Silly Excuses

Tom Maguire, who I genuinely think is interesting and has a lot to offer the blogosphere, pens perhaps the silliest excuse possible (although I have not checked the Powerline’s deep thoughts on the matter, so ‘silliest’ might not be fair) for why the GOP leadership sat on the Foley story and did nothing:

However, picture this headline – “House Leadership Boots Allegedly Gay Republican On Trumped-Up Pedophilia Charges”. Ugly. Worth Avoiding. Listening to Andrew Sullivan decry the homophobes in the House would not have been worth it. So they played it a bit too cautiously and slowly and here we are.

They didn’t do anything because they were afraid of Andrew Sullivan.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Here is an alternate theory that makes more sense- the GOP is full of shit and more concerned about retaining power than governance, and therefore decided that if they could quash the story and keep Foley in a ‘safe’ seat, they would.

Which of those two scenarios sounds more plausible? And btw, am I the only who thinks it is profoundly offensive that it is just assumed that because Sullivan is gay, he is going to go to bat for a pervert?






161 replies
  1. 1
    Geoff says:

    We’re here! We’re Queer! oh shit….

  2. 2
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    That’s beautiful.
    Seeing the wing nuts scrable for a talking point, any talking point, is simply making my weekend.
    There is no upside for the GOP coming out of this. And this ain’t anywhere near done.

  3. 3
    Keith says:

    They played it a bit too cautiously? A bit too cautious is at the very least getting the guy to step down from heading a caucus devoted to protecting kids from sexual exploitation over the Internet.
    But the problem is that this group of folks views everything in a political perspective, so the first priority is to minimize political damage. I do wonder what the threshold is for seeking justice even at the expense of your party’s standing in the next election.

  4. 4
    Bill Arnold says:

    Here is an alternate theory that makes more sense- the GOP is full of shit and more concerned about retaining power than governance, and therefore decided that if they could quash the story and keep Foley in a ‘safe’ seat, they would.
    I believe that’s what TM said, though well cloaked in snark and obtuseness.

  5. 5
    Richard 23 says:

    I read in the comments that CREW somehow got the IM transcript and sat on it until it would help the Democrats. Apparently its time to go after Soros funded CREW.

    Some of the commenters too stupid to figure out how to save chats figure that this is entrapment or something similarly nefarious. I suspect AG Gonzalez. He does want to protect us from porn after all.

  6. 6
    Hyperion says:

    Hey, the version of the quote *i* saw had John Cole’s name in there along with Andy. i remember thinking that JC’s ascendance to real playerhood was complete.

  7. 7
    Hyperion says:

    Hey, the version of the quote *i* saw had John Cole’s name in there along with AS. i remember thinking that JC’s ascendance to real playerhood was complete.

  8. 8
    Bill Arnold says:

    There is a retraction about the alleged CREW-hoarding of IM transcripts later in the comments on the TM thread.

  9. 9
    sglover says:

    All this outrage shows why liberals can’t be trusted in the fight against IslamoNaziism. It takes Republican courage and Republican creativity to enlist NAMBLA in the struggle. I believe Congressman Foley rates a Presidential Medal o’ Freedom, at least.

  10. 10
    srv says:

    As bad as mainstream media is, at least they have minimal standards. The best the wrong-o-sphere today has to offer is shit that doesn’t even make sense to their own base.

    Is there any medical research on kool-aid overdose? Just how much high-fructose cornhole syrup can someone take?

  11. 11
  12. 12
    Zifnab says:

    “House Leadership Boots Allegedly Gay Republican On Trumped-Up Pedophilia Charges”. Ugly. Worth Avoiding.

    Totally. The last thing you want is for our Republican Congress to come off looking anti-Gay right?

  13. 13
    DougJ says:

    I wouldn’t be too tough on T-Mac. At least he’s not blaming it on George Soros and Joe Wilson.

  14. 14
    John Cole says:

    The last thing you want is for our Republican Congress to come off looking anti-Gay right?

    It’s like they haven’t been running on an anti-gay platform the last 3 decades.

  15. 15
    sglover says:

    I’d never heard of this Tom Maguire guy before; I don’t think I’ve been missing much. But that comment thread is some of the most awesome comedy gold I’ve seen in months!

  16. 16
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    You can taste the palpable desperation over at Maguire’s site.
    ABC, George Soros, the St. Pete Times – they’re all in on it!

  17. 17
    Pb says:

    Richard 23 Says:

    BREAKING: Foley Set Up?

    Comedy gold! If idiots like this didn’t exist, we’d have to invent them. Wait, does Mac Buckets have a blog?

  18. 18
    DougJ says:

    Don’t worry, though, the commenters over at T-Mag have been pretty tough on Foley.

    In fact, consensus seems to be that he was reprehensible in his actions.

  19. 19
    Pb says:

    Now here’s a real story:

    “I was sitting yesterday with Karl Rove, Bush’s top advisor, at the NCAA basketball game, discussing Israel when this email came in. I showed it to him. It seems that the President was very sad to have to come out negatively regarding Israel, but that they needed to mollify the Arabs for the upcoming war on Iraq.” — Jack Abramoff, 3/18/2002

    Bets on whether or not the media notices?

  20. 20
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Over at Talking Points Memo:

    When you see Majority Leaders and Speakers and Committee chairs calling each other liars in public you know that the underlying story is very bad, that the system of coordination and hierarchy has broken down and that each player believes he’s in a fight for his life.

  21. 21
    sglover says:

    From the comedy thread. I did NOT make this up:

    Just think if the evil Bushies were not around and Saddam was still in power his son the child molestor and baby killer would still be plying his trade. But hey, that is child’s play {as they say} compared to this.

  22. 22
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Commenter at Captain’s Quarters:

    it almost sounds like the page was recruited to go after Foley.

  23. 23
    CaseyL says:

    Bets on whether or not the media notices?

    Iraq = Old news. Therefore, boring. Also the MSM was in the bag for Bush, cheerleading for war and sitting on stories that would’ve shown it as a con job from the start. Covering it now? Only makes ’em look bad.

    Foley = New news. Plus, a sex scandal. Therefore, sparkly and fun.

    Like a lot of other people, I’d’ve preferred to see the GOP totter and fall on more qualitative grounds. But, hell, I’ll take what I can get.

  24. 24
    tsoodonym says:

    The district was solidly Red! If the GOP were truly an engine of Realpolotik, they would have pressured Foley into “spending more time with his family” and found another warm body.

    It isn’t possible that the blatant liberal stereotype of the Bush administration’s arrogance and incompetence extends into the House leadership, is it? How do you blow this call??

  25. 25
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    If the GOP were truly an engine of Realpolotik, they would have pressured Foley into “spending more time with his family” and found another warm body.

    Funny you mention that scenario. In early 2003, Foley was being discussed as a possible candidate to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Bob Graham in ’04. But Foley suddenly said he wasn’t interested, because he had to take care of his parents.

  26. 26
    CaseyL says:

    About that initial investigation…

    I’ve heard two slightly different versions of what happened.

    One is that Hastert delegated the investigation to people who “weren’t in touch with the page program.”

    The other is that the page program manager either didn’t know about, or ignored, the situation.

    But the pages knew about Foley. They’d taken it on themselves to warn the new guys about him.

    There’s a lot here to be angry about. To me, that’s the worst part: that the pages were essentially abandoned by everyone, and had to try dealing with the matter themselves.

  27. 27
    scs says:

    Can you people READ? Check out the latest NYT front page story on it.

    It says that only the ‘overly friendly’ emails to the one page were disclosed to the GOP bosses last year, after which they warned Foley to stay away from the pages. It wasn’t until after the ABC story was aired last FRIDAY that the higher ups were told of the graphic contents.

    Aides to the speaker and other Congressional Republican leaders said the messages, which an Alexander aide described to them as “overfriendly,” were much less explicit than the others that came to light after ABC News first disclosed the e-mail correspondence with Mr. Alexander’s page

    I mean I’m not defending the guy or his superiours, but until we know the full story and/or find out otherwise – let’s not prejudge the actions of his superiors. And you all hate Nancy Grace because you think she prejudges? Oh the irony.

  28. 28
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    the pages were essentially abandoned by everyone, and had to try dealing with the matter themselves.

    How much juice does a page have? None. To the GOP leadership, these boys were expendable becuase they were the epitome of powerless.

  29. 29
    Pb says:

    scs Says:

    Can you people READ?

    LOL! No, sorry, I’m laughing too hard…

  30. 30
    scs says:

    No, sorry, I’m laughing too hard…

    Maybe at the voices in your head.

  31. 31
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    It says that only the ‘overly friendly’ emails to the one page were disclosed to the GOP bosses last year, after which they warned Foley to stay away from the pages.

    If that’s the case, then why lie?

    House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was notified early this year of inappropriate e-mails from former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to a 16-year-old page, a top GOP House member said yesterday — contradicting the speaker’s assertions that he learned of concerns about Foley only last week.

  32. 32
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    scs,
    The GOP leadership didn’t know about the more explicit stuff because they didn’t want to know.

  33. 33
    scs says:

    It depends on what you consider inappropriate. I don’t know if the earlier emails rose to that level, as they were described as “overly friendly”. Until we know otherwise, let’s not prejudge.

  34. 34
    CaseyL says:

    Hey, scs – Go tell it to the kids who had nobody defending them.

    Yeah, you go explain to a bunch of 16-year old kids that the GOP leadership thought so little of them that it didn’t bother investigating Foley’s multiple, repeated, sexual overtures to them.

    The latest news is that five pages have come forward.

    Not one, not two, but five.

    Tell it to the kids, scs.

  35. 35
    Pb says:

    Maybe at the voices in your head.

    Not everyone hears voices, scs–just because you might, that doesn’t mean that it’s normal. In fact, I’m starting to wonder about all these Foley defenders out there. Do they think this is somehow normal too? How many Republican perverts and/or victims are out there leading double lives right now, and how do they deal with it–for example, can you really blame Bill Clinton for *everything*? And I wonder how all those Congressional pages will turn out:

    His sudden resignation as a Congressman, a position he loved, came only hours after he was confronted with e-mails and AOL instant messages he had exchanged with a pair of teenage boys. ABC News since has reported that as many as five boys — all congressional pages — have come forward.

  36. 36
    scs says:

    The GOP leadership didn’t know about the more explicit stuff because they didn’t want to know.

    They’re the GOP, not the Psychic Friends Network. Maybe they didn’t know because the boy didn’t want to release them. Apparently his parents said he didn’t want to get involved in this issue. Which kind of makes me wonder how anyone ever got them. Perhaps some sort of computer break in by the Dems, maybe as an election time stunt? It does seem a little timely. Hmmm…

  37. 37
    scs says:

    Yeah, you go explain to a bunch of 16-year old kids that the GOP leadership thought so little of them that it didn’t bother investigating Foley’s multiple, repeated, sexual overtures to them.

    The latest news is that five pages have come forward.

    From what I know so far, they only came forward AFTER this story broke.

  38. 38
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    scs,
    Don’t try to defend the indefensible.

  39. 39
    KC says:

    This whole thing was clearly a setup by Crew; the liberal media; Bill and Hillary Clinton; Chuck Schumer; the DNC; the DSCC; the DCCC; liberal Republicans like Andrew Sullivan, Colin Powell, and Brent Scowcroft; the State Department; activist judges; and of course, communists and terrorists.

  40. 40
    Pb says:

    It’s amazing how the Republicans will recite their own playbook, chapter and verse, whenever they try to blame or smear Democrats for absolutely anything with no proof.

    Perhaps some sort of computer break in[…], maybe as an election time stunt?

    Yep, sounds like a familiar tactic. Some people just have no morals and therefore will do anything to win. That’s perhaps the only way you can run the country and consistently spin the media, and *still* be historically unpopular.

  41. 41
    sglover says:

    Funny you mention that scenario. In early 2003, Foley was being discussed as a possible candidate to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Bob Graham in ‘04. But Foley suddenly said he wasn’t interested, because he had to take care of his parents.

    Maybe he was intimidated by the awesome political genius of the unbeatable Katherine Harris?

    I almost think the GOP is trying to win me back by giving me hours of belly laughs.

  42. 42
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    scs, yes or no answer: If it’s discovered that GOP House leaders knew Foley was hitting on underage boys yet did nothing to stop him, should they be forced to resign?

  43. 43
    sglover says:

    Hey, scs —
    Do you have any archived comments anywhere from 2003? I’ve got a feeling you wrote some hilarious stuff about the new Utopia that was gonna spring up on the banks of the Tigris.

  44. 44
    scs says:

    Again, I’m not excusing what he did. But just how did these emails come to light, right now, if the boy didn’t release them? If there was some informant, I’m guessing it more likely to be a Dem informant – which is fine. The only thing I question is the timing. Wouldn’t it just as reprehensible if some Dem party operative knew about these reprehensible emails for a long time and held on to this info, so that it could be released right before the election? That would show just as much disregard for the safety of the children.

  45. 45
    tBone says:

    for example, can you really blame Bill Clinton for everything?

    Yes. Remember those two teenagers he murdered with a train? Smart money says they were pages who refused to go along with the Soros-funded Foley entrapment conspiracy.

  46. 46
    scs says:

    scs, yes or no answer: If it’s discovered that GOP House leaders knew Foley was hitting on underage boys yet did nothing to stop him, should they be forced to resign?

    I would say yes. But they would have to have fully known the seriousness of the harassment.

  47. 47
    scs says:

    yet did nothing to stop him, should they be forced to resign?

    On the other hand, I’m not exactly sure what they can do. I mean, can they just fire the guy, even though he is independently elected? I would guess he would have to be impeached, but I don’t think Foley actually committed a legal crime as the boy was above legal age. It would be more like sexual harassment in the workplace – which is taken care of civilly. I don’t know what the procedure is for this stiff.

  48. 48
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    But they would have to have fully known the seriousness of the harassment.

    And if it’s found their investigation last year was only cursory?

  49. 49
    tBone says:

    Shorter scs:

    “I’m not excusing what he did, but the Dems are just as bad.”

    There’s a concept in civilized society called “shame,” scs. You should look it up.

  50. 50
    scs says:

    And if it’s found their investigation last year was only cursory?

    Well it would have to be super cursory. They are not private detectives. If no one came forward to them, even after they asked around, I would think they did what they could.

  51. 51
    KC says:

    scs, I think we’ve got this one figured out: It was the Democrat, with the emails, right before the 2006 elections. Now, if only the rest of the country would realize this. Damned Democrats!!!

  52. 52
    Pb says:

    My understanding is that some Republicans in the House have known about Foley for at least eleven months, and that the FBI has known about it for at least two months. At some point, ABC found out about it, and presumably did some digging, asked around, and then broke the story. I don’t see ‘Dem party operative’ anywhere in there, though. That part must have been added by the voices in your head.

  53. 53
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Well it would have to be super cursory.

    Why would it have to be?

    They are not private detectives.

    Doesn’t Congress have a police force? They’d have detectives.

  54. 54
    scs says:

    At some point, ABC found out about it,

    Yeah that’s the part I’m curious about.

  55. 55
    Richard 23 says:

    “I’m not excusing what he did, but [insert excuse here].”

  56. 56
    scs says:

    Doesn’t Congress have a police force? They’d have detectives

    Again, as the kid was of age, it would not be a criminal matter, only civil. They couldn’t force anyone to answer questions.

  57. 57
    CaseyL says:

    From what I know so far, they only came forward AFTER this story broke.

    Let’s try this again, slowly.

    scs: the pages knew. The pages were warning one another about Foley. Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow in the NYT, but for months now.

    So tell me. Did the people Hastert delegated the investigation to not even bother talking to the pages? Or did they ignore what the pages had to say?

    You’re still flogging the Schiavo-was-murdered-by-her-husband crap, based on testimony from somebody’s hairdresser or something. You’ll accept as proof medical statements from people who aren’t qualified to comment on the subject. You don’t care where the statements come from, or who makes them, or what their agendas might be, as long as they say what you want to hear.

    Yet you think it’s OK to have an investigation of sexual predation that doesn’t even talk to the people being victimized? Or ignores them if they were interviewed?

    You consistently set new benchmarks for willful obtuseness.

  58. 58
    KC says:

    Pb, you’re missing the whole point here. There was a nefarious Democrat behind this somewhere. I mean, the stalwart religious men who lead our House of Representatives can’t be so unscrupulous as to try and bury the colorful exchanges between Mark Foley and that “page,” right? The good of the country, as we all know, always comes first for them.

  59. 59
    Richard 23 says:

    On the other hand, I’m not exactly sure what they can do. I mean, can they just fire the guy, even though he is independently elected?

    Good Lord. Maybe get him off the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children?

  60. 60
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    it would not be a criminal matter, only civil

    You sure about that?

    A spokesman for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed late Saturday the agency is deciding whether to press charges against former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, who hastily resigned from office Friday.
    “We will be discussing this matter with the FBI in an effort to determine if there are grounds for a criminal investigation and if so, who has jurisdiction,” said Tom Berlinger, chief media spokesman for the FDLE.

  61. 61
    scs says:

    Did the people Hastert delegated the investigation to not even bother talking to the pages?

    I don’t know if they spoke to them or if they did, if the pages told them anything. That’s why I am going to wait for a little thing called the “facts”. You should try it sometime.

    You’ll accept as proof medical statements from people who aren’t qualified to comment on the subject

    . Yes Oxford University and CalTech medical reseachers are not as qualified as Maureen Dowd and John Cole to give me medical information.

  62. 62
    scs says:

    If the kid was of age – and he was 16, and 16 is the age of consent in most states, I doubt there would be any criminal charges. Naughty emails are not against the law. I would have to find out what the age of consent is in the kid’s home state – or the state in which he was living when he received these emails first to know.

  63. 63
    Pb says:

    From Bloomberg:

    Democrats made clear the matter was kept out of their hands. While Representative John Shimkus, an Illinois Republican who’s chairman of the page board, said his panel had looked into the matter, the Democrat on the board said he was never informed of the matter and the board did not discuss the matter until Sept. 28, after Foley had resigned.

    Some page board. Of course, this is how the Republican majority does everything in Congress nowadays–and now Republicans are pissed that Republicans are being blamed for their participation in a Republican-only cover-up. Well maybe you should have thought of that before you entirely stopped performing your Constitutional duties to provide Congressional oversight!

    And then they have the temerity to “question the timing”. Why didn’t this come out last year, or six months ago? Becuase Republicans didn’t want it to come out at all, otherwise it would have come out earlier. However, *this time*, they weren’t successful in holding it until at least after the election, as they had been in 2004, with so many stories. Because, back in 2004, even The New York Times was actually willing to hold off for a year on publishing damaging stories just on the administration’s say-so. Well, now their stock has fallen, so that trick isn’t working so well nowadays.

    And make no mistake–these partisan hacks don’t give a damn about protecting children–not when it might upset their chances of winning elections! But, as often happens, their cover-up has finally caught up with them. Now let’s see how they manage to blame Clinton this time.

  64. 64
    Richard 23 says:

    scs says:

    I don’t know what the procedure is for this stiff.

    Maf54 (7:58:59 PM): but it must feel great spirting on the towel
    Xxxxxxxxx (7:59:06 PM): ya
    Maf54 (7:59:29 PM): wow
    Maf54 (7:59:48 PM): is your little guy limp…or growing
    Xxxxxxxxx (7:59:54 PM): eh growing
    Maf54 (8:00:00 PM): hmm
    Maf54 (8:00:12 PM): so you got a stiff one now
    Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:19 PM): not that fast

  65. 65
    Pb says:

    scs,

    You’re wrong. Read through the past threads on this, or just get informed, period, before you make stupid, already debunked statements.

  66. 66
    scs says:

    Good Lord. Maybe get him off the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children

    Well that’s true. Strange how the pattern is always the same, how the perpetrators are always hanging out where the enforcement is. Like murderers who become cops. I wonder why that is.

  67. 67
    scs says:

    Okay, after eading the transcript, if the guy was 16, and participating, why was he so offended by it? Couldn’t he have just signed off? Foley wasn’t his direct boss.

  68. 68
    scs says:

    You’re wrong

    I think that was an auto reply.

  69. 69
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Naughty emails are not against the law.

    And now we get to the beautiful irony.
    Under the so-called “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006(of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any “minor” under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14) (“MINOR.–The term ‘minor’ means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years”) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) (“’minor’ means any person under the age of eighteen years”).

  70. 70
    Pb says:

    Strange how the pattern is always the same, how the perpetrators are always hanging out where the enforcement is. Like murderers who become cops.

    Or foxes who guard henhouses, or totalitarians who falsely pledge to uphold the Constitution. Yep.

  71. 71
    Pb says:
    You’re wrong

    I think that was an auto reply.

    You’re wrong.

    :)

  72. 72
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Never got one of these next to my post before. Anyone know what’s going on?

  73. 73
    scs says:

    Looks like any old post to me.

  74. 74
    Pb says:

    Gold Star for Robot Boy,

    Did you have more than two links in it? That’ll do it…

  75. 75
    scs says:

    or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any “minor” under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense

    Well that is ironic. If that is law then he’s in trouble.

  76. 76
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    No, I sent a reply with three links in it, and I have a hunch it can’t be seen by anyone else. Must’ve be triggered an anti-spam filter.

  77. 77
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Did you have more than two links in it? That’ll do it…

    ding! ding! ding!

  78. 78
    Richard 23 says:

    The pages knew to warn each other about it, a report got to house leadership about a page who was creeped out about it, and the House leadership couldn’t be bothered to give a damn. Then they lied about it.

    The FBI was given the IM transcript a couple of months ago and never bothered to do an investigation as far as I can tell from available information.

    Republicans don’t care about children at all. They care about votes.

  79. 79
    scs says:

    You know, those IM’s remind me of IM’s I get bombarded with in chat rooms all the time. The sex drive of humans (men) still amazes me. The internet was very educational for that for us all- as, who knew?

  80. 80
    Richard 23 says:

    It sounds like the investigation performed by House leadership amounted to

    Q: Are you sending creepy emails
    A: Er, no
    Q: OK! Go raise some campaign cash!

    Instead of something like contacting pages and asking if they had received unwanted creepy communications, perhaps anonymously.

    Why? They simply didn’t give a damn.

  81. 81
    scs says:

    Honestly the whole idea of “pages” is a bad idea. Mixing high schoolers and horny pols is asking for trouble. Just the name “page” sounds like some perv’s fantasy. The program should be ditched.

  82. 82
    srv says:

    You know, those IM’s remind me of IM’s I get bombarded with in chat rooms all the time. The sex drive of humans (men) still amazes me. The internet was very educational for that for us all- as, who knew?

    You spend alot of time in chatrooms?

    I’ve got it! Foley was just doing research on this, for his work on legislation.

  83. 83
    scs says:

    You spend alot of time in chatrooms?

    You don’t have to spend a lot of time in chatrooms to get those. A few minutes is usually enough.

  84. 84
    sglover says:

    Honestly the whole idea of “pages” is a bad idea. Mixing high schoolers and horny pols is asking for trouble. Just the name “page” sounds like some perv’s fantasy. The program should be ditched.

    Right. We should keep bright, ambitious kids far away from the seat of government.

    Y’know, every now and then I’ll see a news story about a teacher or coach who’s put the moves on a high schooler. Guess we oughta shut down the schools, too.

    Are you capable of holding a job, scs?

  85. 85
    scs says:

    Tell me any other professional place where we have highschool students as young as 16 working with adults in the workplace? No place. Why should Congress be any different?

  86. 86
    scs says:

    Are you capable of holding a job, scs?

    Are you capable of any logical thought?

  87. 87
    Pb says:

    scs,

    You don’t have to spend a lot of time in chatrooms to get those. A few minutes is usually enough.

    You know how I hate to burst your bubble, but a lot of those messages could very well be automated–some major chat rooms on IM services are clogged with that sort of garbage.

  88. 88
    scs says:

    I know that. You get those. But I’m talking about starting a convo with someone. 9 out of 10 times those lines come up within minutes. Still trying to figure out if that type of person is attracted to the internet or if all people are like that deep down if given the anonymity of the net. Who knows. Someone should do a study.

  89. 89
    Pb says:

    Tell me any other professional place where we have highschool students as young as 16 working with adults in the workplace?

    Apart from a 16 year old who gets an actual job, also pretty much any sort of volunteer work or internship program. I was actually required to do some such work as an entrance requirement for a school when I was 16 or so.

  90. 90
    sglover says:

    Tell me any other professional place where we have highschool students as young as 16 working with adults in the workplace? No place. Why should Congress be any different?

    Um, well, schools, like I said. I’m pretty sure that lots of retail and food service joints also routinely employ 16 year olds, under adult supervision. Errmmmmm…. Are you saying that the youngsters are just too damn frisky to be resisted by any adult?

    Look, I know you think you were making some kind of point, but if I were you, I think I’d drop it before I backed myself even further into the silly corner.

  91. 91
    scs says:

    Well I never heard of anyone doing that. Internships were for college students. In fact I worked part time at 16 at a store, but there were very strict rules about how many hours a week you could work, and where you could work etc. I never heard of a 16 year old working with full time adult workers. In fact, I remember to be a receptionist I think by law you had to be 18, so having a 16 year old in the work place is just not done.

  92. 92
    scs says:

    Are you saying that the youngsters are just too damn frisky to be resisted by any adult

    No I’m saying that they are not prepared emotionally to be placed in such an adult envirnoment.

  93. 93
    Pb says:

    Still trying to figure out if that type of person is attracted to the internet or if all people are like that deep down if given the anonymity of the net.

    Some of both, perhaps–the anonymity no doubt contributes. And I’m sure a lot of it also depends on the state of mind of the person in question at the time, which is a factor that should really be considered in any sort of personality research. For example, I’ve noticed that my Myers-Briggs scores can fluctuate in a predictable fashion depending on my mood.

  94. 94
    scs says:

    I agree PB. The internet is a rich place to do psychological research I think. Certain things are definitly surprising on there.

  95. 95
    Pb says:

    I remember to be a receptionist I think by law you had to be 18, so having a 16 year old in the work place is just not done.

    I’ve never heard of such a law, and I did some work like that too, I think I was 16 then as well, or maybe a bit younger.

  96. 96
    scs says:

    No way. Well first of all, 16 year olds can’t be full time workers by law – so they can’t really be receptionists as most people want full time receptionists. But I’m not a lawyer. Someone will have to look up the labour laws for that.

  97. 97
    Pb says:

    scs,

    The self-selecting nature of the internet does make things difficult for general research, but perhaps that phenomenon in itself deserves some study. In my experience, you’ll find many more civil liberties advocates and libertarians–self-proclaimed or otherwise–on the internet. And probably a scary number of glibertarians and their cousins the Randites as well, for that matter. I’ll also speculate that along with more civil liberties advocates and more liberal values, you’ll also find more secularity and more sexual openness as well. In the meantime, the devout Catholics are busy reading this, which cuts down on valuable surfing time! :)

  98. 98
    Pb says:

    scs,

    Yes, I wasn’t full time at all, but I don’t think the position itself was full time, really, and I also wasn’t the only receptionist. This was a temporary thing for a computer training center, so mostly I’d just sign people in and answer the phone, and the rest of the time I’d study the training materials.

  99. 99
    scs says:

    In my “research” I find that chat rooms are filled with extremes. You find lots of blue collar trucker types on there and then also lots of very successful people from all types of professional careers. Also lots of engineers for some reason. Maybe engineers tend to be all libertarians, who knows!

  100. 100
    Pb says:

    Also lots of engineers for some reason. Maybe engineers tend to be all libertarians, who knows!

    Heh. Well, speaking from personal experience, we computer / internet types tend to value our freedom of expression. :)

  101. 101
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Maguire really is grabbing for anything at this point, isn’t he? (An impression I’ve gotten about him recently on other subjects, such as the torture and habeas issues.)

    Of course, if the House leadership actually did have copies of even a single one of those — er — blatant E-mails by Foley, there would have been no question of them having “trumped up” charges against him. And Sullivan, of course, has never had the slightest truck with child molesters.

  102. 102

    scs doesn’t want us jumping to conclusions about Mark Foley?

    Apparently the creepy emails weren’t enough, nor was the sexually explicit instant message logs, or his resignation.

    Really, he’s quite innocent, and is being setup by this Page who shouldn’t have been working there anyhow.

    Hey, that reminds me…

    Where’s Darrell, Mac Buckets, Par R, and Paul L? I need some comedy today, and nothing says comedy like a bunch of rightwing partisan shills.

  103. 103
    Proud Liberal says:

    Where’s Darrell, Mac Buckets, Par R, and Paul L?

    busy cleaning up their hard drives? a joke, its just a joke. I kid the ass-licking bush toadies of Balloon Juice.

  104. 104
    Andrew says:

    Come on folks, scs has a good point.

    Why aren’t we hiring hot hot hot 18 year olds to run around and tempt Congressmen?

    With some minimum age standards in place, it will be open season and LEGAL(!) to hit on the pages in any jursidiction! And you’ll be safe from prosecution under Foley’s Internet crimes bill!

    n.b. Dan Barlett is an asshole who will burn in hell for his lies. re: Meet the Press, now.

  105. 105
    VidaLoca says:

    No I’m saying that they are not prepared emotionally to be placed in such an adult envirnoment.

    OK, that’s it. From now on, everyone under 18 has to wear a burqua.

    Because, you know, it’s never the adults’s fault.

    If the adult is a Republican.

  106. 106
    VidaLoca says:

    Oh, and while we’re at it. Diapers on all the goats.

  107. 107

    Ok, that Tom Maguire site is seriously fucked up and sick.

    They’re arguing that the age of consent is 16, so these weren’t children. It’s perfectly acceptable what Foley did.

  108. 108
    Tim F. says:

    Guaranteed career-killers: getting caught with a dead girl or a live boy. Conventional wisdom strikes again.

  109. 109
    VidaLoca says:

    Hey, that reminds me…

    Where’s Darrell, Mac Buckets, Par R, and Paul L?

    Wait, now let’s be fair. John put the post up late Saturday night, right now it’s still early Sunday morning. These guys have got to get some sleep some time, they haven’t been on this all night the way you all were.

    I need some comedy today, and nothing says comedy like a bunch of rightwing partisan shills.

    Let’s give props to scs though, she’s really been doing stellar work here.

  110. 110
    tBone says:

    No way. Well first of all, 16 year olds can’t be full time workers by law – so they can’t really be receptionists as most people want full time receptionists. But I’m not a lawyer. Someone will have to look up the labour laws for that.

    16-year-olds can work full time (with exceptions in certain industries) unless their child labor laws are more restrictive in that regard than the federal Fair Labor Standards. Even 14-15 years old can work up to 40 hours when they’re not in school (again, as long as their state laws aren’t more restrictive). I worked full time every summer after I turned 15.

  111. 111
    Zifnab says:

    Again, I’m reminded of the pedophiles working in the Department of No-Land Security.

    According to a statement by the DOD Inspector General’s Office, court documents allege that Lynch had been operating a peer-to-peer file-sharing program on a computer in his office at DISA. Agents confiscated several computers and more than 1,000 CDs from Lynch’s office. Agents found child pornography in computer file folders, the IG’s statement said.

    [Then] there’s Brian Doyle in Homeland Security; the pleading of a pedophile working inside Operation Predator, a division on Homeland Security charged with protecting children and finding the perverts; and now a pedophile in the Defense Department’s critical IT division.

    They caught 3 of them. One was even in Operation Predator, the DoHS program specifically designed to catch online predators. What a joke, right?

    And that’s not even getting into the Abu Garab prisoner sex abuse or the reports of soldiers in Iraq sexually abusing people in the field.

    I’m not saying all Republicans are pedophiles or anything. I’m just say thing, much like the Catholic Priesthood, if your policy is “don’t ask, don’t tell, blindly support the President” you end up with alot of sickos slipping through the cracks.

  112. 112
    EL says:

    SCS, care to comment about candy stripers in hospitals? All those evil youths, usually female, tempting those susceptible adult nurses and doctors?

    Bottom line is this is supposed to be a supervised program for young people to get government experience. It’s worthy, the way any internship or volunteer program can be a good way of getting students interested in a career.

    Now, as the investigation. Have ever been an administrator? I have. And I can tell you that even at my very low level, I knew damn well that if someone was accused of something that could spell serious trouble, you did a decent job of investigation. You didn’t just ask the accused “Did you do this?” and accept a “no.”

    What the hell do you suppose “overly friendly” emails implies? Merely that the sender was guilty of being a very nice person? It implies becoming inappropriately familiar.

    At that point, you interview other pages. You interview past pages. You check with staff people the pages might talk with. Want to bet some of the pages who sent stuff in once the story broke wouldn’t have spoken up?

  113. 113
    Proud Liberal says:

    I like this take on the Foley/Hastert sex scandal:

    Dennis was so forceful in telling the country about the Democrats wanting to coddle terrorists – without any proof of that being the case because it’s a political smear and a lie – yet now it is appearing to be very clear that Hastert knew about a sexual predator in his own ranks and failed to take every action possible to save the children of America. So a refresher from just days ago:

    “Democrat minority leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists,” Hastert said . “So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan.”

    Now let’s think about this in the context of disgraced congressman Foley. It looks like Hastert wanted to coddle someone who may be a criminal, who was taking advantage of his position of power to prey on an American youth who wanted to participate in the American political system. Despite rumors about such behavior, Hastert and his colleagues in congress did their best to avoid the news spreading beyond their small circle.

    While Hastert can’t provide any proof whatsoever that Democrats want to coddle terrorists it is appears to be the case that Hastert and company were doing their best to cover-up a disgusting, if not illegal, scandal. Why does Hastert and the GOP hate America? Why do they want to coddle sexual predators?

    live by the sword, die by the sword.

  114. 114
    DougJ says:

    This is not a joke: how old are you scs? I’ve worried in the past that you are underage and some of the language here can be a bit adult. If you don’t want to tell us your age, at least verify that you are over 18. Thanks.

  115. 115
    scs says:

    scs doesn’t want us jumping to conclusions about Mark Foley?

    Man you really can’t read. I wasn’t talking about Foley. I was talking about not jumping to conclusions about the prior knowledge of his ‘bosses’ until we have the facts. Or is getting the facts before we judge someone guilty too much work for you?

    Why aren’t we hiring hot hot hot 18 year olds to run around and tempt Congressmen?

    Or we could just make it 21. Clinton seemed to work with that age just fine.

  116. 116
    CaseyL says:

    Is anyone watching the TV talk shows? I have no stomach for them, myself, and would really appreciate it if someone who does can tell us (me) whether the fit has hit the shan there, too.

  117. 117
    scs says:

    If you don’t want to tell us your age, at least verify that you are over 18. Thanks.

    I have verified that to you. In fact I’ve verified I was over 21 to you in the past as well but apparently reading is not your forte. Again, try Hooked on Phonics- it’s worth a try.

  118. 118

    Hey, I’m afraid of Andrew Sullivan too.

  119. 119
    scs says:

    SCS, care to comment about candy stripers in hospitals? All those evil youths, usually female, tempting those susceptible adult nurses and doctors?

    I don’t think 16 year old minors should be working in full-time adult workplaces. With all the sexual harassment problems today it’s just not a good idea. I mean, every office I’ve worked in was basically a sex club underneath it all, with older desperate men hitting on the younger females, and 16 year olds shouldn’t have to be placed in that environment. Especially working with politicians, as that is a major power imbalance. It’s not just having a problem with your boss at your local Pizza Hut – it’s having a problem with someone who could affect your whole life. There is plenty of time to get internships in college. I think even those should be banned by the way. Any person working for free should be illegal. At least give them minimum wage I say. But those are just my opinions.

  120. 120
    scs says:

    I meant should NOT above.

  121. 121
    Proud Liberal says:

    Is anyone watching the TV talk shows? I have no stomach for them, myself, and would really appreciate it if someone who does can tell us (me) whether the fit has hit the shan there, too.

    yes… its not looking good for the republicans. Even Geroge Will on “This Week’s” roundtable says this hits right at the republican base. CNN had Hardwood of WSJ on and he was saying this could be very very big. They also had a “man on the street” segment and this is not going over very well with the public as you can imagine. This is a timebomb for the GOP congress.

  122. 122
    DougJ says:

    Thanks, scs. No, reading is not my strong point.

    Did you guys seen Glenn Greenwald’s take on the Assrocket defense:

    Hastert knew that Foley was gay, so it would hardly have been a surprise to Hastert to learn that Foley was harrassing underage pages. Hastert is a very busy and important man and something as unsurprising as the fact that the homosexual Foley was a sexual predator pursuing underage pages would hardly have been news to Hastert and certainly isn’t anything that should have prompted his attention. A gay Congressman pursues minors, the sun comes up in the morning. That’s just the way the world works. Why would Hastert take notice?

  123. 123
    CaseyL says:

    This is a timebomb for the GOP congress.

    What distinguishes this from all the previous scandals is that it’s something voters can identify with – because, unfortunately, sexual predation against youngsters is commonplace.

    One, a lot of voters have children, and have probably had their kids at least mention that an adult was trying to come on to them.

    Two, all voters were once kids themselves, with their own stories to tell on the subject. Even if getting hit on by an adult happened during a time when it wasn’t considered a crime (more like a social solecism), the gut-churning fear, uncertainty, and shame were the same. People remember that kind of thing.

  124. 124
    tBone says:

    I mean, every office I’ve worked in was basically a sex club underneath it all, with older desperate men hitting on the younger females, and 16 year olds shouldn’t have to be placed in that environment.

    You don’t go far enough. Women shouldn’t be working with men, period. It’s just asking for trouble. I say it’s long past time we had gender-segregated workplaces. In addition, to forestall any same-sex hanky panky, everyone should be fitted with genital electrodes wired into a monitoring system as a condition of employment.

    There is plenty of time to get internships in college. I think even those should be banned by the way.

    You are on fire today.

  125. 125
    scs says:

    In addition, to forestall any same-sex hanky panky, everyone should be fitted with genital electrodes wired into a monitoring system as a condition of employment.

    Why not have 6th graders do internships? After all, they need to have that valuable learning experience to prepare themselves for junior high. You can’t start soon enough to get a leg up on the competition.

  126. 126
    capelza says:

    scs Says:

    You know, those IM’s remind me of IM’s I get bombarded with in chat rooms all the time. The sex drive of humans (men) still amazes me. The internet was very educational for that for us all- as, who knew?

    Well, by that logic, all pretty boys and females should wear burkas, because, you know, men just can’t control themselves.

    16 y/0’s are quite often capable and able to work beside adults. It is a great experience and preparation for adulthood.

    As for the excuses from the GOP House fellas…they are just that. I know this isn’t a BIG thing, but it is what sells in Peoria. The GOP would rather keep a seat than risk losing it because the guy is a creepy man mashing on young boys.

    Btw, the age of consent in “liberal” Oregon is 18.

  127. 127
    CaseyL says:

    The wingnuts haven’t quite settled on their talking points yet. We do have some of the saner ones calling for wholesale investigations and resignations (including Hastert’s), vis a vis the ones either dismissing it along the lines of “Hastert didn’t actually see the emails himself, so it doesn’t matter if anyone told him about them” and – my personal favorite – the ones who say the whole thing’s a Democratic Plot.

    Tell you the truth, if it is a Democratic Plot, my opinion of Democratic strategists has gone way up. :D

  128. 128
    DougJ says:

    Why not ban all work? It’s just a pretext for sexual harassment. And we can just outsource everything to the Chinese if we have to. Working in an office, or even in one’s home, is just asking for trouble. That’s the real moral of the story here. It’s too bad the moonbats are too myopic to see it.

  129. 129
    tBone says:

    You can’t start soon enough to get a leg up on the competition.

    That seems to be Foley’s modus operandi, anyway.

  130. 130
    Andrew says:

    Why not ban all work?

    You call it work, I call it servicing, er, serving our country.

  131. 131
    Zifnab says:

    Shorter SCS: Clearly the page was asking for it. Did you see how he was dressed?

  132. 132
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    This is the October Surprise.
    Know why?
    Because the media attention devoted to Foley’s Follies sucks all the oxygen out of the room. Everyone’s attention will be devoted to uncovering the cover-up, to finding more victims, to chasing down Foley for that first interview. And there won’t be any media types around to pay attention to anything else.

  133. 133

    Man you really can’t read. I wasn’t talking about Foley. I was talking about not jumping to conclusions about the prior knowledge of his ‘bosses’ until we have the facts. Or is getting the facts before we judge someone guilty too much work for you?

    A series of emails that the 16 year old kid said “creeped him out”, and every reasonable person I know would look at and say “Someone better call the sex crimes division”… you’re saying we should not pass judgement on Hastert for looking at all of this and believing it was innocent?

    Yeah, right.

    Keep defending your little sex predator scs and those who enabled and covered for him. It just shows what morally depraved asshats the Republican party is full of.

  134. 134
    Pb says:

    DougJ,

    There’s just no telling what scs did or didn’t tell you–remember, she thinks everyone here is DougJ.

  135. 135
    W.B. Reeves says:

    There are a number of ways of describing scs contribution here. Obtuse, hypocritical, intellectually bankrupt, morally as well as ethically depraved and sick come to mind.

    However, I will go with what seems most appropriate to me: Pathetic.

  136. 136
    sglover says:

    What distinguishes this from all the previous scandals is that it’s something voters can identify with – because, unfortunately, sexual predation against youngsters is commonplace.

    Big quibble: “Sexual predation against youngsters” invariably cranks up media feeding frenzies, but “commonplace”? I suspect not. Consider all the adult-minor interactions (in school, in sports activities, in churches, in outfits like the Boy Scouts) in the U.S. — it’s a vast universe. Out of that pool, I suspect that exploitative relationships are pretty small, practically negligible in a statistical sense (if somebody can provide some persuasive numbers, I’m ready to change my view). But as far as I can tell journalists are essentially numerically incompetent, and anyway, they sell more issues by screaming about perverts.

    Of course, in the poorer parts of the world — and likely the poorer parts of the States — exploitation of children is more common. Yet another form of human degradation that tracks with poverty. But don’t expect our illustrious corporate media gasbags to dwell on that relationship very much…

  137. 137
    sglover says:

    Question: Since “scs” seems to reason like a child, are we engaging in abusive behavior by pointing out how silly he is?

  138. 138
    CaseyL says:

    Since “scs” seems to reason like a child

    Now you’ve insulted children.

    Really. I know 8-year olds who can reason rings around BJ’s Class(less) Clown.

  139. 139
    DougJ says:

    There’s just no telling what scs did or didn’t tell you—remember, she thinks everyone here is DougJ.

    True, but I am bad about reading people’s comments before I comment.

  140. 140
    scs says:

    DougJ – you and your clones seemed obsessed with 8 year olds. I have been compared to an “8 year old” across the many id’s here, and that was one of the first clues that opened my eyes to your monkey business. I can’t remember the last time I referred about an eigth year old. What are 8 year olds to you and why do you talk about them so much? Enquiring minds want to know.

  141. 141
    scs says:

    Ok to again quote the NYT article:

    This is what they knew about the first email:

    He wrote: “How are you weathering the hurricane. . .are you safe. . .send me a pic of you as well.” The page sent the note to a former colleague, describing it as “sick.”

    In another message, Mr. Foley wrote, “What do you want for your birthday coming up. . .what stuff do you like to do.”

    Although it should have sent up a red flag, on it’s face not illegal. What the House leaders did:

    Mr. Alexander called the boy’s parents, who, Republican leaders said Saturday, told him they did not want to pursue the matter but wanted Mr. Foley to stop.

    Mr. Alexander’s office also contacted staff members in Mr. Hastert’s office for guidance on what to do and, according to the speaker’s account, his aides put Mr. Alexander’s staff in contact with the clerk of the House, who oversees the page program. The clerk, who at the time was Jeff Trandahl, referred the matter to Representative John Shimkus, the Illinois Republican who is the chairman of the House Page Board, in late 2005, a spokesman for Mr. Shimkus said.

    Mr. Trandahl and Mr. Shimkus confronted Mr. Foley, who insisted he was simply acting as a mentor to the former page, officials said. He assured them nothing inappropriate had occurred.

    If you ask me, Hassert took the appropriate steps, he referred it to the page commitee for investigation. What else do you want him to do? He is not a school principle or even a corporate boss and he referred it to the right department.

    Now the page committee should have investigated it more, by interviewing the pages, but they didn’t. Perhaps those guys should be fired. But like in a company, it is more than the fault of just individuals in dealing with these situations but can be the fault of bad policy and not having a proper procedure to investigate these complaints. And that is a congress wide issue. I would be curious to know what sort of sexual harassment policy they have in place at the Federal government.

  142. 142
    DougJ says:

    Scs — I’m not the other people here. I’m just DougJ. You can John to check the IPs.

  143. 143
    scs says:

    You can John to check the IPs.

    IP’s can be faked. Even us non-techies know that.

  144. 144
    Andrew says:

    I am DougJ’s raging bile duct.

  145. 145
    Proud Liberal says:

    Hastert and the Republican leadership knew that they had a predator in the Congress and they did NOTHING to protect that pages that were put into their care. This shows that they KNEW for over FIVE years. Disgusting:

    A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

    Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk’s office.

    Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told “don’t get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.”

    Oh, and btw, none of the pages assigned to Democratic congressman were given the above warnings. We will be finding out more and more about this over the next couple of weeks. As they say, this is a story with legs. Couldn’t have come at a worse time for the GOP I’m happy to say.

  146. 146
    Krista says:

    I don’t think 16 year old minors should be working in full-time adult workplaces. With all the sexual harassment problems today it’s just not a good idea. I mean, every office I’ve worked in was basically a sex club underneath it all, with older desperate men hitting on the younger females, and 16 year olds shouldn’t have to be placed in that environment.

    So….you’re saying that the solution isn’t strong and enforced penalties for sexual predators and sexual harassment in the workplace, so as to discourage that sort of crap.

    The solution is to eliminate any and all sources of temptation for those men, as they cannot be reasonably expected to control their animal urges.

    Your mentality is shared by those who would keep women cloistered in their homes, or wearing burkas.

    Shame on you.

  147. 147
    scs says:

    So….you’re saying that the solution isn’t strong and enforced penalties for sexual predators and sexual harassment in the workplace, so as to discourage that sort of crap.

    Yes, that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying! I’m sooo glad you got it.

    No, what I’m saying is I don’t think average 16 year olds are mature enough to function in that adult environment. We don’t let 12 year olds do errands for congressmen, why should 16 year olds? We don’t let 16 year olds go to Rated R movies, we don’t let them go to bars, we don’t let them sign contracts – should I go on? No matter how good the rules and enforcement are, there will always be people who go around them. In that rare case, I think the page should be at least 18 to have enough maturity so that they know how to handle the situation properly and make sure they tell the right authorities.

    But maybe you’re right. Why just make it 16? Who needs to graduate highschool first before you become a gofer for an powerful adult, under their beck and call. I think 12 is a much better age to do errands for Congressmen. Or even 10! Never too young to get started, right?

  148. 148
    Pb says:

    what I’m saying is I don’t think average 16 year olds are mature enough to function in that adult environment

    What you’re saying is that we should find a solution to the wrong problem–the problem isn’t that *these* (not average) 16 year olds weren’t mature enough to function in that adult environment–the problem is that some (Republican) *adults* in Congress weren’t mature enough to function in that adult environment!

    We don’t let 12 year olds do errands for congressmen, why should 16 year olds?

    Because they’re four years older? Bogus and slippery slope. We don’t let 15 year olds do errands for Congressmen, why should 19 year olds? etc.

    should I go on?

    No, but you will anyway.

    No matter how good the rules and enforcement are, there will always be people who go around them.

    This was actually Bush’s argument for not taxing the rich more as well–because they’ll just cheat anyhow. Why bother with laws, when some people won’t follow them? If only we had no laws, we wouldn’t have any criminals either! Brilliant Republican logic at work!

    In that rare case, I think the page should be at least 18 to have enough maturity so that they know how to handle the situation properly and make sure they tell the right authorities.

    Comedy gold. How old should the Congressmen be, pray tell? Oh wait, that didn’t work…

  149. 149
    csc says:

    scs is right! In fact, 16 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to work at all. Do you have any idea how many perverts eat fast food and go to movies? What kind of sickos would expose children to that sort of danger? Hell, y’all remember that Letourneau lady. High schools are a hotbed of pervy adults, too. Any parent who allows their child to attend a school is just begging for their kid to wind up in that sort of situation.

    Oh man. I just thought of something. Most child molesters prey on members of their own families. It’s grossly irresponsible to allow adults near children at all! I completely agree with scs’s well-thought-out and completely sensible comments, as well as the logical conclusion that all children under the age of 18 should be removed from adult care and raised in state homes run by other, preferably Republican, children.

  150. 150
    scs says:

    PB – so we let 16 year olds work in the adult world because they are 4 years older than 12 year olds? Wow. That’s great logic.

    How about we decide on an age where we believe that children are emotionally equipped to deal with adults and any conflicts that may come up with that. I’d say let’s go with the minimum age a child must be to get into an R-rated movie – say 18. Or the minimum age a child must be to be considered an adult. Wow – 18 again! Who’d have thunk?

  151. 151
    Pb says:

    scs,

    so we let 16 year olds work in the adult world because they are 4 years older than 12 year olds?

    Not necessarily, but it’s a good reason not to falsely equate them and paper over the obvious difference here, as you were doing.

    How about we decide on an age where we believe that children are emotionally equipped to deal with adults and any conflicts that may come up with that.

    Or we could set a minimum permissible age and a maximum cut-off, and do evaluations for the people in between.

    I’d say let’s go with the minimum age a child must be to get into an R-rated movie – say 18.

    I think you meant to say “17 or with a parent or guardian”.

    Or the minimum age a child must be to be considered an adult.

    What is that, exactly? Actually, it depends on state law. In my state, it’s defined like this:

    A person who has not reached the person’s eighteenth birthday and is not married, emancipated, or a member of the armed forces of the United States.

    So actually there are four criteria set out here, any of which would legally make you an adult here–age, marriage, emancipation, or military service–perhaps more in other states. To take just one of these, it’s possible for people as young as 14 to get married here. So in reality, and depending on the state, the legal age range for this is probably somewhere between 12 and 21. Like I said–a minimum, a maximum, and other criteria in between. Amazingly, the law already does this.

    Wow – 18 again! Who’d have thunk?

    Only an ignorant idiot.

  152. 152
    Tom Maguire says:

    I’d say let’s go with the minimum age a child must be to get into an R-rated movie – say 18. Or the minimum age a child must be to be considered an adult. Wow – 18 again! Who’d have thunk?

    Or we could check the law – if we did that, we would find the age of consent in DC to be 16. Who’d have thunk?

    And btw, am I the only who thinks it is profoundly offensive that it is just assumed that because Sullivan is gay, he is going to go to bat for a pervert?

    Congrats on being able to blog despite the reading disability – if the charges are TRUMPED UP, then Sully wouldn’t be defending a “pervert”, now would he? The first set of emails (the only ones availabe to the House, as best we know) are, by many people’s reading, no big deal. I would not be surprised at all if many folks concluded that Foley was being railroaded by homophobic Repubs if the only evidence was “what do you want for your birthday, send a pic”.

    In fact, I am entirely confident that if Foley *were* being run out of town on the basis of that weak evidence and the consensus Repub view favored that on the basis that it was better to be safe than sorry, a few predictably unpredictable “conservatives” would decry the mad rush to judgment.

    So no, I don’t think Sullivan would go to bat for a pervert just because he is gay, and yes, I do find that notion deeply offensive.

  153. 153
    Pb says:

    As for Sully’s reaction, we needn’t still be speculating, he has a blog, and he has commented on this, starting here and continuing on in a few other posts.

    What I do know is that the closet corrupts. The lies it requires and the compartmentalization it demands can lead people to places they never truly wanted to go, and for which they have to take ultimate responsibility. From what I’ve read, Foley is another example of this destructive and self-destructive pattern for which the only cure is courage and honesty. While gays were fighting for thir basic equality, Foley voted for the “Defense of Marriage Act”. If his resignation means the end of the closet for him, and if there is no more to this than we now know, then it may even be for the good. Better to find integrity and lose a Congressional seat than never live with integrity at all.

    Amen. Of course, that conclusion is also my opinion in general, and I imagine that a strict enforcement of that principle would result in a lot of turn-over in Congress, perhaps on the order of hundreds of seats. :)

  154. 154
    John S. says:

    I wonder how scs would have reacted if Clinton had been caught propositioning a 16-year-old girl…

    No doubt she would have been equally as fervent in herr cries for the ‘facts’ and a thorough ‘vetting’ before passing judgment.

  155. 155
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    While this is water under the bridge (or, more accurately, sewage under the bridge) given the revelations since, let us take a look at Tom Maguire’s argument as repeated by him above: The House leadership didn’t investigate Foley AT ALL because — if they threw him out of the House on “trumped-up charges” — Andrew Sullivan would denounce them. What’s wrong with this chain of logic?

    Alternatively, Sullivan has such a large soft spot for child molesters that — even if they threw Foley out of the House on clearly justifiable grounds — he would viciously attack them for it, and (given the well-known gay-loving nature of the GOP’s core constituency) they were trembling in terror of THAT possibility.

    One is forced to conclude that Maguire’s watch has stopped.

  156. 156
    scs says:

    If you’re Tom Maguire – I’m Michelle Malkin.

    Isn’t an r-rated movie – ’17 and under’ must have a parent or guardian? – or in other words, 18 is the cut off date? I would be 95% certain of that without looking it up yet. Feel free to link a source if you know otherwise.

  157. 157
    scs says:

    Also, all those exceptions about military service and marriage is not really a valid point. There are exceptions to every rule – and picking a minimum age is of course by its nature arbitrary. But when we pick a minimum age- we go by an average. We don’t go by the special circumstances of marriage or emancipation etc. that you list. In most states in most cases, 18 is the minimum age to sign legal papers, live on your own – in other words be an adult. Why then, are we having children work in the White House?

    Let’s face it, the page program is just a convenient way for rich campaign donors to get their kids a resume stuffer for their college bound kids. Do you really think all these kids are working there for the love of the US government? No, it’s more like their parents are trying to get their kids the earliest start possible to getting their kids another unfair advantage in getting their kids into the Ivy’s, in addition to all the other donations and kickbacks they probably give directly to the school. I’m so tired of hearing pundits say with such despair “Ohhh it’s such a great program for the kids. I hope they don’t end it.” It’s a waste of time for 16 year old kids to be pouring coffee for Congressman. Isn’t there enough time for those same kids to pour government coffee when they are in college? At least wait until they are college juniors for god sakes and have a good reason to pour the coffee. They are at least more likely at that age to know if they want to work in government.

  158. 158
    nyrev says:

    Isn’t an r-rated movie – ‘17 and under’ must have a parent or guardian? – or in other words, 18 is the cut off date? I would be 95% certain of that without looking it up yet. Feel free to link a source if you know otherwise.

    Learn to trust that doubting 5%.

  159. 159

    […] Let’s give credit where it is due- Just One Minute came up with this first, last week: […]

  160. 160

    The blame game: a round-up

    Golly, who’s to blame? Democrats! Of course. NGLTF’s Matt Foreman says don’t blame gays. FRC says blame gays. Boehner blames Hastert. Timeline here. Sean Hannity blames Clinton. Tristero says, don’t blame Clinton. It’s Al Gore’s fault. He invente…

  161. 161
    kevin lyda, co. galway says:

    Just so we all know, CREW sent those IM’s to the FBI. Who did nothing.

    But yeah, sure, blame George Soros. Or start labeling Foley as a Democrat – worked for O’Reilly, right?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The blame game: a round-up

    Golly, who’s to blame? Democrats! Of course. NGLTF’s Matt Foreman says don’t blame gays. FRC says blame gays. Boehner blames Hastert. Timeline here. Sean Hannity blames Clinton. Tristero says, don’t blame Clinton. It’s Al Gore’s fault. He invente…

  2. […] Let’s give credit where it is due- Just One Minute came up with this first, last week: […]

Comments are closed.