[stupendousman]

Nothing's going to be done apparently, because it's now clear that the situation was nothing more than an attempt at an "October Surprise" by equally guilty democrats.

I remember back when the news of Foley's disgusting behavior broke, that the Democrats and the media where up in arms as to how any Republican could have known and kept it quiet. I suggested that the Dems knew just as much as the Reps, and was essentially told here that wasn't the case.

We later found out that the person who started the ball rolling (with the website chronicling Foley's behavior) was part of a liberal activist organization, and now we find out that the Democrats knew for MONTHS and where shopping the story:

Democrats shopped Foley story to papers�-�Nation/Politics�-�The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

Of course....once it was clear that despite how disgusting Foley's behavior was, the motivation for revealing it was simple political dirty trickism by Democrats...the story went away. When it was just ""WHY DIDN'T THE REPUBLICANS WHO KNEW DO ANYTHING", the media was hot and heavy for the story. Once it was clear that the Dems where implicit, suddenly it was no longer a story. Why aren't the calling for Rahm Emmanuel's head for:

A. Knowing a sexual predator was on the loose and not acting.
B. LYING about it on national television.

Sad.

Even sadder is that members of the Republican party actually seemed to expect better of the leaders. If there was evidence that Hastert knew the extent of Foley's perversion (which was blown out of purpotion - not that it was needed), it looked as though he was going to be thrown under the bus. Luckily for him....there was no EVIDENCE. Rahm on the other hand....

...and the Democrats will remain silent.

[Dakar²]

Let's not pretend that if the roles were reversed the same wouldn't have happened.

As it were no one is going to be punished for whatever mistakes or misdeeds occurred on either side of the aisle. The politicians shall protect their own.

[Nicko]

I think Iraq was bad enough...Foley was just the tipping point.

[nonhuman]

[Spliffdaddy]

Well it worked. The Democrats won.

No wait...they lost. Pelosi is House Speaker.

oh happy day!

[GSixZero]

Hey guys... Longtime Republican was source of e-mails

Good try anyway.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

No wait...they lost. Pelosi is House Speaker.

oh happy day!

How's that?

[BRussell]

So let's see. A Republican congressman is hitting on teenage boys. Numerous Republicans in and out of the leadership, who are in charge of the House of Representatives, including congressmen, Speaker of the House, Majority Leader of the House, and many staffers, know about it, but don't tell any Democrats and don't do anything about it.

A Democratic staffer, who happens to be the boyfriend of a friend of Republican staffer, hears about it that way, and he sends it to the media, who don't do anything with it until a blog writes about it. And the Democrats are the bad ones?

[Timo]

1. Washington Times is not credible
2. Seems like the electorate rendered their judgment regarding the handling of Foley. Just ask Dennis Hastert.
3. "Of course....once it was clear that despite how disgusting Foley's behavior was, the motivation for revealing it was simple political dirty trickism by Democrats" or "equally guilty Democrats" is bait and switch rhetoric. Insist all you want, quote all the Moonies you want, but there is no controversy had Foley not done as he did, nor if Republicans had simply policed their own. You'd think the party of God and Family would be up on that last point.

[stupendousman]

Let's see if we can shoot a few fish in a barrel:

1.Hey guys... Longtime Republican was source of e-mails Good try anyway.

The Republican sent the emails to a friend because he was creeped out - not for political gain or to go to the media. She sent them to her boyfriend who was a Dem staffer and from there the Dems shopped it for months until right before the election.

Yeah...good try, indeed.

2.A Democratic staffer, who happens to be the boyfriend of a friend of Republican staffer, hears about it that way, and he sends it to the media, who don't do anything with it until a blog writes about it. And the Democrats are the bad ones?

Rahm Emanuel knew. He did nothing until right before the election to make gains when he could have had Foley out a long time before. The point isn't that "the Democrats are the bad ones", but rather that they are the totally hypocritical ones who were being helped by the media in order to try to hurt Republicans in the election and those who support them in doing so and don't speak out are just as bad as those idiots who knew and did nothing.

3, Washington Times is not credible

Logically fallacious attempt at a rebuttal. "Poising the well" fallacies don't count. Sorry.

The Dems knew, did nothing, then called their buddies in the media to complain that the Republicans knew and did nothing and now we have people who apparently approve of this sort of stuff - people who aren't called for Emanuel's head, showing their true character.

SAD!!

Maybe the whole episode earned them their own bad karma as evidenced by the fact that there is a very good chance they'll never get a chance to take control of the senate. Hmm..

[goMac]

I thought the Liberals were supposed to be the whiners.

[tie]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So let's see. A Republican congressman is hitting on teenage boys. Numerous Republicans in and out of the leadership, who are in charge of the House of Representatives, including congressmen, Speaker of the House, Majority Leader of the House, and many staffers, know about it, but don't tell any Democrats and don't do anything about it.

A Democratic staffer, who happens to be the boyfriend of a friend of Republican staffer, hears about it that way, and he sends it to the media, who don't do anything with it until a blog writes about it. And the Democrats are the bad ones?

Precisely! Oh, happy day.

[goMac]

Apparently Republicans only find sex disgusting and immoral, and worthy of public review along with political repercussions if it is straight sex.

[Spliffdaddy]

Foley didn't commit any crime. He should retake his post.

Foley didn't even commit a sexual act.

Clinton, on the other hand, commited a crime and he didn't step down.

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Foley didn't commit any crime. He should retake his post.

Foley didn't even commit a sexual act.

Clinton, on the other hand, commited a crime and he didn't step down.

How would he retake his post? He lost the election, with his own name on the ballot.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

How would he retake his post? He lost the election, with his own name on the ballot.

Shhh . . . Spliffdaddy isn't interested in making coherent, logical sense. He's interested in raising hackles by bringing up the "Clinton Defense" (i.e.: No matter what some Republican did it is not as bad as what President Clinton did) to wind up Democrats. Don't ruin his fun by asking serious questions. He isn't interested in serious questions or serious answers.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

3, Washington Times is not credible

Logically fallacious attempt at a rebuttal. "Poising the well" fallacies don't count. Sorry.

No, the credibility and motivation of the Washington Times is legitimate to question, and though it is endless tiresome to underscore this to lazy media grazers like yourself, this is because all news outlets are not equal. You base your posturing post on posturing-in-print, in an attempt to legitimate it. Pay attention: to pretend that the various news media (self-styled, legitimated by circulation, reputation, history or whatever matrix of criteria one would pick for evalution of quality in the field of journalism) are either equal and interchangable is either disingenous posturing, ignorant, or -- letmethink -- ah, yes: politically motivated.

Clever, aren't you, in your appeal to a news source regularly confused with the Washington Post, a paper of a different stripe, to say the least. But let's take the Washington Times at face value. From wikipedia:

The Times is the flagship publication of News World Communications, Inc. (NWC). NWC was founded by Sun Myung Moon, and some of its officials are members of the Unification Church which he leads, a fact that has drawn some criticism and controversy...NWC is described by the Columbia Journalism Review as "the media arm of Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church" [12]. The Unification Church calls Moon the "founder" of the Times. In 1997, on the 15th anniversary of the founding of the paper, Rev. Moon gave an address to staff members that began:

Fifteen years ago, when the world was adrift on the stormy waves of the Cold War, I established The Washington Times to fulfill God's desperate desire to save this world. Since that time, I have devoted myself to raising up The Washington Times, hoping that this blessed land of America would fulfill its world-wide mission to build a Heavenly nation. Meanwhile, I waged a lonely struggle, facing enormous obstacles and scorn as I dedicated my whole heart and energy to enable The Washington Times to grow as a righteous and responsible journalistic institution.[13]

In 2003, The New Yorker reported that a billion dollars had been spent since the paper's inception, as Rev Moon himself had noted in a 1991 speech ("Literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times"[14]). In 2002, Columbia Journalism Review suggested Moon had spent nearly $2 billion on the Times[15]. Ads fill an average of 35% of the Times' pages, compared to an industry average of 50-60%.[16]

emphasis added

Hmm... sounds about like how George Bush runs a business.

LIke I said, you want your street cred based on what the Moonies spend their money on, go ahead. You want your "news" from an organ of a religious unit, go right ahead. There are many useful critiques of even respected papers like the Post or the New York Times and God knows there should be more, but there are few sets of criteria for evaluating journalistic coverage of politics that when so arranged produce the Washington Times on top as best. Or even legitimate. Oh, unless the criteria set is one part megomania, one part spending money that isn't your own, and one part propping up a god vision. Again, wikipedia:

The paper's first editor-in-chief, James Whelan, said that he resigned rather than accepting what he saw as church interference with his operation of the paper. "I have blood on my hands," he declared.

Well, then your Times has that set cornered.

You want to be taken seriously, try reading up on the word "credible." I'm not taking your ****, and other people shouldn't either.

Got it?

Sorry.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Timo 

No, the credibility and motivation of the Washington Times is legitimate to question, and though it is endless tiresome to underscore this to lazy media grazers like yourself, this is because all news outlets are not equal.

It's not legitimate as a credible rebuttal.

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well

YOU don't think it's a credible source, therefore everything it claimed as fact requires no rebuttal. That makes it easy to respond, but hard to do so while being taken seriously. In order to actually make a logical rebuttal, you'd have to document what it was exactly you believe is untrue that the Times wrote. Seeing how they were going from the ethics panel report...GOOD LUCK!

Clever, aren't you, in your appeal to a news source regularly confused with the Washington Post, a paper of a different stripe, to say the least. But let's take the Washington Times at face value. From wikipedia:

Wow...I just might make that my sig.

You just shot your already logically fallacious argument further in the foot by actually quoting what is probably the most UNRELIABLE source for information ever created. Something with no editors, nor any subscribers, where average joes can insert any made-up crap they want to. The irony runs deep...

Maybe you should try to be LESS clever?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Shhh . . . Spliffdaddy isn't interested in making coherent, logical sense. He's interested in raising hackles by bringing up the "Clinton Defense"

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case?

Nothing.

Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense!

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!

The defense rests.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Shhh . . . Spliffdaddy isn't interested in making coherent, logical sense. He's interested in raising hackles by bringing up the "Clinton Defense" (i.e.: No matter what some Republican did it is not as bad as what President Clinton did) to wind up Democrats. Don't ruin his fun by asking serious questions. He isn't interested in serious questions or serious answers.

Smackdown!

[osiris]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Shhh . . . Spliffdaddy isn't interested in making coherent, logical sense. He's interested in raising hackles by bringing up the "Clinton Defense" (i.e.: No matter what some Republican did it is not as bad as what President Clinton did) to wind up Democrats. Don't ruin his fun by asking serious questions. He isn't interested in serious questions or serious answers.

That should be made into a sticky.

[stupendousman]

Wow..lot's of concern about one guy's sarcastic claim that Foley should "retake" his posts because he in fact did nothing illegal, unlike Clinton - but none for the fact that the leaders of the Democrat party knew a guy was engaging in inappropriate behavior with minors and did NOTHING until they thought they could get some political gain out of it.

Sad..sad..sad.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Smackdown!

No, smack-downs are handed out for actual rebuttels. Not jr-highish personal attacks.

Smack-down revoked.

[Sherman Homan]

OK, I'll play.
Exactly what crime did Foley commit?
He certainly hasn't been charged with one.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Shhh . . . Spliffdaddy isn't interested in making coherent, logical sense. He's interested in raising hackles by bringing up the "Clinton Defense" (i.e.: No matter what some Republican did it is not as bad as what President Clinton did) to wind up Democrats. Don't ruin his fun by asking serious questions. He isn't interested in serious questions or serious answers.

Originally Posted by osiris 

That should be made into a sticky.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Smackdown!

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No, smack-downs are handed out for actual rebuttals. Not jr-highish personal attacks.
Smack-down revoked.

You guys are taking this all way too serious. My comment wasn't an attack on Spliffdaddy, simply an acknowledgment that he isn't arguing to make a point, he is arguing to wind up people--He has said as much on the occasions when he talks about his on-line "persona". The funny part in all of this is that the way all of you responded proved my point. Look how worked up you all got about this; It's exactly what he would have wanted to happen. Just chill, stop taking seriously Spliffdaddy, and enjoy his wacky posts. It'll be all good.


PS: Kev, you fixed one of your typos. You might want to fix the other one as well. I did it in my quoting of you but you need to do it in the original.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan 

OK, I'll play.
Exactly what crime did Foley commit?
He certainly hasn't been charged with one.

None. That's the point.

It was pretty clear at the very beginning, if you were paying attention, that he likely didn't do anything "illegal", but simply grossly inappropriate. It was hard to really figure it out at first because hack journalists like those at ABC were purposely confusing the issue by posting really perverted text messages to pages and saying they were to minors. In fact the most salacious where to legal adults. The one guy was at least 18 at the time if not older.

While a sick abuse of power and position, such a thing isn't illegal. So, if there wasn't likely a legal problem, then it was a moral problem, right? One that should be taken care of by those who knew. The hue and cry was that the republicans knew about the most salacious elements of the story but did nothing. There's no evidence that any did (though I suspect there were those who did know), but now we find out that Rahm Emmanuel at people at the top of Democrat leadership knew and instead of getting Foley out of office as soon as they knew, they waited around until months and months later and shopped the story to the media for maximum political impact. They weren't motivated by doing what was right for the young people who worked for them, but rather their own personal gain.

All those who were crying foul back in late October suddenly are now silent since it appears that one of the BIGGEST creeps (other than foley) in this whole ordeal was one of their own.

Sad.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan 

He certainly hasn't been charged with one.

I hate to say it, but its just as likely that congress is protecting its own, as he did nothing.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

None. That's the point.

It was pretty clear at the very beginning, if you were paying attention, that he likely didn't do anything "illegal", but simply grossly inappropriate. It was hard to really figure it out at first because hack journalists like those at ABC were purposely confusing the issue by posting really perverted text messages to pages and saying they were to minors. In fact the most salacious where to legal adults. The one guy was at least 18 at the time if not older.

While a sick abuse of power and position, such a thing isn't illegal. So, if there wasn't likely a legal problem, then it was a moral problem, right? One that should be taken care of by those who knew. The hue and cry was that the republicans knew about the most salacious elements of the story but did nothing. There's no evidence that any did (though I suspect there were those who did know), but now we find out that Rahm Emmanuel at people at the top of Democrat leadership knew and instead of getting Foley out of office as soon as they knew, they waited around until months and months later and shopped the story to the media for maximum political impact. They weren't motivated by doing what was right for the young people who worked for them, but rather their own personal gain.

All those who were crying foul back in late October suddenly are now silent since it appears that one of the BIGGEST creeps (other than foley) in this whole ordeal was one of their own.

Sad.

That about sums up the situation. Some Republicans knew and did nothing to reprimand Foley and some Democrats knew and waited to do something for political gain. Total f*ckers all the way round if you ask me; Each side looking out for their own for different reasons. Of course, when is any politician ever going to demand his party peers do something for ethical or moral reasons. That's not how they work. The only quibble I have with your assessment is that there is some debate as to whether all the recipients of his "overtures" were of legal age at the time he made his "overtures".

Either way, what Foley did was despicable and he should have been pushed out of Congress, by the Republicans, for his actions. Think about all the positive press they could have gotten with that one: Forcing out one of their own for gross behavioral misconduct at the first sign of problems would have earned them, deservedly, high praise for "doing the right thing". Sadly, no politician in our Congress is moral enough to want to do the right thing; It's always party-first.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

PS: Kev, you fixed one of your typos. You might want to fix the other one as well. I did it in my quoting of you but you need to do it in the original.

Naw, it's just a internet board. I am not THAT anal retentive.

[Uncle Skeleton]

So what was the appropriate action? To get him out of office right? Since what he did was only "grossly inappropriate" since he was a senator, and as a normal citizen it would have just been gross. Well what's the best way to get him out of office, if not by "out-ing" him just before the election? And now that he's out, obsessing over the issue seems to be a moot point doesn't it? And for Democrats doing nothing, what did you expect them to do, leave a note in his locker telling him to knock it off? They're not the boss of him.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So what was the appropriate action? To get him out of office right? Since what he did was only "grossly inappropriate" since he was a senator, and as a normal citizen it would have just been gross. Well what's the best way to get him out of office, if not by "out-ing" him just before the election?

I guess six or seven months before when you find out what's going on, so you can put a stop to the innapropriate behavior? After all, that's what the Democrats and media crowed about in October. Both struck a daily drumbeat wanting to know what REPUBLICANS KNEW and when they knew it. The fact is, they knew at the time that it wasn't the Republicans who had known all this time and where SHOPPING THE STORY TO THE MEDIA, it was the Democats. Not a peep though...for that would have made it harder for them to make their "October Surprise" effective. The Democrats and Media did a very good job with their political hack attack, I have to say. The fact that no Democrats seem to be up in arms today (as a lot of Republicans where back in October - to the point where many feel the Foley situation helped the Dems. win), says a lot. A LOT, and that's sad.

And now that he's out, obsessing over the issue seems to be a moot point doesn't it? And for Democrats doing nothing, what did you expect them to do, leave a note in his locker telling him to knock it off? They're not the boss of him.

They knew for about a half a year what had happened. They could have confronted him and made him resign when they found out so that no other young man had to endure what Foley put them through. They chose not to because they cared more about hurting Republicans then they did about the pages. They chose to put politics first AND UNLIKE THE REPUBLICANS paid no price due to the help they got from their acomplices in the mainstream media.

[Spliffdaddy]

If you want to throw out all the representatives that are doing something "grossly inappropriate" then you should start with William Jefferson, Harry Reid, and Obama Hussein Barack.

Between outright bribery and shady land deals, the Democrats would have to unseat about half of the House and Senate.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I guess six or seven months before when you find out what's going on, so you can put a stop to the innapropriate behavior?

So you can stop it? How? You're a democrat in a republican-controlled congress, bitching about a republican. Maybe he takes his licks and it all blows over and he's right back to being naughty after that. The only power they had was with his constituency, and waiting a few extra months may have been a small price to pay to ensure the voters did the right thing before they could be appeased by his bogus apology and forget it ever happened.

The fact that no Democrats seem to be up in arms today (as a lot of Republicans where back in October - to the point where many feel the Foley situation helped the Dems. win), says a lot. A LOT, and that's sad.

The guy is gone now. Maybe what says a lot is that you only care about payback and not about getting rid of the perv.

They knew for about a half a year what had happened. They could have confronted him and made him resign when they found out so that no other young man had to endure what Foley put them through. They chose not to because they cared more about hurting Republicans then they did about the pages.

Maybe they didn't have the power to make him resign. Maybe they decided they needed the election to give them that power.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

No matter what some Republican did it is not as bad as what President Clinton did.

[Atheist]

I find the indignation rather hysterical. This was pure politics. And if you think one party is inherintly more righteous than the other... you're just plain naive. These f*%kers will do ANYTHING to further there own agenda... regardless of political party. And when it comes to getting re-elected... sh*t... they'd sell their children into slavery. Wake up people... this is Washington, D.C. we're talking about.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So you can stop it? How? You're a democrat in a republican-controlled congress, bitching about a republican.

Umm...the same way they did months and months later. All they needed to do was to say "quit or be outed" and he would have been gone months before. Of course, that wouldn't have provided for an "October Surprise" and it would have also allowed for the Republicans to have time to find another candidate in time for the election. But...of course, no outrage NOW by the Democrats.

Sad.

Maybe he takes his licks and it all blows over and he's right back to being naughty after that. The only power they had was with his constituency, and waiting a few extra months may have been a small price to pay to ensure the voters did the right thing before they could be appeased by his bogus apology and forget it ever happened.

Umm...he quit because he was outed by Democrats and he knew (and his party knew) that their "base" wouldn't stand for that kind of stuff. Anyone who didn't distance themselves from the guy or tried to defend him would have suffered his same fate. All of this could have been done months and months prior. But no...the Democrats were more interested in playing politics than the well being of young pages.

...and STILL no outrage. Sad, sad sad.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You're making the assumption that the "october surprise" only affects parties. Guess what, it affects individuals too. Things that ruin you just before an election can be "handled" with enough time, and by election day your constituency might forgive you. The whole reason there is an "october surprise" concept is that voters are fickle and forgetful and undependable.

If they had confronted him long enough before the election for him to recover from it, he may have told them to go to hell with their evidence because he could take it.

[Spliffdaddy]

True.

The last few times this sort of sex scandal happened the guy was either re-elected or served out his term.

On a related note: In Lousiana it is apparently beneficial to be a corrupt politician. William Jefferson was re-elected. That astonishes me. It's on par with Marion Barry being re-elected after serving time in jail.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're making the assumption that the "october surprise" only affects parties. Guess what, it affects individuals too. Things that ruin you just before an election can be "handled" with enough time, and by election day your constituency might forgive you. The whole reason there is an "october surprise" concept is that voters are fickle and forgetful and undependable.

If they had confronted him long enough before the election for him to recover from it, he may have told them to go to hell with their evidence because he could take it.

A republican from the south found to be a homosexual and hitting on young boys with incriminating e-mails and testimony could be "handled"?

Yeah...right.

Nice try though. This is the party that through a house speaker under the buss AFTER an election once it was found out he committed adultery.

You give Emmanuel et. al. way too much credit.