October 04, 2006
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 PMWhat 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 01:09 PMEric -
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 01:11 PMEric,
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 01:15 PMEric! 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 01:19 PMEric,
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.
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.
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 01:27 PMIts 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 01:45 PMOh, 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 01:47 PMMy 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 01:48 PMWe 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 01:51 PMThe 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 01:51 PMWhen 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 01:55 PM“Be sincere, be brief, be seated.”
FDR
Posted by: Tim Crow at October 4, 2006 02:00 PMMuch 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?
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 02:09 PMEric,
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.
“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 02:13 PMSo 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 02:13 PMEric 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 02:22 PMEric:
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 02:24 PMSpeaks 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
BTW, this is yet another example of the GOP policy of letting the fox watch the henhouse.
Posted by: Loren at October 4, 2006 02:34 PMRoger,
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 02:36 PMRepublicans 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 02:56 PMEric 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 03:02 PMStehphen-
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 03:28 PMEven 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 03:28 PM“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 03:41 PMEric 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 03:44 PMEric
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 03:57 PMEric,
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 04:01 PMI 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.
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”.
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 04:28 PMSteveK -
Thanks for playing the fool. Now, what do you really think?
Posted by: Don at October 4, 2006 04:39 PMWhat 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 04:45 PMDavid 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 05:13 PMThere 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 05:24 PMKirk 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 05:29 PMDon-
Don’t bother jumping to Foley’s defense. The party members are distancing themselves, and they likely know more than they’re telling you.
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 05:31 PMDon, 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 05:32 PMDon-
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 05:37 PMWhen 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 05:55 PMSmear! 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 05:58 PMI 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 06:02 PMStephen - “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 06:12 PMA 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 06:20 PM“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 06:22 PMDon 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 06:30 PMSteveK -
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 06:38 PMDon -
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 06:38 PMMember-
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 06:49 PMEric,
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 06:49 PMAll 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 06:59 PMDon-
“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 07:01 PMLoren -
“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?).
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 07:17 PMI 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 07:20 PMDon-
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 07:28 PMBut 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 07:36 PMOne 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 07:49 PMA 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 07:57 PMpoor 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 08:02 PMThe 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 08:41 PMTony, 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 08:55 PM“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 08:57 PMMargie, 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 09:03 PMkevin23,
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 09:08 PMKevin23
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!
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 09:10 PMOkay, 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.
“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 09:15 PMEric 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 09:15 PMstefano,
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 09:18 PM“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 09:20 PMWhy 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 09:23 PMEric 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 09:28 PM
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 09:30 PMLying 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.
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 09:41 PM
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 09:41 PMLinda 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 09:43 PM“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 09:44 PMEric 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 PMMark 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 PMLoren (@ 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 PMChris2x -
“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.
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
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“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 PMhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15131243/
Hastert knew 3 years ago says a former aid.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 4, 2006 10:56 PMThis 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 PMKevin23-
“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 PMFoley 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 PMtony -
“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 PMShelly -
“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 PMDon,
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 AMIntrospective -
“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 AMHello 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 his