Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

spacefreak · Oct 4, 2006, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

He also admits he is gay.

This is where Gov. James McGreevy was a mastermind. Here he was - his administration crumbling under the most indictments ever experienced by a state government - an employee was moments away from pressing charges against the Governor for blackmail and another for numerous (gay) sexual assaults, and P-R-E-S-T-O, McGreevy holds a shotgun press conference saying he's resigning because he is gay. Media-wise, this preempted anything else about his troubles.

Now he's selling books on Oprah. No questions about his disasterous reign of corruption. Just complete adorement from others who are eager to read about how he'd stop at rest areas and get oral or give anal sex.

Politically brilliant, I tell you. Absolutely the icing on a corrupt skumbag turd cake, but the man was able to skate by.

itai195 · Oct 4, 2006, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I disagree, actually. Most scandal-causing sexual misconduct raises scandals because it's a violation of trust, sometimes on a personal scale and sometimes on a wider scale.

I suppose, but the Foley case goes beyond violation of trust. I wouldn't necessarily care if he sent an adult dirty IMs; I care that he sent them to a minor.

I somewhat agree with BRussell in that I'd rather voters choose their leaders primarily based on the issues, but that hasn't been the case in this country for a couple centuries now.

spacefreak · Oct 4, 2006, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

Age of consent is shaky ground, considering we don't know if he was posting from Washington, or if the page was also in Washington at the time. From the context, I would guess only one of two of those options would be true.

Yes, I presume physical locations are key, if laws have even been defined to encompass this type of activity. Anyways, come on this mind-trip with me...

If both parties were of age of consent, then the (2003) instant messages were simply dirty talk between 2 gay guys. It's an intimate conversation - not unlike a phone call - from the bedrooms of the gay guys.

If this is the case (and let's suppose it is for hypothetical's sake), have privacy laws been violated? Can any jilted lover release through the mass media the intimate discussions, foreplay, even sex and/or masturbation of the other person without laws being violated?

If Paris Hilton secretly videotapes herself having sex with Joe Schmoe and releases the tape to the public, does Joe Schmoe have any legal recourse?

It's time like these where it would be nice for our old pal Simey the Limey to chime in with some legal expertise.

spacefreak · Oct 4, 2006, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by itai195

I suppose, but the Foley case goes beyond violation of trust. I wouldn't necessarily care if he sent an adult dirty IMs; I care that he sent them to a minor.

If the "minor" was in Washington DC at the time, that "minor" would have surpassed the age of consent.

Or does the age of consent only refer to sex and not dirty talk?

hyteckit · Oct 4, 2006, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If I was a Democrat I'd be busy wondering what my party's strategy was for the war in Iraq, what our plans were to keep the economy thriving, and how we were going to get this information out to the public before election day.

Counting on the failure of Republicans in order for our party to succeed just isn't a reliable plan.

If I was a Republican, I'd be busy with the worrying about the security of the US and not spend years and over $100 million finding out if Pres. Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, and preventing Pres. Clinton from doing his job of protecting us from the terrorist. Oh wait, that's years ago. Nevermind.

Republican priorities:

1. Attack Democrats. Spin everything as an opportunity to be an attack Democrats.
2. Take over majority of government. Rewrite laws, misinterpret law. Whatever it takes.
3. Give Republicans more power. Funnel money illegally to campaigns.
4. Give buddies jobs in government without the right qualifications. Brown - Katrina anyone? Security? Screw that.
5. Repay big corps in tax cuts and contracts.
...
...
10. Security

hyteckit · Oct 4, 2006, 01:59 AM

Like a good Republican, Foley is blaming everyone except for himself.

Foley blames alcoholism. Blames being molested by the Catholic Church as a child.

And Republicans are blaming the teenagers and Democrats. Of course this is expected of the Republicans. No surprise there.

spacefreak · 02:08 AM

Paxil, anyone?

Foley took full responsibility. Republicans despise his actions. That there are the facts.

So Foley wants to whine on his way down. Big deal. We hear it from you numerous times a day, constantly blaming others as you sulk in misery.

hyteckit · Oct 4, 2006, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Paxil, anyone?

I'm sure the Republicans could use some now.

goMac · Oct 4, 2006, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Blames being molested by the Catholic Church as a child.

I'm just worried about how the Republicans will spin that.

"Foley had a gay priest! Gay people can't resist molesting people! Foley's priest molested him! Now Foley is a gay molester!"

hyteckit · Oct 4, 2006, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Paxil, anyone?

Foley took full responsibility. Republicans despise his actions. That there are the facts.

So Foley wants to whine on his way down. Big deal. We hear it from you numerous times a day, constantly blaming others as you sulk in misery.

Haha... I live is sunny California near the beaches. You live in... well, NJ.

Chuckit · Oct 4, 2006, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

This is where Gov. James McGreevy was a mastermind. Here he was - his administration crumbling under the most indictments ever experienced by a state government - an employee was moments away from pressing charges against the Governor for blackmail and another for numerous (gay) sexual assaults, and P-R-E-S-T-O, McGreevy holds a shotgun press conference saying he's resigning because he is gay. Media-wise, this preempted anything else about his troubles.

Now he's selling books on Oprah. No questions about his disasterous reign of corruption. Just complete adorement from others who are eager to read about how he'd stop at rest areas and get oral or give anal sex.

Politically brilliant, I tell you. Absolutely the icing on a corrupt skumbag turd cake, but the man was able to skate by.

You almost have to admire it — to go from well-deserved political ruin to being some kind of martyr over the course of a single timely press conference. Truly a criminal mastermind.

itai195 · Oct 4, 2006, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

If the "minor" was in Washington DC at the time, that "minor" would have surpassed the age of consent.

Or does the age of consent only refer to sex and not dirty talk?

Shrug, I'm not a lawyer. In my book it's 18 but as I said there are a lot of laws and jurisdictions involved here. There are special laws that apply to Internet solicitation as well.

Nicko · Oct 4, 2006, 02:50 AM

Top story NYT

Hastert Fights to Save His Job in Page Scandal

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — Backed by measured words of support from President Bush, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert opened an intense drive on Tuesday to hold on to his post, but behind the scenes senior Republicans weighed whether he could survive the scandal surrounding former Representative Mark Foley.
---

Clearly, more heads need to roll!

marden · Oct 4, 2006, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Nicko

Top story NYT

Hastert Fights to Save His Job in Page Scandal

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — Backed by measured words of support from President Bush, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert opened an intense drive on Tuesday to hold on to his post, but behind the scenes senior Republicans weighed whether he could survive the scandal surrounding former Representative Mark Foley.
---

Clearly, more heads need to roll!

I don't like that you are taking such enjoyment from this. Why do you hate America so much?

marden · Oct 4, 2006, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

Marden must have me blocked. I've explained "the liberals plan" to him a million times over.

No. You haven't.

And by the way here's this on topic.

Partisan Reporting on Sex Scandals
Today's Seattle Times has this report on the front page: Former Oregon governor admits sex with girl, 14

Former Oregon Gov. Neil Goldschmidt admitted yesterday he had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl when he was 35 and mayor of Portland, and said he is resigning all his public and private positions to "rebuild my life."
only on the second page of the article are we reminded that Goldschmidt was also Secretary of Transportation in the Carter Administration. Goldschmidt is a Democrat, but his party affiliation isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.
One wonders how the Seattle Times would identify a Republican former official in similar circumstances. Well, here's the one example that I could find. In an October 2003 column [free registration required] about accusations that were raised about Arnold Schwarzenegger during the California gubernatorial recall campaign, we have this gem:

... Northwest voters have faced these issues before. Washington Gov. Mike Lowry faced sexual misconduct allegations from a former aide and others in the mid-1990s, while Republican Sen. Bob Packwood of Oregon was forced to resign in October 1995 after 17 female employees and colleagues accused him of making unwanted sexual advances during the course of a decade.
Washington Gov. Mike Lowry was a Democrat, but the column doesn't identify him as such. The same column does go on to note that
Democratic Sen. Brock Adams chose not to run for reelection in 1992 after allegations of sexual misconduct that included drugging, rape and harassment.

Oh, That Liberal Media: Partisan Reporting on Sex Scandals

Nicko · Oct 4, 2006, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by marden

I don't like that you are taking such enjoyment from this. Why do you hate America so much?

Thats a bummer.

Meanwhile,

At a news conference in West Palm Beach, Fla., Mr. Foley’s lawyer, David Roth, acknowledged publicly for the first time that Mr. Foley is gay. Mr. Roth also said that the congressman, who resigned Friday after being confronted with sexually explicit messages he had sent to teenage Congressional pages, had been molested from ages 13 to 15 by a clergyman. Mr. Roth said Mr. Foley had not had any sexual contact with minors.

goMac · Oct 4, 2006, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by marden

No. You haven't.

Yes I have. In fact, I along with other forum members, have posted the "plan" every time you've insisted that the liberals don't have a plan. And frankly, I'm not going to do it again. It's like starting a new argument every time. It's late, I have homework, and I don't feel like it right now. You can go look at the other topics to find the "plan" anyway.

goMac · Oct 4, 2006, 03:08 AM

As for the Democrats that have done the same things, it's a human problem. I'd never say Democrats were immune to this, but I think in the common weeks we'll have politicians on both sides of the aisle coming forward with new information.

What makes Foley unique is that other politicians were aware of the problem and covered it up for him. Obviously this was not true in Goldschmidt's case.

His political affiliation probably wasn't noted because he's not an active politician.

itai195 · Oct 4, 2006, 03:12 AM

I think they mention Packwood was a Republican because you would hardly think so based on some of his positions

Millennium · Oct 4, 2006, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton

Them too, yes.

The basic question is this: how do you expect people to follow a leader that they know they can no longer trust? One might make a case for extreme and important circumstances, I suppose, but this guy just wanted to get off. A trivial concern, but far from making it less worthy of a scandal, it makes it an even bigger problem. Is that really all it takes for this man to violate trust placed in him? If so, then how or why should he be trusted with anything more important, and if he can't, then how can he be expected to be a leader in his nation?

We can debate the morality of the guy's specific actions all day. I don't support them any more than anyone else here. But morality alone isn't enough to get someone dismissed. Trust, on the other hand, is, and that's why I'm arguing from that perspective.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The problem arises when the Dems continue the witch-hunt, accusing all Republican congress folks of covering up a pedophile member and allowing him free reign on youngsters.

And then there are the jabs of "Republicans are not only not concerned about children, they also foster and promote the endangerment of children".

Both of these are outrageous accusations - especially coming from a party that has embraced such behavior in the past - and they need to be defended.

If my cousin got caught stealing a TV from someone's home, the last thing I'd accept is the mass media branding me a thief and a co-conspirator.

If Hastert were to admit his handling of this situation was negligent and then step down this **** storm would blow over before the election.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Hastert knew of the 2005 messages. It was forwarded to the FBI for futher investigation. The media also had these messages. The FBI concluded that there wasn't anything that could be definitively derived from the messages. The page's parents wanted the whole thing dropped.

Fact seems to elude some of your posts. According to the Wall Street Journal the FBI is still investigating Foley's actions.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I don't have those messages handy (gotta go get some dinner groceries), but I recall the gist of the content. It was stuff like "How's your summer, are you keeping in shape, this other guy stays in good shape, send me a photo".

How about the IM where Hastert asked the kid to measure his penis? Do you consider that to be normal communication between a man and a boy? How about the IM where he specifically asked how the kid masterbates, you call that normal?

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Based on this, Hastert couldn't really do much. None of us could. We couldn't even get our bosses in trouble with that, let alone force out an elected official.

You're making excuses for an incompetent manager.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

I love the joke about Bush/Iraq & the Brazilian......

goes something like this:

Bush’s advisor steps up beside him in the oval office: “Mr. president, we’ve just had word from Iraq, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq today”

The president’s jaw drops, he puts his head in his hands and silence fills the room. “My god! How many is three brazillion?”

That conversation actually took place.

marden · Oct 4, 2006, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by art_director

If Hastert were to admit his handling of this situation was negligent and then step down this **** storm would blow over before the election.

Quite possibly. But not a sure thing. I think the Democrats will NEVER let ANYONE in the GOP that was involved at all with this ever live it down. Hastert might be a defeated man walking and not realize it.

davesimondotcom · Oct 4, 2006, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by art_director

How about the IM where Hastert asked the kid to measure his penis? Do you consider that to be normal communication between a man and a boy? How about the IM where he specifically asked how the kid masterbates, you call that normal?

Completely normal!! (If the man asking the boy those questions is a sexual predator.)

Somehow, the excuse that "alcohol made me do it" doesn't hold up. The "I was abused 40 years ago" thing doesn't help either.

He knew what he did was wrong, which is why he tried to cover up his own actions.

spacefreak · Oct 4, 2006, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by art_director

How about the IM where Hastert asked the kid to measure his penis? Do you consider that to be normal communication between a man and a boy? How about the IM where he specifically asked how the kid masterbates, you call that normal?

Those are from the recently obtained 2003 IMs, which are not the same 2005 IMs that Hastert knew about.

Do you even care to know the facts, or are you simply ignoring them in favor of advancing your agenda?

spacefreak · Oct 4, 2006, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by art_director

You're making excuses for an incompetent manager.

The FBI does the investigating. You can't possibly believe that Hastert can keep tabs of all the actions of 232 different memebrs.

How about this, when Nancy Pelosi resigns due to her "incompetent" management of her members, specifically Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) and Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), then we can begin to talk about Hastert's incompetence.

Nicko · Oct 4, 2006, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Those are from the recently obtained 2003 IMs, which are not the same 2005 IMs that Hastert knew about.

Do you even care to know the facts, or are you simply ignoring them in favor of advancing your agenda?

Ofcourse you realise, the longer this was going on and other people KNEW about it, the worse it gets.

spacefreak · Oct 4, 2006, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by art_director

Fact seems to elude some of your posts. According to the Wall Street Journal the FBI is still investigating Foley's actions.

Yes, now that more messages have been obtained. When they were asked to look at Foley by Hastert previously, the bulk of data was the 2005 IM.

You really need to get your facts in order. Otherwise, your uneducated rants make you look ignorant. Or partisan to the point of refusing to look at the actual facts.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The FBI does the investigating. You can't possibly believe that Hastert can keep tabs of all the actions of 232 different memebrs.

How about this, when Nancy Pelosi resigns due to her "incompetent" management of her members, specifically Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) and Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), then we can begin to talk about Hastert's incompetence.

Hastert was told there was inappropriate communication between an adult and a minor. To not investigate was a mistake and may well cost him his career. Not to mention it may cost the Reps the upcoming election.

Regarding the Democrats you list, I will say yet again, I'm not defending any of them. I am not a Democrat. Let me say that again so you can drop that pitiful line of 'debate' :: I am NOT a Democrat.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 12:07 PM

Digg.com has a link to a story claiming FOX News (the George Bush Super Station) knew about the masturbation exchange between Foley and one of his victims a year ago. It supposedly says they covered up the story to protect Foley.

If this is true they covered up a crime, did not protect the child / children involved and, it seems, should be investigated along with Foley and Hastert.

* NOTE: I have not read the story, just the description on Digg.com

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Yes, now that more messages have been obtained. When they were asked to look at Foley by Hastert previously, the bulk of data was the 2005 IM.

You really need to get your facts in order. Otherwise, your uneducated rants make you look ignorant. Or partisan to the point of refusing to look at the actual facts.

I do not have political affiliation with any party and thus cannot be partisan. I've stated this in numerous posts but you don't seem to comprehend that not all people subscribe to the two pathetic party choices we currently have.

spacefreak · Oct 4, 2006, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by art_director

Hastert was told there was inappropriate communication between an adult and a minor. To not investigate was a mistake and may well cost him his career. Not to mention it may cost the Reps the upcoming election.

Hastert is not an investigator. That's why we have the FBI. He forwarded what he had to the FBI. They came back with nothing.

Regarding the Democrats you list, I will say yet again, I'm not defending any of them. I am not a Democrat. Let me say that again so you can drop that pitiful line of 'debate' :: I am NOT a Democrat.

I just fail to believe that you do not have the mental skills to comprehend what the facts are. You think Speaker of the House is also a some sort of investigation leader. That's ridiculous, yet you keep pounding the same nonsense over and over.

Well, I guess if you're not a Democrat, then you probably are lacking mental skills, because no matter how many times you say it, Speaker of the House does not run investigations.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Hastert is not an investigator. That's why we have the FBI. He forwarded what he had to the FBI. They came back with nothing.

I just fail to believe that you do not have the mental skills to comprehend what the facts are. You think Speaker of the House is also a some sort of investigation leader. That's ridiculous, yet you keep pounding the same nonsense over and over.

Well, I guess if you're not a Democrat, then you probably are lacking mental skills, because no matter how many times you say it, Speaker of the House does not run investigations.

Hastert is a manager. If he is told of inappropriate behavior by anyone working under him he is obligated to investigate. To clarify, that is not to say that he investigates, he initiates an investigation.

I'll avoid the rest of your trolling in the post above. It's simply not worthy of a reply.

spacefreak · Oct 4, 2006, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by art_director

If this is true they covered up a crime, did not protect the child / children involved and, it seems, should be investigated along with Foley and Hastert.

This has been stated over and over regarding a bunch of other media outlets, yet now that Fox is mentioned you want they and only they to be investigated? You have got to be kidding me.

And Hastert? Because he doesn't monitor every communication made by 230 Republican members of Congress? Because, instead of forwarding al materials to the FBI, he's supposed to suddenly drop all his duties and transform into a lead investigator?

You are a pathetic hack. Or you are ignorant to the extreme. Nothing else explains your takes.

spacefreak · Oct 4, 2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by art_director

Hastert is a manager. If he is told of inappropriate behavior by anyone working under him he is obligated to investigate. To clarify, that is not to say that he investigates, he initiates an investigation.

And he brought in the FBI months ago. They came back with nothing. How hard is that to understand?

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

This has been stated over and over regarding a bunch of other media outlets, yet now that Fox is mentioned you want they and only they to be investigated? You have got to be kidding me.

And Hastert? Because he doesn't monitor every communication made by 230 Republican members of Congress? Because, instead of forwarding al materials to the FBI, he's supposed to suddenly drop all his duties and transform into a lead investigator?

You are a pathetic hack. Or you are ignorant to the extreme. Nothing else explains your takes.

Which other news outlets had the information? I haven't read anything about them. If there were others, regardless of their political slant, I would lump them with Fox in my earlier comment.

Again, Hastert was told of inappropriate behavior. It's his job to initiate an investigation. He failed to do his job. Pretty simple, really.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

You are a pathetic hack. Or you are ignorant to the extreme. Nothing else explains your takes.

Name calling, wow, what an effective method of persuasion. If there were anything positive to say about the handling of this situation by the GOP you wouldn't have to resort to such tactics. I feel for you. Standing up for pedophile protectors is a lonely job.

Monique · Oct 4, 2006, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Democrat scandals?

Here's a small list:

William Jefferson Clinton- Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Scandals include Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

.

President Clinton, was found innoncent of all charges except that he lied about having sex with an adult that pursued him until he said yes. Only Republicans are cold enough to say no to a femal adult of 22 that shows her underwear. All you are interested in are teenage boys.

besson3c · Oct 4, 2006, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by art_director

I do not have political affiliation with any party and thus cannot be partisan. I've stated this in numerous posts but you don't seem to comprehend that not all people subscribe to the two pathetic party choices we currently have.

That's crazy talk! How is it possible that we cannot lump you into one category or the other! How unAmerican is that?

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

That's crazy talk! How is it possible that we cannot lump you into one category or the other! How unAmerican is that?

LOL

marden · Oct 4, 2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

President Clinton, was found innoncent of all charges except that he lied about having sex with an adult that pursued him until he said yes. Only Republicans are cold enough to say no to a femal adult of 22 that shows her underwear. All you are interested in are teenage boys.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

President Clinton, was found innoncent of all charges except that he lied about having sex with an adult that pursued him until he said yes. Only Republicans are cold enough to say no to a femal adult of 22 that shows her underwear. All you are interested in are teenage boys.

Yep, the cover-up is what got Clinton, and Nixon, etc. Which is why Hastert is being pursued so aggressively. I must admit to being impressed by the Republicans sticking together to defend him. My guess is that will be their undoing.

Oh well, he got his job as the result of a sex scandal. Wouldn't it be ironic if he lost his job over a sex scandal?

marden · Oct 4, 2006, 01:17 PM

It seems to me the bottom line (pun???) is if the page was considered of age or not in the jurisdiction in question. If he was under age Foley should go to jail for that. If the page was of the age of consent then there was no age related crime but other statutes may apply concerning Foley's professional/elected position in relation to the young men's subservient positions.

I'd guess the above would be true whether it were in person, on the phone or via email.

Is there anything I'm missing?

Oh, if any person or group, FNC or anyone, covered up a crime they should be charged. If they covered up an impropriety that wasn't a crime they should be held to account for their actions in the court of public opinion. If they THOUGHT they were covering up a crime (even though they weren't) they should be charged, IMHO.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by marden

It seems to me the bottom line (pun???) is if the page was considered of age or not in the jurisdiction in question. If he was under age Foley should go to jail for that. If the page was of the age of consent then there was no age related crime but other statutes may apply concerning Foley's professional/elected position in relation to the young men's subservient positions.

I'd guess the above would be true whether it were in person, on the phone or via email.

Is there anything I'm missing?

Oh, if any person or group, FNC or anyone, covered up a crime they should be charged. If they covered up an impropriety that wasn't a crime they should be held to account for their actions in the court of public opinion. If they THOUGHT they were covering up a crime (even though they weren't) they should be charged, IMHO.

For some reason I thought the federal law supercedes state law with respect to soliciting cyber sex with anyone under the age of 18.

art_director · Oct 4, 2006, 02:41 PM

CNN.com is reporting:

"Kirk Fordham, chief of staff to Rep. Tom Reynolds, resigns amid fallout from Rep. Mark Foley's sex messages to a teenage page, CNN confirms."

Millennium · Oct 4, 2006, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

Only Republicans are cold enough to say no to a femal adult of 22 that shows her underwear.

So having a bit of self-control is now equal to frigidity? This, from a self-proclaimed Defender of All Things Female?

Forgive me if I think it's reasonable to expect adults to have at least a little control over their hormones.

Dakar · Oct 4, 2006, 03:09 PM

Particularly when they're married.

Dork. · Oct 4, 2006, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by art_director

CNN.com is reporting:

"Kirk Fordham, chief of staff to Rep. Tom Reynolds, resigns amid fallout from Rep. Mark Foley's sex messages to a teenage page, CNN confirms."

Kirk Fordham used to work for Foley before he worked for Reynolds. Reynolds is chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and to my understanding is basically leading the effort to keep the house in Republican hands. He's the representative for that gray area between Buffalo and Rochester.

Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

davesimondotcom · Oct 4, 2006, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by art_director

If Hastert were to admit his handling of this situation was negligent and then step down this **** storm would blow over before the election.

And if Nixon would have come right out and said, "Hey, some wackos from my campaign broke into the DNC and I have kicked them out" or Clinton had said, "Yep, I inhaled and she swallowed" we wouldn't have had Watergate Hearings or the Starr Report.

And what fun would THAT have been?