[ironknee]

even the pres has denounced foley

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by ironknee

even the pres has denounced foley

"Even" the President?

[Dakar]

I know, this totally goes against his platform from 2004.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I know, this totally goes against his platform from 2004.

I take it that dave's comment was to mean that of course the President would condemn such behavior. What kind of creep, jerk person do you take him to be?

[Dakar]

You didn't realize that was a joke?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

You didn't realize that was a joke?

Ooops. Was it? Really? Why am I asking YOU?

Irony, joke or tongue in chic?

[BRussell]

Ever notice how liberals joke endlessly about Clinton and other Democrats, but some Republicans rarely say even the slightest unkind thing about Bush? It's like a religion for some of them, and it would be like sacreligious (uh, why is sacrilegious spelled so oddly?) to say anything about their prophet Bush, pbuh.

[itai195]

Well to be fair, it's not like they're rioting in the streets whenever he's depicted in a cartoon

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Ever notice how liberals joke endlessly about Clinton and other Democrats, but some Republicans rarely say even the slightest unkind thing about Bush? It's like a religion for some of them, and it would be like sacreligious (uh, why is sacrilegious spelled so oddly?) to say anything about their prophet Bush, pbuh.

We saw the danger. He saw the danger. He took action. We approved.

You didn't see the danger. Clinton did little. You saw the danger and wanted to do nothing. You saw the attacks and criticized Bush. You leaked secrets to the press and they printed them. You called for Bush's impeachment. You call him a liar. You make fun of him at every chance. You treat casually a film that deals with his hypothetical assassination.

I could go on.

And you STILL have no plan for Iraq.

And you wonder why we stand up for this decent man who has only tried to do the best he could for America?

[BRussell]

Quod. Erat. Demonstratum.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Quod. Erat. Demonstratum.

Quod erat explainumed.

So please demonstratum what your sig means.

[itai195]

Good to see we have a new 10-page topic to replace the defunct Clinton one

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

"Even" the President?

yes. but spliff, spacefreak and the others still defends foley

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden

And you STILL have no plan for Iraq.

Actually, they did have a plan for Iraq. It just didn't involve killing people, so I guess it doesn't count.

[goMac]

Limbaugh has declared the entire thing a setup by the Liberals:

Media Matters - Limbaugh: Democrats "set Foley up ... it's all coordinated"

"I'm just thinking out loud here. What if somebody got to the page and said, you know, we want you to set Foley up. We need to do a little titillating thing here. Keep it and save it and so forth. How would you get a kid to do that? Yeah, who knows? You threaten him or pay him. There's any number of ways given the kind of people that we're dealing with and talking about here.

Now, folks, I don't want to be misunderstood here. I'm not trying to mount any kind of a defense. That's a bad word. I'm not trying to get into a defense of what Mark Foley did. Please don't misunderstand. I'm just telling you that the -- the -- the orgy and the orgasm that has been taking place in the media since Friday and with the Democrats is -- it's all coordinated, and it's all -- it's all oriented toward the election. There's no concern about the kid -- no concern about the children.

There is -- there is -- there's not even any real problem with what Foley did, as we've discussed. In their hearts and minds and their crotches, they don't have any problem with what Foley did. They've defended it over the -- over the years."

Makes Steven Colbert's quote last night that the whole thing was done by the Democrats even more amusing.

I'm not sure what he means by "defended it over the years". I'm sure some of our Conservative colleagues here will extrapolate on that, but I can't think of an instance where Liberals have defended his sort of behavior. Maybe he's referring to Clinton, but if he wants to compare a man soliciting another underage man for sex to another man having consensual sex, he's got a few more screws loose then we give him credit for.

Edit: Also ironic in light of whoever in this thread said saying "The Conservatives do it too so it must be ok" is a liberal thing.

[itai195]

And yet Democrats are accused of harboring conspiracy theories...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Actually, they did have a plan for Iraq. It just didn't involve killing people, so I guess it doesn't count.

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

[lpkmckenna]

"no concern about the children"

Won't somebody please think of the children?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Hastert denied any knowledge of any emails at first, and has since acknowledged they knew. These people are lying. The boy described Foley's exchanges with him as "sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick" (I think that's 13 times). They didn't do anything about it. They told the Republican campaign committee, and Foley saw no consequences, and continued to be the lead Republican on child sex issues. They knew a helluva lot more than that he was "nice to underlings."

The "sick" exchange was forwarded to the FBI, who concluded that there wasn't anything definitive in terms of violations. That's the 2005 IM I was referring to, which obviously you haven't read. Even the page's parents weren't convinced. Nothing could be proven.

In hindsight, it turns out Foley is a sicko. But based on what they knew at the time, they couldn't really do anything.

There was no cover up as you so want to believe. Again, it wouldn't have been worth the risk. Any Republican could win a seat in that district. Why keep a liability in the ranks?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac

I'm not sure what he means by "defended it over the years". I'm sure some of our Conservative colleagues here will extrapolate on that, but I can't think of an instance where Liberals have defended his sort of behavior. Maybe he's referring to Clinton, but if he wants to compare a man soliciting another underage man for sex to another man having consensual sex, he's got a few more screws loose then we give him credit for.

FYI: Age of consent in Washington DC is 16.

Also, perhaps Limbaugh was referring to stuff like this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002...NlYwN5bnN0b3J5

In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.

What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him -- a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."

In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)

You get the idea. Democrats not only seem OK with the kind of behavior for which Foley is charged, but also they protect and excuse it. Only when it's a Republican do they proclaim themselves shocked -- shocked! -- when it comes to light.

We have a lot more questions about this whole affair. The timing of the revelations, as we noted, couldn't be more propitious for the Democrats. Turns out both the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November, according to research by several enterprising blogs.

[itai195]

I like how enterprising blogs are valid sources when Republicans are trying to prove something.

That said, many of us have already expressed opinions on Frank and Studds and we don't disagree with you. Republicans sound very tone deaf on this issue if they think most Americans will buy this argument. Just condemn the guy, investigate, and prosecute as necessary.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Dan Rather

I like how enterprising blogs are valid sources when Republicans are trying to prove something

Hmmm?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by itai195

I like how enterprising blogs are valid sources when Republicans are trying to prove something.

That said, many of us have already expressed opinions on Frank and Studds and we don't disagree with you. Republicans sound very tone deaf on this issue if they think most Americans will buy this argument. Just condemn the guy, investigate, and prosecute as necessary.

As do I, can you pass the beer?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

FYI: Age of consent in Washington DC is 16.

And the age for consuming alcohol would be.........



The Blotter

[itai195]

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by itai195

I like how enterprising blogs are valid sources when Republicans are trying to prove something.

I was simply proposing an explanation to goMac's post. I surely thought an editorial from Investor's Business Daily published via Yahoo would be somewhat accurate.

Feel free to contradict the facts printed it if you so desire.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by art_director

And the age for consuming alcohol would be.....

He's a sick man. Can't say it enough. Good thing he stepped down. Let's see what justice has in store for him.

Regarding the Studds and Franks scandals of the past, and with this Foley scandal, why are these gay men in government so deviant and sick?

[itai195]

Well the central point of the editorial relies on 'research by enterprising blogs.' If I were a conservative on this board, that'd be enough refutation. But other than that... I've already posted my agreement regarding Studds and Frank, and I'd like to see the issue thoroughly investigated and anyone who held the information should be punished.

BTW, don't confuse pedophilia with homosexuality.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by itai195

That said, many of us have already expressed opinions on Frank and Studds and we don't disagree with you. Republicans sound very tone deaf on this issue if they think most Americans will buy this argument. Just condemn the guy, investigate, and prosecute as necessary.

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.

[itai195]

I don't know that they're outrageous allegations since it appears that a cover-up might have taken place. Boehner says Hastert knew months ago and said he'd take care of it.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by itai195

BTW, don't confuse pedophilia with homosexuality.

Is it pedophilia when both parties are at or above the age of consent? I mean, me as a 16 or 17-year-old... I can have sex with whomever I want, but i can't talk dirty with that same person ????

Foley may be a pedophile, but he's gay as well.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by itai195

I don't know that they're outrageous allegations since it appears that a cover-up might have taken place. Boehner says Hastert knew months ago and said he'd take care of it.

FInally, an accurate assessment, yet it still requires the same explanation I have stated a few other times...

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.

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".

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.

On this, it amazes me that nobody is thinking with their brain. If indeed the 2005 messages were the smoking gun, the parents would have pressed harder, the FBI would have done something, the media would have jumped all over it, and Hastert would have done the right thing. To dispute one of those is to dispute them all.

I'll leave the door open to be surprised on Hastert, but it's a small opening. Hastert or any other majority leader simply would not have risked a blown coverup for a representative from such a Republican-friendly district. Neither you or I would in that position, and we don't have a fraction of the political skills Hastert has.

That's about it for now... gotta go get some hamburger meat. Maybe some steak fries, too. I'm undecided about the vegetable. Ah - string beans drenched in butter. And all cooked to perfection in time for an evening of constant channel flipping between the Yankees-Detroit game (Fox), Dancing with Emmitt Smith (ABC), and back-to-back Law & Orders (NBC).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

FYI: Age of consent in Washington DC is 16.

Also, perhaps Limbaugh...

Congress censured the man. You can hardly argue the liberals were supporting him when he got censured.

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.

Apologies if someone beats me to it by the time I write this post, but the plot thickens. Foley claims he was molested by a clergyman. He also admits he is gay.

CNN.com - Attorney: Clergyman molested Foley as teen - Oct 3, 2006

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by goMac

Limbaugh has declared the entire thing a setup by the Liberals:

Media Matters - Limbaugh: Democrats "set Foley up ... it's all coordinated"

"I'm just thinking out loud here. What if somebody got to the page and said, you know, we want you to set Foley up. We need to do a little titillating thing here. Keep it and save it and so forth. How would you get a kid to do that? Yeah, who knows? You threaten him or pay him. There's any number of ways given the kind of people that we're dealing with and talking about here.

Now, folks, I don't want to be misunderstood here. I'm not trying to mount any kind of a defense. That's a bad word. I'm not trying to get into a defense of what Mark Foley did. Please don't misunderstand. I'm just telling you that the -- the -- the orgy and the orgasm that has been taking place in the media since Friday and with the Democrats is -- it's all coordinated, and it's all -- it's all oriented toward the election. There's no concern about the kid -- no concern about the children.

There is -- there is -- there's not even any real problem with what Foley did, as we've discussed. In their hearts and minds and their crotches, they don't have any problem with what Foley did. They've defended it over the -- over the years."

Makes Steven Colbert's quote last night that the whole thing was done by the Democrats even more amusing.

I'm not sure what he means by "defended it over the years". I'm sure some of our Conservative colleagues here will extrapolate on that, but I can't think of an instance where Liberals have defended his sort of behavior. Maybe he's referring to Clinton, but if he wants to compare a man soliciting another underage man for sex to another man having consensual sex, he's got a few more screws loose then we give him credit for.

Edit: Also ironic in light of whoever in this thread said saying "The Conservatives do it too so it must be ok" is a liberal thing.

This sounds like one of the Limbaugh's typical joking monologues. He says most of what he says with tongue firmly implanted in his cheek.

You can't seriously think he thinks that the Democrats had a master plan to set up Foley.

[NYCFarmboy]

It Takes a Sex Scandal
The real world cares about the Foley e-mails. If Democrats can’t win now, they’re doomed to become modern-day Whigs.
By Howard Fineman
Newsweek

Updated: 2:24 p.m. ET Oct 3, 2006
Oct. 3, 2006 - An Iraq war that has cost us nearly half trillion dollars—and the good will of the world—might not have done it. Runaway federal spending that allowed the national debt to reach $8.5 trillion might not have done it. George Bush’s low approval ratings, the lack of comprehensive immigration reform, the historical pattern of an anti-incumbent “six-year itch” in presidencies, the cascade of stories about administration ineptitude and dissembling and congressional financial and lobbying corruption—none of these issues seemed destined to end the Republicans’ 12 year reign in Congress.

Then came the Foley Scandal. If the Democrats can’t take the Hill now, they deserve to go the way of the Whigs.

Real Americans outside the Beltway don’t look at politics the way we do here. I call Washington the Cave of the Sightless Fish: we hear everything, see nothing.

In the real world, families don’t care about abstract “investigations” into “who knew what when.” While the Beltway is trying to figure out whether Speaker Denny Hastert can save his job (he is dangling by thread), the real world is focused on children: in this case, the 16-year-old congressional pages.


There is cause for concern. Parents send kids to schools that are targets of attack. They send them into a popular culture of numbness and corrosion. They send them to college loaded with debt and worried about the fate of the planet. Families can empathize—deeply—with parents who sent their children to Washington. The pages were supposed to learn about civics and government, not sexual predation.

In America—or anywhere, really—scandals don’t crystallize into Scandals until they turn into gripping personal narratives.

The sad, sordid vividness of Bill Clinton’s liaisons with an intern named Monica Lewinsky nearly cost him the presidency. The Watergate tapes made Richard Nixon an all-too-dramatic and familiar character: a mix of Al Capone and King Lear.

Rep. Mark Foley and the pages will now become the faces and stories that define a time. Polls showed that “political corruption,” per se, was not cutting much. But that was when it was defined primarily by money. Now sex is involved, and nothing screams “Out of Touch” like the way the House hierarchy handled the Foley matter.

Read the supposedly benign and ambiguous emails that the House leadership has known about for nearly a year. If they were so benign why did they warn Foley to have no further contact with the boy in question? And if they did warn Foley, why didn’t they launch an investigation?


The Foley Scandal is a missile aimed at the heart of the GOP’s most important base constituency: evangelical, Bible-believing Christians, who were already upset with the administration on a host of issues—including spending and immigration.

It’s going to get uglier from here. The GOP will respond by unearthing old stories of sexual misconduct on Capitol Hill. I know that the search is on for complaints, however old, about unnamed Democrats who might have come on too strong to male or female pages.

Democrats are focusing for now on Hastert’s fate, and the “who knew what when” angle, but will soon get back to Foley himself—and those excruciatingly explicit instant messages.

Can Democrats blow it even now? Sure. They don’t have the money and the machinery Republicans do.

More important, the Democrats’ message is murky. In the Senate, they decry the Mexican fence, then more than half of them vote for it. They label the Iraq war as a mistake, then vote $70 billion more for it. They object to Bush’s torture bill, yet flinch at a chance to block it in the Senate.


It was that kind of profound indecision on a moral issue (slavery) that led to the demise of the Whigs before the Civil War. The Foley Scandal means that Democrats might be able to succeed with a campaign slogan that says, simply, “Had Enough?” But if they take control of Congress, they’ll still have to do what the Whigs could not, which is explain what they are for, not just what we all are against.

Fineman: Has Foley Given Dems the Election? - Newsweek Howard Fineman - MSNBC.com

rule 8 post: I found this article interesting and was wondering what others thought of it?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Ever notice how liberals joke endlessly about Clinton and other Democrats, but some Republicans rarely say even the slightest unkind thing about Bush?

I love a good Bush joke. I still love a good Clinton joke.

Heck, I've said many times that I'd love to play a round of golf with Clinton. I'll even give him a few mulligans.

I like to smoke cigars while golfing, but I don't think I'd take a cigar from Clinton if he offered. Never know where they've been.

I'd also have to watch what I say. Would hate to say, "Mr. President, that's a terrible lie you have there."

Just don't ask me to go hunting with Dick Cheney.

[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?”

[goMac]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

It Takes a Sex Scandal
The real world cares about the Foley e-mails. If Democrats can’t win now, they’re doomed to become modern-day Whigs.
By Howard Fineman
Newsweek

Blah Blah Blah

Yep, again Colbert hit it right on the dot yesterday saying the Right would try to eek out some way to blame the liberals for all of this.

I don't think the liberals have turned this into a campaign issue. If anything, the voters, if they decide to care, will turn it into a campaign issue. Liberals are calling for an inquiry into this, and honestly there should be one.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by goMac

Yep, again Colbert hit it right on the dot yesterday saying the Right would try to eek out some way to blame the liberals for all of this.

I don't think the liberals have turned this into a campaign issue. If anything, the voters, if they decide to care, will turn it into a campaign issue. Liberals are calling for an inquiry into this, and honestly there should be one.

I was under the impression that a inquiry was already in the works by the FBI ordered by Hastert?

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm not understanding the timeline here...

in 2003 he sent emails to a 16 year old

in 2005 he sent IM's to the same guy who was still 16?

Is this young man perpetually 16 years old?

Or did all this happen in 2003?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't think the liberals have turned this into a campaign issue. If anything, the voters, if they decide to care, will turn it into a campaign issue. Liberals are calling for an inquiry into this, and honestly there should be one.

I don't want Democrats to win on this thing. This government needs to be thrown out because their policies stink and they can't govern, not because of a sex scandal.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Like a good Republican, he stepped down. Got me thinking about how Dems rarely if ever step down, even when their semen is found all over the clothes of interns

LOL...if every Dem or Righty had to step down because of this there would be noone left in Washington.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

I was under the impression that a inquiry was already in the works by the FBI ordered by Hastert?

And if there is one in the works, there will be happy liberals. Simple as that.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by goMac

And if there is one in the works, there will be happy liberals. Simple as that.

if that is what it takes to make liberals happy in their lives.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

LOL...if every Dem or Righty had to step down because of this there would be noone left in Washington.

Now that's a refreshing thought.

[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.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by ironknee

yes. but spliff, spacefreak and the others still defends foley

Hmmm, strange. Just sayin'.

[goMac]

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...

: quietly works on stabbing himself in the forehead with a spoon :

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't want Democrats to win on this thing. This government needs to be thrown out because their policies stink and they can't govern, not because of a sex scandal.

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. But scale barely matters: the fundamental requisite for leadership is trustworthiness. Someone who knowingly and deliberately violates trust placed in them for no better reason than stimulating a few nerve endings is not fit to lead.

[NYCFarmboy]

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. But scale barely matters: the fundamental requisite for leadership is trustworthiness. Someone who knowingly and deliberately violates trust placed in them for no better reason than stimulating a few nerve endings is not fit to lead.

Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton