NY Times:Repub Leaders Hastert & Boehner Cover Up Closeted Foley's emails to boys. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

FoolThemAll · 10-04-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Tammy Bruce, political analyst, Fox News:

All I want, frankly, is a gay person in office who is not a sexual compulsive. I mean, is that too much to ask for?

Those other quotes are pretty bad - I'll never be able to look at Ferris Bueller's Day Off the same way again - but this one doesn't seem so bad. I mean, it could be ignorant for all I know, I haven't kept detailed tabs on the sex lives of open/outed gays in public office, but it doesn't seem bigoted to me. Looks like she's saying that she wishes gay politicians projected a better image of homosexuality. Given the ones most recently in the public spotlight - Foley and McGreevey - it doesn't sound like an unreasonable wish.

Ustwo · 10-04-2006, 09:26 PM

Former Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts admitted to a sexual affair with a 17 year old page boy in 1983 and defied the House's attempts to reprimand him. He then went on to serve five more terms.

I saw that online, didn't know anything about it, looked it up and apparently it was true.

Interesting, who controlled the house back then anyways?

What Hastert did do this week, according to a statement he made on Monday was to contact the Justice Department and the state of Florida to investigate possible violations of both federal and state laws on the part of Foley. And most notable, Hastert has made clear the obvious: while he apparently gave Foley a limited response to allegations in 2005 based on the limited information that was available and believed at the time, he makes it clear that someone obviously did know about the true extent of the e-mail exchanges and kept it under wraps until now. And it is of interest to find out who those people were (unless you want to make the case that it was Hastert who leaked this to ABC). If Foley's actions were indeed predatorial (as they appear to be) then whoever leaked it knowingly did more to appease Foley's behavior and possibly endanger these teenagers than anything that has come out to suggest that Hastert himself has.

Another interesting comment. Just who DID leak this story 40 days before the next election?

magictoy · 10-04-2006, 11:04 PM

On the network news this morning, a 28-year-old former page stated that he warned a new page about "the FRESHMAN rep from Florida."

The thought that no one (including Democrats) suspected anything until 2005, or a month before the elections, stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

host · 10-05-2006, 12:53 AM

Could the difference, this time with Foley, be the blatant lies to the media, coming from the house leadership?

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2509889
Page Program Has Seen Scandal Before
Foley Not the First Congressman Accused of Indiscretion Related to the Page Program

By LIZ MARLANTES

Sept. 29, 2006 — Sex scandals on Capitol Hill are nothing new. And if the allegations against Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., prove true, he would not even be the first member of Congress to pursue an inappropriate relationship with a page.

In 1983, two lawmakers were censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relationships with teenage pages. Rep. Dan Crane, R-Ill., admitted to sexual relations with a 17-year-old female page, while Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., admitted to sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page.

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

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

The scandals had repercussions for congressional pages as well. The Congressional Page Program — which has been around for more than 150 years — was overhauled and a board was created to monitor it. A dormitory for pages was created near the Capitol......

and magictoy.....read the HIllnews report in my last post here, and consider the following reports from the news.....because I'm not quite sure if you are "up to speed" about what you are posting about:

Quote:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...aff_warne.html
GOP Staff Warned Pages About Foley in 2001

October 01, 2006 4:00 PM

......Pages report to either Republican or Democratic supervisors, depending on the political party of the member of Congress who nominate them for the page program.

Several Democratic pages tell ABC News they received no such warnings about Foley......

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217899,00.html
House GOP Leaders Ask for Probe Into Alleged Foley Dorm Visit

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

......However, Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, chairman of the House Republican Conference, sent a letter to Hass saying that U.S. Capitol Police officers stopped Foley from entering the page dorm "within the last several years."

Pryce also said on the same Monday GOP, members-only conference call, lawmakers said that the Director of the Republican Pages "brought specific concerns about then-Congressman Foley's behavior to the attention of the then-Clerk of the House."

Pryce's letter to Hass called the rumors "vague" but "serious allegations" that deserve the Clerk's "full attention and thorough investigation."......

Quote:

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/elec...p?story=217144
Foley scandal hits Ohio
With GOP on defensive, accusations from Democrats fly
By Jack Torry, James Nash and Catherine Candisky
The Columbus Dispatch
Wednesday, October 4, 2006

.....Rep. Deborah Pryce, of Upper Arlington, the No. 4 House Republican, said that "anyone who was aware of these instant messages needs to take responsibility. Anybody who had knowledge of that needs to step down."......

.........Pryce, who said she learned late last week of e-mails between Foley and former pages, said yesterday that House GOP leaders "deferred to the Louisiana parents and should not have done that. <h3>And they didn't include enough people, for instance, no Democrat."</h3>

Pryce yesterday asked the House clerk to investigate what she described as rumors that Foley, while intoxicated, had once tried to enter the page residence hall but was stopped by Capitol Police.

Pryce, in a letter Tuesday after GOP House members held a conference call the night before, also asked the clerk to look into claims that the director of the page program took complaints about Foley's behavior to a former House clerk. David Roth, Foley's attorney, would not comment last night....

Quote:

http://www.journal-news.net/news/art...articleID=4106

Capito decries lack of notification over Foley e-mails

CHARLESTON — Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, one of three representatives who oversee U.S. Capitol pages, says she was caught off guard by reports about suggestive e-mails that a former Florida congressman allegedly sent to a 16-year-old former page.

Despite her lack of knowledge about the situation, her Democratic challenger, Mike Callaghan, has called for the resignation of each of the three Representatives on the Page Board, saying they were “asleep at the wheel.”

Capito said she wasn’t told about the e-mails until Friday, even though several high-ranking House Republicans have known about them for months.

‘‘I felt that we should have been informed,’’ said Capito, R-W.Va. ‘‘I’m absolutely disgusted by what I’m hearing.’’......

Quote:

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?se...cal&id=4629789
Dale Kildee speaks on Foley case
Representative says he's outraged
WJRT ABC12 News

MID MICHIGAN (WJRT) - (10/04/06)--A Michigan congressman who is the only Democrat on the House Page Board is outraged over the way Republicans handled concerns last year about former Rep. Mark Foley and his e-mails to teenage pages.

Rep. Dale Kildee is upset that the board's leader, Illinois Republican Rep. John Shimkus, met with Foley last year without consulting with him.

Foley was ordered to end contact with the young boy.

Kildee says parents who send their children to Washington depend on the board to ensure they are safe, and that it appears Republicans put their interests before the pages'.

Kildee has served on the page board since 1985.

Quote:

http://www.forbes.com/business/energ...ap3066630.html

A senior House Republican said Wednesday that Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate e-mails to a page - now at the center of an intensifying federal investigation - should have been thoroughly pursued at the time.

As conservatives debated whether House Speaker Dennis Hastert should resign over his handling of the complaint, the House majority whip, Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he would have handled it differently if he'd known about it. He was the acting majority leader when the complaint was raised....

magictoy....let us recap....you've repeated a talking point that has no support from any of the news reporting....."The thought that no one (including Democrats) suspected anything until 2005, or a month before the elections, stretches credulity beyond the breaking point."

The two parties appoint separate house of rep. pages, the rules allow the majority party to appoint twice the number of pages than the minority party can appoint. I posted a report above that says that the pages have separate supervisors, according to the politcal party that appointed them, and that some pages said that no democrat supervisor of pages warned democrat appointed pages about Mark Foley.

Rep. Shimkus, a republican, was the only member or the three member house page board who was aware of the Foley emails or the complaint from the parent of a Louisiana page. He was informed by Rep. Alexander, a republican who appointed that page, and who fielded the complaint from the parent.

Shimkus did not tell fellow page board members, Capito, R-WV, or Kildee D-MI, about the complaint. House majority whip, republican Roy Blunt, who was acting majority leader after Tom Delay resigned from the position, and before Boehner was elected by house republicans to fill that position, said he did not know about Foley.

Shimkus, and the republican appointed former house clerk Trandahl, confronted Foley about the complaint. Rep. Alexander said that he brought the complain about Foley to Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, chairman of the house NRCC....who had as his chief of staff, Fordham....who had been Foley's chief of staff for ten years.

Kirk Fordham resigned, and said that he had discussed Foley's preoccupation with male house pages, with Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, as long ago as three years......

What have you seen....from any news report....magictoy, that links any house democrat, with prior knowledge of Foley's activities with house pages?
Were you influenced to post about democrats, by the influence of the spin of Clarice Feldman, et al?

ratbastid · 10-05-2006, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Hm! Now the AP has made the same "mistake".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/4/12752/0998

Once is a silly little goof. Twice by two different news agencies makes me wonder.

And again!

This can't be a coincidence or an unconnected series of innocent errors.

"Repetition is the crudest and most effective form of propaganda."
--Joseph Goebbels

xxSquirtxx · 10-05-2006, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Those other quotes are pretty bad - I'll never be able to look at Ferris Bueller's Day Off the same way again - but this one doesn't seem so bad. I mean, it could be ignorant for all I know, I haven't kept detailed tabs on the sex lives of open/outed gays in public office, but it doesn't seem bigoted to me. Looks like she's saying that she wishes gay politicians projected a better image of homosexuality. Given the ones most recently in the public spotlight - Foley and McGreevey - it doesn't sound like an unreasonable wish.

FoolThemAll, Tammy Bruce IS gay. She's a very outspoken lesbian who sits quite right of center. She's great.

Like most people, she wants accountability from both sides.

This whole thing is getting curiouser and curiouser. The page was a former page, for one, and he wasn't 16. He was 17. The age of consent in D.C. is 16. NOT that that makes it okay. I still think Foley is a nasty slimeball who damn well should have resigned like he did. Shame on him.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8096

Someone had these IMs for three years! I want to know who the hell had this info for that long.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...e-scandal.html

Maybe he just should have taken his object of lust to Morocco to have sex with him.

host · 10-05-2006, 07:16 AM

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2132070&postcount=40">Clarice Feldman</a>, your ridiculous, "Soros and "the democrats" knew...." "message" has come full circle....it is now coming out of the mouth of the man who is constitutionally, second in line to succeed the pretzeldent:

Quote:

<a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=Hastert+vows+to+hold+on+Rick+Pearson+reported+from+Plano%2C+Ill.%2C+with+Mike+Dorning+in+Washington.&btnG=Search+News">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0610050132oct05,1,1331359.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</a>
Hastert vows to hold on
Foley's ex-aide: I warned speaker's office at least 2 years ago

By Rick Pearson and Mike Dorning, Washington Bureau. Rick Pearson reported from Plano, Ill., with Mike Dorning in Washington. Tribune correspondent Andrew Zajac in Washington and reporter Ray Long in
Published October 5, 2006

..... In an interview with the Tribune on Wednesday night, Hastert said he had no thoughts of resigning and he blamed ABC News and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal that threatens his tenure as speaker and Republicans' hold on power in the House.

"No. Look, I've talked to our members," Hastert said. "Our members are supportive. I think that [resignation] is exactly what our opponents would like to have happen--that I'd fold my tent and others would fold our tent and they would sweep the House."

When asked about a groundswell of discontent among the GOP's conservative base over his handling of the issue, Hastert said in the phone interview: "I think the base has to realize after a while, who knew about it? Who knew what, when? When the base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy. The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by [liberal activist] George Soros."

He went on to suggest that operatives aligned with former President Bill Clinton knew about the allegations and were perhaps behind the disclosures in the closing weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections, but he offered no hard proof.

"All I know is what I hear and what I see," the speaker said. "I saw Bill Clinton's adviser, Richard Morris, was saying these guys knew about this all along. <h3>If somebody had this info, when they had it, we could have dealt with it then.".......</h3>

........... In a day of rapidly unfolding developments, former Foley chief of staff Kirk Fordham charged that he had alerted the speaker's chief of staff to Foley's behavior well before a former page complained last year of inappropriate e-mails from the Florida Republican congressman. Fordham resigned earlier in the day as chief of staff to Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-N.Y.), the GOP national congressional campaign chairman; Reynolds was among those involved in discussions of the page's complaint about Foley.

Fordham's lawyer, Timothy Heaphy, said Fordham warned Hastert chief of staff Scott Palmer at least two years ago about inappropriate behavior between Foley and pages.

"Palmer subsequently had a meeting with Foley and Foley mentioned it to Fordham," Heaphy said......

....RE: Hastert's reference to "Richard Morris":

Quote:

http://www.dailypress.net/stories/ar...articleID=4848
Published: Tuesday, October 03, 2006
By Mary Feldhusen - mfeldhusen@dailypress.net

ESCANABA — Dick Morris pulled no punches in talking about his former bosses, Hillary and Bill Clinton, to members of the Bay Area Economic Club Monday night.

Of Bill Clinton, Morris said, “He’s often not a very nice person to be with in private.” Of Hillary Clinton, he said, “She reminds me of President Nixon. She’s very ruthless.”

Morris predicts Hillary Clinton will be the next president. But, he is not happy about his prediction. He does not think she would make a good president.

“She’s as close to a European socialist as we have in the U.S.,” Morris said...

.......In the 2008 presidential election, Morris said he believes the only two Republicans who could give Sen. Clinton a “run for her money” are Rudy Giuliani, former New York mayor, and Arizona Sen. John McCain. But, “they’re both too good,” Morris noted......

......Morris wrote a pair of books criticizing the Clintons and wrote “Behind the Oval Office: Winning the Presidency in the Nineties,” a retrospective of his work with the Clintons. It was published soon after his Aug. 29, 1996, resignation from the campaign due to scandal. Morris resigned after reports surfaced that he had been involved in an extramarital affair with a prostitute named Sherry Rowlands........

Denny !!!! .....is "Soros did it", and "Clinton operatives knew", according to "Richard Morris".....all you got ???? The "fat lady" is warmin' up backstage.....as the crowd takes their seats, in Carnegie hall !

FoolThemAll · 10-05-2006, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxSquirtxx

FoolThemAll, Tammy Bruce IS gay. She's a very outspoken lesbian who sits quite right of center. She's great.

Like most people, she wants accountability from both sides.

Ah yeah, that one, thought her name sounded familiar. So the quote seems to show a perfectly respectable viewpoint.

Agreed on the legality issue, even if the contact was technically legal, it was still a heavily unbalanced situation. Unbalanced by both age and authority position.

xxSquirtxx · 10-05-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

it was still a heavily unbalanced situation. Unbalanced by both age and authority position.

Absolutely in agreement with you.

pan6467 · 10-11-2006, 09:45 PM

One of the saddest parts is listening to the GOP talking heads cover this up.

Take Limbaugh for instance, how he keeps claiming it was just one page, how "there was no true sex involved", how it was with 1 18 yr old page, and blah blah blah.

I'm sure Pat (I am God's voice) Robertson and his 700 Club "news" have voiced defenses for Foley also.

These hypocritical GOP people and Religious Rights seem to put their morals and their condemnations aside.

Sooooo getting a blow job in the Oval Office is a disgrace and worthy of impeachment but harrassing numerous underage pages is ok? And Hastert's lieing and the GOP elected officials that knew and covered it all up is ok, and acceptable?

I see.

And yet, the Dems are the "evil, non moralistic" party.

What I truly would like to see: A highranking GOP elected official come out and say, "Foley is not representative of this party, we all have bad apples in our families and workplaces and I assure you, I will not look at party but at who knew what and who did what and I will make sure the people involved will be punished to the fullest extent."

IF I saw a GOP elected official say that, he would have my respect and I would vote for him if I had the oppurtunity.

I would expect the same from the Dem. leadership. Stand up take your lumps, admit to the bad apple, investigate, prosecute, do whatever is necessary and be forthright and non partisan about it.

One of the reasons things don't change in DC and seem to get worse is because we allow situations like this to continue and just look at party lines.

If we held our leaders to the "high standards" that Robertson, Limbaugh and GOP talking heads expect usand tell us we need to do from Dems. but whitewash and give GOP'ers passes and excuses . Perhaps this country would be stronger and we would get better leadership.

I don't care what party a bad apple is from, do the work, don't make excuses and get rid of him. But set the standards and expectations the same for both parties not just the one opposite you, while you can make excuses and try to shift and pass blame, or bring up things from 25 years ago and point fingers. It shows nothing but your hypocrasy and that you truly don't give a damn about the nation but about the power your party yields.

ratbastid · 10-12-2006, 06:48 AM

Listen, forget the homosexual and pedophile aspects of this thing for just a second.

This is sexual harassment. If this were any workplace other than the Congress of the United States and a prominent employee was found to be flirting or even just joking inappropriately with his subordinates, and if that employee's boss was even suspected of covering it up, heads would roll all up and down the corporate ladder, and the company would be subject to massive legal liability.

pan6467 · 10-12-2006, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Listen, forget the homosexual and pedophile aspects of this thing for just a second.

This is sexual harassment. If this were any workplace other than the Congress of the United States and a prominent employee was found to be flirting or even just joking inappropriately with his subordinates, and if that employee's boss was even suspected of covering it up, heads would roll all up and down the corporate ladder, and the company would be subject to massive legal liability.

It is and it would be..... but this is Congress and instead of saying "damn we have problems we need to fix.... " they point fingers, throw partisanship excuses about and act as though they above the law.... and the talking heads eat it up, spew their partisanship hatred and defend these criminals as though they were innocent victims of political partisan hatred.

flstf · 10-12-2006, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Listen, forget the homosexual and pedophile aspects of this thing for just a second.

This is sexual harassment. If this were any workplace other than the Congress of the United States and a prominent employee was found to be flirting or even just joking inappropriately with his subordinates, and if that employee's boss was even suspected of covering it up, heads would roll all up and down the corporate ladder, and the company would be subject to massive legal liability.

I thought Congress exempted itself from most of the employment laws so they wouldn't have to bother with hiring quotas of minorities etc... Perhaps they should just exempt themselves from this stuff as well.

Intense1 · 10-12-2006, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbasit

Listen, forget the homosexual and pedophile aspects of this thing for just a second.

This is sexual harassment. If this were any workplace other than the Congress of the United States and a prominent employee was found to be flirting or even just joking inappropriately with his subordinates, and if that employee's boss was even suspected of covering it up, heads would roll all up and down the corporate ladder, and the company would be subject to massive legal liability.

Yes, this is true, IMO. But then, you'd have to dredge up the whole history of the late '70's early '80's "harrassment" of the pages who faced the same, even more. And you'd have to examine the response of the various parties of that harrassment, in which the Democrat received three standing ovations from his own party on the floor of the house after his folly was revealed.

And how well would that reflect upon the Democratic party today? If Clarence Thomas was so reviled for Anita Hill's allegations (not judging upon the veracity of the claim, mind you), why shouldn't the democratic party receive censure for their response when one of their own was found out to be in an admitted relationship with a 17 year old girl?

Villification is a two-way street, my friends. If one party is reviled for what they do, then both parties should be.

xxSquirtxx · 10-13-2006, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

One of the saddest parts is listening to the GOP talking heads cover this up.

Take Limbaugh for instance, how he keeps claiming it was just one page, how "there was no true sex involved", how it was with 1 18 yr old page, and blah blah blah.

*snip*

Wow. I don't even know where to begin here, as everything you just said is flat-out wrong.

Either you don't listen to Limbaugh, or you are getting some really lame talking points from Daily KOS. Or both. Limbaugh has from the beginning repeatedly condemned Foley's actions. So has Hannity, so has Boortz. It's disingenuous of you to say otherwise. The same goes for the GOP leadership. Foley's actions were condemned immediately - especially by Bush.

Quote:

"Asked about the scandal, Mr. Bush said, "This is disgusting behavior when a member of Congress betrays the trust of the Congress and the family that sent a young page to serve."

And so on down the line - the GOP have shunned Foley.

Also, some facts thus far:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion...oley_inves.htm

Quote:

"The first thing to say is that there is no evidence that Speaker Dennis Hastert or anyone else in the Republican leadership knew anything about the sexually explicit instant messages until they were posted on abcnews.com on September 29. Within hours, Mark Foley resigned from the House of Representatives. Thus there was no coverup of the IMs. And there certainly have been no admissions, as Democrat Patty Wetterling running in the Sixth District of Minnesota charged in an ad, that the Republican leaders have admitted covering up improper sexually explicit behavior.

That said, there remain questions about whether Republican leaders responded properly to the charges made earlier that Foley had been sending "overly friendly" but not sexually explicit E-mails to former pages. None of the IMs that we know of were sent to current pages, for whom Congress has custodial responsibility, and some of them apparently were sent to former pages when they were 18 or older. Hastert has said that John Shimkus, the lead member of the bipartisan page board, talked to Foley and told him to stop all questionable contact with the pages. So far, so good. But there is the question of whether the leaders or other members had other knowledge of possibly improper conduct by Foley and what, if anything, they did about it.

And then, if you'd like to talk about how unbalanced things are:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20061012b.html

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20061011.asp

And the witch hunt now for gay Republicans: (from the party, BTW, who is all about gays having their privacy and "coming out" when the individual chooses, and not outed by an outside entity. Yeah, nice)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...VjM2ZjODIzNjI=

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...820.xml&coll=7

pan6467 · 10-13-2006, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxSquirtxx

Wow. I don't even know where to begin here, as everything you just said is flat-out wrong.

Either you don't listen to Limbaugh, or you are getting some really lame talking points from Daily KOS. Or both. Limbaugh has from the beginning repeatedly condemned Foley's actions. So has Hannity, so has Boortz. It's disingenuous of you to say otherwise. The same goes for the GOP leadership. Foley's actions were condemned immediately - especially by Bush.

And so on down the line - the GOP have shunned Foley.

Soooo Limbaugh never said "this was with 1 page and the page was 18 yrs. old." OR "This isn't that big and the Dems are trying to make it some huge scandal."

Sorry, more than 1 page and they were 17..... and when someone does this to minors.... he should be punished.

And..... if it comes out that Hastert knew... which your news sources say he didn't the news I listen to says he did (Foley's COS says he warned Hastert some 3 years ago).... someone is lying. Then what will you do, how will you spin that?

Quote:

And the witch hunt now for gay Republicans: (from the party, BTW, who is all about gays having their privacy and "coming out" when the individual chooses, and not outed by an outside entity. Yeah, nice)

Ohhhh really? sorry but the GOP chooses to act holier than thou, preaches "family values" and wants to use same sex marriage against the Dems.... What's wrong with outing them?

I truly believe the sexuality of a person should be private, but when you have lawmakers passing laws that won't allow even civil unions so that same sex couples can share insurances and rights that traditional married couples can share, and some of those lawmakers passing those bans are themselves gay... it's hypocritical and should be brought to light. Let the people decide what is important to them and let the people vote for who they want, but let them know who they are voting for.

If you choose life in the public whether politics (doesn't matter the party) or entertainment your life is under a microscope. Comes with the profession you chose.

If the GOP has something on a Dem. they will use it and have.

One reason the GOP wins is because they preach they are the party of morals..... perhaps that shroud needs to be pulled away and the truth that they are people, who make mistakes, share alternative lifestyles and so on, just like everyone else does needs to be seen and this country can stop passing laws on alternative lifestyles and religion and focus on more serious things like fixing education, the infrastructure, getting companies to stay here and not ship jobs overseas....etc.

kutulu · 10-13-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Another interesting comment. Just who DID leak this story 40 days before the next election?

Here is an article from a Harpers repoter who tried to publish the story back in June. A Democrat operative gave the information to them in May and at that point had tried giving the information to several other media outlets for months before that.

Quote:

Republicans Want to Turn Over a New Page
The Foley scandal is no “October Surprise”
Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006. By Ken Silverstein.
Sources

Leading Republicans, with the support of conservative media outlets, are charging that the Mark Foley scandal was a plot orchestrated by Democrats to damage the G.O.P.'s electoral prospects this November. According to the Washington Post, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert appeared on Rush Limbaugh's radio show and “agreed when the host said the Foley story was driven by Democrats ‘in some sort of cooperation with some in the media’ to suppress turnout of conservative voters” before the midterm elections.

Conservative talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt has said that Hastert had become the “target right now of the left-wing media machine,” and House Majority Leader John Boehner has charged that the release of the Foley documents so close to the elections “is concerning, at a minimum.” Meanwhile, accounts I've heard about the FBI's initial inquiries suggest the bureau is as interested in uncovering how the story came to public attention as it is in investigating Foley's actions.

The Republican leadership is lying when they claim that Democrats have engineered an “October Surprise”; there was never a plan to undermine the G.O.P. or to destroy Hastert personally, as the speaker has vaingloriously suggested. I know this with absolute certainty because Harper’s was offered the story almost five months ago and decided, after much debate, not to run it here on Washington Babylon.

In May, a source put me in touch with a Democratic operative who provided me with the now-infamous emails that Foley had sent in 2004 to a sixteen-year-old page. He also provided several emails that the page sent to the office of Congressman Rodney Alexander, a Louisiana Republican who had sponsored him when he worked on Capitol Hill. “Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously, This freaked me out,” the page wrote in one email. In the fall of 2005, my source had provided the same material to the St. Petersburg Times—and I presume to the Miami Herald—both of which decided against publishing stories.

It was a Democrat who brought me the emails, but comments he made and common sense strongly suggest they were originally leaked by a Republican office. And while it's entirely possible that Democratic officials became aware of the accusations against Foley, the source was not working in concert with the national Democratic Party. This person was genuinely disgusted by Foley's behavior, amazed that other publications had declined to publish stories about the emails, and concerned that Foley might still be seeking contact with pages.

Though the emails were not explicitly sexual, I felt strongly that Foley's behavior was inappropriate and that his intentions were clear. Why would a middle-aged man ask a teenager he barely knew for his photograph, or what he wanted for his birthday? I contacted Foley and he strongly denied any ill intent. He told me there was “nothing suggestive or inappropriate” about his emails to the page, adding that if the page “was intimidated, that's regrettable.”

My theory about the emails was that Foley was throwing out bait to see if the teen would bite. I spoke to a Foley staffer who violently rejected that interpretation of the emails and who blamed the whole problem on the page, saying it was all a misunderstanding due to the young boy's overactive imagination. The staffer also said that Foley's motive in asking the page for a picture was entirely innocent: he merely wanted an image of the boy so he could remember him more clearly in the event that he needed to write a job recommendation down the road. Needless to say, none of this sounded even remotely convincing.

I tried to contact the page who received Foley's emails and the boy’s parents, but got no reply to my inquiries. However, I did speak with another former page who'd had an unsettling encounter with Foley. “He was a lot more friendly than you'd expect a congressman to be,” this page told me. “He acted like he was a kid himself.” The former page said that on one occasion when he was still working on the Hill, Foley asked him and another page if he could accompany them to the gym, an invitation they declined because it made them uncomfortable. When the page mentioned the incident to a congressional intern who worked with the page program, he was told that Foley had a history of being too friendly with the pages, and it was suggested that it would be better to avoid Foley in the future.

Congressman Alexander's office declined to comment on the matter, apart from issuing a brief statement emailed to me on May 31 by press secretary Adam Terry: “When these emails were brought to our attention last year our office reviewed them and decided that it would be best to contact the individual's parents. This decision, on behalf of our office, was based on the sensitivity of the issue. Our office did, in fact, contact the parents, and we feel that they (the juvenile's parents) should decide the best course of action to take concerning the dialogue outlined in the emails.” I had a number of other questions I wanted to ask—for example, although the ex-page's parents were understandably concerned about their son's name coming out in the press, didn't Alexander's office have an obligation to make sure that Foley was not hitting on other kids?—but Terry did not reply to further requests for comment.

The final draft of my story—which did not name the ex-page who received Foley's emails—was set to run on June 2. “Foley's private life should, under most circumstances, be his own business, but in this case there is a clear question about his behavior with a minor and a congressional employee,” went the story’s conclusion. “The possibility that he might have used his personal power or political position in inappropriate ways, as the emails suggest, should be brought to public attention.”

We decided against publishing the story because we didn't have absolute proof that Foley was, as one editor put it, “anything but creepy.” At the time I was disappointed that the story was killed—but I must confess that I was also a bit relieved because there had been the possibility, however unlikely, that I would wrongly accuse Foley of improper conduct.

While Harper’s decided not to publish the story, we weren't entirely comfortable with the decision. A few weeks later I passed along the emails and related materials to several people who were in a position to share them with other media outlets. I subsequently learned that other people had the same information and were also contacting reporters. (By this point, my original source apparently had given up on getting the media to cover the story.)

Among those who received information about the story but declined to pursue it were liberal outlets such as Talkingpointsmemo.com, Americablog.com, and The New Republic (The Hill[1], Roll Call, and Time magazine also had the Foley story, though I'm not certain when it came to their attention.)[Update, October 10, 2006 2:00PM: Talking Points Memo did not have access to the emails—and it's possible that other publications named here did not either—but all, at minimum, were aware of the salient facts of the case.] Ironically, it was ABC—which just weeks ago was being defended by Republicans and attacked by Democrats for airing The Path to 9/11—that finally ran the story. The network obtained the emails from a person who is scrupulously non-partisan.

That was my experience of the Foley affair.

If this was all a plot to hurt the G.O.P.’s chances in the midterm elections, why did the original source for the story begin approaching media outlets a full year ago? If either of the Florida papers had gone to press with the story last year, or if Harper's had published this spring, as the source hoped, the Foley scandal would have died down long ago. A stronger case could be made that the media, including Harper’s, dropped the ball and inadvertently protected Foley and covered up evidence of the congressman’s misconduct.

The source who brought me the story didn't see it as a grand piece of electioneering. He viewed it as a story about one individual, Mark Foley, and his inappropriate and disturbing behavior with teenagers. The G.O.P. and its friends in the media are trying to concoct a conspiracy in order to divert attention from the failure of Republican officials to deal properly with Foley.

It is now absolutely clear that Foley was indeed a menace to kids working on Capitol Hill. In seeking to malign the parties who sought to expose his conduct, top Republicans reveal that they are far more outraged by the possibility that the scandal might harm their party’s prospects in November than they are by Foley's behavior.

Regardless of who leaked the info and when it was published, it is BS for the GOP to use that as a means to deflect what actually happened. The facts are that many people in Congress knew what was going on for several years and did nothing. When the story broke, they lied about what they knew as a means of self-protection. The timing of the report does not change the facts.

Here is the Foley timeline:

Quote:

2000 — Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) informed of improper Foley Internet messages that made a page feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley was taking their email relationship. Kolbe claims he never personally confronted Foley, but rather recommended that the complaint be passed along to his office. [Washington Post, 10/9/06; Arizona Republic, 10/11/06]

2001 — A Republican staff member warns pages “to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley.” A former page says that they were told “don’t get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.” [ABC, 10/1/06]

2003 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) has sexually explicit IM exchanges with an underage boy who worked as a Congressional page. [ABC News, 9/29/06]

2003 — Foley’s former aide Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that “when he learned about Foley’s inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had ‘more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene,’ alluding to House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Hastert’s office denied the explosive allegations.” [CBS News, 10/5/06]

APRIL 2003 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupts a House vote on the 2003 Iraq supplemental to “engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page.” [ABC, 10/3/06]

SUMMER 2005 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sends inappropriate emails to another former Congressional page. [CREW]

SEPTEMBER 2005 — Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), who sponsored the page, learns “of the e-mails from a reporter.” [AP, 9/29/06; CQ, 9/30/06]

FALL 2005 — “Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the [Speaker J. Denis Hastert’s] Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander’s Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page…[Mike] Stokke [Deputy Chief of Staff for Speaker Hastert] called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker’s Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff.” [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]

LATE 2005 — Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the House Page Board, “was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-LA) about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page.” Shimkus interviewed Foley and told him “to cease all contact with this former house page.” He did not inform Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), the only Democrat on the House page Board. [Roll Call, 9/29/06]

EARLY 2006 — Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) talks Foley into running for another term. Bob Novak reported, “A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running.” [New York Post, 10/4/06]

FEBRUARY/MARCH 2006 — Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), whose office first received the complaint from the page, told Boehner about Foley’s inappropriate e-mails, and Boehner sent him to Tom Reynolds. Alexander tells Reynolds about “the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander’s.” Reynolds tells Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) about the emails and his conversation with Alexander. [Reynolds Statement, 9/30/06; Roll Call, 9/30/06; Hastert Statement, 9/30/06; Chicago Tribune, 10/3/06]

SPRING 2006 — House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) learns of “inappropriate ‘contact’ between Foley and a 16-year-old page” from Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA). After learning about Foley’s conduct, Boehner told Speaker of the House J. Denis Hastert who assured Boehner he would “take care of it.” Later, Boehner changed his story and told the Washington Post he didn’t remember whether he talked to Hastert. [Washington Post, 9/30/06; New York Times, 10/1/06]

SPRING 2006 — Reynolds says he told Hastert about the e-mails after he learned about them. “He said he alerted the Republican speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, to the issue, but Mr. Hastert said he had no recollection of the contact.” [The Sun, 10/3/06]

MAY 10, 2006 — Reynold’s personal PAC, TOMPAC, donates $5,000 to Foley’s campaign. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]

JULY 21, 2006 — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington forwarded the messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on July 21 and requested an investigation. [CREW, 10/5/06]

JULY 27, 2006 — Foley writes a $100,000 check to the NRCC, chaired by Reynolds. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]

JULY 27, 2006 — Foley, still co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, attends a signing ceremony at the White House for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. [White House, 9/27/06; Talkingpointsmemo, 9/30/06; Washington Post, 10/1/06]

AUGUST 7, 2006 — The NRCC accepted a $100,000 contribution from Foley’s campaign committee. [FEC]

SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 — ABC publishes emails between Foley and former page. [ABC, 9/28/06]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 3:00 PM — Foley resigns. [ABC, 9/29/06]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 6:00 PM — ABC publishes sexually explict Instant Messages between Foley and several former pages. [ABC, 9/29/06]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — “Aides to the speaker [Hastert] say he was not aware until last week of inappropriate behavior by Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who resigned on Friday after portions of racy e-mail exchanges between him and current and former underage congressional pages became public.” [Chicago Tribune, 9/30/06]

SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 — Hastert admits he was told about the emails by Reynolds in the spring. [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]

OCTOBER 1, 2006 — FBI opens “preliminary investigation” of Foley. “Officials say the FBI and Department of Justice lawyers are trying to determine how many such e-mails were sent, how many different computers were used and whether any of the teenage victims will cooperate in the investigation.” [ABC, 10/1/06]

OCTOBER 1, 2006 — Hastert urges Gov. Jeb Bush to initiate an investigation. “As Speaker of the House, I hereby request that you direct the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct an investigation of Mr. Foley’s conduct with current and former House pages to determine to what extent any of his actions violated Florida law.” [Hastert letter, 10/1/06]

OCTOBER 4, 2006 — Former Foley aide and Reynolds’ chief of staff Kirk Fordham is fired. “People familiar with Fordham’s side of the story…said Fordham was being used as a scapegoat by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. They said Fordham had repeatedly warned Hastert’s staff about Foley’s ‘problem’ with pages, but little was done.” [ABC, 10/4/06]

OCTOBER 4, 2006 — House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) criticizes Hastert’s mishandling of Foley scandal, saying that “he would have handled [the Foley scandal] differently if he’d known about it.” “I think I could have given some good advice here, which is you have to be curious, you have to ask all the questions you can think of,” Blunt said. “You absolutely can’t decide not to look into activities because one individual’s parents don’t want you to.” [AP, 10/4/06]

OCTOBER 4, 2006 — Right-wing blogger Wild Bill outs a former congressional page. Roger L. Simon of Pajamas Media and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit link to the post. [ThinkProgress, 10/5/06]

OCTOBER 5, 2006 — The Hill reports that the source who gave Foley’s emails to news media says the documents came from a congressional aide “who has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote.” [The Hill, 10/5/06]

OCTOBER 8, 2006 — Former page says he and Foley engaged in sex. The LAT reports, “A former House page says he had sex with then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.).” The ex-page said his correspondence with Foley began after he finished the page program for high school juniors, but the sexual encounter occurred when he was 21 years old. “The former page’s exchanges with Foley offer a glimpse of possible predatory behavior by the congressman as he assessed male teenagers assigned as House errand-runners.” [LA Times, 10/8/06]

OCTOBER 9, 2006 — “Moving with unusual speed,” the House Ethics Committee start interviews in its probe of the Mark Foley scandal. Longtime Foley aide and former Reynolds chief of staff and Foley aide Kirk Fordham will be testifying. [WSJ, 10/9/06]

xxSquirtxx:
Go ahead and live in a fantasy word where Hasart knew nothing. His staff admitted the next day that the issue had been discussed with Alexander's staff.

pan6467 · 10-13-2006, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intense1

Villification is a two-way street, my friends. If one party is reviled for what they do, then both parties should be.

Very true. But by the same token, if one party chooses to tell the nation that a certain lifestyle is sick and wrong (such as the gay lifestyle) and pass laws that hurt that lifestyle..... then members of that party practicing that lifestyle in private but in public showing they think it wrong, doing this for votes, then those members should be outed and shown to be the hypocrites they are, and let the people decide if he/she should be re-elected.

stevo · 10-13-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Very true. But by the same token, if one party chooses to tell the nation that a certain lifestyle is sick and wrong (such as the gay lifestyle) and pass laws that hurt that lifestyle..... then members of that party practicing that lifestyle in private but in public showing they think it wrong, doing this for votes, then those members should be outed and shown to be the hypocrites they are, and let the people decide if he/she should be re-elected.

The elected is supposed to serve his electorate. If the electorate is against gay marriage it does not matter what the elected personally feels. Of course, thats how its supposed to be.

In that sense how is he a hypocrite? Are you saying every gay has to be for gay marriage? I bet there are plenty of Homosexual-Americans who don't care one way or another about gay marriage, or are flat out against it. Does that make them hypocrites too? What about heteros? I know heterosexual-americans who are against [not gay] marriage. Does that make them hypocrites?

Hanxter · 10-13-2006, 09:27 AM

i can not stomach a couple of posters here as is well known but to liven things up a bit and stir the "proverbial" pot while adding absolutely no intelligent content to this (while still reserving the fact that the left has their baggage) i present you with...

have a splendid day at the polls...

dc_dux · 10-13-2006, 09:42 AM

A new theory being suggested by the conservative "Accuracy In Media" is that Republican gays are in truth closeted Democrats:

Quote:

The complex nature of the "dirty trick" against the Republicans over the Mark Foley scandal is beginning to emerge. It doesn't involve a George Soros-funded group or emails that had been in the possession of the media or shopped around by Democratic operatives. Instead, the GOP has played a trick on itself. The party brought so-called gay Republicans into positions of power in Congress only to realize that the confidential information they held about a secret gay network was political dynamite that could backfire.

*snip*

If you are getting the idea that gay Republicans may be closeted Democrats, then you are beginning to understand how the Mark Foley scandal could have been a Democratic Party dirty trick.

*snip*

So if the gay Republicans are not really Republicans, what are they? One veteran observer of this network told AIM that the Foley scandal should make it crystal clear that the gay Republicans are in reality "liberal activists" who want to use the party to advance the same homosexual agenda embraced by the Democrats.

*more*
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4931_0_3_0_C/

So the new tactic is to disparage and smear gays who, for their own reasons also happen to feel more aligned with the Repub party (for some reason) than with the Dems.

Another example of tolerance of the right?
Accuracy in Media - "for fairness, balance and accuracy in news reporting"

kutulu · 10-13-2006, 10:03 AM

Wow, dc, that is pretty funny. It's all a big conspiracy by 'teh gheys' to overthrow the Republicans. Kobe and Foley were not closeted gay republicans, they were dem operatives that got elected as closeted gay republicans.

Pathetic.

xxSquirtxx · 10-13-2006, 11:06 AM

Typical.

Facts - in through one ear and out the other.

Oh well.

I always think there are some rather intelligent people around TFP.

Then I read the politics forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

xxSquirtxx:
Go ahead and live in a fantasy word where Hasart knew nothing. His staff admitted the next day that the issue had been discussed with Alexander's staff.

Go ahead and continue with your shitty reading comprehension. I never said that.

Hanxter · 10-13-2006, 11:09 AM

you go girl!!!

ratbastid · 10-13-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I bet there are plenty of Homosexual-Americans who don't care one way or another about gay marriage, or are flat out against it.

Wow, stevo, I sincerely doubt it. There are lots of gays and lesbians who aren't interested in marriage personally--I know several in that category. To a one, they're passionate about having the RIGHT to marry if they chose to. To them, the ban on gay marriage is sort of like a ban on black marriage; it's patently discrimatory and based on an arbirtrary standard of how love "ought" to be.

What's hypocritical is a politician publically denouncing the lifestyle they're hiding. It's not the denunciation so much that's the problem (although that's a problem too): it's the hiding. The electorate doesn't like being lied to.

kutulu · 10-13-2006, 12:25 PM

I have no problem with outing people who either publicly advocate discriminitory practices against gays or work for people who do. If Focus on the Family was really sent the 'list' and did nothing it just shows that they are true hypocrites. Those assholes talk about the evil gays all the time, to get that information and do nothing means that protecting their people is more important than their hatefull 'morals'

roachboy · 10-13-2006, 12:34 PM

seems the conservative set is kinda testy about this one.
it wont help. all the whining about "witch hunting" is meaningless--and worse it is ineffective.

the problem the republicans face is simple: they chose for strategic reasons to route as much of their ideology as possible through the discourse of "morality" and now find themselves twisting in the wind because of it.

you would think that the conservative set would be better readers of machiavelli, who they seem to enjoy pretending they understand in so many areas---what matters is the appearance of consistency in political matters. they should have sucked it up and done a mea culpa right away, not because they believed in anything, but because the maintenance of their own ideology required it.

so this is a result of a strategic fuck up that then opened onto a whole series of ethical problems----none of which would have happened had there been any meaningful correlation between the right's claims to monopolize morality and the actions of foley, hastert, the conservative media apparatus, etc.

the right has no-one and nothing to blame but themselves for all of this.
squirm as they might, they are in a mess of their own creation.

what i do not understand is the relative significance of this mess when compared with the far greater problems that should have been created by the many other fiascos the bush people have engineered: this idiotic"war on terror," iraq, the problems associated with hurrican katrina, the new and improved north korea farce on and on and on.
why is this is issue that seems to damage the republicans more than the bigger, ongoing disastrous policy choices that they have made since 9/11/2001 at the least?
in comparison, this seems rather trivial, but this is the issue that gets traction.
go figure.

Elphaba · 10-13-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

what i do not understand is the relative significance of this mess when compared with the far greater problems that should have been created by the many other fiascos the bush people have engineered: this idiotic"war on terror," iraq, the problems associated with hurrican katrina, the new and improved north korea farce on and on and on.
why is this is issue that seems to damage the republicans more than the bigger, ongoing disastrous policy choices that they have made since 9/11/2001 at the least?
in comparison, this seems rather trivial, but this is the issue that gets traction.
go figure.

This is a troubling question in that I believe it reflects poorly on the general populace. Sexual impropriety of any kind is easily understood and brings out the pitchforks, since moral certainty requires very little effort. How many of these very same people have taken any effort to understand the far more important issues of our nation? That would take an effort, time, and the intellectual curiosity that places value in that effort and the knowledge gained.

The only real value of the whole Foley nonsense (imo) is that it will likely achieve a balanced government once again, when the real issues might not. How sad is that?

dc_dux · 10-13-2006, 03:18 PM

Conservative talking heads are bringing out the REALLY important issues now....BIll O'Reilly warning his viewers that electing "secular progressives" may mean... "No more Christmas, no pledge of allegiance to God."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLimRVtGSak&eurl=

filtherton · 10-13-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Conservative talking heads are bringing out the REALLY important issues now....BIll O'Reilly warning his viewers that electing "secular progressives" may mean... "No more Christmas, no pledge of allegiance to God."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLimRVtGSak&eurl=

OMG, what's next? Halloween in the schools?!?!?!?

FoolThemAll · 10-13-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

I have no problem with outing people who either publicly advocate discriminitory practices against gays or work for people who do.

Hm. Well, I have a problem with such irrelevant, revenge-motivated outings: they're petty and they don't actually accomplish anything positive.

pan6467 · 10-14-2006, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Hm. Well, I have a problem with such irrelevant, revenge-motivated outings: they're petty and they don't actually accomplish anything positive.

I tend to think they do accomplish something. They show us who the hypocrites are.

Look, it's been argued (and I do agree with the premise) that we elect officials and they are to vote what they believe the majority in their district feels.

Cool.

However, if I get elected portraying beliefs I do not have, and I do not believe in what I am voting for, then I shouldn't be there. My views must match closely to those who elect me. Personally, I couldn't vote for something I feel is wrong. I would just withhold my vote if I felt I could not voute my conscience. If my constituency took offense, I would explain myself and trust they respected my views.... if not they vote me out of office.

Part of electing a congressman is that you trust given his life's history and his values that he will vote for what is best, not necessarily what is most popular. You choose the person to best represent what you feel you need.

Partisanship has hurt this alot. You vote for a party person now thinking that he represents the values of that party..... politicians know this and scumbags can take advantage of it.

FoolThemAll · 10-14-2006, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I tend to think they do accomplish something. They show us who the hypocrites are.

Which, other than acheiving an air of superiority, accomplishes what?

Quote:

However, if I get elected portraying beliefs I do not have, and I do not believe in what I am voting for, then I shouldn't be there.

Why? If they're representing their constituents as far as political actions go, what does it matter?

Quote:

Part of electing a congressman is that you trust given his life's history and his values that he will vote for what is best, not necessarily what is most popular.

Which is fine as long as there's no disagreement on what's best. In other words, as long as we don't reside in the real world.

Popularity seems like an appropriate motivator for politicians, given that they were elected by a popular vote of their constituents. Some deviation based on principle is acceptable, of course, but if you claim to be mostly liberal/conservative and then your votes seem to reflect the opposite, you probably should've been more honest about your political intentions.

But as for personal life, crimes aside, I don't see the relevance. (Feel free to make a reference to Ken Starr here!)

Quote:

You choose the person to best represent what you feel you need.

And I'm not seeing how a politician who represents social conservatives Christians and votes in a socially conservative manner doesn't best represent social conservatives' needs. Yes, even if he's closeted.

host · 10-14-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

.....But as for personal life, crimes aside, I don't see the relevance. (Feel free to make a reference to Ken Starr here!)

And I'm not seeing how a politician who represents social conservatives Christians and votes in a socially conservative manner doesn't best represent social conservatives' needs. Yes, even if he's closeted.

Did anyone who Ken Starr targeted for investigation (...and then permit the leaking, from his office; the details of the investigation to the press....vs. what we is the proper and discrete conduct of special counsel Fitzgerald's office, over the past 3 years....)....a $71 million, 6 year investigation of a profitless real estate "deal" that resulted in no finding of wrongdoing on the part of the original targets....the POTUS and the first lady, draft, co-sponsor, or promote legislation or a contitutional amendment to curtail rights or potential to achieve rights.....of anyone who engaged in extramarital sexual activity?

FoolThemAll, I have a reputation here for posting verifiable information that many have never been exposed to....I endeavor to share what I've learned; what has shaped my opinion. Since you are not using your posts to share how you come to "know, what you "know", you leave me only with a suspicion that your "Ken Starr" reference is what "you know", and that it is representative of your best effort to share what has influenced your thinking. with the rest of us.

roachboy · 10-14-2006, 07:43 AM

foolthemall sums up what i was trying to say using machiavelli above: it really doesn't matter who representatives are as human beings or what they believe as human beings---what matters is how the frame themselves politically, what they appear to be, what they appear to believe. but once they make these choices as to how they frame themselves, they are stuck with the consequences of that choice--they have to live and die publically that way--whence the problems for the far right this scandal has generated--and why i have no sympathy at all for them

for example, the protestant evangelical community is a big part of the far right's populist base--the right adapted its politics to appeal to this base---but if you read stuff that is emerging over the past two days from david kuo's book, it is obvious that this adaptation was strategic and did not mean that everyone in far-right land was in fact either an evangelical or even took the statements they would repeat designed to suck up to evangelicals terribly seriously. all that mattered was consistency of appearances--all of which is rapidly falling apart. i would expect that kuo's book will damage the far right coalition more extensively than this farce will, simply because kuo's central argument is that the evangelicals have been chumped by the bush people, who regard them as nutcases privately, and who created administrative cul-de-sacs within which evangelical-friendly programs were set up and left to rot.

which is one of the only things the bush administration has done that i approve of.

more importantly, kuo is of the evangelical community.
so this should be friendly fire--but it isnt.

host · 10-14-2006, 08:19 AM

....not to worry, roachboy...the folks who should be most outraged by Kuo's disclosures are busily engaged in running interference for the "leaders" who duped them. Watching them bite themselves in the ass as the "shoot the messenger" and cuddle even closer to Bush and Rove, is akin to the Indian tribes who Abramoff and Scanlon privately labelled as "monkees", continuing to praise them....just so the Indians can "save face". They did the opposite, though. The Indians have too much dignity to further retreat into the kind of self defeating denial that the following "news" exhibits. Notice how they lead by linking "liberals" to Kuo's revelations........

Quote:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/postn...splay&pid=5507
Posted: 10/13/06
Book alleges faith-based initiatives are bogus
By Robert Marus

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP)—A new book by a former White House faith official is causing shockwaves—even before its release—with reportedly explosive allegations that President Bush’s aides have been duping religious conservatives for political gain.

MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” program first reported the allegations Oct. 11. They are found, according to the show, in Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, a new tell-all memoir by former White House official David Kuo, scheduled for release Oct. 16.

From 2001 to 2003, Kuo served as the No. 2 official in Bush’s White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. MSNBC reported the book includes charges that high-ranking White House officials referred to prominent conservative Christian leaders as “nuts” behind their backs, used the faith-based office to organize ostensibly non-political events that in reality were designed to boost Republican candidates in tough elections, and favored religious charities friendly to the administration when doling out grant money.

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo wrote. Top political officials in the office of White House aide Karl Rove referred to the leaders as “the nuts,” he added.

A publicist with Simon & Schuster, the book’s publisher, said Oct. 12 that the book was “embargoed” until its official release date—meaning the firm would not release advance copies to journalists and reviewers, as is often done in the publishing world. However, Olbermann said his show obtained a copy of the book ahead of time.

Among the other Kuo allegations MSNBC quoted are charges that White House senior political operatives gave marching orders to officials in the faith-based office during the 2002 election season.
Kuo asserted Ken Mehlman, then Bush’s director of political affairs, told the faith-based office to hold many of their ostensibly non-partisan conferences in districts where Republican members of Congress faced tough re-election challenges.

Republicans ended up winning 19 out of the 20 races, Kuo said, and the conferences even affected the 2004 presidential campaign—contributing to Bush’s margin of victory over Democratic challenger John Kerry in crucial battleground states like Ohio.

MSNBC also reported that Kuo charged the White House’s own rationale for pushing the faith-based initiative—an effort to make it easier for churches and other sectarian organizations to receive federal social-service funding—was bogus.

Bush and his lieutenants regularly argued that religious groups had been unfairly shut out of many government grant programs because of their faith-based nature. However, Kuo said, that may not have been the case.

“Finding [examples of such discrimination against religious groups] became a huge priority,” he wrote. “If President Bush was making the world a better place for faith-based groups, we had to show it was really a bad place to begin with. But, in fact, it wasn’t that bad at all.”

Kuo also reportedly alleges that Bush officials administering grant programs under the initiative favored faith groups politically friendly to the administration—even going so far as to discriminate against non-Christian groups.

Kuo, who has strong conservative evangelical credentials including past work for Bill Bennett and John Ashcroft, has criticized the administration in recent years for its handling of the faith-based issue. However, his previous criticisms—in congressional testimony and op-ed columns for the religious news website Beliefnet—have been neither as dramatic nor as specific as those contained in the book.

They echo concerns expressed by his former boss. John DiIulio, the first director of the faith-based office, quit abruptly seven months after he started. In his only public interview about the issue, he made headlines by criticizing the administration for playing politics with the initiative to drum up support among conservative Christians but then putting little real muscle behind getting it completed.

DiIulio, reportedly under pressure from the White House, later backed away from those comments. Now a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, he has not spoken to the news media about the issue since. By mid-afternoon Eastern time Oct. 13, he had not returned an Associated Baptist Press reporter’s phone calls requesting reaction to Kuo’s book.

DiIulio’s successor in the White House faith-based office, Jim Towey, said Kuo’s reported allegations were seriously off base. Towey, who is now president of St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa., said Oct. 13 he has not seen a copy of the book, but has heard about the excerpted sections.

“The White House that he describes is not the White House that I worked four years in,” Towey said, in a telephone interview. “There was enormous respect for religion—for religious leaders of all denominations and faiths. And, whether he found some low-level employees cracking jokes or whatever, I have to leave that to him and God. But, at the level I worked, that simply did not happen. President Bush would not have tolerated it.”

Reported allegations regarding politicization of the faith-based office’s conferences were baseless, he said.
“I visited more Democrat districts than I did Republican ones; I had more events with Democrat officials than Republican ones. I went where I was invited and where the need was greatest,” he said.

Towey pointed to meetings his office held at the invitation Democratic incumbents—like Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu and Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford, Jr.—locked in tight races with Republicans.

“I just think that he [Kuo] is entitled to his opinion, but he did not make the decisions; I did,” Towey said. “I made the decisions focusing on the poor and not politics.”

Towey’s successor in the White House, Jay Hein, did not return a phone call requesting comment on Kuo’s allegations.

But White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, asked about them during his regular Oct. 13 daily press briefing, said the Kuo who wrote the book sounded very different than the Kuo who left the White House in 2003.

Snow quoted “a very warm letter” that Kuo wrote Bush upon leaving the White House expressing pride in the accomplishments of the faith-based initiatives office.

Snow also said Rove had denied referring to conservative Christian leaders with derisive terminology. “These are people who are friends. You don’t talk about friends that way,” he said.

White House officials had not yet seen a copy of the book, Snow added. “I think we are going to need the benefit of being able to take a look specifically at what he says and how he frames it up, and all that, before we can give you detailed answers.”

A spokesperson at Focus on the Family said James Dobson and many of the organization’s media-relations officials were unavailable for comment Oct. 12 and 13. She pointed to a statement the group released Oct. 13 attacking Kuo’s book—and the media—for the allegations and their timing.

“The release of this book criticizing the Bush administration’s handling of its faith-based initiative program seems to represent little more than a mix of sour grapes and political timing,” said the statement from Carrie Gordon Earll, the group’s director of issue analysis.

Earll said the book excerpts “paint the picture of a dissatisfied federal employee taking shots at the White House effort to connect faith-based nonprofit groups with legitimate societal needs.”

She also attacked the “big media,” who “ will no doubt play this story to the hilt in the next several weeks, because it allows them to take aim at two of their favorite targets: President Bush and socially conservative Christians. Sadly, Kuo’s characterization of his former colleagues, bosses and mission—mischaracterizations, really—will be fed to the public as truth.”

FoolThemAll · 10-14-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Did anyone who Ken Starr targeted for investigation (...and then permit the leaking, from his office; the details of the investigation to the press....vs. what we is the proper and discrete conduct of special counsel Fitzgerald's office, over the past 3 years....)....a $71 million, 6 year investigation of a profitless real estate "deal" that resulted in no finding of wrongdoing on the part of the original targets....the POTUS and the first lady, draft, co-sponsor, or promote legislation or a contitutional amendment to curtail rights or potential to achieve rights.....of anyone who engaged in extramarital sexual activity?

No idea. If you're implying that the answer is 'no' - or that the answer for Foley is 'yes', I'll take your word for it. But then I'll also ask you what your point is. I'm not quite getting it.

I probably should've left out that Ken Starr remark. It merely expressed the less-than-certain expectation that my stated belief - in the irrelevance of much of a politician's personal life, hypocritical or not - would prompt a response of "so you're okay with what Clinton did in the oval office?" And for all I know, no one would've responded that way. So, yeah, ignore that part of my post. Unless you wish to respond that way.

I don't think my argument as presented so far is in need of sources - I don't see it as that type of argument. Do you disagree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the evangelicals have been chumped by the bush people, who regard them as nutcases privately, and who created administrative cul-de-sacs within which evangelical-friendly programs were set up and left to rot.

In other words, it's not just that they're socially moderate/liberal in their personal lives, it's also that their politics are less than conservative but made to look conservative?

I'm arguing that the false representation of personal life as conservative doesn't matter. But if their politics don't quite match, either, then that's an entirely different matter.

Either way, I'm still not seeing any value in outing closeted anti-gay conservatives. (But then, you may have not been addressing that topic.)

magictoy · 10-14-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Listen, forget the homosexual and pedophile aspects of this thing for just a second.

This is sexual harassment. If this were any workplace other than the Congress of the United States and a prominent employee was found to be flirting or even just joking inappropriately with his subordinates, and if that employee's boss was even suspected of covering it up, heads would roll all up and down the corporate ladder, and the company would be subject to massive legal liability.

Not if it was the White House. Protecting the harasser would become "defending the constitution."

xxSquirtxx · 10-15-2006, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magictoy

Not if it was the White House. Protecting the harasser would become "defending the constitution."

You mean "not if it was a Democrat." They get a pass.

I wonder -- do those of you who are screaming about abuse of power, etc. think Gerry Studds was abusing his power? Was what he did sexual harrassment? Or is sex with a 17 year old page okay?

http://wfrv.com/topstories/topstorie...287094010.html

pan6467 · 10-15-2006, 08:39 AM

First, I love how the Right has to bring out something 25 YEARS OLD and try to say "see same thing" when it isn't.

Quote:

In 1983, Studds acknowledged his homosexuality after the page revealed he'd had a relationship with Studds a decade earlier, when the page was 17. Studds was censured for sexual misconduct by the House, then went home to his constituents to answer questions in a series of public meetings and interviews with the press.

Studds defended the relationship as a consensual relationship with a young adult. The page later appeared publicly with Studds in support of him.

I don't see the "page" (when in actuality it has been more than 1 coming forth, but for arguments sake I'll play along with just the "1 page") say it was consensual in the Foley case. Nor do I see the page supporting Foley. And yes, if the page stated, it was consensual and that he knew what he was doing and the IM's were ok, then I wouldn't have a problem with this. However, the page complained, and nothing was done, supposedly his family requested it be kept quiet.... but it couldn't be, nor should it have been.

At 17, it could have been age of "consent" in both cases, that is why I haven't really gotten into the pedophile aspect. However, when there were complaints lodged, the GOP heirarchy KNEW what was going on and chose to keep it quiet and not do anything, until it became public, then there are problems.

I truly don't see this as the same, but you defenders of Foley and the GOP heirarchy that allowed this, keep thinking it's the same.... maybe someone will believe you.

10-04-2006, 09:26 PM	#42 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Former Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts admitted to a sexual affair with a 17 year old page boy in 1983 and defied the House's attempts to reprimand him. He then went on to serve five more terms. I saw that online, didn't know anything about it, looked it up and apparently it was true. Interesting, who controlled the house back then anyways? What Hastert did do this week, according to a statement he made on Monday was to contact the Justice Department and the state of Florida to investigate possible violations of both federal and state laws on the part of Foley. And most notable, Hastert has made clear the obvious: while he apparently gave Foley a limited response to allegations in 2005 based on the limited information that was available and believed at the time, he makes it clear that someone obviously did know about the true extent of the e-mail exchanges and kept it under wraps until now. And it is of interest to find out who those people were (unless you want to make the case that it was Hastert who leaked this to ABC). If Foley's actions were indeed predatorial (as they appear to be) then whoever leaked it knowingly did more to appease Foley's behavior and possibly endanger these teenagers than anything that has come out to suggest that Hastert himself has. Another interesting comment. Just who DID leak this story 40 days before the next election? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-11-2006, 09:45 PM	#50 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	One of the saddest parts is listening to the GOP talking heads cover this up. Take Limbaugh for instance, how he keeps claiming it was just one page, how "there was no true sex involved", how it was with 1 18 yr old page, and blah blah blah. I'm sure Pat (I am God's voice) Robertson and his 700 Club "news" have voiced defenses for Foley also. These hypocritical GOP people and Religious Rights seem to put their morals and their condemnations aside. Sooooo getting a blow job in the Oval Office is a disgrace and worthy of impeachment but harrassing numerous underage pages is ok? And Hastert's lieing and the GOP elected officials that knew and covered it all up is ok, and acceptable? I see. And yet, the Dems are the "evil, non moralistic" party. What I truly would like to see: A highranking GOP elected official come out and say, "Foley is not representative of this party, we all have bad apples in our families and workplaces and I assure you, I will not look at party but at who knew what and who did what and I will make sure the people involved will be punished to the fullest extent." IF I saw a GOP elected official say that, he would have my respect and I would vote for him if I had the oppurtunity. I would expect the same from the Dem. leadership. Stand up take your lumps, admit to the bad apple, investigate, prosecute, do whatever is necessary and be forthright and non partisan about it. One of the reasons things don't change in DC and seem to get worse is because we allow situations like this to continue and just look at party lines. If we held our leaders to the "high standards" that Robertson, Limbaugh and GOP talking heads expect usand tell us we need to do from Dems. but whitewash and give GOP'ers passes and excuses . Perhaps this country would be stronger and we would get better leadership. I don't care what party a bad apple is from, do the work, don't make excuses and get rid of him. But set the standards and expectations the same for both parties not just the one opposite you, while you can make excuses and try to shift and pass blame, or bring up things from 25 years ago and point fingers. It shows nothing but your hypocrasy and that you truly don't give a damn about the nation but about the power your party yields. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 10-11-2006 at 10:57 PM..

10-13-2006, 12:34 PM	#67 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	seems the conservative set is kinda testy about this one. it wont help. all the whining about "witch hunting" is meaningless--and worse it is ineffective. the problem the republicans face is simple: they chose for strategic reasons to route as much of their ideology as possible through the discourse of "morality" and now find themselves twisting in the wind because of it. you would think that the conservative set would be better readers of machiavelli, who they seem to enjoy pretending they understand in so many areas---what matters is the appearance of consistency in political matters. they should have sucked it up and done a mea culpa right away, not because they believed in anything, but because the maintenance of their own ideology required it. so this is a result of a strategic fuck up that then opened onto a whole series of ethical problems----none of which would have happened had there been any meaningful correlation between the right's claims to monopolize morality and the actions of foley, hastert, the conservative media apparatus, etc. the right has no-one and nothing to blame but themselves for all of this. squirm as they might, they are in a mess of their own creation. what i do not understand is the relative significance of this mess when compared with the far greater problems that should have been created by the many other fiascos the bush people have engineered: this idiotic"war on terror," iraq, the problems associated with hurrican katrina, the new and improved north korea farce on and on and on. why is this is issue that seems to damage the republicans more than the bigger, ongoing disastrous policy choices that they have made since 9/11/2001 at the least? in comparison, this seems rather trivial, but this is the issue that gets traction. go figure. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-13-2006 at 12:37 PM..

10-13-2006, 03:18 PM	#69 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Conservative talking heads are bringing out the REALLY important issues now....BIll O'Reilly warning his viewers that electing "secular progressives" may mean... "No more Christmas, no pledge of allegiance to God." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLimRVtGSak&eurl= __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-14-2006, 07:43 AM	#75 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	foolthemall sums up what i was trying to say using machiavelli above: it really doesn't matter who representatives are as human beings or what they believe as human beings---what matters is how the frame themselves politically, what they appear to be, what they appear to believe. but once they make these choices as to how they frame themselves, they are stuck with the consequences of that choice--they have to live and die publically that way--whence the problems for the far right this scandal has generated--and why i have no sympathy at all for them for example, the protestant evangelical community is a big part of the far right's populist base--the right adapted its politics to appeal to this base---but if you read stuff that is emerging over the past two days from david kuo's book, it is obvious that this adaptation was strategic and did not mean that everyone in far-right land was in fact either an evangelical or even took the statements they would repeat designed to suck up to evangelicals terribly seriously. all that mattered was consistency of appearances--all of which is rapidly falling apart. i would expect that kuo's book will damage the far right coalition more extensively than this farce will, simply because kuo's central argument is that the evangelicals have been chumped by the bush people, who regard them as nutcases privately, and who created administrative cul-de-sacs within which evangelical-friendly programs were set up and left to rot. which is one of the only things the bush administration has done that i approve of. more importantly, kuo is of the evangelical community. so this should be friendly fire--but it isnt. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-04-2006, 11:04 PM	#43 (permalink)
magictoy Crazy	On the network news this morning, a 28-year-old former page stated that he warned a new page about "the FRESHMAN rep from Florida." The thought that no one (including Democrats) suspected anything until 2005, or a month before the elections, stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

10-12-2006, 06:48 AM	#51 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Listen, forget the homosexual and pedophile aspects of this thing for just a second. This is sexual harassment. If this were any workplace other than the Congress of the United States and a prominent employee was found to be flirting or even just joking inappropriately with his subordinates, and if that employee's boss was even suspected of covering it up, heads would roll all up and down the corporate ladder, and the company would be subject to massive legal liability.

10-13-2006, 09:27 AM	#60 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	i can not stomach a couple of posters here as is well known but to liven things up a bit and stir the "proverbial" pot while adding absolutely no intelligent content to this (while still reserving the fact that the left has their baggage) i present you with... have a splendid day at the polls...

10-13-2006, 10:03 AM	#62 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Wow, dc, that is pretty funny. It's all a big conspiracy by 'teh gheys' to overthrow the Republicans. Kobe and Foley were not closeted gay republicans, they were dem operatives that got elected as closeted gay republicans. Pathetic.

10-13-2006, 11:09 AM	#64 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	you go girl!!!

10-13-2006, 12:25 PM	#66 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I have no problem with outing people who either publicly advocate discriminitory practices against gays or work for people who do. If Focus on the Family was really sent the 'list' and did nothing it just shows that they are true hypocrites. Those assholes talk about the evil gays all the time, to get that information and do nothing means that protecting their people is more important than their hatefull 'morals'