The Foley Scandal Gets Better

Not only was Foley attempting to bugger pages left and right, but key members of Congress knew about his habits and did nothing:

“House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate ‘contact’ between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.

It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged online exchanges between Foley and the boy.”

You’re doing a heckuva job, John Boehner!

And Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) who oversees the congressional pages as head of the Page Board, the group responsible for the teenagers who work essentially as gofers and doorholders for lawmakers, knew even earlier.

The Post report contained the following passage:

“Shimkus said in a statement last night, ‘in late 2005, I was notified by the then Clerk of the House,’ that Alexander had told the Clerk ‘about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page. I took immediate action to investigate the matter.’

“In the e-mail, ‘Foley asked about the former Page’s well-being after Hurricane Katrina and requested a photograph,’ Shimkus said. He said Foley assured him it was an innocent exchange, but ‘nevertheless, we ordered Congressman Foley to cease all contact’ with the boy and to respect all pages. ‘Only now have I learned that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct,’ Shimkus said.”

That is the kind of committment and dedication to duty that we have grown to expect from this corrupt Congress and loathesome administration. And you wonder why the war in Iraq is such a mess- these are the do-nothing fools providing the “oversight.”

Think they are going to do a better job providing oversight on torture, now that they have just greenlighted that?






117 replies
  1. 1
    stickler says:

    Yeah, Shimkus’s explanation tells you all you need to know about Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans, and the list is nearly endless.

    ‘Only now have I learned that Congressman Foley Halliburton was not honest about his its conduct,’ Shimkus said.

    Rinse, repeat as necessary until the Bank of China forecloses on all our homes.

  2. 2
    DougJ says:

    The name Boehner, comical under the best of circumstances, is completely inappropriate here. Can we call him something else?

  3. 3
    Richard Bottoms says:

    Absolutely no snark or sarcasm.

    I’ve rarely extended sympathy to John, probably never. But this must be as painful to watch as the House bank scandal was to me. My reaction then was shitcan any Democrat who is guilty and hope we can regain control someday.

    As a Republican it must hurt to see a party you believed in go down into such a huge flaming crater as the GOP is headed for. My sympathy meter moves from zero to one.

  4. 4
    Richard 23 says:

    I don’t know if he was exactly trying to bugger pages left and right. That would certainly be an ethical lapse. Even legal, perhaps, if the pages involved were the at the age of consent. I don’t really think that’s the issue.

    It’s also legal in many states to have sex with and even marry teenagers (14 to 16 in most places). Whether it’s the moral or ethical thing to do is another question.

    However, the law he helped to pass, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (he was a co-sponser) makes internet chats of a sexual nature with those under 18 years of age a crime.

    So ironically buggering pages isn’t the problem, legally speaking, it’s chatting with them and exchanging email with them of a sexual nature.

    The issue is also the cover up by House leaders in the Republican party.

    Of course I’d prefer that Congresspeople not have sexual relations with young pages. Congresspeople should hold themselves to higher ethical standards, especially when they claim to be against the exploitation of minors and especially when they’re on a Committee set up for said purpose.

    So “buggering” is not the issue – it’s the irony of violating a Federal law that he championed and his party’s attempts to cover up his ethical problems for as long as a year.

    This story has legs because of the “dead girl/live boy” aspect. Not as significant as the shredding of the Constitution but lurid nonetheless especially since it involves the family values party.

  5. 5
    Proud Liberal says:

    Let not forget this tidbit from Josh Marshall:

    Finally, one detail here isn’t getting enough attention. Rep. Alexander (R-LA), the first member of Congress to be alerted to the problem, says he contacted the NRCC. That’s the House Republicans’ election committee, a political organization entirely separate from the House bureaucracy and the Congress. (The head of the NRCC this cycle is Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY).) That is, to put it mildly, not in the disciplinary and administrative chain of command of the House of Representatives. Considering that the issue involved a minor, it seems highly inappropriate to discuss the matter with anyone not charged with policing the House. More to the point, however, you tell the head of the NRCC because you see the matter as a political problem. Reynolds is the one in charge of making sure Republican House seats get held. If an incumbent might have drop out or be kicked out you want him to know so that he can line up someone to replace him. You at least want to keep him abreast of the situation if you think a problem might develop. I cannot see any innocent explanation for notifying the head of the NRCC while not information the full membership of the page board.

    Don’t they ever learn? It’s always the COVERUP that gets ’em in trouble.

  6. 6
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    For the GOP, the nasty thing about this scandal is it’s so easy to grasp, even for those who have little to no interest in politics.
    Congresscritter hung out with Abramoff – Who? (Or, They’re all crooked.)
    Voted for Iraq – I supported it, too.
    Screwed up Medicare – Blank stare, unless they’re old or have elderly parents.
    Wanted to get into teenage boys’ pants, or knew of the guy doing so and did nothing about it – Pervert! And he’s teh gay! KILL’ EM!

  7. 7
    Proud Liberal says:

    So was Hastert told or not? Seems like Boehner is now suffering a mild form of amnesia. Hastert’s office is saying he wasn’t informed. Oh oh.. somebody else remembers telling Hastert:

    WASHINGTON (AP) – Rep. Thomas Reynolds, head of the House Republican election effort, said he told Speaker Dennis Hastert after learning a fellow GOP lawmaker sent inappropriate messages to a teenage boy.

    As they say in the news biz… this story’s got legs. Perfect timing too, all the reps are out of Washington and in their home districts. Wonder if they’ll get an earful from their constiuents?

  8. 8
    Jon H says:

    Too bad he couldn’t be an out homosexual Republican politician. Then he could have had normal relationships, which might have made him less likely to resort to secretive behavior like this. Might not have, though. He could have been dating men openly and still hitting on pages over the net.

    It just seems that the skulking around might have led him to riskier, less acceptable activities while skulking around the net. In for a penny, in for a pound, so to speak.

  9. 9
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Too bad he couldn’t be an out homosexual Republican politician.

    Then, at the GOP’s national conventions, the Texas delegation could’ve bowned their heads and prayed for his hellbound soul, as they did in 2000 when Arizona’s Kolbe spoke.
    Assholes.

  10. 10
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    bowned = bowed

  11. 11
    neil says:

    A few years ago, if I’d say “The Republicans would shield a child molester for political advantage,” you all would have called me unreasonable.

  12. 12
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    “The Republicans would shield a child molester for political advantage,”

    The perfect talking point to destroy the GOP. Spread it far and wide, brothers and sisters.

  13. 13
    Richard 23 says:

    Related material. See Conspiracy of Silence. It’s pretty damn creepy.

    Conspiracy of Silence, a documentary listed for viewing in TV Guide Magazine was to be aired on the Discovery Channel, on May 3, 1994. This documentary exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies.

    Many children suffered the indignity of wearing nothing but their underwear and a number displayed on a piece of cardboard hanging from their necks when being auctioned off to foreigners in Las Vegas, Nevada and Toronto, Canada.

    At the last minute before airing, unknown congressmen threatened the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired. Almost immediately, the rights to the documentary were purchased by unknown persons who had ordered all copies destroyed.

    A copy of this videotape was furnished anonymously to former Nebraska state senator and attorney John De Camp who made it available to retired FBI Agent Ted L. Gunderson. While the video quality is not top grade, this tape is a blockbuster in what is revealed by the participants involved.

    More info here. See also The Franklin Coverup Scandal.

  14. 14
    PeterJ says:

    Too bad he couldn’t be an out homosexual Republican politician. Then he could have had normal relationships, which might have made him less likely to resort to secretive behavior like this.

    Normal homosexual men doesn’t prey on underage boys.

    Just like normal heterosexual men doesn’t prey on underage girls.

  15. 15
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Normal homosexual men doesn’t prey on underage boys.

    That was Jon’s point, I think.

  16. 16
    Richard Bottoms says:

    Many children suffered the indignity of wearing nothing but their underwear and a number displayed on a piece of cardboard hanging from their necks when being auctioned off to foreigners in Las Vegas, Nevada and Toronto, Canada.

    Oh please, can we stay here on planet Earth.

    These grand conspiracies are just type of bullshit that whipped up hysteria in the 80’s child molestation witch hunts. Somehow hundreds of kids are transported around the world but no one ever cracks and reveals all.

    What we are talking about is a few guys covering for a political associate. A conspiracy of convinience at best.

    Lets leave the hooded secret society crap to Eyes Wide Shut shall we.

  17. 17
    Proud Liberal says:

    A few years ago, if I’d say “The Republicans would shield a child molester for political advantage,” you all would have called me unreasonable.

    careful here. No evidence of child molesting that I have seen yet. What we have is bad enough, no need to exaggerate. Some unseemly internet chat so far. No nude photos. No touching. No graphic sexual talk. But Foley sure did leave in a hurry, I imagine there will be more coming out. These things are never isolted incidents. Like the Allen N word controversy, I imagine others will be coming forward with similiar stories. Especially now that his screename has been published.

    Like I said before, get yourself a bag of popcorn and watch this one unfold. No need for Dems to get too involved. This one doesn’t need any help.

  18. 18
    PeterJ says:

    That was Jon’s point, I think

    Ok, I might have have misunderstood.

    But most people who have affairs doesn’t have them with underage boys or girls.

  19. 19
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Oh please, can we stay here on planet Earth.

    Thank you. McMartin preschool, anyone?

  20. 20
    Proud Liberal says:

    Oh please, can we stay here on planet Earth

    put me down as a ditto on that as well.

  21. 21
    Richard 23 says:

    Oh please, can we stay here on planet Earth.

    Sure, sorry about that. It is a creepy documentary and seems legit. I didn’t write the description, I just copied it from the youtube page. I didn’t mean to insult anyone’s intelligence. I remember the McMartin story as it played out. What a freakshow.

    Back on topic. Excuse my jackalope digression.

  22. 22
    Zifnab says:

    All I’m saying is that no one could have anticipated the breach of that page’s pants.

  23. 23
    Steve says:

    The story is that Foley told the Page Board (well, the Republican member, since the Democratic member was never notified for some reason) that he had simply requested a picture from the kid to see if he was okay after the hurricane. I can certainly see why they’d accept that entirely plausible explanation.

  24. 24
    Jon H says:

    PeterJ writes: “Normal homosexual men doesn’t prey on underage boys.”

    I know, that’s what I meant when I said being out might *not* have kept him out of this kind of trouble.

    I figure, even if someone *has* such inclinations, they might not become pathological, and they might not give into them *if* they have a full life and normal relationships.

    If a person’s lonely, and can’t have a normal relationship with another adult, I figure it’s far more likely that attraction or admiration for a good-looking youth will get out of hand and a line will be crossed.

  25. 25
    ThymeZone says:

    Like I said before, get yourself a bag of popcorn and watch this one unfold

    I’m not enjoying this as much as you are.

    First of all, there’s a sex police quality to the story that I find troubing. A little too much glee at the outing of a gay guy. A sixteen year old can marry in a few states in this country, including the one I live in. The child molester and pederast stuff is not appropriate here AFAIC.

    Second, what’s important is that the Dems win the damned House, and I don’t see a sex scandal carrying them to that victory. I definitely don’t see Dems dancing around and clapping their hands over a sex scandal helping our cause. It’s the kind of glee that I expect NeoRepubs to express (as distinct from PaleoRepubs, which are Goldwater Repubs like John) …. but as a Democrat, I would prefer to just say that this is a personal tragedy and let it go.

    As for the wider “scandal,” I see it as having legs only if there are laws being broken and the crime is covered up. If it is just man on man action being covered up, frankly, I don’t give a shit, I don’t think it’s any of our business.

    Thoughts?

  26. 26
    Skip says:

    “The Democratic member was never notified for some reason”

    Oh please!

    “that he had simply requested a picture from the kid to see if he was okay after the hurricane. I can certainly see why they’d accept that entirely plausible explanation.”

    Ibid.

    Foley bowed out of a Senate race due to gay rumors. Not that being gay makes one a pederast, but keen interest in the BOY page wouldd have raised red flags with me.

  27. 27
    Richard Bottoms says:

    A little too much glee at the outing of a gay guy.

    The only folks who care he is gay are Republicans. We care he was hitting on a 16 year old.

    The child molester and pederast stuff is not appropriate here AFAIC.

    Entirely appropriate, as again we liberals know the difference between consenual and non-consenual sex.

    I definitely don’t see Dems dancing around and clapping their hands over a sex scandal helping our cause.

    Really? I see us beating them to fucking bloody death with it. We do that by focusing on the coverup, coverup, coverup and did I say coverup?

    If it is just man on man action being covered up, frankly, I don’t give a shit, I don’t think it’s any of our business.

    Except it is our business. It’s man in position of authority on boy with a helping how do we protect our majority on the side. We can work out the details after the election which should come after Hastert resigns as Speaker.

    If Foley wwanted to hang out at The Stud here in San Francisco and pick up 21 year olds all night long certainly no Democrat would give crap. But he didn’t do that, he want after congressional pages.

  28. 28
    Zifnab says:

    Second, what’s important is that the Dems win the damned House, and I don’t see a sex scandal carrying them to that victory. I definitely don’t see Dems dancing around and clapping their hands over a sex scandal helping our cause. It’s the kind of glee that I expect NeoRepubs to express (as distinct from PaleoRepubs, which are Goldwater Repubs like John) …. but as a Democrat, I would prefer to just say that this is a personal tragedy and let it go.

    I’m totally with you here. However, like Gold Star was saying, this is an issue even the most Bushophalic can understand. Congressman sending dirty letters to underaged boys = bad behavior. Something Abramoff, Iraq, and Torture couldn’t seem to hammer through. Should Dems be running off calling the Republican Party the Party of Pedophilia? It’s tempting, but in the long run probably unwise.

    Of course, after the the scandal in the DoHS back in April, I think that the GOP knee-jerk cover-up has been harboring this exact sort of deviancy better than the general public would imagine. And I can’t imagine a better time to air this dirty laundry than a month before elections. Better to let America see the type of people the GOP is harboring today than on November 8th.

  29. 29
    Proud Liberal says:

    I’m not enjoying this as much as you are.

    I express no guilt at enjoying seeing the guy that viciously attacked and voted for the IMPEACHMENT of Bill Clinton, for a consentual affair with an adult getting hoisted by his own petard.

    A little too much glee at the outing of a gay guy

    This has nothign to do with outing a gay guy for Christ’s sake. If it were a female page it would be the same story. These pages are kids… sent to Congress as a great honor. To have a congressman hit on them is disgusting and to have the whole leadership of the Republican party cover it up, even worse.

    Second, what’s important is that the Dems win the damned House, and I don’t see a sex scandal carrying them to that victory

    not alone, no but this is powerful stuff – especially if, as I suspect, the Republican leadership tried to cover it up. If you don’t think that will have an effect on the electorate, I have a bridge here in Brooklyn I might interst you in.

    I definitely don’t see Dems dancing around and clapping their hands over a sex scandal helping our cause. It’s the kind of glee that I expect NeoRepubs to express (as distinct from PaleoRepubs, which are Goldwater Repubs like John) …. but as a Democrat,

    I see that you have lost your sactimoniousness.

    but as a Democrat, I would prefer to just say that this is a personal tragedy and let it go.

    and that is why Dems lose time and time again. You want to play fair with the Republicans. Sorry, the party of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O’reilly would never “let it go”.

    As for the wider “scandal,” I see it as having legs only if there are laws being broken and the crime is covered up. If it is just man on man action being covered up, frankly, I don’t give a shit, I don’t think it’s any of our business.

    Thoughts?

    yeah, here is a thought – that is one of the dumbest comments I have heard in quite a while. As a parent, if I sent my high achieving child to congress for the great honor of being a page and found out a Congressman acting in loco parentis was asking my son if he was making him horny and how he would like to pull down his boxers I would hardly say its “man on man” action.

    So Paul, question: are you a member of NAMBLA by any chance because that is the type of reponse I would expect from them?

  30. 30
    ThymeZone says:

    As for the wider “scandal,” I see it as having legs only if there are laws being broken and the crime is covered up

    .

    Let me revise, amend and extend my remarks here. There is an ethics scandal if House rules or any laws preclude the behavior.

    However, that being said, I would apply the scandal only to the representatives who actually did the covering up. Not to Republicans in general.

    Second, I repeat my earlier opinion that we are going to regret trying to surf to a House takeover on a wave of sex police scandal. It’s issues that matter, and five hundred sets of issues that matter to a House election cycle. Trying to leverage this into ‘Republicans are homos’ or ‘Republicans cover for homos’ is not going to do what we need done, nor should it.

    Don’t let the zeal to get seats turn US into the gay bashers.

  31. 31
    ThymeZone says:

    You want to play fair with the Republicans.

    I asked for thoughts, and you gave me your version of mine, which I don’t need, and which are not correct.

    I don’t need your version of my thoughts, I was looking for original thoughts.

    What I “want” is restraint. We are not short of issues, we have all the issues. It does not become us to abandon the issues in favor of a sex scandal. That’s what I think. I already know what you think.

  32. 32
    ThymeZone says:

    So Paul, question: are you a member of NAMBLA by any chance because that is the type of reponse I would expect from them?

    Why don’t you send me your name and email address, and I’ll answer that question for you.

  33. 33
    Proud Liberal says:

    Trying to leverage this into ‘Republicans are homos’ or ‘Republicans cover for homos’ is not going to do what we need done, nor should it.

    Don’t let the zeal to get seats turn US into the gay bashers

    .huh? who the fuck is saying the Republicans are homos? Nobody is talking that angle but YOU for some bizarre and probably Freudian reason. Its not even about Foley.. its about the Republican leadership that turn a blind eye to corruption, misconduct, ethics violations etc. It amplifies an already existing belief in the public that the “bums” in congress are there for their own benefit and not the publics. It adds to the distate america has for politicians and congress. Now that distaste certainly goes to Dems too, but right now the Republicans are in charge so they bear the brunt of voter anger. And if YOU are not angry at what Foley did and how it was covered up, I guaranteee you that you are in the minority. Get to a water cooler in your office and see what people will be saying. This resonates more than 1000 policy positions on global warming or capital gains taxes.

  34. 34
    Proud Liberal says:

    What I “want” is restraint. We are not short of issues, we have all the issues. It does not become us to abandon the issues in favor of a sex scandal. That’s what I think. I already know what you think

    and I know what you think, that its fine and dandy for a 50 year old congressman to hit on a 16 year old page. Ok.. now we know where you stand, but as i said before, you are in a tiny minority here.

    Second point: I’m not for a second suggesting that dems should be discussing this or talking about it on the campaign trail. As a matter of fact if you look at my post I said just the opposite. They should stay OUT of it. This will unfold all on its own without help. But, that doesn’t stop ME from talking about it.

  35. 35
    ThymeZone says:

    This resonates more than 1000 policy positions on global warming or capital gains taxes.

    That’s your opinion. I don’t share it, I think you are wrong.

    Ergo, my posts.

    Get to a water cooler in your office and see what people will be saying.

    I don’t need to find out what “people will be saying” in order to know what I think. And I don’t agree with your characterization of the water cooler talk. I think most reasonable people will see this in its narrow context, not in the widest one that you are painting.

    I’ve addressed the wider ethics question, and I stand with that view, as opposed to yours.

  36. 36
    ThymeZone says:

    and I know what you think, that its fine and dandy for a 50 year old congressman to hit on a 16 year old page. Ok.. now we know where you stand, but as i said before, you are in a tiny minority here.

    I said no such thing, and you know it.

  37. 37
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    we have all the issues.

    Had ’em in ’02 and ’04, too. Fat fucking lot of good it did.

  38. 38
    Tsulagi says:

    Thank God the honor and integrity grownups are in charge! They got your children’s backs. They asked Foley if he was a predator and he said no. No need to go further than that. Send him back to his committee on exploiting children.

    See, it’s not our fault, if he had told us he was a predator we would have done something. BTW, this is what Gonzales had in mind when he said we need your ISPs to keep and provide us with your records! Ummm…might want to test market that first before using Foley as the poster boy for that legislation.

  39. 39
    ThymeZone says:

    Fat fucking lot of good it did.

    Well, we got beaten by lies, by gay bashing, by demagoguery.

    I would prefer to get beaten again than descend to their level.

    But my much more important point is, we don’t need to descend to their level in order to win. We have the winning issues already. We had them a year ago before anybody ever heard of Foley.

  40. 40
    Proud Liberal says:

    I don’t need to find out what “people will be saying” in order to know what I think.

    We all know what you think, its just man on man personal business, but you are but one vote so what what other’s think is important in the context of an election. And again, to repeat, its not so much Foleys’ individual actions. He is one man and the dems sure have had their share of similiar sandals. The damaging aspect of this is going to be how it was handled (or how it wasn’t) by the Republican leadership. We already have them directly contradicting each other. Some say they told Hastert and he denies it. SOMEBODY IS LYING. Oh, but people don’t care about lying now do they? nope.. lets talk about the six party talks with N Korea, that’ll get ’em.

  41. 41
    Proud Liberal says:

    Paul said;

    Well, we got beaten by lies, by gay bashing, by demagoguery.

    exactly. Not policy issues. You make my point but you are too dense to even realize it.

    I would prefer to get beaten again than descend to their level

    ok. I wouldn’t. This election is too important.

    then Paul says I mischaracterized him when I said:

    I know what you think, that its fine and dandy for a 50 year old congressman to hit on a 16 year old page. Ok.. now we know where you stand, but as i said before, you are in a tiny minority here.

    but Paul, these were your words earlier:

    If it is just man on man action being covered up, frankly, I don’t give a shit, I don’t think it’s any of our business

  42. 42
    ThymeZone says:

    We all know what you think, its just man on man personal business

    That’s a lie. What I said is this:

    If it is just man on man action being covered up, frankly, I don’t give a shit

    The “if” in the assertion is key. I haven’t researched the legal or ethical issues here. I addressed those separately. I said that if all you have here is man love, then I don’t care. It’s none of my business, and it isn’t. It isn’t really anybody’s business, other than for its hypocrisy value because the guy is GOP. Which is the crux of my entire stand on the sex police issues in general … they’re nobody’s business unless the activity is illegal.

    But again, since you are bent on mischaracterizing what I say, even if there are legal and ethical issues here, those are not the right thing for Dems to be talking about right now. It’s trailer park tongue-wagging, not the kind of issue politics that will win the House.

    When I say Dems, of course, I mean Dems that matter, not necessarily anonymous Dems on obscure blogs. The latter group includes me, in case you were thinking of posting some faux outrage over the statement.

  43. 43
    ThymeZone says:

    SOMEBODY IS LYING.

    You just now discovered that there is lying in politics?

  44. 44
    Richard Bottoms says:

    However, that being said, I would apply the scandal only to the representatives who actually did the covering up. Not to Republicans in general.

    Then be prepared to lose. Again.

    We beat the brains out of anyone who is a Republican in congress with this.

    Stop bringing knives to a gun fight.

  45. 45
    Richard Bottoms says:

    First of all, there’s a sex police quality to the story that I find troubing.

    No, there is police-police quality this. As in call the police because there seems to be a problem here.

    Sorry, no more Mr. Nice guy.

    If the DNC isn’t hunting (directly or through surrogates) for pictures of George Bush with his arm draped around Mark Foley then we are not ready to whip these guys just like we have to.

    The goal is to win. Period.

  46. 46
    Proud Liberal says:

    It’s trailer park tongue-wagging, not the kind of issue politics that will win the House

    That is where you are dead wrong. Hasn’t watching Karl Rove for the last ten years taught you anything? Its NOT about the issues 90% of the time. Max Cleland lost because they suggested the triple amputee was soft on terror. John Kerry lost in good part because of the Swift Boat lies. McCain got defeated in NC becasue of whispers he was crazy and had a black kid. I could go on and on about how elections are WON and LOST and it ain’t the issues. So your argument that policy is what wins elections is just patently false. Now, you could have a valid argument like you articulated before, that we should not into the gutter and use the same tactics that the Republicans always use againt us. Fine. but that is a totally different argument.

    For the record I am not suggesting anyone get into the gutter. For the THIRD TIME, Dems should do and say NOTHING other than ask for an investigation into what had happened. We will not be LYING like the Swift Boaters, we would not be passing rumours like they did against McCain, we would not be doing any of those un-principled things that the GOP are famous for. But damn it if the Republicans are in a circular firing squad I’m not going to stop them and say, hey wait.. paul over here wants to talk about the G8 conference. Get real.

  47. 47
    Richard Bottoms says:

    What I “want” is restraint.

    Fuck restraint.

  48. 48
    CaseyL says:

    Now, c’mon everyone, ThymeZone is not advocating pedophilia, and he’s not a member of NAMBLA, and for the love of god stop hinting that he is just because you disagree with his take on Foley.

    However, I don’t agree with ThymeZone about one thing: that we should focus on taking back the House “on the issues.”

    TZ: the general electorate does not give a good goddamn about “the issues.” No to the point of changing their Party affiliation or vote, anyway.

    Anyone who at this point is still inclined to vote for a Republican has already decided that the issues don’t matter. Anyone still inclined to vote Republican – after everything that’s happened, from Iraq to Katrina to the Torture Bill – is motivated by pure hindbrain stuff. “Feeling safe,” “kicking Ay-rab ass,” and – above all – (pseudo) Christian values.

    Foley’s emails to pages hits ’em right on the values button. So does the House leadership covering it up – esp. since Foley kept emailing the kids, and the leadership let him keep emailing the kids, for a year after they were informed about it.

    Also, I agree that the GOP thugmeisters wouldn’t be nice and forgiving and civilized about this if Foley was a Democrat. (Hell, the thugs are already trying to equate Foley with the trouble Barney Frank got into a few years back.) Not only would the GOP not “leave this one alone,” the GOP would do its best to make it look as though the entire Democratic Party “supports pedophilia.” (Hell, the thugs do that anyway, whenever gay issues come up and they speculate about which Dems belong to NAMBLA.)

    What’s funny is that a far, far better case can be made that the GOP as a whole really does “support pedophila,” considering how many of their hirelings in DHS and elsewhere got caught with their hands down some kids’s pants.

    So I say, let’s use this. It’s not only one Congressperson’s problem; it’s emblematic of the whole stinking pile of GOP moral corruption.

  49. 49
    ThymeZone says:

    TZ: the general electorate does not give a good goddamn about “the issues.”

    While I disagree, at least that’s an arguable point.

    My rebuttal would be that the issues all favor us this year, whereas they did not two years ago. Two years ago Bush’s numbers and the war numbers were not in the toilet, now they are. And those are the issues that really matter.

  50. 50
    Antonio Manetti says:

    Best to let the issue run its course to see what else turns up.

    A story with prurient interest is good for ratings and newspaper sales, so the media will persue it with bulldog tenacity. This one isn’t going away any time soon.

    Antonio

  51. 51
    Richard Bottoms says:

    What the fuck happened to the Delta l used to know?

    Where’s the spirit?

    Where’s the guts?

    This could be the greatest night of our lives…
    but you’re gonna let it be the worst.

    “We’re afraid to go with you, Bluto. We might get in trouble.”

    (Shouting) Just kiss my ass from now on.

    Not me! l won’t take this!
    Wormer is a dead man!

    -Marmalard: dead! Neidermeyer–
    -Dead.

    ~Animal House

    Time for some creative destruction.

  52. 52
    Richard Bottoms says:

    My rebuttal would be that the issues all favor us this year, whereas they did not two years ago.

    Issues and a (rhetorical) baseball bat will get much farther than issues alone.

  53. 53
    ThymeZone says:

    Time for some creative destruction.

    Who has posted more righteous indignation at the GOP than I have in the last 18 months here?

    It’s good for the circulation. But that doesn’t make it a good political strategy.

    Timing is everything. I advise against letting a sex scandal suck the oxygen out of the election cycle.

  54. 54
    ThymeZone says:

    Issues and a (rhetorical) baseball bat will get much farther than issues alone.

    Possibly. But the baseball bat can backfire. And keep in mind, this scandal thing is brand new. There hasn’t been time to really get all the facts, to let it settle into some kind of understood thing, and so forth. In the rush to capitalize on it, it would be easy to misjudge it, make a mistake, create the appearance of being rank opportunists. Dems don’t deserve to govern because they got handed a GOP congressman with his fly open. Any more than Repubs did when they had a president with his fly open.

  55. 55
    VidaLoca says:

    TZ,

    In an abstract sense I agree with you: I think it would be a good thing if the coming election could be conducted as a referendum on issues such as

    — GOP’s foreign policy
    — War in Iraq
    — Erosion of civil rights/civil liberties; domestic spying
    — and you can add another half a dozen here…

    and have the positions of the Republican party repudiated across the board. However, and sadly, I think it ain’t gonna happen — in no small part because the Democrats don’t have well consolidated positions on these issues, as demonstrated by their votes in the past month or so.

    On the other hand — the best we can hope for tactically, even if the Dems to win one or even two houses of Congress, is that they can gain the ability to throw an monkey wrench into the worst excesses of the Republicans. So I’m thinking that a mandate, while it would be a good thing to have, will be impossible to achieve (1) and not a necessity either.

    (1) unless it’s a mandate to stop the Republicans from driving the train off the rails — that one might be within reach.

    In the end war’s about tactics, and you go to war with the tactical choices you have, not the tactical choices you wish you had…

  56. 56
    ThymeZone says:

    In the end war’s about tactics, and you go to war with the tactical choices you have, not the tactical choices you wish you had…

    Sure, but we had a winning strategy going before we heard of Foley. And we have a Republican government that has failed, and is seen to have failed by the majority of citizens, by every possible objective measure.

    Appearing to be giddy over a sex scandal is not what we need at this moment. We need to keep our eye on the ball.

    Republicans drove a presidential sex scandal to huge approval ratings for the president who had his pants down — by overplaying their hand.

  57. 57
    Richard Bottoms says:

    Dems don’t deserve to govern because they got handed a GOP congressman with his fly open. Any more than Repubs did when they had a president with his fly open.

    I am sure President Gore agrees with you.

    There hasn’t been time to really get all the facts, to let it settle into some kind of understood thing, and so forth.

    Here’s what needs to be understood. Deniis Hastert helped cover up for a boy chasing congressman who happened to be in charge of a committee charged with protecting same.

    Any nitwit bible thumping Republican can understand that.
    It’s not on us to take the high road. Not with these bastards. Not this time.

    To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson. “I know he’s not a pig fucker. I just want to hear him deny it.”

  58. 58
    Andrew says:

    who the fuck is saying the Republicans are homos? Nobody is talking that angle but YOU for some bizarre and probably Freudian reason.

    I am.

    There are a bunch of closeted homos in the administration and congress. My gay friends all know it, and they despise them more than any homophobic redneck.

    Here’s the hypothesis: Sexual repression and hunger for power leads to violence. It’s something the administration and violent islamists have in common. Both have a desperate need to prove that they are men among men, to assert themselves as superior, as dominant.

  59. 59
    ThymeZone says:

    Here’s what needs to be understood. Deniis Hastert helped

    Res ipsa loquitur.

    That’s what you need to keep in mind. Trying to turn this into theater is a very bad idea at this juncture.

  60. 60
    Proud Liberal says:

    why this scandal hurts is not because someone is going to vote democratic because of a sex scandal within the Republican party but that it depresses the vote of Christian right. Kinda hard to vote for guys that are covering up sex scandals. At this point there is little to change people’s minds. Its all about motivating (or de-motivating) the vote.

    Thats what the gay marriage thing was about. It motived the base.

    bush’s number have gone slightly up an slightly down over the past couple of months. Why? because of how CONSERVATIVES viewed him. The Dem numbers didn’t change. The independent numbers didn’t change. But when Bush did Harriet Myers, conservatives fled. When he did Dubai port deal, conservatives fled. This is the same sort of thing. Its going to be a tiny bit harder for a right wing conservative family vaules voter to be motivated for a party that is intertwined with this type of scandal.

    Again, the Dems should not be campaigning on this. Yes, they shoudl be talking about the issues. But, they SHOULD very strongly be demanding to know why it was covered up. Why action wasn’t taked to protect our pages. That is a big winner.

  61. 61
    Hyperion says:

    one piece of info that seems to be missing is the date of the IM stuff.

    I would prefer to get beaten again than descend to their level

    ok. I wouldn’t. This election is too important.

    here we go again with the ends/means shit.

    Foley is a hypocrite. he has paid the price of being discovered as such.

    the behavior of the repubs who were informed about Foley’s emails should be investigated and the facts of the matter made public. then voters can decide what to make of it.

    i do not want to see one sactimonious asshole (that would be Foley) pilloried by another sactimonius asshole (that would be any dem who wants to get on a high horse about/spin this). let the facts speak for themselves.

  62. 62
    ThymeZone says:

    Here’s the hypothesis: Sexual repression and hunger for power leads to violence. It’s something the administration and violent islamists have in common. Both have a desperate need to prove that they are men among men, to assert themselves as superior, as dominant.

    Are you saying that homosexuals can’t be trusted in government? I’m asking, not suggesting.

  63. 63
    VidaLoca says:

    My rebuttal would be that the issues all favor us this year, whereas they did not two years ago.

    Well, I’d agree with you insofar as the issues favor us more, in a quantitiative way, now than they did 2 years ago. I think with the passage of time many people have come to see what one-party rule by a radical right-wing cabal is really like.
    On the other hand, this is not new material, it was pretty much right out in the open 2 years ago. Nothing really qualitatively new. TZ, a big part of the reason the Democrats lost 2 years ago was because of the limp, feckless and lackluster candidate they chose, and the campaign he ran — and their ability to do that again has not changed either.

    Moral: even given the best set of issues imaginable on which to run, don’t underestimate the Dems’ ability to screw them up. Agreed, as issues go a sex scandal is sub-optimal — but I’m not willing to throw it overboard, because I don’t trust the Dems’ ability to handle the optimal issues aggressively.

  64. 64
    ThymeZone says:

    a big part of the reason the Democrats lost 2 years ago was because of the limp, feckless and lackluster candidate they chose, and the campaign he ran—and their ability to do that again has not changed either.

    Sure, agreed. But bad candidates happen to both parties.

    Bob. Dole.

  65. 65
    tBone says:

    Timing is everything. I advise against letting a sex scandal suck the oxygen out of the election cycle.

    Too late. As far as cable news is concerned, the only way this scandal could be any more enticing is if one of the pages (a blond one) later disappeared in Aruba.

    Republicans drove a presidential sex scandal to huge approval ratings for the president who had his pants down—by overplaying their hand.

    If Monica Lewinsky had been a 16-year-old boy, I think that story would have ended a little differently.

  66. 66
    just me says:

    I think one thing to consider before screaming “covering up for pedophiles” too loudly, is just what emails the leadership had access to.

    The first emails that came out were weird and kind creepy, but there wasn’t really anything in them that was sexually explicit.

    The IMs were where the explicit stuff showed up. The IMs may not have been known, and it is clear at the very least Foley lied about his relationship with the Page involved.

    So, I think one key missing piece is exactly what was told to who, and what information they saw.

  67. 67
    Proud Liberal says:

    OK.. now the latest. Hastert is “walking back” from his earlier contention that he wasn’t told about the Foley affair. Just the fact that hastert felt it necessary to put out a clarifying statement late on a Satruday says something. Here is the relevant part:

    Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold’s recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.

    that fucking amnesia stuff must be contageous. Imagine not remembering of you wre told that one of your members was hitting on a page. Does that sort of thing happen often you wonder?

  68. 68
    ThymeZone says:

    As far as cable news is concerned, the only way this scandal could be any more enticing

    Maybe, but cable news is paid attention to by maybe one percent of the American population.

    Not long ago the the daily aggregates for Fox and CNN combined, which is the bulk of cable viewership, didn’t reach 2 million people. That is 2/3 of one percent of the population.

  69. 69
    Zifnab says:

    that fucking amnesia stuff must be contageous. Imagine not remembering of you wre told that one of your members was hitting on a page. Does that sort of thing happen often you wonder?

    All that smog in D.C. does crazy things to your head. It’s really not his fault.

  70. 70
    Proud Liberal says:

    been said before, but worth repeating. This is what “man on man” Foley had to say about Clinton:

    “It’s vile. It’s more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction.”
    –Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), commenting on President Clinton, following release of the Starr Report, September 12, 1998.

    live by the sword, die by the sword.

  71. 71
    tBone says:

    Maybe, but cable news is paid attention to by maybe one percent of the American population.

    Not long ago the the daily aggregates for Fox and CNN combined, which is the bulk of cable viewership, didn’t reach 2 million people. That is 2/3 of one percent of the population.

    My point was that the media (not just cable news) is going to be all over this thing like a protein stain on a blue dress, and there’s dick-all the Dems (or ‘Pubs) can do about it.

  72. 72
    VidaLoca says:

    Sure, agreed. But bad candidates happen to both parties.

    Bob. Dole.

    Agreed. But the bad candidates don’t appear in both parties as a result of the same processes.

    I don’t know how Bob Dole materialized, or what his relationship was to the radical right wing of the GOP. My hypothesis is that Dole wanted to run, was the most senior guy in an undistinguished field, Clinton was strong — so the radical right in the GOP (which had just taken over the House two years previously and were trying to ram their agenda through there) took a pass, guessing that Dole would lose, and kept their sights on the 2000 election. They figured their day would come, they had a candidate waiting in the wings, they laid low and consolidated their power base while they awaited their opportunity.

    Kerry came from a whole different set of politics, centrally the desire by the compromisers in the DLC to keep a grip on the party. Those guys would rather lose an election than lose the party because there will always be another election, but once they lose the party they’re finished.
    Point is, they run the thing at the moment, and we cannot trust them to allow the right candidates to be nomiated, or run on the right issues in the right way.

  73. 73
    Proud Liberal says:

    Not long ago the the daily aggregates for Fox and CNN combined, which is the bulk of cable viewership, didn’t reach 2 million people. That is 2/3 of one percent of the population

    guess then very few people ever heard of Natalee Holloway’s disappearance right?

  74. 74
    ThymeZone says:

    My point was that the media (not just cable news) is going to be all over this thing like a protein stain

    Possibly. But I don’t think it’s a winner for Dems.

    Let the media do what they are going to do. If I am a Dem candidate, I am going to underplay it.

  75. 75
    ThymeZone says:

    very few people ever heard of Natalee

    People hear about things. Whether they know anything about them or care anything about them is another matter.

    People might vaguely know there is a sex scandal in Washington. But I doubt seriously that they will turn that into votes for Dems. And I assert strongly that trying too hard to manipulate that into votes for Dems could be a very bad idea.

  76. 76
    ThymeZone says:

    don’t know how Bob Dole materialized, or what his relationship was to the radical right wing of the GOP. My hypothesis is that Dole wanted to run, was the most senior guy in an undistinguished field, Clinton was strong—so the radical right in the GOP (which had just taken over the House two years previously and were trying to ram their agenda through there) took a pass, guessing that Dole would lose, and kept their sights on the 2000 election. They figured their day would come, they had a candidate waiting in the wings, they laid low and consolidated their power base while they awaited their opportunity.

    Hmm. I look forward to discussing our competing books on a future edition of Larry King Live ;^ |

  77. 77
    CaseyL says:

    The GOP overplayed their hand with Clinton because most Americans were able to figure out it was an affair between consenting adults – one of them a President who was otherwise doing a good job.

    This one doesn’t involve consenting adults. And it doesn’t involve people who are otherwise doing a good job. It involves people who are otherwise doing a lousy job – at everything except protecting an incompetent/evil (take your pick) President and lining their own pockets.

    The underlying dynamics are quite different.

  78. 78
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    Why was Mark Foley in favor of school prayer?
     

     

     

     

     
     
    Anything to get boys on their knees.

  79. 79
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    It’s something the administration and violent islamists have in common. Both have a desperate need to prove that they are men among men, to assert themselves as superior, as dominant.

    Ah, Andrew, where does Condi fit in?

  80. 80
    Proud Liberal says:

    But I doubt seriously that they will turn that into votes for Dems.

    Ok.. I think we all got your opinion. Quite frankly I’d rather the Republicans be on the defensive these last few weeks than the offensive and I can’t imagine this how this could possible help their image at all, so all in all I would have to say its a plus for the Dems.. as shocking as that is to your delicate sensibilities.

    Again… the Dems need not do anything. The press will do it all. The press will be askign the questions. The press will have graphics of the emails and IM messages. The press will have the psychologists on to explain pedophilia. The press will do stories on Internet predators.

    I know Paul, I know. How fucking terrible.

  81. 81
    Richard 23 says:

    BTW, this is what Gonzales had in mind when he said we need your ISPs to keep and provide us with your records!

    Good point. Not that the collected info would be used against the ruling party except for blackmail purposes. To get congresspersons to vote the RIGHT way, for example.

    one piece of info that seems to be missing is the date of the IM stuff.

    I agree. Especially since Foley was co-sponsor of a Federal law that outlawed sexual content being passed between an adult and a person below the age of 18 on the internet. Was the law in force when he broke it?

    It’s the hypocrisy and the coverup that’s the big story here.

    IMHO.

  82. 82
    ThymeZone says:

    Ok.. I think we all got your opinion. Quite frankly I’d rather the Republicans be on the defensive these last few weeks than the offensive and I can’t imagine this how this could possible help their image at all, so all in all I would have to say its a plus for the Dems.. as shocking as that is to your delicate sensibilities.

    I doubt that it’s a plus. But even if it had a little of that potential, I am pretty sure that your type of reaction would turn it into a negative. That’s my point.

    Or at least, one of them. Another is that the facts are not all in, especially on the “wider scandal.”

    Most of the Dem advantage to the original story vanished when Foley withdrew. Now the second story is looking for legs, but I am not seeing much there. The current version running on MSNBC’s site is pretty much a non-starter.

  83. 83
    ThymeZone says:

    one piece of info that seems to be missing is the date of the IM stuff.

    I saw it reported as 2005.

  84. 84
    Dug Jay says:

    McGuire, as always, has something insightful to say about this:

    “Why would the House leadership ever cover this up?”

    “Answer – if the pages in question had been girls, Foley would have been shot at dawn.

    “However, picture this headline – “House Leadership Boots Allegedly Gay Republican On Trumped-Up Pedophilia Charges”. Ugly. Worth Avoiding. Listening to Andrew Sullivan and John Cole 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.

    “That is one bit of WILD SPECULATION. Another theory is that we will find out that Foley was some sort of extraordinary fund-raiser, even by the standards of Florida Republicans. Otherwise, I can’t think of a reason not to quickly boot Foley in 2005 when indications of a problem first come to light.”

  85. 85
    Proud Liberal says:

    Now the second story is looking for legs

    patience dear man, patience. It’s only been day one. And its a weekend. A good stew takes a while to simmer.

    And as for your doubt that this is a plus for Dems at all, well, that is just silly. EVERYTHING is a plus or minus politically in one way or the other. Its definitly a plus, its just a question now of how big a plus it is.

    Was this not a plus for Dems? Story a non-starter? Lol, right.

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — Just hours before Congress closed down for the midterm elections on Saturday, Republican leaders threw together a ceremony to celebrate the passage of what they hoped to promote as their singular legislative accomplishment — a bill to bring terrorism suspects to trial.

    But after House and Senate leaders formally signed the measure for the cameras, the only questions they faced from assembled reporters pertained to Representative Mark Foley, the Florida Republican who had just resigned after accusations that he sent sexually explicit Internet messages to teenage pages.
    “None of us are very happy about it,” Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said before abruptly calling a halt to the questions, and the ceremony.

    No doubt.

    Republicans scored significant legislative victories in the closing hours. They pushed through the bill for detainee trials after weeks of internal squabbling, won approval for 700 miles of border fencing to show they are serious about cracking down on illegal immigration, passed spending bills for defense and domestic security, and enacted new port security initiatives.

    But the finale hardly went according to script for Republicans as they headed out to try to hold off Democrats determined to win a majority.

  86. 86
    Proud Liberal says:

    Republicans were clearly rocked by the Foley episode. It gave Democrats, who need 15 seats to gain a majority, a new opening to pick up a seat in a Republican-leaning district. Florida Republicans were to meet to choose a replacement for Mr. Foley, but his name will remain on the ballot against a well-financed opponent.

    Picking up what had been a safe seat for Republicans is already a PLUS won’t you say?

  87. 87
    ThymeZone says:

    patience

    Yep, that’s pretty much my argument. Patience.

    Jumping up and down and acting like we just won something, not very smart at this juncture. Taking our eye off the ball, which is George Bush and the war and winning the House, not smart. Assuming on this date that this scandal carries the election for Dems, just stupid.

    We’re trying to save a country, and that is going to take focus and consistency, not a chorus of “neeners.”

  88. 88
    stickler says:

    ThymeZone:

    Are you saying that homosexuals can’t be trusted in government? I’m asking, not suggesting.

    This has already been addressed, but I can’t let it pass, even though you were responding to someone else.

    Do I think all homosexuals can’t be trusted in government? No, of course not.

    Do I think that closeted homosexuals, who won election largely because of their public facade of heterosexuality, shouldn’t be trusted? Yes. For the same reasons that espionage networks used to target (closeted) homosexuals for blackmail. The Closeted are people who have both a public persona and a private persona, and those personae are incompatible. Worse, this leads them to make bad decisions for irrational, if understandable, reasons.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that way, way, too many of the strident morality crusaders who fulminate about HOMOS!!! and the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!!! are doing this, publicly, because they are themselves most agitated about their own character.

    When Shakespeare penned that immortal phrase, “Methinks thou dost protest too much,” he hit on something very, very important.

  89. 89
    ThymeZone says:

    I have a sneaking suspicion that way, way, too many of the strident morality crusaders who fulminate about HOMOS and the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA are doing this, publicly, because they are themselves most agitated about their own character.

    Well, a lot of material in your post.

    First, as you probably noticed, the (Andrew) post I queried made it sound as if homosexuality itself was some kind of aberrant behavior, and disqualifying. I don’t consider it to be either one. Not aberrant, and not disqualifying. There is aberrant homosexual behavior, and there is aberrant heterosexual behavior.

    Second, I think that “most” crusaders are just opportunists.

    Third, I don’t consider homosexuality a “character” issue at all. I don’t see any link between sexual orientation and character.

  90. 90
    ThymeZone says:

    I just watched the NBC news streaming video on this story (dateline yesterday, I think …) and got these takeaway points:

    1) The communications with the 16-year-old page were emails, and were characterized as “ambiguous” but troubling in nature. It was apparently these emails that prompted House members to counsel Foley to desist from this behavior.

    2) The IM material now making the rounds has come from other people, unnamed as far as I know, and are more explicit…. but I know of no links between these and the page.

    That being the case, there appears to be less, in the facts, to this story than meets the eye. So far, allowing for the fact that the story is young and we really don’t know for sure where it is headed.

  91. 91
    Richard 23 says:

    Glenn Greenwald:

    As much as anything else, that is what this scandal is about — GOP House Leaders prancing around as the Protectors of our nation’s children from Internet Predators while, at the same time, apparently knowing that there was such a predator in their midst. And they not only failed to do anything about it, but they actively worked to conceal the behavior

    Exactly. What is interesting is yet again is the absence of the opinions of the resident protectors of God and virtue: Mac Buckets, Par R, Darrell, scs, Sherard, Stormy70, etc. Is there an authoritarian retreat or something?

  92. 92
    ThymeZone says:

    I should add, the news story I watched is 24 hours old in all liklihood, so I could be behind the latest version of the story at this point.

  93. 93
    ThymeZone says:

    The top three Republicans in the House assailed Rep. Mark Foley Saturday over his e-mails to a teenage male page and said his resignation was not enough. Calling the incident “an obscene breach of trust,” the congressmen released a statement saying, “[Foley’s] immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system.”

    These guys are smart, they are trying to get out in front of the story.

  94. 94
    Richard 23 says:

    So are they suggesting that Foley be prosecuted under the “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006?” Otherwise I’m not sure what recourse to the criminal justice system they’re talking about.

    I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

  95. 95
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Front page of tomorrow’s Sunday NY Times:

    GOP Leaders Knew In Late ’05 of E-Mail

    Foleygate has just swallowed up the Republican Congressional leadership.

    http://www.nytimes.com

  96. 96
    Richard Bottoms says:

    So much for those who favor the dainty, let’s not get too shrill approach to the scandal. Captain’s Quarters is already calling for Hastert and Boehner to step down from their leadership positions.

    I cannot tell CQ readers how disgusted I am with Speaker Hastert. Reynolds is no fringe nutcase; he’s the man Hastert trusted to run the midterm re-elections of the Republican caucus. He has no reason to lie, but Hastert apparently did. This also calls into question Boehner’s earlier reversal, when he denied saying that he informed Hastert after Hastert denied knowing of Foley’s activities.

    Hastert should have been a man from the beginning and admit that he knew about Foley. Now he has destroyed any credibility left in his Speakership, and he has only compounded the embarrassment for the GOP caucus. Foley’s actions reflect on Foley alone, but thanks to Hastert and perhaps Boehner, the aftermath will reflect on all Republicans in the House.

    Republicans have to act swiftly to remove the stench of Foleygate from the party. They need to demand the resignation of Hastert as Speaker, as well as Boehner as Majority Leader if he lied to protect Hastert. Allowing Foley off the hook was a mistake in judgment, but this is a betrayal of those who trusted Hastert to lead the House with dignity, honesty, and integrity.

    Heh

    Time to kick them while they are down.

  97. 97
    ThymeZone says:

    After the e-mails were publicized, ABC News released instant text messages allegedly sent by the congressman to other teenage male pages.

    In them Foley allegedly said he wanted to take the teen’s clothes off and allegedly asked the page if he made him “a little horny,” ABC News reported, saying other exchanges were too graphic to make public.

    That’s the current CNN story. More damning than yesterday’s account.

  98. 98
    Andrew says:

    First, as you probably noticed, the (Andrew) post I queried made it sound as if homosexuality itself was some kind of aberrant behavior, and disqualifying. I don’t consider it to be either one. Not aberrant, and not disqualifying. There is aberrant homosexual behavior, and there is aberrant heterosexual behavior.

    You misunderstand me; perhaps I was unclear. Homosexuality is fine and dandy.

    Being a homosexual and particiating in politics of demonization of because you’re ashamed of your own identity is pretty low.

    George Allen’s Ham Sandwich Judaism is like the very ‘lite’ version of this.

    On the other hand, the case in point is about sexual preference for the underage and abusing a position of power and these things are inherently bad, unlike homo or heterosexuality.

  99. 99
    ThymeZone says:

    You misunderstand me; perhaps I was unclear. Homosexuality is fine and dandy.

    Being a homosexual and particiating in politics of demonization of because you’re ashamed of your own identity is pretty low.

    George Allen’s Ham Sandwich Judaism is like the very ‘lite’ version of this.

    On the other hand, the case in point is about sexual preference for the underage and abusing a position of power and these things are inherently bad, unlike homo or heterosexuality.

    I agree with all of that. Thanks for clearing it up.

  100. 100
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Heh. Just got kicked off Rick Moron’s Rightwing Sluthouse for about the umpteenth time. The offense? Challenging his rather tortured defence of the GOP Congressional leadership’s wretched handling of the Foley situation.

    Rick claims that Foley was merely concerned about the welfare of a former page caught up in the Katrina mess. The request for a picture was because he wanted to see if he was OK.

    And his defense of the likes of Hastert and Boner? They didn’t know about it.

  101. 101
    jaime says:

    I guess this isn’t a topic Mac and Darrell want to crawl out of their holes to participate.

    Rush hasn’t told them how to spin this yet.

  102. 102
    Richard 23 says:

    Haven’t made it to right wing nuthouse yet, but Just One Minute has a gross thread up.

  103. 103
    DougJ says:

    That JustOneMinute thread is amazing. Can anyone be that crazy? What are the freepers doing with this one?

  104. 104

    I guess this isn’t a topic Mac and Darrell want to crawl out of their holes to participate.

    Rush hasn’t told them how to spin this yet

    If I were still spoofing, I’d blame it on the culture of permissiveness created by Clinton and the other Democrats. Clearly, Foley was subconsciously influenced by rabid moonbat social mores into behaving inappropriately.

    Because he was influenced subconsciously, Foley himself was, subconsciously speaking, a liberal. Therefore, this is a Democrat scandal, not a Republican one.

    The sad thing is, when the GOP eventually does get a talking point on this thing, it won’t be much better than the one I just came up with.

  105. 105
    jaime says:

    What are the freepers doing with this one?

    It looks like right wing talking point spaghetti being thrown against the wall.We’ve got “It’s George Soros’ fault”, 16 year olds are not THAT innocent, Barney Frank did it, Clinton did it, Gary Studds did it.

    It’s utterly pathetic.

  106. 106
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Most of the Creepy Freepies have been employing the 3 monkeys defense: See no, hear no, speak no. Just replace the monkeys with Hastert, Boner and Shimkus.

    Something completely blown out of the water by tomorrow’s NY Times and Washington Post headlines. They knew that a predator was stalking the halls of Congress and chose to do nothing.

    The GOP has a monstrous sex scandal on its hands. The timing couldn’t have been better.

  107. 107
    DougJ says:

    Better to fight the predators in the chat rooms of our pages than in the streets of our cities.

  108. 108
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Checking the temperature…
    Maguire, at the bottom of the post linked here, adds:

    Re Hastert’s performance, Nun dare call it “Papal.”

    The GOP is in deep trouble.

  109. 109
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    All GOP congresspersons should be asked whether they’ll demand resignations from anyone who helped cover up Foley’s follies.
    They want to paint Democrats as terrorist sympathizers. Fine – they can be painted as enabling predators.

  110. 110
    jaime says:

    The sad thing is, when the GOP eventually does get a talking point on this thing, it won’t be much better than the one I just came up with.

    Via Redstate:

    “This story shows the difference between the parties. Bad behavior has consequences in the GOP, even if no law is broken and its “only about sex.”

    “I am saying Rep Foley is a known media darling because he is a Republican in Name Only…RINO. The Democrats & media used him & his quotes to hurt Republicans for years and counted on his votes for some liberal/moderate causes. They suppressed these stories then. Today they don’t.”

  111. 111
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    When the roof caves in on Hastert, will Redstate label him as a RINO, too?

  112. 112
    EL says:

    Some of the crazy freepers are now saying that Wilson and Plame are involved:

    So, consider the source of the IMs. One poster said these things date from 2003. Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson’s “friends” are the ones who’ve been holding them since then.

    This is not surprising, and it smells more and more like a CIA insider attempt to overthrow the government.

    It’s all a plot you see, although I still haven’t seen them come up with one that makes the slightest bit of sense.

  113. 113
    tBone says:

    So, consider the source of the IMs. One poster said these things date from 2003. Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson’s “friends” are the ones who’ve been holding them since then.
    This is not surprising, and it smells more and more like a CIA insider attempt to overthrow the government.

    The Freepers are amazing. Just when you think they’ve got to be pumping sand, they somehow manage to strike a whole new vein of crazy.

    I wonder if Vince Foster’s brutal murder ties into this somehow?

  114. 114
    EL says:

    I wonder if Vince Foster’s brutal murder ties into this somehow?

    I don’t know, but I have seen George Soros mentioned several times.

  115. 115
    DougJ says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Vince Foster a 16 year-old page at the time of his murder? That’s why they had to kill him — Hillary getting shtupped by a 16 year-old stud would not have gone over well with voters. Bill didn’t care, there’s stories he was taping them. And nobody seemed to care. But one Republican says a couple joking messages to kids about masturbation and penis size and he’s another Hitler. Chalk it up to the librul MSM, I guess.

  116. 116
    EL says:

    I’ve seen plenty of comments about the Republican leadership’s “investigation” of Foley, and the “we didn’t know it was so serious” attitude. What should have been done? I’ve done administrative work, and when someone brings up an allegation this serious, you check very carefully. You look for other complaints, and you look to see if there’s problem behaviour you haven’t heard about, that might be even worse.

    At the very least, they should have checked with others in the page program, and with those who supervisored the pages to see if they’d heard anything similar. With something of this gravity, they should contact ex-pages.

    Those investigating don’t have to mention a name – in fact, they shouldn’t. They simply ask if the page or ex-page recalls any inappropriate contacts with members of congress while they served as pages.

    I suspect an investigation of that sort might have proved very fruitful.

  117. 117

    “I am saying Rep Foley is a known media darling because he is a Republican in Name Only…RINO. The Democrats & media used him & his quotes to hurt Republicans for years and counted on his votes for some liberal/moderate causes. They suppressed these stories then. Today they don’t.”

    There you have it, it’s confirmed. Foley was a shameless moonbat, just like you people. Ergo, not only was he a terrorist sympathizer, he also supports NAMBLA and wants to teach our children that dinosaurs didn’t try to eat their great-grandpappy, Adam.

    Being a right-winger is hilarious, once you learn to tolerate it when you throw up a little in your mouth.

Comments are closed.