NY Times:Repub Leaders Hastert & Boehner Cover Up Closeted Foley's emails to boys.
 

Apparently, there is a new scandal brewing that involves dysfunctional, hypocritical closeted gay republican politicians, in the House of Representatives, and the resignation of Mark Foley (R-FL), is turning out to be just the tip of the iceberg:
Here is a report on the contents and circumstances of Mark Foley's emails:
<b>Now....here's the background. It helps to answer the question of why the NY Times report at the beginning of this OP states that</b> <i>"The statement, issued after senior aides, the House clerk and legal advisers huddled for much of Saturday in the Capitol, said senior staff members in the speaker’s office first learned of the e-mail messages from Mr. Alexander’s office in the fall of 2005 and took steps to investigate."</i>
....apparently, Hastert and Boehner couldn't get their "stories" straight, to hide the details of their "cover up" of Foley's behavior, which allowed Foley to continue his perversion, for nearly another year. If it's true, the combination of republican hypocrisy and dysfunction in the collective party attitude towards gays, and the evidence of more "asshole" leadership by Hastert, and first, Tom Delay, and now....his replacement, John Boehner, is amazing and tragic. No ethics....no accountability, no rule of law, and they're still lying !
<b>Then....hours later, the "story" changed a bit. Instead of reporting the 16 year old page's complaint about Foley to the house ethics committee, Rep. Alexander "reported" it to "Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Republican campaign organization":</b>
<b>Then, it was reported that Rep. Alexander said that he told John Boehner:</b>
Rollcall reported the following:
<b>Tom Delay's replacement, John Boehner said:</b>
<b>Then....Boehner's "story" changed, but Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) backed Boehner's identical, earlier claim, that Hastert, himself, knew:</b>
The preceding excerpt seems to be an example of how the house "leadership" treats "it's own". Can the rest of us expect anything less, as far as maltreatment, from them in the future?

My hope is that there are no more than one hundred...or so....possible successors to the "Delays", "Blunts", "Hasterts", and "Boehners", who are similarly corrupt and waiting in the wings, to replace these thugs if we are fortunate enough to see Hastert and Boehner forced to resign over this "cover up".

David Dreier (R-CA), would have been a breath of fresh air, in Boehner's majority leader position. He was passed over, though, because too many of his fellow republicans in congress were aware that he, too, was a closeted gay man, living for 25 years with his male chief of staff, of his own (Dreier's) congressional office.

These congressional republicans, in addition to the closeted gays having to worry about suddently being outed because of their hypocrisy, and others concerned because Jack Abramoff is reported to be wading through 500,000 emails to find evidence of their complicity in his schemes, because it will help him get better treatment in the federal pen, from the DOJ, now have "did you know that Foley was a gay child molester, and when did you know it?", question hanging over the heads of their leaders....

This late discovery by news media and the prompt resignation of Foley serves as a reminder to the public of the corruption issues that have plagued the party in power. Recent polls indicated that the whole Abramoff scandal was not an issue of major importance with the voters. I believe that this issue with Foley, and the subsequent lack of action by the leadership will not be taken as lightly by the conservative base.

I can fully understand why a Republican member of congress must remain in the closet concerning his or her sexuality. What is not acceptable is a closeted gay that champions youth preditor legislation, while behaving inappropriately with minors. Foley's dialogue with the minor is that of a pedophile, but I am unclear as to the legal status of "talking dirty" to a kid.
No evidence has been suggested that Foley ever seduced a minor, and I am not willing to hang him for the mere possibility.

Clearly, the "party of values" should have rid themselves of this ticking time bomb long ago. The failure to do that has left a Florida congressional seat wide open for a Democrat to take.

I expect the party leadership to be challenged by it's members for this incredible lack of foresight.

It's unfortunate that pederasts are still confused with homosexuals, even on this board.

If, by your reference to "this board"....you mean "this thread"....I know that you cannot be posting about me or about Elphaba....so, what is it that you are talking about?

I've been through the "confusion" accusation before. I assure you, it is misplaced....before....in the following example with the BSA hypocrisy story, and certainly, if it is your point....now, too.

This thread is about hypocrisy in congress, in the republican party, and in any "walk of life" where homosexuals, based solely on their perceived sexual orientation, are discriminated against, harrassed, or judged.

If ex-congressman Foley had been affiliated with a different political party, one that permitted him to have a political career, and be open about who he is, <b>there would not be anything worthy of discussion here</b>, except the irony that Foley sponsored the legislation that made his activities on the internet with three former house pages, criminal acts.

<b>I predict that the "big" story here, will be the confirmation of the lack of truthfulness, ethics, of congressional leaders, and their inability to put political priorities aside...the risk of losing a "safe seat", in November, 2006, vs. the protection of young house pages from Foley's advances. The hypocrisy of a party political platform that attracts votes by targeting homosexuals is also supported and advanced as an agenda, by speaker Hastert, et al, in addition to their other "shortcomings".</b>

It is also about the irony that the "leaders" in congress....of the political party that "keeps us safe from terror", cannot even put political priorities aside, <b>to protect it's own teenage pages !</b>, from a fellow republican member who received at the least, complaints from the parents of a 16 year old male page, that the "member's" contacts with their son were inappropriate. We know from reporting, and from the failure of house leaders to even get their "stories" straight, that there is much more to this controversy, than that.

.....but it is not about anyone who posted on this thread, being "confused":
I've invited discussion about what I just described, in past threads:

<b>So, what we have is a closeted gay republican congressman, with a prior house voting record that was not supportive of gay issues, who, in addition to that dysfunction and hypocrisy, sponsored the very legislation that made what the messages that he sent to teenage boys, via the internet, criminal acts, and this adds to his level of hypocrisy, and makes the curious spectacle of folks who rise politically in an anti-gay party, and vote against gay rights legislation, even as they, themselves, hide their own sexual orientation, even more curious. The lies from the house leadership, and the reaction to the complaints from parents of a house page....the decision by Rep. Alexander to take the complaints to the house republican re-election committee chairman, Rep. Reynolds, instead of to the house ethics committee, and to exclude the democratic house member of the house page board from knowledge of the complaints about Foley, adds to the hypocrisy, selfishness, and incompetence of these "leaders".</b>

Yup. Ten characters.

Here's the transcript of the text messages sent. It's disturbing stuff, and I'm actually surprised that it took as long as it did to make it's way into the public domain.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=2509586

Drudge is reporting Foly's gone into rehab, claiming an alcohol addiction. Sure, it was the booze that made him do that. That was never an acceptable excuse anywhere that I know of.

Finally, am I the only one that saw "pederast" and immediately thought of "that pederast Hanrahan" from Fletch? :lol: In all seriousness, I think that charge is pretty much completely baseless in this thread since there are multiple lies being covered up here.

Has alcohol addiction become the confession du jour for members of Congress with criminal, ethical and/or behavioral problems?

Last week, it was Bob Ney, who pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the Abramoff scandal.(link)

I have gone through a great deal of soul searching recently, and I have come to recognize that a dependence on alcohol has been a problem for me. I am not making any excuses, and I take full responsibility for my actions

I applaued anyone who recognizes, accepts and takes appropriate steps to respond to an alcohol addiction, but they shouldnt expect sympathy for their actions.

The White House reaction is equally appalling:

Tony Snow this morning: "I hate to tell but it's not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill and there have been other scandals as you know that have been more than simply naughty emails."

simply naughy emails....WTF?

This ranks right up there with other White House spin to deny reality.

Obviously, "naughty" doesn't quite cover what happened, but I don't see Snow is actually wrong on this. Nothing that I've seen alleges anything other than email and text correspondence. No mention has been made of physical relationships consenual or otherwise. Remember the page scandal of 1983? That was much worse than this in terms of inappropriate behavior.

Jazz...you're right.

I will withold further judgement until it is determined if laws were broken, however disturbing it is that the Repub leaders knew for months of "friendly" e-mail exchanges between a 50+year old Member and 16 yr old Page.

And I remember the '83 scandal vividly and the fact that the two Congressmen got off with a "censure" rather than being expelled and tried for sexual assault or statutory rape was a travesty.

I think many people will not differentiate this guy's actions as Republican or Democrat but will just cause more negative opinions of our polititians in general. I see lots of discussions on the news about how low the President's poll numbers are with hardly a mention that approval of congress is much lower. Cases like this will probably drive those numbers even lower.

Fist - well said.

I couldn't even finish reading that. This is a lot more than just a few naughty emails....... isn't it a crime to chat like this to underage people? Or is it only a crime if they meet up in an attempt to have sex?

When a person is "forced" to do something they don't like or feel morally wrong, they start to act out and do other, self destructive things and more often than not they do these things hoping (subconciously) to get caught, that added "thrill and excitement".

In politics, what happens is you want to help people, you are good at communicating and you are somewhat good at finding solutions. The problem for some is in order to get elected and to do what they feel needs to be done they find they have to sell their soul to their party.

What ends up happening because of partisan politics and the pressure put on the officials to perfom certain ways, they end up voting for things they know are wrong.

They may try to brush it off as a "necessary evil" or a compromise with other members of the party so that they can get something done at home.

But in the end, when you have to be something you are not or stand for something you don't believe in, eventually, you crumble. You turn to alcohol, drugs, deviant lifestyles etc.

Is this to say these people wouldn't have anyway? Perhaps, they wouldn't have, perhaps had they done something they believed in and stayed true to themselves, they wouldn't have gone down those roads. Or perhaps, because of the nature of the business and knowing that the bright lights may surface your lifestyle you choose it to get caught.

And it's not just in politics. The same goes for anyone who is unhappy in who they "have to be".

I feel sorry for Foley, I wish him the best, I hope he gets the help he needs but I also expect and demand that he gets treated and punished for what he did the same as anyone else would. If those "teens" were minors, then I hope he gets the punishment that any pedophile would get. (Not to say I agree or disagree with the punishment, but I am saying I hope because of who he is, he doesn't get leniency or get a worse than normal punishment.

ya know..

"simply naughty emails"....sounds like a government version of the whole Catholic priest debacle of recent times..

Agreed, but technically it's an accurate description. It's a naughty email to a kid, and I'm not entirely sure it's a crime. It's by all means distasteful, creepy and possible sign of things to come, but I don't think that it's a crime to talk dirty to a teenager. It might be, but I'm not aware of it. Regardless, Foley's career is over.

That's not gonna work, flstf. I might agree with your points if this scandal took place in a multi party political environment.

This is a two party system, and there is an election....all members of the house of rep. will be on the ballot....five weeks from tomorrow. Which candidates will be impacted negatively by this "news", republicans or democrats? These are the headlines:
<b>....and this is the "background":
<b>Please consider that Rep. Alexander received a complaint, "a year ago", from parents of a 16 year old male house page who was receiving emails from Foley, including a request by Foley, for a "photo" of the teen.

Rep. Alexander took the complaint to the Chairman, Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds,
http://www.nrcc.org/about/chairmanbio.aspx
of the republican NRCC, a political re-election committee, not an ethics
investigation committee, or a law enforcement agency.</b>
<h3>Consider who Thomas M. Reynolds current Chief of Staff is:</h3>
The problem for Hastert, and certainly for Shimkus, is it doesn't end with the scenario described above:
This NY Times article, concerning former house page, Loraditch, contradicts ABC's quote of the former page's description about a 2001 "warning" about Mark Foley, from a house page supervisor:
<B>If Shimkus knew about Foley's "special interest" in 2001, and allowed him continued close association with house pages, I believe that Shimkus will be the first, after Foley, to resign from congress, in disgrace:</B>
<b>flstf, your post seems closer to wishful spin, because it doesn't align with what we already know....and for Hastert, Boehner, Alexander, Reynolds, and Shimkus this story smells.</b>

Host, I respectfully disagree and think these kinds of stories will smear the whole lot, the same as the guy with a hundred grand in his freezer.

That being said, I think the Republicans have a lot more to be concerned about in the upcomming elections because they have more incumbants to unelect.

...so, it is your opinion that a New Orleans house democrat, William Jefferson, who is investigated in an FBI sting for selling his political influence to some Nigerian politicians and a US company hoping to do business with them, but was discovered to have kept the FBI "sting money", for himself, instead,
is on the same par as the republicans who took money from Jack Abramoff or the president and his staff who insisted that there was barely any contact between Abramoff and the white house, but it is now reported that there were 485 contacts, and of the three Abramoff associates "suggested" for appointment to white house jobs in 2001, one Safavian, is convicted of taking favors from Abramoff in exchange for helping Abramoff attempt to buy GAO property, and then lying about the conflict of interest to government investigators, and another, Susan Ralston, was in charge of tracking and approving the illegal gifts and perks to Rove and to congressmen and their staffers, but sits in an office down the hall from Bush and Rove, is a "special assistant to both of them, received a $25k pay raise from them in 2005, upping her salary to $92k, and was so important a staffer of "team Abramoff", that she followed him from Preston Gates to Traurig.

....the William Jefferson investigation is as signifigant as Rep. Alexander becoming informed a year ago, of Foley's "inappropriate emails" to a 16 year old house page, with a background of statements by a former page that he was "warned" by a page supervisor about Foley....in 2001....

...and Alexander reacting by taking "the matter" to Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, a chairman of a house republican politcal committee....who did nothing....but did happen to employ, as his chief of staff....Foley's former chief of staff...of ten years....Kirk Fordham, who...when this story "blew up" last week, went to be "by Foley's side". Add the spectacle of house leader's Hastert and Boehner lying about what they knew and when they knew it, and then of Hastert, claiming credit today, for knowing about it, but doing nothing!

Place all of this in the context of the firing of the house ethics committee chariman, by former majority leader Tom Delay, for censuring Delay for ethics breaches, and by Delay staying on, in an influential congressional role, after he was indicted for three felony charges, as long as he felt like staying on.

We have not even touched on the deception of an administration launching an illegal war of aggression, after terrorizing the American people with false WMD claims in a pre-war propaganda blitz, or the failure of the republican congress to investigate anything that the executive branch has done, including the destruction of the CIA covert intel section, the management of the CIA, and the outing, by the administration, of a CIA covert employee, for political revenge.

I don't see that an obscure news story of FBI sting money, found in the freezer of an unknown, powerless, congressman from the political party that is out of power, with no investigative or subpoena power and no authority to direct appropriations or actual federal agency spending, is on a par with the details that I've just outlined......do you?

Yes, I do. But it makes little difference what I think, I have a low regard for most polititians and assume this stuff goes on all the time and what we see is just the tip of the iceberg. What really matters is what most of the voters think and I believe more and more of them feel the same way.

IMHO, you are very partisan and follow these things very closely uncovering all the sordid details and keep score to show one party is worse than the other while much of the public just sees another bad polititian.

host, I think that you're letting your partisan viewpoint blind you from the bigger picture, at least at this point in the story. Right now, I think that Foley is being viewed as a Congressman first and a Republican second. It's pretty well established fact that the American people believe that most members of Congress are crooked but that their own representatives are less tainted. It's one of the reasons that incumbents enjoy such success at re-election time.

I think that it's entirely possible that this scandal will taint the entire Republican party very quickly if it comes out that the House party leadership knew about the problem and covered it up. However, we don't have anything other than some allegations at this point, and no one is going to find crucifying "Coach" Hastert very easy.

Speaking of who knew what and when they knew it, the St. Petersburg papers are already playing defense. http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2006/..._from_the.html

Yeah, I know it's a blatant ripoff of Fark material, but it's relavent.

No amount of copy/pasting of unrelated articles will change the fact that Foley is a 52 year old man who was slobbering all over a 16(?) year old boy. Boy. 52 year old man. Boy. 52. 16. Man. Boy. The distinction between a homosexual man (a man who likes other men) and a pederast (a man who likes boys) is very clear, especially in the case of a 52 year old and a 16 year old. As a man who likes other men, I don't appreciate being grouped together with a man who very poorly attempted to pick up a clearly uninterested boy, just as I am sure you wouldn't appreciate being equated with Klan Democrats. :)

Seretogis, I assure you that I have never made the assumption that "gay equals pedophile." If my initial post didn't make my position clear in that regard, then I apologize for being a poor communicator. I would be interested in knowing what statement I made that causes you to think otherwise.

Specifically:

I would not compare a gay Republican's sexuality with the sick predatory urgings of a criminally deranged man who happens to have been accused of being a gay Republican.

I understand that there was not as much information available about his conversations with the page when you made your initial post, but once a minor boy was known to be the victim, the proper term of pederast should have been used instead of any direct or indirect reference to a non-child-drooling homosexual male. It may seem like a minor thing to most, but it is a very important distinction to make.

seretogis, I've posted tirelessly on this forum, in attempts to defend same sex orientation, and to educate, if it is possible, as I did on this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=86477
, in this post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=38

I see the circumstances of Mark Foley being similar to the story of the Boy Scouts executive who back a policy prohibiting gay scoutmasters. The issue is not about me. It is about ignorance about homsexuality, combined with religious influenced prejudices, that combine to link homosexuality with "deviance", including a mistaken belief....a prejudice, that links homosexuality with sexual attraction and sexual abuse of children.

Indeed, this ignorant prejudice is a cornerstone in some of the conservative christian "argument" against the acceptance of the fact that homosexuality is normal, not a disease or a pathology, to be "treated" or to be "rehabed" away from. This "influence" of conservative religious prejudice has become entrenched in the politcal platform and the legislative agenda of the republican party, to the point that it has driven republican homosexuals "underground".

IMO the republican political agenda breeds a hypocrisy driven suppression of what, in many other areas of society, is a routine (normal) attitude about sexual identity and orientation that is at the root of the failure of republican house leaders to confront Foley and report his behavior with house pages, to investigative authorities, years ago.

I believe that, these house "leaders" believe their own bullshit....that homosexuality is deviant, a disease....sinful.....and they cannot discern normal, same sex orientation, from the perversion that is Foley's sexual attraction to teenaged boys. <b>They absurdly lump homosexuality with deviant sexual behavior, and ironically, dismissed Foley's abnormal interest in boys, as an extension of his closeted homosexuality, which they were all aware of.</b> The flawed demonizing of homosexuals as a political tactic, resulted in ignorant dismissal....by Hastert and Boehner, of Foley's actual signs of sexual deviancy.....they overplayed and wrongly reacted to homosexuality, "lumped it in" with deviant sex, and <b>underreacted to Foley's deviant behavior with the pages,</b> because their own religiously tainted political bullshit, renders them unable to tell the difference !

<b>This ignorance and prejudice of the WSJ is a fine example of what I just tried to explain. I am surprised that they don't begin their ignorant bullshit with, "everbody knows that your shouldn't allow homos near young boys."

(This thread is about trying to stampout the ignorant prejudice in this WSJ article, and not about supporting it.....)</b>
.........The_Jazz and flstf, I don't think that my posts on this thread are good examples to use to point out that I am "too" partisan....

Michelle Malkin and I, for once.....seem to post about this, very similarly:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006033.htm

and the Bush and republican aligned newspaper published this:
and...earlier, when he was "for it"..... before he was against it, Bill Frist embraced the Taliban:

host - I meant no offense by my earlier point. I was simply trying point out that I think that you're missing the bigger picture because of your usual partisan focus. However, from what I've read this morning, it looks like I was wrong and you are right. The national organization is being forced to go off-message to deal with the scandal, and that could potentially cost votes.

I dont know if cyber sex with a minor makes it more of a crime; it certainly makes it more disgusting:

Now Foley is claiming that he was molested by clergy when he was young. This does not excuse his behavior. Why does he keep making excuses? Just fess up that you were wrong, that you are sick, and let it be. An apology should never contain an excuse.

I didnt see any such comparison made here.

But that is exactly what you see from some conservatives pundits:
Ben Stein, American Spectator:

On the one hand, we have a poor misguided Republican man who had a romantic thing for young boys… I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys.

Linda Harvey, WorldNetDaily:

Open or suspected homosexuals should never be elected. The problem with homosexuals is that they frequently don’t have common sense and don’t acknowledge appropriate boundaries. Weird sex, public displays of “affection” and nudity, and sex with youth are built into the “gay” sub-culture.

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?

Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy In Meda:

In fact, the entire scandal might have been avoided if Foley’s homosexuality had been exposed and confronted, rather than protected, over the last several years

This kind if ignorance is appalling. Yet I can just imagine many loyals readers nodding their heads in agreement. And rarely do you see such ignorance condemned.

I love how the GOP talk about how the Dems whine and how if an actor goes on Oprah and cries he is forgiven. They consider this a weakness and claim people need to take personal responsibility.

Hmmmmmmm like Foley is right now? I'm an addict...... I was molested.... others in congress and my own party knew but they didn't do anything to stop me...... blah blah blah......

Earlier I posted how I could understand the psyche of the wrong doing and addiction. I can, it's my profession. But when someone who for years preached self responsibility and control, then gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and tries to do what he claimed we needed less of........ :lol:

Other GOP who have shown they refuse personal responsibility and that they refuse to accept they broke laws:

Let's see, with Limbaugh it was "a political witch hunt", yet he himself said all addicts should be shipped off to their own island and were worthless. When the ACLU (whom he fried every chance he got) offered to help him, he took it.

Limbaugh spends hours upon hours hitting Clinton about being unfaithful, then gets a divorce because he has a hottie on the side..... Gingrich had to leave political office because he cheated on his wife..... But with Clinton and everyone else it is a vile unresponsible, act that shows we are a moralless society.

O'Reilly gets sued for sexual harrassment..... boohoo they are picking on me.... I'm innocent but Fox News and I will pay millions to shut the lady up before anymore details get out.

Sounds to me like the GOP has not only accepted the Religious Right's platforms and prejudices but their leaders have learnt and are taking lessons on scandals from the Religious Rights leaders.

All Hail Jim and Tammy Faye, Raise a toast to Jimmy Swaggert and Pat Robertson..... for you taught Foley, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Gingrich, Ney, and so on how to skirt scandals and make it look like it is all someone else's fault, while telling everyone else they need to take responsibility for their actions.

I am not making this up--I wore out my scroll wheel on this thread.

In spite of that, a few factors have not been discussed here.

1. There is no way in hell that some Democratic members of Congress did not know about this situation. Pages talk.

2. Among the media sources who seem to have withheld the story are the New York Times and the LA Times. It wasn't just Fox News.

Conclusion: Republicans tried to hide it; Democrats wanted to save it until a month before the election. I don't see either as having the higher moral ground.

3. The parents of the page asked that it not be made public.

4. Foley was known to be gay. It doesn't go over well these days to imply that a gay person has ever done anything wrong. If you doubt the aggression that is increasingly emitted from the gay community, scroll back in this thread.

It is not inconceivable that "persecution" charges would be tossed around in regard to Foley's homosexuality. Barney Frank was able to play the victim when a prostitution ring was being run out of his basement--why wouldn't Foley's playing the victim (which he is doing, but in a different way) work equally well?

While I don't agree with it, I can certainly see why the Republicans weren't calling press conferences, particularly since there was no evidence of any actual sexual contact.

It's also easy to see why the Democrats waited until now to break the story. What's hard to decide is which side I respect the least in this matter.

This is the Hastert defense and there is no evidence to support it. There is evidence that the Repub chairman of the House Page Board was told last year by a fellow Republican (that same Repup did not tell the Dem co-chair of the Page Board) that Foley was exchanging "friendly" e-mails with a minor.

So ABC took a more aggressive approach. I dont see where this is an issue at all.

ABC’s Brian Ross “dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley,” the New York Times reports. “I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.

Was it just a "slip-up" that Fox News labeled Foley a Democrat on O’Reilly's show last night?

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/images/100306b.jpg

Congress has a responsibility to ensure the safety of all the Pages which overrides the wishes of any one page's parents.

Have you read the gay bashing from the anti-gay community? #28.

But pages don't routinely talk to members of Congress. The oversight of the page program is done by the Speaker's office, and that's where all problems are channeled. If you know of a Democratic member that knew about the problem, name names. Otherwise, your accusations are a strawman.

See your point #3. I haven't seen anyone here single out Fox News, but if they got a page or his family to go on record and then didn't run with the story, then they should be pilloried. If they didn't run with it because they didn't have a source (same as everyone else), then they did the right thing and didn't slander Foley (which is what it would have been with no sources to back it up).

Where's your proof that the Democrats knew anything? I haven't seen anything of the sort anywhere, even by the Republicans themselves, who you would think would be the first to make the accusation.

Who knew he was gay? One of my best friends lives in that district, and he didn't know. I have another friend who's a Democratic lobbyist in DC, and he didn't know. This is another stawman.

The Republicans didn't do anything at all with the information. That's the problem here, and by all accounts, Foley was demonstrating predatory behavior.

Great news, everyone! According to Fox News, the Republican Party's troubles are over: Foley's a Democrat!.

Watch this video clip closely. Two cut-aways to Foley during O'Reilley yesterday labelled him (D-FL)!

http://www.bradblog.com/Video/FoxORe...RAT_100603.wmv

http://static.flickr.com/29/100276794_548c83c4eb_m.jpg Excellent.

Wow, fox news has some serious clout. Seriously, someone just talked to me about 'That damned democrat foley messin with them kids"

Here is a news channel with the power to change party affiliations for people...I wonder if it only applies to gay republicans

What I find amazing is all the GOP Reps. that are coming out saying that Hastert knew.

Wouldn't that mean though that they also knew and did nothing?

I mean how can you know someone knew something and didn't do anything, if you didn't know that they knew?

And Limbaugh must not have watched O'Reilly because according to Rush no pages have come forward, yet the clip above (the one used to show how Faux News labelled Foley a dem.) shows O'Reilly's guest as a page (Tyson Vyvian) who claims he had gotten sexual messages from Foley and from the looks of the clip he came forward.

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.

The fat lady was just seen, <a href="http://www.bluegrassreport.com/bluegrass_politics/2006/10/ky2_lewis_cance.html">entering Carnegie Hall</a>.............

I talked about Mr. Fordham earlier, in post #16

<b>...but then, Fordham starting naming names:</b>

Update: Fordham's Full Statement:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15679438.htm

Let us not forget that Rep. Alexander took the page's parent complaint about inappropriate email to Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, Fordham's current boss, probably to "keep the problem in the faimly"....with someone closest to Foley, instead of to end the problem,,,,,,,the same reaction that was used by Foley's fellow house republicans......for years....and allowed him to continue his predatory preoccupation with the house pages.

...and this is some pretty lame bullshit, but expect to here much more of it:

I love the last one Host...... So according to Franks, he never met Foley at any of the GOP dinners, and the GOP didn't know but the Dems did.

Hey Host, can I pick at your research skills and see if you can find maybe Foley and Franks sitting in the same committees?

Here's one right here:

Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans 105 Democrats, 68 Republicans, Total 173 (Link: http://www.usindiafriendship.net/con...us/members.htm)

guess 2 GOP reps that sat in this caucus together????????

Why Misters Foley and Franks....... yet, Franks never knew Foley. :rolleyes:

And Foley was Deputy Majority Whip..... which is a pretty high ranking office that I believe helps other Reps. in the party out, with issues, sending talking points etc. Yet, again, Mr. Franks never met Foley??????? :eek:


Guess 2 Reps that comprised the 74 that voted for this..... Only 74 Reps voted for it......... and 2 names pop out. (link: http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/usout.htm)

Sovereignty Movement Gaining Steam!
74 U.S. Congressmen Vote to Get U.S. Out of U.N.

A few weeks ago, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=clarice+feldman+professional+fitzgerald&btnG=Search">Clarice Feldman</a> earned the admiration of a segment of our society by writing a letter to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, asking that they initiate an investigation against "rogue" "Plame Leak" investigation and prosecution, special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald.

Clarice Feldman probaby worked overtime on Sunday, Oct., 1st writing an article that attempted to shift the investigation of Mark Foley and the house republican leadership, away, and onto <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=clarice+feldman+foley+soros&btnG=Search">"democrats" and Geroge Soros.</a>

Her efforts on Sunday were all for naught apparently, according to the story below, from "The Hill, and judging by the way Clarice is received, I have to wonder about the folks who increasingly are on the <a href="http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=clarice+feldman+&btnG=Search+Blogs">"fringe"</a>, when it comes to having a firm grasp on reality.

It's amazing that in a parallel world dominated by Bozell, Rush, Hannity, and <a href="http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/">Hugh Hewitt</a>, that there is even room for another parrot like Clarice, to emerge.

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.

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?

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.

Could the difference, this time with Foley, be the blatant lies to the media, coming from the house leadership?
<b>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:</b>
<b>magictoy</b>....let us recap....you've repeated a talking point that has no support from any of the news reporting.....<b>"The thought that no one (including Democrats) suspected anything until 2005, or a month before the elections, stretches credulity beyond the breaking point."</b>

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?

And again!

http://images.dailykos.com/images/us...ox_Foley_3.jpg

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

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. :mad:

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.

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2132070&postcount=40">Clarice Feldman</a>, your ridiculous, <b>"Soros and "the democrats" knew...."</b> "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:
<b>....RE: Hastert's reference to "Richard Morris":</b>
Denny !!!! .....is "Soros did it", and "Clinton operatives knew", according to "Richard Morris".....all you got ???? <b>The "fat lady" is warmin' up backstage.....as the crowd takes their seats, in Carnegie hall !</b>

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.

Absolutely in agreement with you.

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.

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.

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.:)

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.

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.

Also, some facts thus far:

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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...

http://news.bostonherald.com/images/...rt20061013.jpg

have a splendid day at the polls... :D

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

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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

you go girl!!! :thumbsup:

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.

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'

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.

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?

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?!?!?!?

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.

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

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

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!)

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, <b>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?</b>

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.

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.

....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........

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?

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.)

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

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.

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.

fta: the quote you bit was in reference to the kuo book--it is a little summary of his argument about the administration's use of the evangelicals. the argument i am making myself in the posts above is not so far from yours.

Foley just chose the wrong party to be pulling this shit with. If he were a Dem, he's get a standing O from his ilk in the Congress. Plus a book deal of course

Yeah, you're right. The dems are all about fucking children and covering it up. How could i have missed it when it was the lynchpin of kerry's campaign. He was all like "I will provide an america where we can freely fuck children and then systematically cover it up because i am a democrat and we are the party of immorality, unlike the republicans whom shit solid gold that smells of potpourri."

Fucking children is only ok when they give consent.

How nice.

And, duhhh, Foley didn't "fuck" anyone, unlike Studds.

Oh my god. Why are we talking about Studds from 23 years ago?

Because the only way Republicans can defend themselves on this one is to dredge up ancient history. Rather than standing up and admitting a huge mistake, which would solve the whole thing.

Say what you want about Clinton: when the man came clean, he came clean. He did it out loud on national television. Compare this behavior with that of Dennis "If it would help my party, I would resign, but it won't, so I won't" Hastert. (EDIT: Or, for that matter, Mark "Oops! I have a drinking problem!" Foley!) The WHOLE GAME these last few weeks has been to pass the buck. Nobody in the GOP is willing to behave responsibly. That's why they're about to lose the election.

I now remember why I had NCB on my blacklist. A few weeks ago I saw him there (the lone member of it, too), and thought "gee, I wonder why I did that", and took him off. Heh. Welcome back to the bottomless pit, buddy.

i dont see any reason to take the little wave of far right bottomfeeder posts that has turned up overnight at all seriously--there is nothing to them--not in this thread, not in any of the others---nothing worth thinking about, nothing worth commenting on, nothing interesting or even provocative.
they aren't even well written.
back in the olden days when ultra-reactionaries at least had some style, you might disagree with everything that was being said, but at least the writing was amusing.
now there's nothing.

Oh my god......because some people can't pull their heads out of their ass and put things in historical perspective.

**unnecessary insults removed**

well, since nothing is being advanced
and you aren't even good at being snippy
i'll just do this:

q.e.d.

I hear Bush is going to give Foley the congressional medal of protecting little boys.

Naughty IM's are the ulimate evil.

Pounding a boy in the ass, not so evil.

Got it.

I'm not sure how 23 years ago is ancient history. I'm not one of the young pups that post here, and neither are you Ratbastid. Is the Rumsfield photo shaking Saddam's hand 'ancient history' too?

Heh. Yeah, they loooove to pull that one out, don't they? ;)

There was another thread where i told you to let me know when you had something substantive to say? This ain't it.

And as far as "historical perspective" goes, it seems odd that it would be brought up by folks who support an invasion that would never have happened if certain leaders had any amount of historical perspective.

Oh my - the broad brush strokes. Where do I begin........

I imagine you'll begin and end with a quasi-insulting one line dismissal of whatever was said. No surprise there.

Which are so unlike yours, correct? :rolleyes:

Like i said:

I expect the next post in this thread to be a moderator.....

I expected that a while ago. Maybe they're just trying to give us enough rope.