she was/is of age, a 16yr old boy is not, you can not compare the two, but then again republicans like to compare apple to oranges.

Power corrupts.

Posted by: KT at October 4, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #186285

Don-

This isn’t a courtroom. We are using common sense. The guy did more than just send “suggestive” or “creepy” messages. Don’t you think? Honestly?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #186294

When the reps took control in 1994 it was over the banking scandel. But as Joe Scarborough said when he got to capital hill the reps were just as guilty as the dems but the were in power at the time so voters took it out on them and voted them out. So when things go bad the voters take out there anger on those in power.

Posted by: jeff at October 4, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #186295

Smear! Nobody can smear like the reps I wish we could. Just not as good at lying I guess.

Posted by: Jeff at October 4, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #186296

I was a page at the House and was a friend of the 2005 page who Foley had the AIM conversations with. Let me just say that Don is way off. Whether Democrat or Republican, people like Foley should not be in public office.

I remember Foley hung around us pages a lot more than any other Congresspeople did, and it’s scary to think about that now.
The people in power that knew about Foley’s issues should be ashamed and thrown out of their positions. They put a lot of high school kids at risk.

This is not a political issue: this is a safety issue. Please don’t break this down into the usual political wrangling that we normally get out of issues like this. The Republican Party should not defend this man, they should uphold their standards and punish Foley to the max. They should show the public that they don’t allow practices like this among their own ranks.

Posted by: A Member of the Faithful Lads at October 4, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #186299

Stephen - “Don’t bother jumping to Foley’s defense.”

Who’s jumping to Foley’s defense? Not me. I think he, and all those like him in congress or out, are slime of the earth.

KT - “…it is ok to break the law, and then say the other party started it.”

If you say so. But who said the law was broken? Not me.

Kevin23- “This isn’t a courtroom. We are using common sense.”

I’m using common sense; don’t know what you’re using (could be drugs or alcohol… I don’t know). Common sense says: “wait for the evidence.” No evidence = conjecture. Conjecture has hung many a black man. I don’t think that’s a wise road to travel. Do you?

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #186303

A member/lads -

“Let me just say that Don is way off.”

Way off about what?

“The Republican Party should not defend this man, they should uphold their standards and punish Foley to the max. They should show the public that they don’t allow practices like this among their own ranks.”

Already being done. You’re too late with your suggestion.

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #186304

“good post. right on the money. as expected when you use the dems own tactics on them, all you get is righteous indignation. how dare you say that about us, and it’s not the same thing. me thinks the dems doth protest to much.”

The REP party has you guys vouching for a system that allowed a sexual predator to not only stay in power and endanger more children, but to also write our laws specifically for internet sexual predators. ME THINKS THE REPS don’t protest near enough.

Posted by: tony at October 4, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #186305

Don Wrote:

Thanks for playing the fool. Now, what do you really think?

What I really think Don is that Eric’s post is simply wrong and patently absrurd. This scandal, if there is in fact a scandal is entirely of the Republicans making. Foley is of course the main person responsible, but if it turns out that others were aware of his actions, as is increasingly coming to light that they were in fact aware, then those who knew and did nothing are disgraceful, and should resign their leadership positions. Just as Clinton should have resigned (scandal was not the same, but still disgraceful), Republican Leadership should resign if they had a hint of this. And today, Kirk Fordham is telling all that they DID IN FACT KNOW of Foley and his antics.

Posted by: SteveK at October 4, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #186307

SteveK -

Thanks for stepping up to the plate. I accept your statements and almost agree with you. I think it is a bit overboard to suggest that the leadership should resign if they had a “hint” of Foley’s behaviors. And, based upon Fordham’s statements, we are not sure that they had any more than a hint.

I think the full knowledge of Foley’s behaviors will not be known for some time to come. So far, after 6 whole days, we still know very little about Foley’s antics, who knew about his antics, and when.

I do not defend Foley (that’s for sure). I don’t defend the leadership of congress (Rep or Dem) in this case, either. But no one can condemn them yet either. We don’t have the facts yet!

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #186308

Don -

Sorry for being a little unclear. What I meant was that I didn’t agree that this issue should be politicized like it has been. I didn’t agree with you presenting a comparison with the Democratic party (even though the comparison may have some truth to it).

My point is that political parties should not be discussed in this one. It shouldn’t be presented as “Mark Foley - Republican,” it should be presented as “Mark Foley - Guy who’s interested in sex with teenage boys.” Going back and forth taking shots between parties over this is stupid.

I just disagree with making this a political issue. We all understand that there are bad people in both parties. However, whenever something like this comes up people start talking again about how they believe one party is more responsible than another, etc.

Obviously, you weren’t the first one on this blog to politicize this. But since everybody else was bashing you, I guess I decided to join in to make this point.

Posted by: A Member of the Faithful Lads at October 4, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #186312

Member-

Thanks for the clarification. I would agree that I was politicizing… except that my post was in response to the several posts prior to mine where Dems were politicizing the issue.

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #186313

Eric,

Who are these dems you are talking about? You didn’t name any… This whole page is one rant after another against the democrats for having a double standard, yet I haven’t heard anyone but republicans.

Don,

Are you capable of making a comment that doesn’t insult someone? There really is a difference between Clinton and Foley, and it’s a legal difference, one that any court, conservative or liberal would hold to. I said earlier that Foley should be innocent until proven guilty, but his party has run far away. If the GOP leadership would just have asked themselves, what would Jesus do, they wouldn’t be in the middle of this scandal.

Posted by: Loren at October 4, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #186319

All this B.S. about Foley. So far this month (all four days) 21 brave americans died in Iraq. So many lies from the right.

Posted by: Jeff at October 4, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #186320

Don-

“I’m using common sense; don’t know what you’re using (could be drugs or alcohol… I don’t know).”

If drug and alcohol use equates to demand for accountability and integrity, then sure, I’ll be whatever you say. But don’t fancy yourself anything but a party hack if you think that there was no cover-up. I’d much rather be drunk or high than be in denial.

Common sense says: “wait for the evidence.” No evidence = conjecture.

Again Don, this is not a court room, and we are not in the business of taking away peoples’ liberty. So don’t give me this crap about evidence. If we had to abide by the formal rules of evidence in every circumstance, then we’d have to trade pretrial pleadings for 6 months prior to any debate. That is just plain silly, and should be left for formal proceedings. This is public debate, and is absolutely necessary for a free democracy to work properly. Or would you prefer all public debate be done by lawyers?

We have all we need to know this guy is sick, and that people knew it. What do we have? First hand accounts from politicains and former pages, IM’s, and people from all sides saying they knew all along. Common sense says: congress needs to be repremanded in the only way we know how: Voting them out.

“Conjecture has hung many a black man. I don’t think that’s a wise road to travel. Do you?”

Nice try, but the evidence is all over the news. And those black men were hung by men with prejudice, not because there were no requirements of evidence. That example applies much more to you than me. After all, it is you who conveniently ignores the evidence to come to your own conclusion about things. Sounds like exactly what happened to so many blacks.

I think the wise road to travel is to stop the BS.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #186321

Loren -
“Are you capable of making a comment that doesn’t insult someone?”

I am if they don’t insist upon being insulted. See my posts above.

Legal difference? Immorality and bad behavior is not necessarily a legal issue. I don’t care if there is a legal difference. Slime is slime. You don’t have to decide if it is legally slime to call it slime. My legal references above (judge, jury and hangman) were in response to someone who had already “convicted” Foley and the Reps of “crimes”. Further, the difference is not a real difference anyway because there are laws prohibiting sexual advances in the workplace no matter the age or gender of the subordinant (sp?).

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #186325

Kevin23

You are wrong about me being a party hack. (Again, you convict without all the evidence and pass judgment without hearing both sides.) I am not a Rep. I choose what I will and will not defend.

That being said, I do not defend Foley. There is now plenty of evidence that he knew that he was doing wrong. (courtroom or not)

That people knew he was perverted… that remains to be seen. Obviously some people knew some things. And other people knew other things. But that anyone in leadership knew more than a little of the whole story is quite unclear. Why not give them the same benefit of doubt you would give your dog when the chicken comes up missing!

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #186326
I am if they don’t insist upon being insulted

Whoa I may need to wear a neck brace with that convoluted logic.

Posted by: Loren at October 4, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #186327

Don-

I said you are a party hack IF…

Stop turning and spinning things to make them mean something else.

And after everything that’s come out thusfar (many reports are cited in these threads) you really think party leaders were in the dark? Talk about having faith…and based on what? I’m not convicting anyone and you know it. I’m just saying what’s obvious to everyone except party hacks and do-nothings. Do you qualify? I apologize for mislabelling you if you’re in the latter group. But that is still not a free pass.

And the dog/chicken example is great. If you have a dog that eats chickens, and one goes missing, a normal person protects his chickens against the most reasonable cause. THEN we go looking for absolute truth. If we find irrefutable evidence, THEN we get rid of the dog. This is no different…regardless of what angle you look at it from. But we don’t look for irrefutable evidence while the dog eats chickens at will, now do we?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #186329
But alas, we can already see Democrats over-reaching a bit; and if they’re not careful they will destroy any benefit they could have gained from these planned disclosures.

Overreaching? Most of the criticism of Hastert has come from the right side. Democrats have been mainly sitting on the sidelines and watching the fingerpointing and recrimination among Republicans.

If you really want to see bright side to this, it has taken people’s mind off the disaster in Iraq.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 4, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #186334

One Bad Foley doesn’t spoil the whole Republican barrell.

Should Foley be out of politics? -YES
Should Foley be convicted -I believe so
Should Hastert Resign? -No
Should Bush Resign? -No

Will I continue to vote Republican -OF Course!!

Why should my decent fellow Republicans take the blame for one bad apple?

Posted by: Margie at October 4, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #186335

A few questions for all Republicans posting here:

Are you aware that you are now holding Bill Clinton up as the standard for acceptance into your party? Is Clinton or Stubbs truly the people you want to hold your leaders up to for comparison?

Aren’t you foaming at the mouth? Incensed to the point of madness at the insult to your personal beliefs?

Shouldn’t we all aim for something better? I’ll clean my side of the isle you clean yours. And remember, the level of acceptance we have for our leader’s actions are a direct reflection on ourselves.

Posted by: tony at October 4, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #186336

poor poor eric. The other shoe has fallen. I’m sorry you don’t like reaping what your party has sown.

Posted by: chantico at October 4, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #186348

The White House leaked this story about Foley in order to detract from the one issue that was going to derail the Republican reelections - Iraq.

Hah! Another failed strategy by the Bush Administration. Too funny, and thankfully, far less deadly than their Iraq strategy - Bomb and shoot them and they will love us for freeing them from this mortal existence!

(Eric Speak, in reverse!)

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 4, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #186353

Tony, the point about Clinton has to do with tthe matter of rank hypocricy on the left.

Clinton actually did something far worse than Foley: have sex with a subordinate and then lie about it repeatedly.

It doesn’t excuse Foley and he’s been condemned by everybody. Certainly no Republican is making excuses for him. It’s just interesting that the left DID defend Clinton and defends him still while the right utterly rejects Foley.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 4, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #186354

“Tony, the point about Clinton has to do with tthe matter of rank hypocricy on the left.”

Prove it or get over it. I don’t know a sinlge person who has ever defended Clinton’s repugnant actions. IMO - you seems to be excusing actions simply based on the past. The helps out your party leaders quite a lot, but what does it get you?

So, explain this one:

“WASHINGTON (CNN) — House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s office was notified of concerns about then-Rep. Mark Foley over three years ago — two years before previous accounts have suggested top GOP leaders learned of Foley’s inappropriate behavior, a former aide to Foley told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Kirk Fordham told AP about his warning after resigning Wednesday amid allegations that he tried to protect Foley from congressional inquiries into his inappropriate contact with congressional pages.

Fordham elaborated in an interview with ABC News and said he told Hastert’s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, that Foley was too friendly with the pages, and Palmer talked to Foley.”

Posted by: tony at October 4, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #186357

Margie, One bad apple? Abramoff, Ney, DeLay, Ken Lay, Ryan Sorba, Gov. John G. Rowland, “Duke” Cunningham, and the list goes on and on.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 4, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #186359

kevin23,

What a crock.

He’s a scumbag who has been protected by immoral and incompetentfellow republicans for years now. There’s no debate about those facts.But I’m loving the fact that this gets turned on dems because they areon the attack. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

What on earth are you talking about? Or are you in fact proving my point entirely? Exactly how was Foley protected?

Are you saying that all the homosexual ‘scumbags’ should be turned out of congress?

Most importantly, Eric, how is it that you can actually feel goodabout taking a strategic political approach to such a universallyunconscionable act? Just because your overly partisan and underly moral“leadership” in congress takes that reprehensible approach doesn’tjustify it coming from you, who doesn’t even have power to lose.

I always feel good about telling the truth. I’m not sure if you actually read my post— I’m glad Foley resigned. If he didn’t resign he should be expelled from office. That said, I think that it’s interesting that Democrats suddenly feel that what Foley did was unconsciounable. They keep electing representatives who actually HAVE SEX with pages. All Foley did, as far as we know so far, is send email and instant messages.

But you and I both know that anyone sending these kinds of messages would likely also have sex with pages.

The entire point of my rant is that IT IS the Republicans who punish for this behaviour, and that IT IS Democrats who excuse it.

I’m not calling for resignations quite yet. BUT, I think it would benice to actually see a genuine response rather than seeing congessionalleaders trying to be strategic. Morality should NEVER be strategic.Right, Eric?

That’s the whole point. Which response is more genuine? Republicans who punish this behaviour, or Democrats who do not?

Once the congressional “investigation” is complete, the facts willbe so distorted that no one will learn anything from it.

No, you’re right. These are judgments which are far too important to make with the facts. We must demonize Hastert before we have any facts which might contradict our chosen disgust at what we want to assume that he did or did not do.

The IM’s wereclearly sicko. First hand reports are coming in from politicians andformer pages about this guy’s reputation for exactly this kind ofthing. How is this defensible?

Who is defending Foley? I’d like to know what Republicans you know of who are making any excuses for Foley’s actions, his IM’s, or his reputation as a homosexual who like young boys.

Even for you, Eric, this should clearlybe a non-partisan issue that has obvious partisan consequences. Demshave absolutely nothing to do with it. ANY individual who knewsomething and didn’t report it is a scumbag. ANY individual who didn’tthink it was a big deal is a scumbag. Eric?

That’s my question to you. You seem to say that someone is defending Foley. I am not aware of anyone who is, but your argument is based on this strawman that he is being defended.

And I think that any individual who points to past acts by dems totake the edge off this set of facts is a scumbag too. That’s just alittle pre-emptive attack, since I know you love them so.

Just so I have your position correct… you’re saying that we should judge each scandal as a separate incident taken entirely on it’s own without looking to other scandals like this in order to make comparisons.

But then isn’t this what Hastert is being accused of doing? Of not taking into account the implication of hints that there could be more evidence?

The argument demonizing Hastert seems to be that Hastert shouldn’t have given anyone the benefit of the doubt. In fact, he should have realized that any hint of homosexual or deviant behaviour should be enough to possibly expell Foley from congress.

Posted by: eric simonson at October 4, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #186360

Kevin23

Maybe you haven’t lived long enough to connect the dots between one cultural issue and it’s impact on so many others. It’s like a house of cards. Once you push the first one back the rest just start falling back one-by-one right behind
ie Row v Wade. Maybe you haven’t been around long enough to remember when the ‘sexual revolution’ began and how things snowballed and escalated getting more and more out of control.
I’m not excusing in any way what Foley did, it was unconscionable, but why so much outrage and so much contempt by the same people that condone it and yes, even applaud it, in members of their party?
I agree that he was indeed a hypocrit and should have never been in the position he was. Being a ‘closet’ gay man as he is plays into this also. For him to have access to so many teenage boys is distressing. Obviously his orientation was a problem and is something that is going to have to be addressed in the future with Congressmen and Women in their relationships with future pages/interns. If teenagers can’t be safe from preditors in our Capitol then they should do away with the program. Since apparently, ‘so many’ can’t ‘keep it in their pants’!
The Republicans are the ‘Conservative’ party - the party of strong values—that makes this all the more disturbing. However, this is not the whole Republican party we’re talking about here. It’s ONE MAN. He’s gone now never to return. A ‘bad apple’is gone from the tree, thank God. I hope he can get some serious help and receives appropriate punishment for what he’s done. However, it by no mean is a condemnation of the entire party. And, the good people of this country are smart enough to know that!

Posted by: Linda at October 4, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #186361

The continued references that the ‘Dems were OK with Willy getting a BJ’ seems to be ludicrous and simply put is a false claim. Can you cite one Dem that said it was fine for Willy to have an extramarital affair and sex with an intern? I’d submit there would be very, very few. You will find many that believe it certainly didn’t rise to the level of impeachment which the GOP witchhunt created, and for which the GOP found him not guilty. And as mentioned before, having an affair and consensual sex with an adult is very different than (at a minimum) having internet sex with a minor, especially from a person in a powerful and (should be) trusted position as Foley was.

But every GOP politician and commentator jumped on the morality of Clinton, and how bad he was. Now that it’s Foley sinning, the argument is “Willy did it too!” and the Dems are being political?!

But we all had to know the false Clinton arguments would be presented. Everything wrong in the GOP is his fault don’t you know, 9/11 that happened on Bush’s watch, Bush’s recession, the failed Iraq quagmire, and on and on it goes. Don’t have the facts on your side? Smear Willy.

Posted by: Boomer at October 4, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #186365

Okay, Tony. I guess you remember then how all the Democrats were calling for Clinton to resign as was done immediatly to Foley. I guess you also remember Clinton resigning immediatly in response as did Foley?

Give me a break. I’m not going to try to “prove” things that everybody remembers.

I don’t know what’s going on with Fordham, except that he’s a good friend of Foley’s (they’re both gay Republicans) and the same guy who the LA Times reported this morning tried to cover for Foley and tried to convince ABC to not publish those IMs. I also know that that he was recently forced to resign by Hastert. It will be interesting to see what facts emerge here.

I’m not sure why Fordham would have tried to protect Foley from being discovered on one hand while also trying to report him on the other. It just doesn’t add up.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 4, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #186367

“Are you saying that all the homosexual ‘scumbags’ should be turned out of congress?”

This an issue with an internet sexual predator, and pedophilia. What does homosexuality have to do with it?

“The argument demonizing Hastert seems to be that Hastert shouldn’t have given anyone the benefit of the doubt. In fact, he should have realized that any hint of homosexual or deviant behaviour should be enough to possibly expell Foley from congress.”

When sexual misconduct involves a minor… ummm, yes. The pages knew enough to be wary of Foley - and Hasterts office was warned about Foley’s actions prior to the emails in 2005… it’s all part of a track record that should’ve been enough to call for his resignation. They didn’t and now they must pay for their inaction at the expense of minors under their care.

Posted by: tony at October 4, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #186368

Eric made the following absurd comment: “They keep electing representatives who actually HAVE SEX with pages.”

As if those representatives ran on campaign promises to have sex with Pages. Foley just proves that inappropriate behavior is partisan blind. Nothing more.

BTW, if Republicans don’t like gays, why do they keep electing and reelecting them from their party?

Touche!

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 4, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #186369

stefano,

We are now watching the Republican party implode. The party of values. We will see how quickly they will comprimise values for elections.

From my perspective it is quite the opposite. Democrats are imploding. Republicans are being consistent in their values. It is democrats who are now upending decades of historical position and practice for short term political gain.

Can anyone doubt that if it were advantageous for democrats to be racist that they would do it? The fact that established Democratic values regarding homosexuals and sex with minors is now being reversed for political gain is not surprising to me.

And for the record, pointing out Foley’s sexual deviation and depravity is not off limits.

Lying about Republicans and trying to make Foley’s sexual depravity, which Democrats previously had no problem with, is exactly what we have come to expect from Democrats.

And for the record, pointing this out is also not off limits.

Posted by: eric simonson at October 4, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #186370

“Give me a break. I’m not going to try to “prove” things that everybody remembers.”

OK, then simply say that this is the way you remember things… rather than saying things as fact, which they are not. (I friggin’ hated Bubba Clinton… what a rube.)

It still comes down to you making the argument that Republicans might be no better than Clinton. Can you truly be happy making that argument? Don’t you think you deserve better?

Posted by: tony at October 4, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #186372
Why should my decent fellow Republicans take the blame for one bad apple?

If they were covering up for him, they should take a certain amount of blame.

When it’s the other side, guilt by association apparently has no limits. Apparently I shouldn’t say anything about Foley because some guy I’d never heard of before named Gerry Studs had sex with a page before I was born.

Eric,

Who’s lying about Republicans? The other Republicans who want Hastert to resign? The truth is damning enough.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 4, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #186374

Eric S,

More false GOP smearing arguments. The Foley issue is not about him being gay - that’s your projection onto the Dems. Please try reading a few of the posts to find out what issue Dems have with a 52 year old internet chatting about masturabation, and the “nice butt” of a 16 year old, and the possible cover up of this.

And the ‘Dems have an established value of sex with minors’ claim is a nice whopper as well.

More of the same tactics though - don’t like the debate? make up a few lies.

Posted by: Boomer at October 4, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #186375

Under American law, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty - unless you are a politician. Then it’s not about guilt or innocence, it’s all about the charge.

Foley may indeed be a scumbag. But the only evidence of that fact is a few suggestive e-mails and he said, she said stories in the media.

The fact that he chose to resign rather than fight the charges may suggest that he is indeed guilty of predatory sexual behavior.

Some of the posters on this site would make themselves judge, jury and executioner. But I’ll leave justice to a court of law.

And just for the record, I could care less if Clinton had sex with every female AND male intern in Washington.

But he chose to defile the people’s house and, in doing so, shamed every American citizen. And that is unforgivable.

Posted by: ulysses at October 4, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #186378

Lying about Republicans and trying to make Foley’s sexual depravity, which Democrats previously had no problem with, is exactly what we have come to expect from Democrats.

And for the record, pointing this out is also not off limits.

Posted by: eric simonson at October 4, 2006 09:18 PM
——————————

I know no Democrat that condones pedophelia. I don’t know many Democrats that condone adultery. What exactly are you saying here Eric? That Democrats condone gays? Well, I’d hope so since they are a part of this society just like straights. If you think this is outrageous because Foley is gay, what would you say if it was a girl he was hitting on? Would that be acceptable to you?

This is about kids at risk and sexual predators being protected by their own party for the sake of the party. Who the hell is looking after the kids? Democrats do not condone this behavior, and for you to imply they do is slanderous.

Oh and for the person up post who said this is one bad apple (Foley), you must not have been paying attention to what’s going on in your party, unless it’s o.k. to be in league with people like Jack Abramoff.

The Republican party is pathetic and shallow, and finally the chickens are coming home to roost.

Posted by: Dennis at October 4, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #186380

U,

The courts do need to assume that one is innocent until proven guilty. I don’t recall anyone calling for jail time or imprisonment regarding what we currently know about Foley’s actions. And even if it’s worse than we can all imagine, I believe most would still believe he deserves his day in court if necessary before finding him guilty of breaking any laws.

And the only evidence of Foley being a scumbag are the emails?! I guess these don’t rise to the level of a semen stained dress eh?

But we’re not dealing with the legal principles of the court. I for one, as a parent, can simply read the chat log, deem Foley a creep and form my opinion that he doesn’t deserve to be in a leadership position in the country, regardless of the position and party. I’ll make the same decison on any who may have tried to cover this up if that is a fact that we learn.

And you wish to leave ‘justice to the court of law,’ then condemn Clinton for “defiling” the Whtie House? Um…he had a trial, and the court (GOP Senate) found him “Not Guilty.” Your argument lacks some internal consistency here. Most hypocritical ones do.

Posted by: Boomer at October 4, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #186381

Linda-

You have no clue where I’m coming from, let me assure you. Your narative about the sexual revolution may have SOME truth to it in an unquantifiable kind of way. However, your relating people’s sexual orientation with the act of molesting underage boys shows your deliberate ignorance on the matter. Quite frankly, I think you should go to sensativity training as well. It’ll teach you not to assume causation…especially when you do not understand the subject matter at all. It is deeply disturbing that you are so obviously homophobic and are using this case as a platform to bash people who have nothing to do with this. Disgraceful!

I’m also quite aware that this is one man…one bad apple. One who was protected for years by his “noble” leadership. This is no longer about his actions…its now all about watching the partisan hacks try and put up a smokescreen. This scenario is simply seperating those of us who need not look to party affiliation before coming to the obvious answer (ie DONT protect the guy) from those, like you, who constantly search for a way of protecting the party at the expense of good information. It should never get that far if you are the slightest bit moral. And all the talk about abortion in the world isn’t going to change that.

“why so much outrage and so much contempt by the same people that condone it and yes, even applaud it, in members of their party?”

Who condoned it? Who applauded it? Simple questions. You can’t spew crap like that without answering for yourself.

And if you don’t feel any “outrage and contempt” at your party’s leadership for looking the other way, then I feel really sorry for you. You, if you care about family values half as much as you claim when it’s convenient, should be first in line (just like many of your conservative colleagues immediately were) to demand facts and action. But you don’t…that spells H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

And I also love that stating the obvious and cutting through the partisan non-sense in order to get to the simple heart of this matter equates to “outrage” by “democrats”. I’ll let you in on two things, Linda: first, if holding this guy to standards he himself wrote is “outrage” then most of the outrage is coming from the conservative side of the isle; second, I’m not a democrat, nor do I care at all which party holds the moral high ground. I have never voted for a politician because of their moral values. That would be like promoting athletes and entertainers as role models. It flies in the face of reality. I’m a realist. I hold my children and myself to higher standards than those exemplified by members of any political party. That would be like laying a stick on the ground and calling it a “high jump”. If you do vote for candidates because you think they represent your values, then you must be a really terrible person.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #186382

Boomer-

EXACTLY!

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #186383

Linda spake: “The Republicans are the ‘Conservative’ party - the party of strong values—that makes this all the more disturbing.”

Really, you mean still despite their failing so many of the values that got them elected? Of the 3 trillion dollars national debt added by Republicans in under 6 years, 2.4 trillion of it had nothing to do with the Wars, Katrina, or 9/11. They talk about the value of fiscal responsibility. Where is it?

They ran on smaller government. They now govern an immensely grown and bloated federal bureacracy that would make Democrats jeolous.

They ran on Constitutional values and against judicial activism. Turned right around and not only increased judicial activism but immensely enhanced Executive activism in legislating through signing statements by the White House. And they violated the Constitution repeatedly and hastened to have their lackey Congress pass laws to retroactively make their actions legal.

This party of conservatives reelected this Gay man how many times?

I think what you meant to say is that the Republican party is the party of rhetoric about values. Living up to them is whole other matter - but its the spin and rhetoric and idle campaign promises that make the party, right?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 4, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #186384

“House members and their aides tell TIME that they fear new revelations are coming. On the conference call, a rank-and-file member asked about a report, circulating in the leadership since at least Friday, that Foley had showed up drunk at a page dorm. A House leader said that the alleged visit should be discussed privately because reporters might learn about the call, according to people who were on the call.”

And still the plot thickens… but at least the REPs have their priorities in line - DON’T LET ANYONE KNOW!

Posted by: tony at October 4, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #186393

Eric said,

Can anyone doubt that if it were advantageous for democrats to be racist that they would do it? The fact that established Democratic values regarding homosexuals and sex with minors is now being reversed for political gain is not surprising to me.

Are you for real or just a caricature?

Posted by: Chris2x at October 4, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #186395

Mark Foley is an older gay man who sent sexually sugestive messages to teen pages. Who knows what Fordham really said to who just yet? Nobody is convicting Foley of anything as Eric, Don, and others conservatives here suggest.

The problem is the House leaders did not care to root out an obviously serious problem. The obvious potential for real harm to teenage boys (and the Republican party) was evidently ignored or swept under the rug. Now if either party was in power and had done that it would be a disgrace and WRONG!

What Clinton did with “I’m going to get my presidential knee pads” Lewinsky upset me greatly. I knew Clinton threw away his presidency and that of Al Gore at that moment. I wrote him saying just that. And Clinton flat out lied in court. But the seriousness of the charges against Clinton never rose to the level the Republicans chose to put the whole country thru. It was the climax of campaign of the Clinton haters who continue to hate today.

The Republican party is just sick if it continues to be dominated by moral hypocrites. If you don’t like what the current scandal is doing then don’t lay in the bed you made.

Posted by: Chris2x at October 4, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #186396

Loren (@ 6:49pm)-

“Are you capable of making a comment that doesn’t insult someone?”

Have you been reading the left-wing posts since our little talk? It seems that they can’t avoid insulting everyone. You should talk to them about this.

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #186398

Chris2x -

“The problem is the House leaders did not care to root out an obviously serious problem. The obvious potential for real harm to teenage boys (and the Republican party) was evidently ignored or swept under the rug.”

1. The problem you have is that you have already convicted the House leaders of something when you have hardly any of the facts. There is potential for real harm when people do this.
2. Where were the Dem leaders during this time? They have not been powerless to bring charges of inpropriety. Surely they knew what was going on. So, according to your “wisdom”, they wanted to “sweep it under the rug”, too…that is, unless they wanted to reveal them at “just the right time”. But, you have to be a real skeptic to say something like that, right?
3. Get a grip, man! If anyone in leadership knew they would have done something long ago. What is the advantage to keeping something like this hidden? NONE.
4. Therefore, the “facts” we are hearing now are the same facts the Rep leaders are hearing now.

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #186402

Don,

Where were the Dem leaders during this time? They have not been powerless to bring charges of inpropriety. Surely they knew what was going on.
If you have any evidence (or even allegations) that Democratic leaders knew anything about this at all I would appreciate it if you would share your source. Everything I’ve heard thus far says the opposite—that the GOP went to great lengths to ensure that the Democrats had no knowledge of Foley’s misdeeds.

Posted by: Introspective at October 4, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #186403

Here goes Don again demanding that we leave all debate to attorneys and denying every report and first hand account written to date in favor of this logic: if they knew, wouldn’t they have acted?

Well, that’s exactly what makes this such a scandel now isn’t it?

Every report thusfar has said that republican leadership kept this information to themselves. In our severely polorized congress, what makes you think there is a sharing of information that is so confidential? And while repubs had every political motive to keep it secret, what would similarly motivate democrats? This makes no sense.

And please stop with this crap about convicting him without facts. Those of us with children read the IM’s (hard evidence), listened to the parade of corroborating stories, listened to Hastert safely say “I don’t recall”, watched him resign his post, THEN we decided that we want him and anyone who covered for him out. We all know that people tell the truth right after an event, but as they think more about it over time, they change their story to benefit themselves. Police have known this for decades.

No one is threatening jail time without a trial…so cool it on the demands for evidence…this is public debate, not a formal proceeding. Often, formal proceedings do not produce truth…I can personally attest to that as I’ve seen it many times. Let people use their brains for God’s sake…this issue is important enough to warrent it.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #186407

“Have you been reading the left-wing posts since our little talk? It seems that they can’t avoid insulting everyone. You should talk to them about this.”

OK - so is this to be sole response to critique from the Republican support base? “Look at those other guys.” At what point do you actually attempt to hold yourselves and your leaders accountable to actions? Again, you keep holding up Clinton as “He did it too!” Or “liberals did it.” Is that truly the level you wish to operate at?

Posted by: tony at October 4, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #186409

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15131243/

Hastert knew 3 years ago says a former aid.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #186412

This entire 06 election season is going to end up being a referendum on whether or not voters will reward the nakedly-ambitious relativists of the Democratic Party and their water-slogging lap dogs in the Big Media. Or will they go with a party that is not without its problems and issues {like all people} but has dealt with them and actually has the fiber to stand for and cast a vision for the next 2 years.

I’m watching closely because I beleive in the American people. These are the same folks who elected the ultimate power monger in Bill Clinton twice. I still trust them because the 90’s and Clinton was an outstanding object lesson in the need for politicians with character and moral grounding. Clinton-fatigue was and is real and alive to this day because of his desparate search for a legacy and wanting to matter. Don’t think for one moment that that guy isn’t behind the “scorched earth” dirty politics of the Dems in 06.

The question is simple to the public…Do we reward Dems for having no values, no principals, no shame and no plan or do we keep things as they are and trust that the Republicans can iron out their “issues” effectively.

I trust the people…and the Conservatives to do the right thing.

Posted by: andy at October 4, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #186413

Andy-

Sarcasm, right? Very Funny.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #186415

Kevin23-
“Here goes Don again demanding that we leave all debate to attorneys and denying every report and first hand account written to date in favor of this logic: if they knew, wouldn’t they have acted?”

First, when did I say all this?

Have I ever demanded that we leave all debate to attorneys? NO.
Have I ever denied any report or first-hand account? NO.

So, what’s your beef?

I’ve merely pointed out that you have already pronounced them guilty. You are not debating.

Second, first reports are often inaccurate and overblown. (or inaccurate and underblown). In any case, often inaccurate. Take the example of the poor trapped miners…the families in the church were told that they were found and that they were all alive. Later, they found out that only one survived.

This story has only been out 6 days. We haven’t learned much, MANY essential questions remain to be answered. You have already pronounced guilt on the Rep party and its leadership. THAT, my friend, IS JUMPING THE GUN. It is unfair. You wouldn’t allow others to treat YOU that way, would you?

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #186416

Foley is a pig. I don’t care if he is straight or gay, he has preyed on young pages. Enough with the excuses, Dems didn’t make him write the emails or the IMs. They may have held on to the info to better their position…but what’s suprising about that?

Posted by: shelly at October 4, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #186417

tony -

“OK - so is this to be sole response to critique from the Republican support base? “Look at those other guys.””

Did you even read any of the previous posts? If not, you don’t get the joke.

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #186418

Shelly -
“They (the Dems)may have held on to the info to better their position…but what’s suprising about that?”

What’s surprising???? I thought they CARED about the poor innocent pages!!! You mean they would allow the pages to be placed in danger MERELY to advance their political agenda??? THAT IS SICK!

Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #186421

Don,

When shelly said “held on” to the info I think she was implying “latched on”, meaning they are using it to further their positions—NOT that they had any prior knowledge of it.

I could always be wrong, of course, which is why I’ve already asked you to share the source for your belief that Democrats knew in advance about Foley.

So, do you have a source? Or are you just declaring them guilty without any evidence?

Posted by: Introspective at October 5, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #186422

Introspective -
“If you have any evidence (or even allegations) that Democratic leaders knew anything about this at all I would appreciate it if you would share your source.”

There is much evidence that both Dems and Reps knew that he was gay.

I heard or read somewhere (now I cannot find it) that the initial outing of these IM’s came from a Dem or lib web-site. However, since I cannot find my source, I appologize for making you sweat.

Posted by: Don at October 5, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #186424

Hello all,

When you go around attacking others for not living up to your professed values, it’s a damn good idea to be truthful and actually walk the walk. Logs and motes in the eye, glass houses, kettle’s and pots, and what goes around eventually comes aroun et al. Karma’s a bitch when She finally decides enough is enough! This wouldn’t have been so bad on Republicans if they hadn’t been such arrogant hypocrites in order to corner the so-called values voters! Now truth and justice are breathing fire and hailstones!

Christian Political Leadership, Hypocrisy, Duplicity, and Purposeful Evil

The current scandal involving Congressman Foley is merely the latest in an amazingly long list of blatant deception and duplicity by Republicans and the Christian Right in recent years. While bedeviling us all with their holier-than-thou pretenses, they consistently support and/or perform blatant greed and abominable evil. Never forget the extent of their arrogance over the last two decades and especially the last 6 years. It is beyond amazing that Christians continue to blindly support such obviously blatant scoundrels, even as they are repeatedly exposed going against the most basic of human values. The level of hypocrisy and duplicity boggles the mind. There is no longer any doubt, whatsoever, that Christianity is little more than a purposeful deception used by political and religious leaders to dupe, manipulate, and coerce entire populations into giving them wealth and power, which they always use for greed, injustice, and abominable evils.

The actions of Foley and those who covered up for him directly parallel the actions of scores of priests that have raped innocent children, preyed upon others for centuries, and had their actions hidden and abetted by the Vatican. Now, in eerie repetition of Vatican history, we have a power hungry Christian Emperor (GW) working closely with the Vatican and Judeo-Christian aristocrats to lead crusades in the so-called Holy Land. Furthermore, to leave little doubt about the reality of this assessment, the USA, as the new Holy Roman Empire, is about to legalize the torture it has perpetrated in recent years while steadily reversing many of the democratic and civil freedoms that people gained when the Vatican and royalty lost control of their European empire at the turn of the nineteenth century. Now we see them following the same old path of evil as they strive to cement the status of the USA as the latest proxy Vatican empire. Make no mistake about it, the new dark ages are looming on the horizon unless we do something proactive to prevent it.

Remember that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it!

Read More:
Here is Wisdom !!

Peace…

Posted by: Seven Star Hand at October 5, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #186425

By the way, for those who wish to be accurate, an older person who preys on teens is not known as a pedophile, but as an ephebophile.

Posted by: Don at October 5, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #186426

Seven stab hand -

“There is no longer any doubt, whatsoever, that Christianity is little more than a purposeful deception used by political and religious leaders to dupe, manipulate, and coerce entire populations into giving them wealth and power, which they always use for greed, injustice, and abominable evils.”

Thank you for sharing your ignorance. It helps all the rest of us to feel a little better about ourselves.

Posted by: Don at October 5, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #186431

Don,

There is much evidence that both Dems and Reps knew that he was gay.
Ah, there’s the disconnect! So what? This is not a scandal because Foley was gay, that fact—even if he chose to keep it secret—is not the problem. The problem is his behavior, gay or straight—his sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Do you really think his sexual orientation alone makes him a danger to pages? Is there some law I’m not aware of that forbids gays from working in Congress, or is passing such a law still on the back burner of the GOP’s agenda?

It’s against the Rules For Participation to comment on you and not your message, so let me just quote your message back to you and state that your own words make me feel better about your post:

Thank you for sharing your ignorance. It helps all the rest of us to feel a little better about ourselves.
Posted by: Introspective at October 5, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #186432

Don, an easeier term to remember is sexual predator of underage persons.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 5, 2006 2:44 AM
Comment #186434

andy, I pray you are wrong.

Voting these same incumbents back would be telling them everything they have done and voted on and haven’t done and haven’t voted on, is just fine with the public. That would be a tragedy. Especially with so many Republicans now joining with Democrats in denouncing this fiscal insanity, our perpetual involvment in Iraqi’s civil war, and the incessant attack on our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and this band aid approach to national security that proposes to fence 700 miles of border on many thousands of miles of border 5 years after 9/11, already allowing Hezbollah with fake ID’s to cross through Central America, Mexico, and into our country for whatever purposes, as was testified in hearings last week.

These incumbents have been grossly negligent and irresponsible. And it must stop for the sake of our children’s future in America. Bernanke, the Fed head spoke yesterday and cautioned that time is running out for Congress to find affordable solutions to the baby boom retirement bomb that is fast approaching. Every session that goes by without action, increases the cost or consequences of doing nothing. This is Bush’s hand picked man we are talking about - a Republican of impeccable credentials.

So, no, I pray you are wrong and that voters vote out record numbers of incumbents by voting in record numbers of challengers. It is the only way the people can hope to restore some responsibility, accountability, and fidelity to our founding documents and rule of law, instead of this headlong rush toward rule of men, which our founding fathers overthrew centuries ago.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 5, 2006 2:57 AM
Comment #186439
The formers (conservatives) deplore bad behavior among our own and would demand a resignation,etc.
This has been proven to be false, time and time again, over the past six years.
Why is it easier to call a Christian/ conservative Republican a hypocrite, rather than a liberal?
Answer: To get to the other side.

Or at least, that answer makes as much sense as yours does…

Posted by: Introspective at October 5, 2006 6:32 AM
Comment #186441

As I read some of the above posts, I wonder if I have perhaps stumbled into an alternative universe.

Any comparison between Clinton’s peccadilloes and Foley’s crimes would be laughable if they weren’t so damn ignorant.

What part of consenting adults vs sexual predator don’t you guys understand?
If we are to believe Foley’s lawyer, the statement that Foley was sexually abused as a teen sounds like the beginning of the spin to excuse Foley’s guilt to me.

Foley’s crime isn’t that he’s an alcoholic, or that he’s gay.
The hew and cry is about whether he was a sexual predator, seeking liaison with an underage page.

If such is the case, he should face the maximum penalty for his crime, and anyone who tried to hide the facts should face the same.

Posted by: Rocky at October 5, 2006 7:26 AM
Comment #186443

STOP

I am a conservative and it makes me sick to see repubs calling this “naughty” behavior or taking about what the dems would have done in their party. Foley is not sorry. Yes he has resigned, but he continues to make excuses for his behavior. First he is an alcoholic and now he was sexual abused. Stop spinning. It is a disservice to those who have been sexual abused and who suffer from alcoholism. It is no better than Cynthia Mckinney using the race card everytime something happened with her. Foley and these kids’ parents should all be prosecuted. Any parent who knew pimped their kid and endangered others kids by not saying anything.

Posted by: lllplus2 at October 5, 2006 7:59 AM
Comment #186446

What does it matter if Hastert resigns or not? After
the elections he won’t be Speaker of the House anyway.

Posted by: trublu at October 5, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #186453

So has anyone found out who started StopSexPredators.com yet?

Posted by: George in SC at October 5, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #186458
I always feel good about telling the truth.

Then why don’t you do it more often?

The whole premise of this post is that Democrats have launched this scandal as an “October Surprise”. That’s not at all true. In fact, the news media’s source for the story is a congressional aide who “has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote”

Telling the truth does feel good, but I think you get more pleasure from your conservative hack-jobs; otherwise, why would you spend so much of your time doing them instead of focusing on truth?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 5, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #186459

George,

The site’s registry is the following:
Casino Magnet
Andrew S. (windyeleven@gmail.com)
1.1111
Fax: 1.111111
8214 SE 170th
Portland, OR 97060
US

Why do you ask? The page does not have any content yet.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 5, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #186462

George,

I’ve read a little more in today’s news, and now I understand. The url to the blog that apparently broke the story is http://stopsexpredators.blogspot.com/, not StopSexPredators.com

And I have no idea who’s behind it. The info I gave for the other site is probably someone trying to make a quick buck.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 5, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #186463

The scandal needs to be investigated fully, professionally and properly. Those implicated as having crossed the law need to prosecuted; those implicated as having failed in responsibility need to be penalized and/or removed from the political realm.

Fact is there are a lot of pretty horrible politicians on both sides of the aisle and the fact is we, all of us, put them there and have allowed them to stay. Its time to start replacing many, many incumbents, both sides, long-term and short-term office holders.

Posted by: Jack McG at October 5, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #186465

Sorry about that LawnBoy. I was just referencing Eric’s link in the article above and didn’t get it techically correct.

Rumors are now flying around here about the upcoming outing of a certain (R) Senator in addition to all of the GOP aides. Are we having fun yet?

Posted by: George in SC at October 5, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #186467

George,

Gotcha. I didn’t remember the link from the original post, so I didn’t have context. Thanks.

Anyway, it’s typical of Eric that he assumes that the blog is run by “Democratic operatives” without having any evidence. He feels good telling the truth, but he feels even better making up bad things to say about Democrats.

BTW, the blogger in question says in his most recent post that “I am not employed in Democratic politics. I am not ‘funded’ by George Soros.” (this second part is in response to a claim by Hastert)

Is he telling the truth? I have no idea. Eric has no idea either, but that doesn’t stop him from making up crap.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 5, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #186475

LawnBoy, you can’t blame Eric for linking.

I think when the lid finally comes off on this story it will be more about the gay community or evangelicals then about Democrat and Republican. No doubt whoever it is likes to play politics, and this was a well timed hit. Does it mean the Democrats are behind it? No, but just like the Democrats did by linking the Swiftboaters with Republicans, Republicans like Eric will certainly try to do the same here.

The real “crap” here is when people spew off that this is all about protecting our children. This is all about politics and elections; the pages have to fend for themselves.

Posted by: George in SC at October 5, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #186478

I have no problem with his linking to the site. However, he labelled the link with something he didn’t know to be true. It’s not the link that is the problem; it’s the intentionally misleading label.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 5, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #186480

Man LawnBoy you and me keep missing here! I meant Eric is linking this political attack to Democrats. He is a card carrying Republican; of course he wants to link this attack to the Democratic party. It’s an effective counter because people usually say that they don’t like “dirty tricks” during elections, and all of this is certainly about elections!

Posted by: George in SC at October 5, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #186481

George,

Are you defending Eric’s tactics here, or just acknowledging that they are part of the game?

I know it’s part of the game that Eric plays very well. I know that people on both sides play these games, but I’m doing my best not to let Eric get away with pretending his interest in this case is truth.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 5, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #186484

Eric,

That’s it? For your “dirty trick” links you link to a story about how Foley will be replaced, and then for your post about how the release of the information was “scheduled” you link to a post on a gay website where it’s rumoured that Foley is gay. These is hardly evidence of a conspiracy. However, if you want to read a good story about a politician painted a political opponent (knowingly and falsely) as a pedophile, this is exactly what Rove has admitted doing in the past.

Posted by: Max at October 5, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #186487

Don-

“Have I ever demanded that we leave all debate to attorneys? NO.”

You did suggest we not discuss evidence until formally released. In other words, it must pass the legal tests before it is appropriate for public debate. That is effectively leaving the dissemination of information solely to legal teams.

“Have I ever denied any report or first-hand account? NO.”

You keep saying that we need more info. Yet we have accounts from at least 3 different people saying Hastert knew, and we have emails and a trail of emails going back years. It sure sounds like you are denying the evidence. Trust me, from here on out, anything released is going to be less and less true. It’s the nature of the beast. It is not “jumping the gun” to use clear facts to make necessary changes to protect the legitimacy of our congress. I guess you believe that evidence will still come out which will turn several unrelated people with no related or known grudges into liars? Not likely. My scenario is at least a hundred times more likely, and based on something solid. Yours is a hopeful guess.

“So, what’s your beef?”

No beef. Just bewilderment about why someone would try so hard to defend what reasonably appears to any objective observer as a clear cut case of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”. This is not what we voted them in to do now is it? So why let them off the hook so easily?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #186489

LawnBoy-

We’re communicating now!

No I’m not defending Eric, but of the posters here at Watchblog Eric and American Pundit are the easiest to digest. Both are party advocates, and their posts usually are aimed at the other side. That gets your blood up I’m sure…..

Posted by: George in SC at October 5, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #186492

I agree with IIIplus2 on this one. Foley is now trying to excuse his behavior with disclosing his own history of past abuse. Just b/c someone is abused as a child does not get them a get out of jail free card to do the same.

However I do feel that a thourough investigation should be conducted on whether or not Hastert had prior knowledge of the seriousness of this matter. If he had indication of this and failed to investigate then he is responsible too.

In a recent article in the NY Times a spokeperson for Hastert said:

“The accounts did not include accusations of overtly sexual advances and did not involve e-mail or instant messages of the sort that surfaced last week, Mr. Fordham said. Instead, they encompassed reports that Mr. Foley had been “way too friendly” toward the pages, he said.”

If this is really the case than I don’t feel that the attack on Hastert should be pursued as aggressively as it is currently.
As of right now it is still to some extent a “he said she said” situation and we will find out the truth with the examination of documents, memos, and first hand accounts of office staff.

I think Eric’s point to his post was to show that while there is most definitely a scandal, maybe it can not always be taken all the way to the top. Both parties have political agendas and it’s sad that the truth can get skewed in order to fit these.

Posted by: Becky at October 5, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #186496

Becky-

Kirk Fordham was a top advisor to another republican congressman. He’s not Hastert’s spokesman. He’s also since resigned.

He did tell ABC about reporting Foley years ago and that Hastert’s chief of staff met with Foley about it. Of course, Palmer, the chief of staff now denied that ever hapenned. Deny Deny Deny. That’s why I think something stinks. A legitimate denial is usually accompanied by a believable story. I’ve yet to hear one in this case. They just catagorically denied everything. They’ll gradually admit more and more as time passes. This makes it so that people can’t get emotional and demand that heads roll. It’s so obviously a CYA strategy…which has, unfortunately, become business as usual in Washington. I had hoped this case might be different. Maybe it won’t be. Poeple don’t seem to want to look past the political implications. So I guess we’re now committed to hoping that the investigation is not tainted, that evidence is not lost or destroyed (get that computer already!), and that no political deals are made. I personally have serious doubts.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #186511

Don,]

Stop whining about “convicting” Republican leaders. I’ve said no such thing, even think this Fordham character is just trying to cover his own ass and may not be believable. However, I’m not the only one who has seen what’s been reported and concluded the leadership ignored a serious problem.

Some leading Republicans have publicly blamed Hastert for failing to take action after he was warned about the messages. And a former Foley aide said he told Republican leaders about the Florida congressman’s conduct years earlier than they have acknowledged.

With Republicans concerned about maintaining their congressional majority in the elections, support for Hastert was ebbing. Republican officials said at least a few disgruntled members of the GOP rank and file had discussed whether to call on the speaker to step aside. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the issue.

-AP

And Don said,

Get a grip, man! If anyone in leadership knew they would have done something long ago.

Take off your partisan glasses and just breathe a little. You assume politicians will do the right thing (at least Republican ones) even if it would tarnish their image as the party of morality in the short-term? My grip is just fine but you seem to be a bit off your rocker!

Posted by: Chris2x at October 5, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #186521

Even if no one gives a crap I just had an idea; surprised as some might be…
Bush dropped 3 points over the last few days; the GOP are trying to Save their Majority by dropping tainted members like Hastert; kind of like cutting off a gangrenous leg. So, I think the morality play by the GOP, claiming the moral high ground is finally biting them in the ass, and hard!
This is a silver lining.
If we ignore the stupified sheep who claim ignorance or this a Dem plot etc…, the American conservative is actually starting to hold their own elected officials accountable to some level of standard. The rightwing can now start to join their better half and clean up the freakin mess left by Atwater and his succesors.

Anyway, just a thought.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 5, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #186522

So Mr Hastert et al. are starting the innuendo machine about Dems being behind the timing of the Foley leak.

I’m not denying that’s possible, mind you. But EVEN if it HAPPENS to be true, it means Coach Denny is asking us to believe one of two things:

(1) the Dems knew about Foley and the Gops didn’t (far fetched to say the least), OR

(2) both sides knew about it, and we should believe it’s worse to leak it right BEFORE the election than it would be to cover it up until AFTER the election…

Posted by: crush at October 5, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #186526
Jack wrote: Yet it doesn’t appear to me that Hastert is to blame for Foley’s homosexuality and deviant sexual behavior.

No, just hiding it.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 5, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #186527

Your attempts to turn this mess into a Democratic scandeal; “how dare they schedule the release of information that is damaging to us!” is not only desperate, it is blatantly hypocritical.

The tactic which the Republicans are accusing the Democrats of using, is straight out of the Karl Rove handbook. Does the name Lena Guerrero ring a bell? In 1992, Karl Rove learned that this prominent appointee of then Gov. Ann Richards had lied several times regarding her college transcripts. He sat on the information for months, until the the 11th hour of the gubernatorial campaign, all the while getting Guerrero to speak further on the record on her (false) college experience. When he did finally release the information the result was a major chink in the Ann Richard’s armor.

Was this unethical? Immoral? HELL NO! One of the few saving graces of political parties is that they tend to keep each other in line. If one party find credible evidence of malfeasance against the other I say they have the every right to use it to its maximum political advantage.

And I guarantee you every Republican whining about dirty tricks now would be saying the same thing if Foley was a Democrat.

Posted by: Mike Cooper at October 5, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #186532

Both are “look the other way” parties.
Once again, here we are debating which is more corrupt.
Well, ofcourse, the “IN Party” is, as usual.
So, both parties merely takes turns, while enjoying a 90% re-election rate.

One of the few saving graces of political parties is that they tend to keep each other in line.
Only slightly. The bar is set so, so, so very low, how can one tell the difference? There’s no peer pressure to police their own ranks. Most of the time, they all look the other way. Heck, Sen. John McCain admitted to “looking the other way” on NPR (about DEC 2005). So, what we have is a culture of corruption, and “looking the other way”.

But, WE keep re-electing them, as evidenced by their 90% re-eleciton rate (98% in the House).

Only voters can change it, but voters prefer to wallow in the petty partisan warfare, and are more concerned about retaining a cu$hy, coveted seat for THEIR party, and have lost sight of the fact that the entire bunch (most, if not all) are irresponsible, fiscally and morally bankrupt, and “look the other way”. But, we keep re-electing them. So, clearly, the problem is ALL (or most) of us. Voters and politicians. We’ll most need to wait a little longer for the consequences of so much fiscal irresponsibility to be felt before slumbering voters take notice. Unfortunately, by then, it will be too late.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 5, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #186541

Well at least we all agree on one thing.

Conservatives have moral values and are at least held to standards.
Liberals have no moral values and are held to no standards.

I don’t believe I have ever heard Conservatives claim they are perfect (like Liberals would have us believe). I often here Liberals claim what they do is not wrong because it is personal behavior.

Posted by: Nunya at October 5, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #186552

I think I will give TO a call to script the next episode of this lunacy.

Okay, Here’s the plan:

Back off and let men marry men, women marry women, and totally legalize abortiion. In three generations, there will be no Democrats!!!!!

Darn, I love it when a plan comes together!!

Posted by: tomh at October 5, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #186558

Tomh

Is that supposed to be funny? Maybe if you are a Klan member. I’m not a democrat, but I distance myself as far away from people that spew crap like you just did as possible. You’re serving only to repulse members of your own party…nice job.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #186560

Talk about thin skin. And attacking the messenger whether that person was trying to be on the lite side or whatever.
Good nite. Going to watch some hockey.

Posted by: tomh at October 5, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #186562

nunya, your comment lacks any credibility whatsoever. Fact: Most liberals in this country are Christians or Jewish. Are you then trying to say Christians and Jews have no morals nor standards? If so, then the same argument would have to apply to Republicans, now wouldn’t it?

Sheesh!!!

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 5, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #186563

Awwww-

I guess the message had nothing to do with it, right?

LOL

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #186564

Jack McG, someone owes you a Cigar!!! Right ON! (that’s right with a lowercase r. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 5, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #186568

So is there one person out there who would beleive that you could forget when told that one of your own was abusing young men? The speaker of the house would have us believe that despite being told at least three times he does not remember any of it? Is competency an issue ?

Is there anyone who beleives that ABC news knew about this one year ago and with held the information until election time?

Does anyone believe Pat Buchanan when he says the repubs were pieceing the information together and thats why they did not resolve Foleys alcohol and sexual predator problems previously?

Does anyone beleive Foley has an alcohol problem?

How ironic to hear the repubs call this scandal electioneering by the dems. How ironic to hear the repubs blame the dems for Foley.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 5, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #186570

Dennis Hastert is lying. I saw Hastert on TV, himself, say he thought that was in a pile of things, but thought it had already handled. He didn’t forget. Also, what about the House Page Board meeting where they didn’t include a Democrat Board member (while they discussed Foley). They were trying to cover it up.

It’s not only a culture of corruption.
It’s a culture of “look the other way”.
It’s a culture of “cover-up”.
It’s a culture of “if ever caught, pretend you don’t remember”.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 5, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #186573

j2t2-

No, nobody believes it. But those who tow the partisan line are being exposed in this debate. Those people write about Lewinsky, homosexuality, etc. as if an objective reader will actually read it without stopping, rubbing their eyes, and wondering aloud “Huh?” They honestly do not realize that there are noble conservatives out there right now calling on their leaders to do the right thing. I look at the contrast, and I can tell who is, and who is not capable of objectivity.

At my workplace we have many interns. Even though they are over 18, being caught sending them “suggestive” emails would amount to kissing any chance of promotion goodbye. You just simply cannot seperate work from hedonistic need. Therefore, nobody trusts you. But in Washington, they give you a cute nickname, tell pages to be careful, avoid reporting it, and then when something goes horribly wrong (how else could it turn out?) they act as if that information was not memorable enough to stand out in their “busy” day.

Real people know better. Party hacks blow smoke…what else can they do?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #186574

j2t2

Pretty loose with the facts there. Hastert was made aware of and email he sent to a page which asked for a picture of him. Foley was told to stop it.

If Hastert would have overreacted by censuring Foley or telling him to resign, he would have been hammered by the Dems and the Gay lobby for assuming since he was gay he was also a pedophile.


Posted by: Keith at October 5, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #186575

Keith,

Pretty loose with the facts there.

And then…

…he would have been hammered by the Dems and the Gay lobby for assuming since he was gay he was also a pedophile.

Leading by example?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 5, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #186576

Keith,

When the evidence is about pedophilia, it’s quite a jump for you to make that pedophilia implies homosexuality, so it’s invalid to assume pedophilia from homosexuality.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 5, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #186577

lawnboy

What does any of that mean?

Posted by: Keith at October 5, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #186580

Lawnboy

The evidence given to Hastert was not about pedophilia. Can you show me what you are talking about?

Posted by: Keith at October 5, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #186581

So the majority leader of the house shook with fear that those vicious democrats would bring out the hammer and sick the gay lobby on him. So lacking a backbone he decided instead to not remember anything about Foley and the young pages. Is competency an issue here?
I dont know still doesnt sell. Where is Rove, we need more spin.
This denial will only keep it on the front pages until election, perhaps , and I know this will hurt, a little disclosure would help get it out of the news.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 5, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #186582

Keith,

So you’re arguing that democrats would have publicly called the act of repub leaders censuring one of their own (effectively giving them great press) an act of discrimination? I think you are really reaching. Imagine for a moment a democrat coming out against the censure, then further imagine them on TV saying that innappropriately communicating with a minor page is protected behavoir, and then finally imagine them saying that that protected behavoir was only censured because he was gay. They do this knowing all the while that if they do not do or say anything, they stand to benefit.

Honestly, you know that millions are spent on political advisors, why would anyone employ a stradegy like that? It could only hurt where doing nothing could only help. Nevermind the fact that either party’s direct endorsement of a known gay candidate in a national spotlight has never been good for getting votes. It’s sad, but true…and both parties only do what’s best for their next election chances.

All in all, I’d say you have no leg to stand on.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #186584

You are missing the point, the emails that Hastert saw may have been a little bit weird, but asking a page that worked for you for his birthday or for a picture is hardly inappropriate to the point of censure or removal.

Posted by: Keith at October 5, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #186585

Let me get this straight, a gay adult male communicated with a government employee in an explicit manor, and the media and democrats insist its a ” scandal”. I guess gay Republican consenting adults don’t the same considerations that gay Democrat consenting adults get from the media. I say big deal, as soon as something else looks good for an October surprise, this trash will pass.

Posted by: George at October 5, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #186586

George, your exactly right, not only that the dems made the gay adult male resign and caused him to become alcoholic overnight. Then they force him at gun point to enter a “treatment program” so the whole thing would blow over.
Its all the dems fault.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 5, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #186587

Keith-

How soon we forget what we write, eh? Let me remind you of your “point”.

“If Hastert would have overreacted by censuring Foley or telling him to resign, he would have been hammered by the Dems and the Gay lobby for assuming since he was gay he was also a pedophile.”

And I did read those emails…and I’ll tell you wholeheartedly that I’d want the guy censured. I don’t think it’s worthy of a resignation without more, but coupled with a very notable reputation (pages were constantly warned about him) I think censure would have been a very responsible and proactive thing to do. The party of values should have nipped that one in the bud long ago. Instead, they hide their heads in the sand and act as if that information is not memorable or important. But look out, here come the party hacks saying that they were actually doing the right thing by not giving democrats gaybashing ammunition…conveniently forgetting the whole reason for the censure had nothing to do with the sex of the page, but dealt instead with the behavoir itself being inherently dangerous and likely to cause a future incident. Now, does this sound reasonable to you? Or does it sound like a desperation argument?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #186588

Keith,

“October 5, 2006 10:20 PM” was about your hypocrisy of accusing someone else of disregarding facts while doing the same yourself.

And “October 5, 2006 10:23 PM” was referring to the fact that the issue here is an adult acting as a sexual predator towards a minor. It is pedophilia - the leap that you surmise from homosexuality to pedophilia isn’t necessary.

You are missing the point, the emails that Hastert saw may have been a little bit weird, but asking a page that worked for you for his birthday or for a picture is hardly inappropriate to the point of censure or removal.

No, but they are definitely enough for an investigation and questioning the appropriateness of having Rep. Foley in charge of the committee concerning exploitation of children. The further investigation might have turned up the IMs. Of course, you actually have to follow up on evidence to find more evidence. It wasn’t worth it to the Speaker, apparently.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 5, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #186589

Nice spin job George…one could only hope your child is in that position one day, and you’re forced to confront just how negligent your attitude is about this sort of thing. If no one was willing to protect your impressionable son from the “consenting adult” who wants to see him naked and who also had a great deal of power and influence.

Nice values.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #186591

The nation is sensative about this kind of behavoir for a reason. Because it is almost a foregone conclusion that an unreported incident will lead the aggressor to commit more and more acts to fulfill some kind of sick need. THAT is the primary reason to investigate at even the hint of it. To prevent future harm. Its well worth the effort folks, and no amount of political posturing changes that fact.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #186593

First of all when the emails were send the page was 18.

Second of all you act as if the Speaker has nothing else going on. This was one item among the real work of Congress.

Posted by: Keith at October 5, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #186594

Keith,

No, the page was 18.

Let me know when the current list of excuses runs out. I’m sure we can make up some more for you.

Protecting the institutions of the House are parts of Haster’s job. If you think he’s not up for it, I’m sure we can find someone else.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 5, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #186595

Lawnboy

So what you are saying is that facts don’t matter.

Posted by: Keith at October 5, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #186596

So I’m to believe that the speaker was so sidetracked by his daily routine of meetings regarding legislation, that he just forgot about the fact that a potential sexual devient, who not only belonged to his party but ironically was writing child protection laws too, was potentially putting them all at risk? AND he just hapenned to forget to let any democratic leader know as protocol demands.

He can’t remember. You work in America don’t you? Nobody remembers last years sales projections, but they sure remember who did who.

I love that you think he’s so adamently protecting america that he doesn’t have time for petty gossip. Let alone rediculously juicy gossip that, at worst, potentially damns the whole party, and at best, is a short term solution to a long term problem.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #186597

let me re-phrase the very end: …at best, is a long term problem that covering up would only be a short term solution for.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #186599

Lawnboy

I read your link at NPR. At what point in that timeline did Hastert start this supposed coverup of inappropriate communication.

Posted by: Keith at October 5, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #186600

Kevin23

Liberal hindsight always seem to be 20-20. It’s easy to look back now that Foley resigned and the IM’s have come out and say what they should have done. You can’t say what you or anyone else if you were presented with the weak emails that tehy had at the time.

Posted by: Keith at October 5, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #186604

Keith-

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes my “liberal hindsight” liberal?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 5, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #186609
You can’t say what you or anyone else if you were presented with the weak emails that tehy had at the time.

We just know what Republicans did. What they usually do. Nothing.

Posted by: Max at October 6, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #186613

Bush and his administration, and the “IN Party” must have lost or missplaced their Rose-colored glasses. They can no longer spin things as Rosy, because they, themselves, can’t even buy that Rose-colored [explicative] any longer. Their fragile web of lies and blunders is fallowing apart.

So, they are now going on the attack. Bush now has more venom for Democrats than terrorists. His “your with us, or against us” mentality is growing louder and lounder. He is in complete denial. He refuses to see the significance of No WMD, no link between 9/11 and Iraq, no plans for occupation, ignored warnings prior to 9/11, using all that to violate the Constitution, never able to see his own blunders, never able to admit a mistake, and therefore … never able to correct the path we are on.

Instead, out of ideas, Bush maintains “stay the course”. What course? That’s part of the problem. So, the stategy, which comes as no surprise, is to blame someone else. The “OUT Party” of course. Call them “cut and run obstructionists”, “weak on terror”, blah, blah, blah.

What’s interesting is that Bush does not realize how truly ridiculous and small he looks. What could make him behave this way?

The reason is simple. Bush can not admit a mistake, for that would mean he lead the way to cause the deaths of 2733 U.S. troop deaths, and 20,000 wounded. And the more people shout the truth, the stronger he rejects it, and the more venomous his attacks on Democrats become. He needs someone else to blame, because he can never accept blame himself. That would be too painful. So, the attacks continue. It’s a great distraction. But, is it good enough? It doesn’t appear so. The truth is getting through to many people. Only the most loyal (brainwashed) within the “IN Party”, like Bush, refuse to face Reality. It must be someone else’s fault. Despite the fact that many Democrats went along (exemplifying the overall irresponsibility of Congress and both parties), Bush needs to blame someone else, even if it makes no sense.

To make matters worse, the fiscal picture is dismal. The massive borrowing, debt, spending, and money-printing is growing truly disturbing.
National Debt is now $8.56 trillion.
Social Security Debti is now $12.8 trillion.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp is $450 in the hole.
Medicare and Medicaid have hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for the next year.
Foreign investors in the U.S. National debt are getting nervous.
Median incomes have fallen since 1999.
The economy is merely an illusion of massive borrowing, spending, and money printing.
Now, inflation is rising.
Foreclosures are rising.
The middle-income-class is shrinking.
Nationwide debt is out-of-control.
Debt has far exceeded disposable income (since 2002).
… more …

Posted by: d.a.n at October 6, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #186621

Three Cheers For The California Court Of Appeals

Schwarzenegger For President

Charlie George

Posted by: Charlie George at October 6, 2006 6:38 AM
Comment #186629
So what you are saying is that facts don’t matter.

That’s amazing spin, considering that my point is that you are disregarding the facts. Do you have any support for such a charge?

I read your link at NPR.

Good. So you saw this part:

The e-mails ask about the page’s age (then 16) and his birthday and request a picture.

And how does this mean that facts don’t matter?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 6, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #186632

eric simonson,

writing in defense of pedaphilia and child molestation - either actual or attempted - is wholly unnacceptable, regardless of party.

No other political scandal of either party has ever involved such crimes as this one. The previous scandals of a sexual nature still involved consenting adults who had committed no crime. This is America’s first CATAMITE scandal.

There is nothing more to say here. Call it what you will. Politics or no politics, would you still support anyone who either knew, or should have known, this was going on and yet, because of politics, chose to do NOTHING? …in fact, HID IT FROM EVERYONE? INCLUDING THE PARENTS OF THE UNDERAGE BOY WORKING AS A PAGE IN WASHINGTON?

Call it October surprise. Accuse anyone outraged by this of being partisan. All of this is bluster and is utterly irresponsible on your part considering what has happened.

Posted by: RGF at October 6, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #186636
No other political scandal of either party has ever involved such crimes as this one.

RGF, not accurate by any stretch of the imagination.

I’m sure that someone has already explained Gerry Studds and Dan Crane to you? Both of these involved children working as pages under 18 years of age and actual sex.

Neither one was booted out of office by the democratic leadership, they only got censures.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 6, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #186639
I’m sure that someone has already explained Gerry Studds and Dan Crane to you? Both of these involved children working as pages under 18 years of age and actual sex.
The pages were under 18, but still of the legal age of consent, so the “actual sex” doesn’t automatically make their acts any worse than Foley’s—but certainly no better.

What Foley did is serious, but the MORE serious concern is what is appearing very strongly to be a coverup of his actions by GOP leadership—basically putting pages at risk.

You can argue that Studds and Crane were not punished appropriately, but at least the democratic leadership took action and did not try to hide the scandal from the American people. Incidentally, it was interesting to learn Dan Crane was a Republican—I hadn’t realized that.

Posted by: Introspective at October 6, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #186642

Introspective,

If we find out that democrats also knew about the IMs and waited until October to make it known by leaking them to the press, will you find them at fault as well?

Just curious…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 6, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #186644

This whole thing disgusts me. Like I said, I’m glad that Foley’s gone, and llplus2 is right on target with his analysis of how Foley is trying to justify his own potentially abusive behavior by alleging he suffered this himself. I guess he’s just not done disgracing himself. If, and I emphasize if, it should be proven that Hastert knew more than just about “over friendly” emails, he should either resign or be booted by his constituents.

That being said, I find it interesting that the Democrats are trying to spread blame so much. By their standard, Hillary and the rest of the White House should’ve been warning interns about Bill and rushing to tell everyone is the party’s power structure about it. I don’t recall the Republicans doing this.

The entire line of debate about whether or not the page was legally of age is irrelevant in my opinion. In the case of Foley and Clinton, and the myriad teacher sex abuse scandals, the point is that they all abused a public trust. There are plenty of other professions that don’t tolerate this. Any college professor who sleeps with his students is going to be fired despite the fact that most college students are of legal age. If I, as an officer, sleep with one of my subordinates, I could realistically face 5 years in military prison and a dishonorable discharge for fraternization. The idea that legal age enters into this is ridiculous. ANY person who is in a position of power and trust should not be forgiven when they abuse that same power and trust for thier own sexual pleasure period.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 6, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #186645

So, let me get this straight, liberals are against wiretapping Al Qaeda phones calls coming into the US, b/c it “violates” our ” civil liberties “; yet, it’s ok to look into text messages and e-mails from a gay congressman?!

Huh?!?

Posted by: rahdigly at October 6, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #186646

rahdigly,

Do you know what a SUBPEONA is?

Posted by: RGF at October 6, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #186647

rhine,

a) Studds relationship, which took place after the age of consent, was only discovered because the relationship continued for more than 10 years. Would you still be so antagonistic if it was a female?

b) “If Dems knew”? “If” Bush knew can we impeach him for hiding this? “If” Bush sodomizes Rove everyday in the oval office, would you still love him? “If” you still beat your wife, should you go to jail?

LT,

Do you consider the Dem politicing worse than the Repugs because they’re Dems? Or are you willing to decry the GOP witch hunts?

rahrah,

As usual, nothing said, nothing to reply to.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 6, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #186648

rah,

Yes, it’s acceptable to investigate an individual based on reasonable suspicion with oversight, but it’s not acceptable to spy on citizens with no oversight.

The sexuality of the congressman has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 6, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #186651

Dave

“a) Studds relationship, which took place after the age of consent, was only discovered because the relationship continued for more than 10 years. Would you still be so antagonistic if it was a female?”

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane’s case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds’s case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.

Posted by: Keith at October 6, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #186652

Rahgdigdilly,

Nice try. Again, Foley’s sexual orientation has no bearing on the issue as far ar the liberals are concerned (see multiple posts above). But apparently the gay issue is one that is giving the GOP faithful fits, they bash gays yet elect them and cover up for them; this conflict seems to be difficult for you to deal with. But, for the liberals, it doesn’t matter whether or not Foley was preying on young boys or young girls…wrong is wrong.

And, wiretapping the phones of Americans without a warrant is illegal. The courts have ruled otherwise on internet mail. But, you comment is irrelevent to the current case. There was no government body that illegally obtained anything. It was a news source that first published Foley’s sexual chats.

So, your attempted link to illegally wire tapping Americans without a proper warrant is a big red herring. Unless of course, your position is that Foley being a secual predator of young teens is OK because we should have the evidence thrown out?

Sorry, but that bell is already rung.

That the “values party” is scrambling for a pass on this one is pretty funny though. And so much for the “party of personal responsibility as well.”

What a perfect storm one month before the elections. Sooner or later, we all knew the GOP Culture of Corruption would catch up with them. The timing couldn’t be better.

Posted by: Boomer at October 6, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #186653

rhinehold,

Why does past history mean anything here?
I’m real serious about this issue. I feel like it is the republicans playing games with this one, not the Democrats. Here’s why:

You yourself are offering the now VERY tired republican mantra: “Some of them did it too.”

…why is that relevent? We are talking about the here and now.

Do you want to have a house leader, like Hastert, who is so zealously political that he would brush under the carpet any concerns about one of his own being a sexual predator of children? Would you support Hastert leaving the position of such responsibility (that allowed hin to do this) if it turns out that he KNEW about Foley and his actions toward the pages with enough advance notice to do something about the safety of the kids involved?

Don’t answer these questions politically. Answer them MORALLY.

Posted by: RGF at October 6, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #186654

Rhinehold,

If we find out that democrats also knew about the IMs and waited until October to make it known by leaking them to the press, will you find them at fault as well?
Absolutely! I will condemn any individual—Republican, Democrat, or whatever the hell Lieberman is these days—if they knew and sat on the information for political gain. Be sure to let me know if you come across any evidence to back up Hastert’s empty rants.

Posted by: Introspective at October 6, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #186655

Three More Former Pages Accuse Foley of Online Sexual Approaches
So, what Foley was doing to these House pages goes back at least as far as 1998 — but Hastert and other members of the GOP leadership only recently learned about this. Sure they did.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 6, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #186660

Keith,

Note the relationship started in ‘73, the relations continued at least until “discovered” in ‘83. Ten years, a real relationship, not masterbating to IMs. Isn’t the age of consent 16?

And, yes, the committee voted for reprimand, but the vote in session was 403 to 3 to censure and Studds was forced to give up his Maritime committee chairmanship.
Foley resigned, fine. Should Studd or Crane have? I think it’s “minor” abuse of power and censure was sufficient and I think censure would have been sufficient for Foley too. However, the coverups are a different issue and gayhate by the GOPer base made staying not an option.

See WaPo 7/21/83 pg A1 or here too

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 6, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #186678

Dave1-20-09,

I don’t care much for anyone’s politicing or witch hunts. I’m a socially and economically conservative Catholic who’s voted for the Republican party more as the lesser of 2 evils than anything else. My vote basically comes down to who I despise less, and the Democrats usually are on the losing end. I have to say I think that Casey gives me pause (I’m from Pennsylvania) but I haven’t made my mind up yet.

I think Clinton deserved some level of punishment for the Lewinsky scandal, but not because of the sex issue but for lying to a grand jury. Hillary forgiving and sticking with him was probably punishment enough. I can see how on the philosophical level if the chief executive and law enforcement official of the federal government is himself breaking the law there’s a case for impeachment, but I think the Republicans should’ve settled for a censure and left it at that. The sad thing is that if Clinton had just come out and admitted to the affair and the lying, I would’ve been perfectly willing to forgive him.

I’m not entirely sure what to think of the Foley issue. Obviously its good that Foley’s out. I don’t know enough about what Hastert knew to say if he should bear further blame, but I think it is premature to be calling for his resignation. If it is proven he did know about this, he should be gone and possibly subject to criminal charges. At the same time, I find the timing of this to be a little bit suspect as well. Since I’m sure I’ll hear more about this damned abortion of a situation than I ever will want to, I think I’ll reserve judgement until I have more facts.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 6, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #186689

Nice responses. Way to defend the Foley case and (still) defy the NSA wiretapping program.


So, let me ask you: Taking Foley down, by monitoring text messages on cell phones, is that a “victory” in the War on Terror?!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 6, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #186691

Rahgdilly writes:

“Taking Foley down, by monitoring text messages on cell phones, is that a “victory” in the War on Terror?!”

Umm… no, it’s a victory in the war on sexual predators of teenage children (and those that ignore them).

By the way Rahgdilly, you seem to be implying that the governemnt was illegally wire tapping or getting information without a legally required warrant from Foley. Is this true or just a made up premise to further you little red herring here?

Posted by: Boomer at October 6, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #186695

First off, if you’re mispelling my name on purpose; you seriously have debating issues. What’s that something a twelve year old does?!


All these “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” loud mouths haven’t spoutted off with that mantra about Foley’s privacy. Hmmm! Yet, when it comes to Al Qaeda’s “rights”, you all are (definitely) against tapping their phones.


Some of the comments about the NSA surveillance are that they were “wiretapping phones of Americans”. Uh Wrong. They were wiretapping the phones of (suspected) Al Qaeda members calling the US, so let’s get that right. Talk about “red herring”, jeez!!


Posted by: rahdigly at October 6, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #186698

Rah,

The NSA wiretapping program included tapping the phones of American citizens that were suspected of having conversations with suspected terrorists. You yourself acknowledged that the calls in question have one end in the U.S. This means that one of the parties being tapped could very well be an American citizen. The citizen’s phone would then be tapped without oversight based solely on suspicion.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with a hypothetical investigation of an individual based on that individual’s actions.

You are the one creating a red herring here, and you’re not even basing it on the facts.

Your act is tiresome.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 6, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #186704

LT,

I can see the consistency in the morality of post, what I can’t reconcille is the rationalization. For example “the chief executive and law enforcement official of the federal government is himself breaking the law ” Reno, a woman, broke which law? Even Willie, perjury withstanding, broke what law? And “Hillary and the rest of the White House should’ve been warning interns about Bill and rushing to tell everyone is the party’s power structure about it. I don’t recall the Republicans doing this. ” First theres zero indication Willie did anyone but Lewinsky and if you don’t remember the Willie Witch hunts you’re younger than I thought. They had to dig deep to find something/anything on the guy, spent millions of dollars, and in the end needed a b!tch like Tripp coaching Monica.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 6, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #186706

Gotta add my two cents:

It is Foley, Chairman of the “Missing and Exploited Children” not his homosexuality that is the problem, except that the very Conservative right feels so strongly that homosexuality is at sin. In that respect ONLY I can understand his “not coming out of the closet”. He would have be despised and lost his seat just because of his sexual identity.

It is the fact that he acted on his desires, instead of staying to himself. It is that action in my opinion makes him a “pervert” - a word I hate to use.

It is obvious that no one was concerned about this problem. Nothing was done - by either party. It is this lack of responsibility that has me very angry, and upset, and wanting all Republicans, and Democrats who knew of Foley’s e-mails immediately dismissed, fired, and fined or whatever type of punishment can be leveled at them.

Posted by: Linda H. at October 6, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #186708

Looks for series of “outrages” to be released from the left going into the elections.

Posted by: Stephen at October 6, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #186709

summary of blog…please explain
i watch & see studds & reynolds & crane actually DO indecent acts on young people in their charge, their trusting subordinates…abusing their positions/authority, yet receiving minimal adverse consequence
foley facts to date show only internet relationships…but the man is pilloried

Posted by: unbi-watcher at October 6, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #186725

So, unbi-watcher, can we put you in the crowd defending the underage sexual predator on the basis others weren’t treated as severely as you would have liked or that his actions were only “on the internet”?

Posted by: Boomer at October 6, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #186743

My goodness Republicans trying to blame the Dems for this. We are not that good I wish we were. rove is not even this good. Your blaming The Dems is just stupid. Spin it all you wish its your problem face it.

Posted by: Jeff at October 6, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #186750

no crowd assignment necessary or desired…certainly no defense for any of the above mentioned predators/accused offered or implied…just a simple observation…simple justice of punishment equal to severity of crime should be sought regardless of “crowd” affiliation

Posted by: unbi-watcher at October 6, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #186751

rahdigly,

What’s this nonesense about Al Qeada’s rights!!!?

I’m about American rights. My rights, your rights, OUR rights.

The difference is, you think it’s only the ‘the right people’ who ever get targeted. You’re wrong. I will make the assumption, based on the mindset I see in the tone of your posts, that also support the death penalty. Have you any concept of how many have already been exhonerated by Barry Schek’s team doing DNA evidence appeals on death row cases? Last I was aware they had fully exhonerated over two hundred and that was only the first year they were working on this project and they don’t have very many people on their project and even more limited resources. We have proven that the innocent often get targeted. I wish you would also understand that NONE of us have any constitutional rights if ANY ONE of us does not. We defend those accused because we are defending ourselves. The constitution is not to applied at random or willy nilly. It is ALL OF OUR’S!!!

Posted by: RGF at October 6, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #186795

Unbi-watcher,

Sorry for the crowd assignment, but the GOP excuses of “others did it too so there, what about them” are getting old, and I inferred that your argument was going there by comparing how Foely was treated more harshly than others.

The equal justice debate, while interesting, is a bit out of context. First, the Dem Studds & GOP Crane issues were deplorable, however, they were not illegal. I’m not saying that makes them necessarily better or worse, but because they were not charged with having sex with children under the age of consent, their sex was deemed to be consensual, they were not criminals and removed from office. Voters took care of them. And there is also no evidence to suggest their actions were covered up by their parties’ leaders.

Foley resigned. Under pressure? Probably, but he resigned voluntarily. Had he not, is there a way, barring criminal charges brought against him that either party could have forced him to be removed from Congress? I doubt it. Crane and Studds chose not to resign. I don’t think they were convicted of any felony crimes. The House censured them. Foley chose to quit. It certainly wasn’t the Dems that forced him out, if in fact he was forced out. Had he stayed, barring criminal charges, he’d probably suffer the censuring punishment if he survived the election. But he didn’t recieve a punishemnt, he resigned. Not expelled, not impeached. In fact, there was no punishment put upon him, he quit.

In the end, is it good that a sexual predator is no longer in Congress? Yep. Do I care that the GOP “moral values high ground” rhetoric is now being severely challenged, one month before elections? Yep. Is it good to see the GOP Culture of Corruption finally catching up with them? Yes again.

Posted by: Boomer at October 6, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #186824

RGF,

eric simonson,

writing in defense of pedaphilia and child molestation - either actual or attempted - is wholly unnacceptable, regardless of party.

LOL. (That’s a little IM lingo.) You are demonstrating exactly the dishonest and hypocritical position of Democrats and the left about this ‘scandal’.

i.e. - Defending pedaphilia and child molestation? You must be confusing me with a left-leaning liberal Democrat.

You see, in order to defend these kinds of acts, Republicans would have had to give Foley a standing ovation on the floor of the congress, and help him in his re-election, then continue to give him chairmanships and seniority for many years to come — as Democrats did for Studds, who I might add didn’t just talk about having sex with a young man, he actually did have sex with a young man!

No other political scandal of either party has ever involved such crimes as this one. The previous scandals of a sexual nature still involved consenting adults who had committed no crime. This is America’s first CATAMITE scandal.

Consenting adults? Studds had sex with a minor.

Posted by: esimonson at October 7, 2006 1:30 AM
Comment #186827

Dave,

I think I phrased what I meant in the wrong way. The Democrats are saying Hastert should resign because he may have covered the Foley thing up instead of going to the Ethics committee etc. Essentially, they are trying to spread blame as far as possible to generally paint all the Republicans as monsters on this issue. My point was that the Republicans didn’t try to bring in everyone who could possibly have known about the Lewinsky affair and have them indicted for perjury or obstruction of justice. Based on what the Democrats say Republicans should have done, every single member of the Clinton White House who knew about the Lewinsky affair should have been falling over themselves to turn him in.

Also, my understanding is that the President is the chief enforcer of the law, I was referring to Clinton, not Janet Reno. In the interests of full disclosure, I’ll point out that I don’t particularly care for Reno, but I fail to see how she could be culpable in the Lewinsky affair. Perhaps my understanding of the role of the President is a little off, its been a while since high school civics, but I thought that as Chief Executive part of the President’s responsibilities was the chief law enforcement official of the Federal government. Even if I’m wrong, which I admit is possible, the Attorney General still answers to the President. Anyways, sorry about the confusion, I hope this clears it up.

I do indeed remember the nonsense of the Lewinsky scandal, and I pretty much stand by my other post. I think Clinton should’ve just come forward when the scandal broke, admitted to what he did, pointed out that it was in the interest of protecting his family, and I think America, if not partisans, would’ve forgiven him. The Senate should’ve settled for a censure and left it at that. The impeachment was stupid and ill-advised. I think the Democrats, if they do gain control of Congress, ought to bear that in mind when the decide to go after Bush. Despite the fact that most people were disgusted by what Clinton did, the obvious petty politics of the scandal as it unfolded resulted in people being more sympathetic to Clinton than angry with him and made the Republicans look horrible. I can already see the Democrats doing the same thing and with the same result.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 7, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #186844

isn’t it ironic that the party who pushes teaching 3rd graders how to put a condom on a cucumber, masterbation and homoseuxality as an altenate lifestyle to be embraced rather than scorned, would get their panties in a wad for a senator messaging a page who by the way is of legal age about how to slip out of his cloths?

one more reason not to trust the dims with anything meaningful. when they get caught with their hand in the “cookie” jar they say it is personal, private, consentual, and nobodies business.

but when foley gets caught paging someone, well he is a dirty rotten scoundrel.

what a load of hores s^^t.

lousy group of people and one of the cancers of our country and way of life.

one more reason why this lifestyle is wrong and why the communist want it pushed so it will destroy our moral fabric.

what is the down side of being homophobic? after all it is an alternate lifestyle promoting marriage between a man and a woman and should be promoted and protected like any other group against attack from the homopages.

Posted by: lm at October 7, 2006 8:22 AM
Comment #186852

Sorry for the crowd assignment, but the GOP excuses of “others did it too so there, what about them” are getting old, and I inferred that your argument was going there by comparing how Foely was treated more harshly than others.
Clarification 1) Others did it too…I believe this to be the first cyber-sex scandal…I’m comparing a salacious act conveyed by electrons…to one where coerced physical violations have occurred – in simple terms I’m comparing the internet porn surfer to the regular brothel visitor
The equal justice debate, while interesting, is a bit out of context. First, the Dem Studds & GOP Crane issues were deplorable, however, they were not illegal. I’m not saying that makes them necessarily better or worse, but because they were not charged with having sex with children under the age of consent, their sex was deemed to be consensual, they were not criminals and removed from office. Voters took care of them. And there is also no evidence to suggest their actions were covered up by their parties’ leaders.
2) Cybersex is hardly illegal as well…consider also the age of consent in DC is 16, the youngest age of the identified page involved with Foley was 18
3) Consensual sex, perhaps, but my recollection is alcohol involved in gaining consent…devil in the details

Foley resigned. Under pressure? Probably, but he resigned voluntarily. Had he not, is there a way, barring criminal charges brought against him that either party could have forced him to be removed from Congress? I doubt it. Crane and Studds chose not to resign. I don’t think they were convicted of any felony crimes. The House censured them.
4) Studds chose to arrogantly rebuke the censure…turning his back to the speaker; for which he received 3 ovations from his side of the aisle…does this imply some type of acceptance for buggering youngsters or does it imply something else
Foley chose to quit. It certainly wasn’t the Dems that forced him out, if in fact he was forced out. Had he stayed, barring criminal charges, he’d probably suffer the censuring punishment if he survived the election. But he didn’t recieve a punishemnt, he resigned. Not expelled, not impeached. In fact, there was no punishment put upon him, he quit.
5)Who “forced” Foley out (if anyone)remains to be seen as facts unfold…who knew what & when…on both sides of aisle
6)The punishment I speak of is here & in media where Foley has been gutted far in excess of prior offenders…additionally his resignation is a self-inflicted punishment…I view this resignation as an honorable action, and would have thought likewise had Studds et al similarly fallen on their swords.
In the end, is it good that a sexual predator is no longer in Congress? Yep. Do I care that the GOP “moral values high ground” rhetoric is now being severely challenged, one month before elections? Yep. Is it good to see the GOP Culture of Corruption finally catching up with them? Yes again.
7) One comment/clarification to final paragraph; unfortunately the “culture of corruption” is pervasive & insidious extending far beyond GOP boundaries, my friend…this is no reason for joy or celebration

Posted by: unbi-watcher at October 7, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #186859

This entire thread is stunning to me. Really.

There’s keith who has so little understanding of a Subpeona, or probable cause..or DUE PROCESS for cryin’n out loud, he is actually confusing the issue of searching Foley’s computer and office with the illegal NSA wiretapping!!!

…and he is doing this in DEFENSE of a PEDAPHILE for the sake of politics!

There’s rahdigly who can’t do any better than: “But of them did it too, teacher!” …over THIRTY YEARS AGO! When, I might add, the age of consent was different.

…and he’s doing this in DEFENSE of a PEDAPHILE for the sake of politics!

And then there’s a few of the really rediculous homophobic sellers of hate out there saying REALLY REALLY silly stuff.

…and in the DEFENSE of a PEDAPHILE for the sake of politics!

Then there’s ILT who rants about Lewinski (as though it’s relevent) clearly blurring the line between PEDAPHILIA and an adulturous affair between consenting adults. Silly. Very Silly.

…and in DEFENSE of a PEDAPHILE for the sake of poltics!

There’s Im who, like so many repugnicons, buuilds straw man arguments with silly little snippits of news about teaching kids about condoms - then Im attributes that to the WHOLE Cemocratic party and launches the vitriol.

…and in DEFENSE of a PEDAPHILE for the sake of politics!

What I am seeing here shows me what I feared for the sake of my country. You see, we NEED a two party system. Bush’s rediculous abuses of power - undermining the Constitution, illegal acts of war that earn the animosity of our allies and unnecesarily risk American lives and severely jeopardize the long term stability of America, cover ups and lies etc. etc. THE ONLY SALVATION IS THAT WE HAVE A TWO PARTY SYSTEM AND WE CAN REMOVE THE TWITS.

Except…then there are those…er…THESE…who are supporters of their repugnicon party to such a degree that they become apologists for PEDAPHILES and those who would cover up the actions of a sexual predator for the sake of their repugnicon party-line. A line, I might add, that is running 180 degrees from what the values and priorities of the republican party are supposed to be.

The republicans are lost. They should be cast out to regroup and get back to the basic understandings that made Reagan’s ideas so appealing in the 80’s. That will NEVER happen if they remain. It is hard to believe, but it CAN get worse.

Posted by: RGF at October 7, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #186871

I have a prediction. Democrats think like — well - democrats. This is a lot like the pot calling the kettle black. Democrats think that Conservatives and Republicans will cross over in great numbers and vote for democrats in this upcoming election. I do not think this is going to happen. Here is why: Conservatives do NOT think like liberals. I for one would never be swayed by what Foley did or what Cunningham did or whatever! My eye is on the BIG PICTURE. We don’t have to throw everyone out of office to weed out the bad congressmen or senators. I am perfectly happy with my senators and will be working hard to not let another bloodsucking democrat to be elected to the newly formed congressional district here in south Texas. Foley is gone. The liberals have been sitting on this waiting until now to spring it. I urge all conseravtives and republicans to stand fast and vote! I can’t even imagine Nancy Pelosi as “Speaker of the House”

Rodger McAllen TX

Posted by: Rodger at October 7, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #186874
Foley is gone. The liberals have been sitting on this waiting until now to spring it.

It’s amazing how many people believe this despite the complete lack of evidence. n fact, the news media’s source for the story is a congressional aide who “has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote”.

I guess it’s easier to blame the opposition for your problems than to just deal with the problems.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 7, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #186875

RGF,

Before accusing me of a rant, why don’t you read your own post. You say I don’t know the difference between pedophilia (where did you learn to spell, by the way? If you’re going to use big noticeable letters, try not to look like an idiot when you do.) I said several times that I was glad Foley was gone. I also stated that if it should be shown that Hastert knew more than just that these emails were “over-friendly” that he should resign and possibly face criminal charges. I was discussing the Lewinsky affair specifically to answer a question from Dave.

Here’s a novel idea. Try to stretch your attention span to more than 5 seconds, read what I actually wrote, then apply conscious thought to your response. As it is, the Republicans at least got rid of Foley, which is more than we can say for the Democrats when confronted with a similar problem. Also, I’ll thank you not to accuse me of defending a pedophile. I’m pretty thick-skinned, but I’ll be damned if I’ll sit around and be accused of supporting a pedophile.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 7, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #186878

Unbi-watcher,

Your last post gives me cause to wonder whether or not you indeed do belong to the Foley support crowd, regardless of your attempt to cover the conservative front with the seemingly unbiased name.

Let’s review a few facts, Unbi writes: :”Cybersex is hardly illegal…the youngest age of the identified page involved with Foley was 18
.” First your facts are incorrect, the pages were under age 18 when Foley was having cybersex with them. Perhaps Limbaugh or NewsMax-like right-wing reporting sources are indicating ‘the pages are over 18!’ but they are coyly referring to their current age, not when Foley was IMing them about their mastrubation technique. Further, while it is not illegal (in DC) for an adult to have sexual relations with a person at least 16 years old, that is only if that person is not in a position of authority over the minor. Fairly key exception I’d say. However, it is still illegal to communicate any sexually related materials to a minor, such as magazines or any printed material, which could include Internet messages.

But regardless of the law, and whether it was or wan’t broken, or if he is indicted for anything, to at any level believe that a Congressman having cybersex with a sixteen year old is acceptable is frankly unfathomable. That he ‘was honorable because he resigned’ is simply more evidence that you are a Foley defender. That “others” weren’t treated as harshly, falls right in line with the constant GOP “two wrongs somehow make a right” logic. To in any way defend a sexual predator by implying ‘some Dem did it’ is a childlike response. It would be the equivalent of Dems saying, “Jefferson had thousands of dollars in his freezer? What about Watergate!”

That Crane, et. al, were “only censured” over 20 years ago is irrelevent to the Foley situation and possible cover-up today. So what if not all justice is equal as you claim? Nixon resigned, Clinton was impeached. Were they treated the same? Apples and oranges.

Foley was inappropriate at a minimum. That those in the GOP, the self-named “Party of Personal Responsibilty” want to defend him is laughable. That they wish to blame the Dems for the “October Surprise” another example of how partisan, divisive and out of touch they have become.

Posted by: Boomer at October 7, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #186880

1LT B,

As it is, the Republicans at least got rid of Foley, which is more than we can say for the Democrats when confronted with a similar problem.
Exactly how did the Republicans get rid of Foley? By covering up his actions for 3-11 years? Foley resigned before any other Republicans could do anything about it. I hate to say it, but as much as I despise Foley and his “I’m an alcoholic and was abused by clergy” defense, he still looks more “personally responsible” than the GOP leadership. At least he’s not trying to deny what he did.

lm,

isn’t it ironic that [Democrats] …, would get their panties in a wad for a senator messaging a page who by the way is of legal age about how to slip out of his cloths?
Who’s panties are most wadded-up here? Oh, that’s right—it’s the Republican Evangelical base. Good luck with that one…

Posted by: Introspective at October 7, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #186886

RGF,
“I’m about American rights. My rights, your rights, OUR rights.”


Great! Then don’t include Al Qaeda with “our” rights. They don’t have any rights. They are using “our” rights and liberties to destroy our rights and liberties; and some in this country, including people on this blog, are (actually) defending Al Qaeda (giving them rights) by attacking the “right”. People, the right in this country is not the enemy; neither is the left, yet they sure are helping the enemy (whether it’s fortuitous or not) by attacking the people who are defending them.


Foley is a disgrace; he’s out, so therefore he’s a non-issue. Let’s focus on the war on terror, instead of this “October surprise” bullcrap. Do you think some of you can do that, or is going after the right wing going to be your “jihad”?!!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 7, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #186894

not a foley sympathizer…or a gop water-boy, actually after decdes of moonbat-ism more inclined towards libertarianism…but have to take exception, albeit coyly, age of page identified was 18 at time of incident, he is now 21…that’s the fact…
resignation seems to me the most honorable solution…perhaps you disagree that this quick dispatch pre-emptively diffuses the attack machine…
cybersex seems to be the executable offense of the day…careful what you wish for & hope to enforce as the new benchmark for debauchery…
be reminded that ms. pelosi chooses to march in the SF pride parade in lock-step (& only a few yards) from the NAMBLA representative…seems a bit unsavory in light of current events…

Posted by: unbi-watcher at October 7, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #186896

unbi-watcher,

The page was 16 at the time of the emails. I’m not sure what your source is, but if you think it’s actually the fact, then you should be able to substantiate it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 7, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #186901

introvert wrote good look with that one. well there they go again. it seems it is always the evangelical republicans ….. is there no evangelical dimocrats? why not, well they are always backing murder of unborn babies, alternate lifestyles and the teaching of same to 3rd graders. must be because 3rd graders are the only age that does not already know that this life style is perverted and wrong.

good luck in november dims, i was not going to vote this election because of the mess of both parties but i will vote against hypocrisy and that is just what a partie is that embraces homosexuals on one hand in their party and would call another a sorry *$*&#&& on the other. Dims are liars and not worthy of holding office much less the majority. heaven help us if they are the majority of the country. maybe Kennedy could hold swimming lessons for foley and that would solve the problem of getting the wrong page.

Posted by: lm at October 7, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #186905

lm,

introvert wrote good look with that one. well there they go again.
Who is this “they” you speak of? I acknowledge that the way I phrased things could lead to your confusion about what I meant, so let me rephrase… When I said it was the Republican Evangelical base that had their panties most tightly wadded, the meaning I intended to convey was The part of the Republican base that is comprised of Evangelicals, not all Evangelicals are Republicans.
it seems it is always the evangelical republicans…. is there no evangelical dimocrats?
Of course there are—quite a few. However, it is only the Republican Evangelicals that believed the Republican party was the party of values.

Posted by: Introspective at October 7, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #186918

Lotsa hate there IM. Are you with the “God Hates Fags” group that pickets the funerals of US soldiers?

Posted by: Boomer at October 7, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #186969

hello boomer, no i am not full of hate. i like to pull out of the closet as many homos as possible so the dims can get some candidates. after all it is the party of inclusion in that group. anyone outside your circle is a sorry scoundrel.

i wonder why the party of values is surprised that a self loathing dim in sheep clothing would try to masqurade as a republican in the state of florida? after all he would fit right in with reno, clinton, and many others.

kinda like an expresident still fuming about how he coulda killed ubl if he wanted to.

Posted by: lm at October 8, 2006 9:05 AM
Comment #186978

Hey Boomer,

Don’t feed the trolls.

Posted by: Rocky at October 8, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #187001

rahdigly,

You say “Don’t include Alqeada in our rights. they don’t have any rights.”

How do propsoe to NOT include Al Qeada?
…any other method than a court of law acting on presumed innocence and allowing them to confront the evidence against them, is a denial not only of their rights but a destruction of OUR RIGHTS!!!

GET IT, rehdigly, or LOSE THEM.

It’s that simple.

Posted by: RGF at October 8, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #187004

1lt,

Typical of repugnicons, you attack me for spelling, rather than addressing the issue at hand.

It’s dishonest.

Posted by: RGF at October 8, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #187019

Yeah Eric! Way to show that you care one iota about anything other than partisan crap. I don’t know if anyone ever tought you this, but politics, even partisan politics, are supposed to based upon a vision for the WHOLE NATION. Not just straight people, or people who don’t get abortions, or people that vote straight down your party lines.

Eric said:

“Defending pedaphilia and child molestation? You must be confusing me with a left-leaning liberal Democrat.”

Way to lead by example to a fruitful debate. Your “point” is awfully close to violating the rules for participation, AND they completely defeat any hope of having real credibility. But then again, you NEVER respond to substantive points…I’ll just assume it is because you can’t. Prove me wrong…I’ve left plenty of posts if you need something to pick apart instead of moving in a constructive direction. You’re posts are becoming pathetic!

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 8, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #187021

RGF-

I like your posts in this thread.

And I noticed I spelled “taught” wrong in my previous post, so I’m sure that the spelling and grammer police will declare my entire post to be wrong by default.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 8, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #187048

LT

Thanks for the cogent reply. I don’t agree with it but, hopefully, there will be future opportunities to bring you to the light :-)

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 8, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #187052

There is a VERY salient quote from the movie “A man for All Seasons”

It is about the life and trial of St. Thomas Moore.

Thomas is confronted by his dear friend, Norfolk, and asked by his friend to sign the oath recognizing the Divorce of King Henry VIII and the creation of the Church of England. He declines saying: “If you knock down all the laws to get at the devil and the devil turns on you, what will you do?”

Fitting for our catastrophie of an adminisration today and for a response to rahdigly and 1lt.

We cannot willy-nilly sometimes have rights and sometimes not. We cannot pretend to value Due Process, Democracy and innocence until proven guilt and then sometimes allow those things to be suspended.

We absolutely DO NOT KNOW who among the detainees in Gitmo ever actually fired a shot at an American soldier. Some did. Others did not. By the admission of those who actually did the CAPTURING, we don’t know. Soem were taken captive together, others were not. WE DON’T KNOW!

If we fail to honor basic principles of justice and fairness and democratic principles, we lose all moral authority in the eyes of our allies, the the Islamic world, our enemies and even more devastatingly, OURSELVES!

It is not enough to have the captives subjected to military tribunals that deny them any semblance of a fair trial. To do so actually undermines OUR rights. It undermines our relationships with our allies, our moral authority in the eyes of the rest of the world and our faith in ourselves. It must not be allowed to continue.

It does even matter how ‘certain’ it may be that any one of the captives may be directly and completely involved in terrorsit activity against our nation or in affiliation with either the Taliban or Al Qeada. Any failure on our part to convict that captive in court of law, that begins by presumed innocence and allowing them to confront the eveidence arrayed against them, UNDERMINES THE VERY PRINCIPLES BY WHICH WE ALL LIVE.

If we destroy our very selves to get at the devil, we become the devil and the terrorists and the devil, win.

Therefore, it very much IS the ‘right’ which is the more insidious enemy of the nation right now.

Posted by: RGF at October 8, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #187102

RGF,

Good post. It’s clear there is no “presumption of innocence”. Suspicion is enough for BushCo and their new and improved SS.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 9, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #187106

Dave,

I appreciate the support, but not the venom.
I want them to actually understand what they are doing, so a patient and careful tone is more productive. We don’t have to convince Bush (We couldn’t anyway) but we can convince his hopefully - former - supporters.

Bush cannot be elected again, but if we vote in his ‘yes-men’ again we contribute to the further destruction of America.

Patience will make this clearer than anger, no matter how justified the anger is.

Posted by: RGF at October 9, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #187144

RGF,

Sorry if the “venom” I expressed is felt as a detraction. At some point in time there had to be a transition to a “rage against the machine”. To me, the behavior of this administration is a grotesque perversion of my core value of treating all people with basic human dignity.
Patience is a virtue, and is always needed for the teacher. But soon enough patience will put us in a Gulag. For petes sake, they passed a law that suspends habeas corpus because the Dems were scared that they would look “weak on terror” otherwise. Are these voters, of whom they are worried, the people who will be swayed by patience?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 9, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #187164

Dave,

I agree with you, but what is the alternative? Civil War in our own country? The number and magnitude of injustices would have to increase before enough people were willing to go to that desparate a solution. May God forbid that should happen.

What we need to do is prevent desparation violence and motivate a solution by motivating voters. We need to get the 18 - 25 year olds out there voting. That age group overwhelmingly supported Kerry, but was too cynical to believe their vote counted and thus were absent when the time to vote actually arrived. We need to give them both hope and cause for motivation.

We need to out drive our vote over the vote of those who don’t see the damage they are doing. Even if we make no converts at all, we can win with that strategy. Provided, of course, the election is fair.

I, too, get terribly angry when I see the the ignorance of those lemmings who would have charge like lemmings over the cliff and destroy the very foundations of our own country in pursuit of the terrorists. I can just imagine Osama bin Laden laughing his head off in some cave in Pakistan while the republicans complete his job for him. It sickens me to see ignorance prevail.

But we cannot fight their misguided vitriol with our own angry venom unless we have already conceded on some level that we are headed for Civil War. I won’t concede that. I would rather motivate voters wherever I can.

Posted by: RGF at October 9, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #187240

RGF,

I agree with you. But a calm voice in a storm isn’t usually heard over the wind and in this political climate speaking softly in reply to the lies and smears of the GOP slimemachine simply makes candidates look weak. It’s time for a response like Willies. It’s time to speak to the GOP base just the truths; repeatedly, loudly, clearly, forcefully, with conviction, without regard to the slimers. I’ve been trying to skip the bait terms, but sometimes they come out anyway.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 9, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #187257

I know what you mean, Dave.
We’ll just fighting the good fight.

I have engaged in flame wars as well. It’s just that after awhile you realize, there is nothing you can say or do…nothing you can offer as evidence or analysis that will sway any of them. I mean hell, on this very thread they are writing in defense of a pedophile who has the right political label attached just for the sake of politics while simultaneously blaming the Democrats for playing politics! It’s a sickness based on sinful false pride.

So, then what?

Engage in more fruitless flame wars?

That’s all I’m saying.

Posted by: RGF at October 9, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #187268

RGF,

Good point. I initially looked at this blog as a way to hone debate skills for my real life. Then it became a mission to convert the uninformed. Now, I’m not sure, the informed seem to be informed only about what they already percieve to be reality. Hardly any open minds, few cogent arguemnts to change my mind either.
Mostly it seems a way to see what the GOPer talking points are and a chance to show up the stupidity of the (r)wingnut position. I only stay for the gamblers high of the occasional real transfer of ideas.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 9, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #187276

There’s a little of that here…
precious little.

Posted by: RGF at October 9, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #188096

Off to Betty Ford .

Posted by: assassin at October 14, 2006 10:31 AM
Post a comment