PeterDavid.net

So, the problem isn't Foley, for solicitating underage boys through the internet or Hastert for ignoring the warning signs. It's ABC's fault for having the gaul to report on the problem and the Dems for not letting it quietly die.

Welcom to the Ministry of Truth, Winston.

I just love how, with a Republican-controlled Congress (not to mention, you know, the White House), everything is still somehow all the Democrats' fault.

We are more powerful, apparently, than we ever thought possible, with incredible mind powers that enable us to take over the obviously weak-minded Republicans and make them succumb to our devious whims.

I liked the comments by one Republican congressman this morning, who was quick to point out that this whole situation could be blamed on the Democrats, who were obviously behind the fact that this whole matter was deliberately held until just before the election so as to have maximum effect. He went on to say that if the Democrats had been holding on to the info, they could be guilty of breaking the law.

Think about the wisdom of that statement for a moment. Democrats holding on to information for months = against the law. Speaker of the house and possibly other congressmen holding on to information for months = well, let's change the subject. The true winner right now has to be Sean Hannity, who tried to equate the situation with the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. Because they're exactly the same thing, aren't they?

The biggest irony of this situation is everybody is questioning the timing of the news, and who knew and when and how, and Foley was a gay alcoholic who was abducted by aliens as a child. But so far, I haven't seen anybody who has said these events weren't true.

This crap goes on with both sides, and is representative of what goes on in America. Its not a republican thing. Its not a democrat thing. Someone does something wrong, and its never their fault.

At least we know politicians are actually representing the american public in some way.

And, as Jon Stewart showed last night, Fox News has "accidentally" referred to Foley as "(D-FL)".

(slow clap)

Here's the TV spot for any Democrat who wants to win their respective election: start off with a couple of Republican blowhards insisting they they are the party of family values. Follow with a montage of clips, cross-cutting between news stories about Foley, clips from his lawyer's press conference, and clips from Republicans passing the buck or insisting they didn't know about it (if at least one of those Republicans was seen in the opening 'family values' montage, even better. Close with the single line, 'Family values?' Short pause, followed by 'Isn't it time to vote Democrat?'

Hasert, Ann Coulter, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Drudge, the rest of the conservative talking heads... they're all spinning this to blame the Democrats.

Just a few short weeks ago, ABC was their savior for showing the true evils behind the Clinton Administration.

And now ABC is part of a liberal conspiracy.

My, how the tides turn.

Well, he's kinda late to the game on this. He's just the latest fool.

October 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: "All right, but there's a bigger question here. I, these -- apparently some of these instant messages are three years old. So I think we all have to have a question raised here. I want to know why these instant messages were held back until now. Who knew about them? Why did they hold them back? Did they do it for political reasons? In other words, were they held back to maximize the political impact before an election?"

October 3 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: "Nancy Pelosi knows the person who planted the story about Foley five weeks before the election. "But Rush! But Rush! But Rush! Tell us what you know! How can you be sure she knows?" Well, I can almost guarantee it. She might not know who specifically did it. But she knows where it comes from. All the liberal Democrats do. She knows the person because this -- these emails were held by a liberal, they were planted by a liberal, and they were timed to the 2006 election cycle by a liberal. And liberals know liberals, and so Pelosi knows who Deep IM is. There's a Deep IM here. Not Deep Throat, but there's a Deep IM."

[...]

LIMBAUGH: "Folks, you don't know the Democrats like I do. Everybody is now comin' out of the closet, if you will, saying they knew Foley was gay. He's in a safe seat. Somebody knew this was going on. Go to one of the kids or go to a couple of pages and say: "Titillate the guy." "Why? Why? Why? I don't want to get in trouble." "You won't get in trouble. You'll be a hero. Nobody'll ever know it's you. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." How do you get a kid to do this? You threaten 'em or you pay 'em. I don't know."

[...]

LIMBAUGH: "You know, how do these pages get into the page program? How does this happen? One way is through political connections, political patronage. So who are these pages and who sponsored these kids to become pages and, and for, for what reason? Is there a political party that would stoop this low? Yes, there is. We know that there is a political party that would stoop this low to set somebody up this way."

[...]

LIMBAUGH: "This is, this is so obviously a planned, orchestrated release -- timed release of information that's designed to keep the story going. I know how these people in the drive-by media work. I know how the coordinate with the Democrat [sic] Party. They're all excited."

Michelle Malkin's October 4 column:

"Republicans who downplay the messages -- and Democrats and journalists who sat on them -- look recklessly flippant about sexual predation. Parents of all political persuasions should be outraged by both."

That seems to be the real fun spin that's shaping up. Dems knew about this for a long time. They, being just so vile and evil, let the children suffer so that they could time the news for best impact.

But what other factors can we blame on Dems or Libs and what they've done to cause this? Why, tolerance and diversity of course.

From the October 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room with Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council (FRC):

PERKINS: "Oh, I -- there's no defense of this behavior. It's outrageous; it's shocking. But it shouldn't be totally surprising when we hold up tolerance and diversity as the guidepost for public life. This is what you end up getting: a congressman chasing 16-year-old boys down the halls of Congress. It's a shame. It's a tragedy. And it does need to be addressed, but not just the symptoms here."

How about blaming the people who put him there?

From the October 3 edition of Fox News' The Big Story:

GIBSON: "But, Bill, you know, aside from what Hastert didn't know about Foley and the whole issue of protecting children, there's the exposure that Republicans now have from this scandal and who is responsible for that, if not Hastert?"

KRISTOL: "Well, Foley is responsible for it, and the voters in Florida, I guess, who elected him. Maybe they should have known better. But, of course, no one knows. These things happen. People turn out to be creeps and they conceal it pretty well, and then they turn out to be creeps and you act against them."

Funny, but I don't remember Foley running on the "I'll play with little boys" platform to get voters. Yeah, Kristol did slide on his own slime out the back door of what he said right after he said it. But it was damned stupid to even suggest that the voters get any blame for this.

Well, at least no one could be vile enough to blame the boys/victims here. Oh, they did? Nevermind.

October 2 edition of The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: "You know, don't put me in a position of defending him because it's indefensible. He did it to my kid, I guarantee you, when the kid was that age, I would've, I would've been unhappy, let's put it to you that way. OK. But, the kid was leading him on. I mean, this kid was a, was leading him on. You know what I'm saying? You read these things. Who is the kid? Maybe he's a Democrat. Maybe it's a -- I don't know who it is. Is there a real kid? Now, I could argue that the age of consent is 16 in Washington, he really didn't have sex, that it's not illegal to actually have sex with a 16-year-old, but it's illegal to write an email suggesting sex, to show you how crazy America is. I mean, there are other observations to be drawn here. Like, the boy was playing along with Foley, the deviant, and it's all part of the American obsession with sex, which it is."

SAVAGE: "Now, I don't know whether the boy exists. The boy sounds like a sleaze ball to me, by the way, for playing along and -- you know, it's a little bit of gay-baiting, incidentally. You want to get into this, you want to go two ways on this one. I'll go every which way, because I got a kaleidoscopic mind. This kid was baiting him. This kid was playing with him, he's no innocent kid. This kid went to Washington to get ahead, let's be very clear. I'm not going to make dirty jokes now, because I could if I was on the stage, because the audience wants it and I know how to play the audience, but it's radio. He went to Washington to get ahead. So he's a greedy, aggressive child from a family that was pushing him like a stage mother. All right, so he knew how to play a congressman who was gay on the gay theme. Let's be clear, we're grown-ups here. And that has to be discussed. What, all of a sudden 16 is a boy? First of all, boy is not 16."

October 1 edition of The Drudge Report:

DRUDGE: "I'm just saying from reading these instant messages, this wasn't coerced. I mean, this wasn't somebody -- the kid was having fun with this. These LOLs throughout the entire conversation, these "laugh out louds."

DRUDGE: "And if anything, these kids are less innocent, these 16- and 17-year-old beasts. And I've seen what they're doing on YouTube, and I've seen what they're doing all over the Internet. Oh yeah. And you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this."

DRUDGE: "You could say, "Well, Drudge, it's abuse of power. This is a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17-year-old beasts. Talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the Internet." Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven't -- you know, they were talking about how many times they've masturbated, and oh, they didn't do it with their girlfriends this weekend. All this -- all these things and these innocent children. And this poor congressman sitting there typing about, "Oh, am I going to get any?" You know?"

Man, you gotta love people who think it's great to be that slimey and vile.

I'll be happy to see Hastert gone as speaker and I felt that way long before this scandel.

But there are some...odd...aspects to this case that deserve airing.

The website that first reported the emails seems to be something of a mystery. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that at least some of Foley's actions were part of a set up.

To which I say--so what? I'm all for set ups. Entrapment is a word that gets thrown around whenever someone gets caught doing something illegal. I say--go ahead and troll for child molesters. You won't catch any innocent people. If every person who got caught and claimed they were doing "research" was really on the up and up you'd think we'd be up to our asses in pedophile reasearch by now.

The only way any Democrats get nailed in this is if--and I don't expect this--it turns out any of them knew and just sat on it until October.

Hey, look, it's the old "if we can't make the grade, change the grading scale tactic." So now 16 year olds don't need protection...after decades of legal evolution designed to protect the young from predations by older, more experienced and crafty adults, as soon as the GOP powerbase is threatened, let's go and re-image how we view teens. Now they don't need protection...it's the adults that need protection from them?

You've got to be kidding me.

Man, you gotta love people who think it's great to be that slimey and vile.

Blaming the victim... a time-honored technique used by those who have no place in polite society.

Here's some even better spin:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2006/10/fox_fixes_foley.html

"As first reported last night on The Brad Blog, during 2 segments of Tuesday's O'Reilly Factor, the disgraced Republican congressman [Foley] was labeled in an on-screen graphic as a Democrat (D-FL)."

So now I get it -- it's a DEMOCRAT that's disgraced. So much better. :^P

after decades of legal evolution designed to protect the young from predations by older, more experienced and crafty adults, as soon as the GOP powerbase is threatened, let's go and re-image how we view teens. Now they don't need protection...it's the adults that need protection from them?

We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Although this whole story is an irony-lovers dream, the biggest irony on the situation seems to be this: if the Republican leadership had done something about it a year ago when it was supposedly brought to their attention, this would not be an issue now. I'm sure Foley would have had to resign, but there wouldn't be all the collateral damage that's rocking the Republican party right now. By sweeping this under the rug, the Republicans caused more damage than this ever could have caused a year ago.

Fox News has "accidentally" referred to Foley as "(D-FL)".

UPI did this also.

--------
Posted by Joe Nazzaro at October 5, 2006 11:44 AM

Or substitute 'personal responsibility' for 'family values'

----------------
Note that this whole thing is also playing into the Republican's hands in that people keep referring to Foley as gay, thereby reinforcing the image of gays as pedophiles & predators.

Bobb, if you recall, in the 90s, there was a great deal of infantilizing of Monica Lewinski, referring her to a child "barely older that his daughter" and obviously seduced by the slavering beast that was Bill Clinton.

Now that we have a scandal involving a actual teenagers, both Hannity and Britt Hume are fudging her age again, claiming that she was a teenager instead of a 22-year old college graduate. And the teens involved in the Foley scandal? Well, clearly they knew what they were doing.

And Joe, it's obvious that the republicans aren't at fault for sweeping it under the rug last year. After all, how were they to know that the democrats would later find out and release it to ABC news just before the election? Oh wait, apparently, ABC news has denied that a democrat was their source. Gee, and just a couple of weeks ago, ABC was the bullwark of truth for airing "Path to 9/11". I guess, as they once said during the Nixon administration, "that statement is no longer operative."

Also, with Hastert apparently on his way out as well, the AP also decided that he must be a democrat, too.

And then people wonder why nothing ever happens in Washington....

Here's the thing that I find really amusing. Or will, if this kicks off a mojor swing from Republican to Democrat:

In the overall scheme of things, if Foley is what brings the GOP down, I'll be laughing for a good long time about it. After all the crap/rumors....fixing elections, illegal wars, illegal wire tape, torture, enemey combatants, blatant nepotism, and misappropriation of funds...to be taken down because they covered up an improper...not illegal (so far), but improper...personal communication between Foley and a page...

It's funny (aside from the creepy adult-teen/ boss-employee manipulation) that something that occurs everyday in accepted and unnoticed formats all over the world....flirting via cyberspace...would cause so much damage.

Also, with Hastert apparently on his way out as well,

Well, if Hastert is on his way out, somebody will have to force him out, as at this point, he's not stepping down voluntarily.

Of course, Hastert is apparently also going to claim that he forced Foley out, after already saying that nobody had time to react before Foley's resignation.

There's a lot of rewriting of history already going on here.

Ok, I know this is a bit of painting all with the same brush, but why does the fact that the following suggestion comes from a Republican not surprise me in the least?

Want to stop school shootings? Arm the teachers says one Wisconsin Republican.

I just don't know how to respond to this insanity. I really don't.

And the clocks began striking thirteen...

You know, I used to hear a lot of call for a third party in the system, but I think there's already three parties involved:

Democrats. Republicans. And the collection of representatives they end up voting for.

... claiming that she was a teenager instead of a 22-year old college graduate. And the teens involved in the Foley scandal? Well, clearly they knew what they were doing.

Which is consistant with the Republican attitude that women don't know what they're doing when it comes to their bodies.

In the overall scheme of things, if Foley is what brings the GOP down, I'll be laughing for a good long time about it.

Well, in fairness, I think the dems were going to pick up seats even before this revelation came out. Whether this will cement a dem takeover of the House, as Joe Scarborough predicted, remains to be seen.

Well, if Hastert is on his way out, somebody will have to force him out, as at this point, he's not stepping down voluntarily.

Newt said the same thing. Right up until the moment when he was forced to realize that he no longer could lead the House republicans. There are a lot of people in the GOP who are calling for him to resign. Of course, they may need a crane to get him out, but that can arranged. :)

I understand that one of the pages has just hired a 'high powered' lawyer as either MSNBC or CNN described it a short time ago. I wonder what would happen to the Republicans in the midterm election if some Democratic activist group (a la the Swiftboat gang) put together a TV ad featuring a young man with the words 'former page' on the bottom of the screen, who says something like, 'I thought the Republican Party was the party of family values... I was wrong.' Never mind the Republicans losing both houses of Congress; the conservative Christians would probably be torching their offices.

I try to be as non-partisian as possible, and I’ve heard all over conservative radio that ABC held on to the story until the elections, Democrat conspiracy, blah, blah, blah.

But don’t both parties do this sort of thing?

I mean, ask Hillary Clinton what she had for breakfast this morning and she’ll say, “The current administrations has just made so many mistakes. Iraq is only one of them. This administration has done nothing but failed.”

Which could very well be true…doesn’t answer the question, though.

That's just ridiculous. Everyone knows that Hillary's usual breakfast is the blood of virgins.

Even at my most cynical, I don't believe for a minute that ABC would have held on to this story until just before the election, reason being that if another network or cable outlet got the story and beat them to it, ABC would have had egg on their face instead of one of the biggest stories of the year. As a journalist who's had to hold on to a story or two over the years because that was one of the conditions under which I got the story in the first place, I've had people beat me to the punch, which was doubly annoying because there was absolutely nothing I could do about it. So please don't tell me that ABC executives tried to keep this story under wraps for several months, just so they could disrupt the Republicans' chances in the midterm elections. It just doesn't make sense.

My personal favorite spin I’ve heard so far? That the Republicans protected Foley because they were intimidated by the idea that they would be attacked as homophobic gay bashers by the vast homo-wing conspiracy.

You have no idea how hard it was to stifle the laugh when I heard that one.

This is easily one of the most entertaining election cycles I’ve seen in years.

What disturbs me is that Foley has been pegged as a "sexual predator" and the teenage boys as "victims," and yet if the boys were just a year or two older, Foley would just be a guy looking for a boyfriend on the internet. It's simply another example of American society's puritanical obsession with keeping our "children" safe, based on arbitrary definitions of "children" and "underage."

Robert, I think you're splitting hairs here. The Congressional pages are underage, so there's a certain element of acting in loco parentis here on the part of Congress. The parents of these kids have basically placed their children in this program with the assumption that they're going to be looked after, not preyed upon. That's why Foley is being pegged as a sexual predator in this case. Having said that, if he was having online sex with an 18 year-old male teenager in the middle of a Congressional vote, I'm not all that sure that people would have approved of that either, but it would be a very different, if equally creepy situation.

What disturbs me the most is already Drudge is out there claiming that the whole thing was a "prank gone awry" by the pages.

Yep, when you have nothing else, start blaming the victims.

What disturbs me is that Foley has been pegged as a "sexual predator" and the teenage boys as "victims," and yet if the boys were just a year or two older, Foley would just be a guy looking for a boyfriend on the internet.

Maybe, but aren't the Republicans the ones who believe in "the rule of law"?

It's simply another example of American society's puritanical obsession with keeping our "children" safe, based on arbitrary definitions of "children" and "underage."

In many cases, a 16 or 17 year old, whether male or female, is just as capable of preying as they are of being preyed upon.

But the thing is, is that you have to draw the line somewhere.

And, when you look at it, each state does draw the line in a different place: in some states, age of consent is 18, in some states it's 16, or less.

Yes, it's arbitrary, but it's the best we can do under the circumstances, which is why any criminal filings will come down to the whole age of consent stuff.

Even setting aside the whole angle of Foley's sexuality, he's a +50 year old guy going after 16 year old boys. You think he could atleast go after the +18 crowd. :P

"I just love how, with a Republican-controlled Congress (not to mention, you know, the White House), everything is still somehow all the Democrats' fault.

We are more powerful, apparently, than we ever thought possible, with incredible mind powers that enable us to take over the obviously weak-minded Republicans and make them succumb to our devious whims."

I could have told you that.

I think it's the most dumbassed idea in the world that just because there are more Republicans in Congress than Democrats that it is a Republican-controlled Congress.

I can forgive anyone for believing that in 2001, but in 2006 thinking that is naivete.

I wish I spelled that last word correctly.

First of all, for Republicans to be in control, they have to have enough of a majority in order to absolutely smash all opposition in any bill. They don't have that.

Second, the GOP would have to unite on any single issue; they can't do that.

Thirdly, they have the enough seats that if a few Republicans cross a line ony issue, they still will win, not only because they have that many GOP members holding seats but because Dems cross their lines too.

Fourth, a bunch of Republicans are weak.

Fifth, some Republicans pander.

Sixth, a lot of Republicans act like Democrats on issues.

Seventh, again, a bunch of Republicans are weak-willed.

Eighth, there are still enough Democrats that no matter how some Congressmen feel in their private moments, they still either need to play ball with them, or they feel the need to play ball with them regardless of the actual needs.

So what's my point? Quite simply: having a majority of seats in the legislature belonging to one Party doesn't mean that that Party is in control.

as for how stuff is Democrats' fault, some of it genuinely is and some of it is just said to be the other guys' fault because first and foremost most of these people in office, regardless of Party, ARE POLITICIANS!

Lying or not, first instinct is to blame the other guy!

and if anything, I think exploring scandals is a freaking waste of goshdamn time and I am pissed off at any politician trying to play these DAMN GAMES of blame and "he knew but didn't knew" just because it's a damn election year.

Determine what the blasted illegality of Foley's actions were and punish him. Determine who else is guilty of what and punish THEM. Think of tbe kids, not the politicos. If the Politicans are guilty, then castrate them without anesthetic... or whatever punishment fits the crime.

What exactly did the Speaker of the House of Representatives actually know and commit to conscious memory or thought? Probably too much to remember clearly much of anything from a year ago. Is that a defense? Heck, no, that's apathy.

I mean, in a time where a number of us care about a hundred different actual policy issues with differing degrees of priority these sons of bitches are focusing on POLITICAL ramifications of what at worst is sexual harrassment unless it's actually rape?

I mean, in a time where a number of us care about a hundred different actual policy issues with differing degrees of priority these sons of bitches are focusing on POLITICAL ramifications of what at worst is sexual harrassment unless it's actually rape?

Because, in the words of a wise man, the only unforgivable sins for a politician are being caught with a dead girl or a live boy.

And I've noticed that being caught with a live girl doesn't generally help either.

Want to stop school shootings? Arm the teachers says one Wisconsin Republican.

Oh. yeah..."If I had a rocket launcher..."

Because, in the words of a wise man, the only unforgivable sins for a politician are being caught with a dead girl or a live boy.

But now we have to update it to include spanking it while IMing with a live boy. :)

Am I the only one who hears the name "Hastert" as "Hastur", as in the Hastur The Unspeakable in the H. P. Lovecraft mythos?

Maybe it's just me.

And I also heard about the Fox News attempt to magically turn Foley into a Democrat. What depresses me is how many people will fall for that.

When I read Den's description of Hillary's breakfast of choice, my gut reaction was "No WONDER there's so many Republican sex scandals now! They don't want her feeding!"

But I'd never say that.

And Michael--the Republicans also USED to be the party that wanted nothing to do with gays. Go figger.

And Sarashay, THANK YOU, that had been itching the back of my head all day. And if Fox says it, it MUST be true, so he's a Democrat now. And the alien autopsy video was real.

I think it's the most dumbassed idea in the world that just because there are more Republicans in Congress than Democrats that it is a Republican-controlled Congress.

Well, the way it works is, if your party has more members, you get to elect the leaders and set the legislative agenda. That doesn't mean that the minority doesn't have a role or some tools that they can use to get their ideas heard(much as Bush and Co. would like to eliminate those rules), but the GOP does indeed control the agenda of both houses.

But it is amazing how, when they were the minority party, they bitched and moaned about how the dems were ruinning everything. When they became the minority party, they bitched and moaned about how the dems were ruinning everything.

The GOP has no credibility left as the party of personal responsibility.

And I also heard about the Fox News attempt to magically turn Foley into a Democrat. What depresses me is how many people will fall for that.

Hey, were all you folks THIS upset when CSPAN and The Los Angeles Times mistakenly stated that Gary Condit was a Republican?

Oh, and by the way, where does all this 'blame the victim' stuff fit in with being "compassionate" conservatives?

Oh, and by the way, where does all this 'blame the victim' stuff fit in with being "compassionate" conservatives?

You know, this has been badly handled...but you all ARE aware that Foley WAS forced out, right?

Reading some of these comments gives one the impresssion that Foley is being considered for the Congressional Medal of Honor.

A few thoughts.

First, I recall that when Bush was elected, he said something about "a new era of accountability." Sadly, he implied that there would be *more* accountability, not less. The person who offered faulty intelligence about Iraq got a medal. The person (or people) who outed the covert identity of a CIA operative have gone unpunished (with the change from anyone leaking the identity will be fired to anyone convicted of a crime will be fired). And now, when a Republican has been hitting on young boys online and there's evidnece other Republicans knew about this months or years earlier -- it's the fault of the Democrats. Sigh.

What's really sad is that people are being given another equation of homosexuality with failure. Jim McGreevy (sic) announced he was gay as he regidned from office; Foley announced his homosexuality at the same time as this scandal. (Personally, I wonder if he outed himself as a way to get a little protection, as if to say that attacking him is gay bashing. Or maybe it's a parting gift to the Republican party, to once again link homosexuality with pedophilia.)

Incidentally, shouldn't the continuing disaster that is Iraq -- more U.S. troop deaths, more frequent attacks, and a whole Iraqi batallion suspended for possibly aiding the death squads -- take precedence over a congressman's naughty typing?

You know, this has been badly handled...but you all ARE aware that Foley WAS forced out, right?

Was this before or after different stories came out about Foley's resignation?

I'm trying to find something for it now (nobody transcribes this stuff?), but I could've swore that Foley's lawyer said nobody forced him to resign, that he did it of his own volition.

This was followed by a comment from Hastert saying that they didn't have much time to react before Foley resigned.

Then Reynolds and Hastert are saying that they forced Foley out.

There's lots of confusion out there over this, with the various contradictory statements by Republicans, which isn't helping any.

Hey, were all you folks THIS upset when CSPAN and The Los Angeles Times mistakenly stated that Gary Condit was a Republican?

Of course not. Nobody watches CSPAN.

You know, this has been badly handled...but you all ARE aware that Foley WAS forced out, right?

Was he forced out or did he resign before anyone could react. It's hard to keep the latest spin straight. (No pun intended)

Reading some of these comments gives one the impresssion that Foley is being considered for the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Given this administration's record of rewarding disaster, it wouldn't surprise me.

Foley announced his homosexuality at the same time as this scandal. (Personally, I wonder if he outed himself as a way to get a little protection, as if to say that attacking him is gay bashing. Or maybe it's a parting gift to the Republican party, to once again link homosexuality with pedophilia.)

Right. A parting gift. Can we BE more paranoid?

And I'm gonna take a wild wild shot in the dark here that announcing that a lifetime bachelor who sends sexually suggestive emails to teenaged boys is al gay man is probably not all that shocking to most of us. Your fist hunch was probably correct and it did get him, in my opinion, a bit more sympathy than he would have gotten if he had been preying on female interns. (My hunch is not made of whole cloth. Witness the very different fates of Gary Studds and Dan Crane.)

Craig, there can be no doubt that Foley would have been forced to resign if he hadn't already seen the writing on the wall. In fact, if Republicans had wanted to get any mileage out of this at all, they would have begged him to stay and fight and give every single one of them the chance to vote for his ouster.

You know, this has been badly handled...but you all ARE aware that Foley WAS forced out, right?

Yes, but that's only part of the problem, right? I mean, if he was forced out when this was first reported to the Page Committee, then there'd be a lot less outrage (Oh, wait a minute. It WASN'T reported to the Page Committee; it was reported to the RNCC, who, at best, did not investigate it with all due seriousness---um, I think THAT'S where a lot of the unhappiness is coming from).

Craig, there can be no doubt that Foley would have been forced to resign if he hadn't already seen the writing on the wall.

This is true, but as Roger said, this wouldn't have been the mess it is if it had been dealt with properly months or even years ago.

So, in the end, no, it doesn't really matter whether he was forced to or did the deed himself first. What will matter more in the long run is whether anybody took the appropriate steps to deal with Foley's actions in the first place, and right now, the answer to that is a resounding no.

In fact, if Republicans had wanted to get any mileage out of this at all, they would have begged him to stay and fight and give every single one of them the chance to vote for his ouster.

Well, I think this has quickly become a case of "Crap, can we talk about something else this close to the election? Iraq, terrorism, anything!"

It is interesting. JamesLynch is right, we have far more important things to be talking about. But it may be this scandal that has the greatest chance of handing over Congress to the Democrats in a month.

Hey, Hastert was far from the first to blame the Liberal / Media Elite. That had been going on for at least a day--tho it was odd considering Hastert's reputation nationally and locally.

That said, there has to be a certain irony in morality being the issue that's the final nail in coffin for the Repubs this election season. The liberals oft cited a book WHAT'S WRONG WITH KANSAS? as demonstrating why Repubs used moral issues to win support even when fiscal agenda seemed to be going against socially conservative voters--now when the economy is better, unemployment low, Dow at a new high, gas is the lowest it's been in years, for moral issues to be the torpedo to the already shaky Republican control of Congress . . . liberal writers couldn't write a more ironic tale.

Moreover for the law violated by the very person who was the leading advocate for it--cuz phone sex with a minor on the phone or by internet had not been illegal ... BEFORE Mark Foley's law made it so--you couldn't make this stuff up and published. No publisher would buy it as plausible.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Seems appropos after months of experts, pundits and satirists saying the Democrats were too weak to take out the Republicans from Congress, it turns out, YEAH, it took a Republican to do so.

"Sixth, a lot of Republicans act like Democrats on issues."

Which would matter, if there weren't as many Democrats who, by all account, act as Republicans.

first off let me begin by saying that hastert should be gone as speaker. whether he should be kicked out of congress depends upon whether what he knew and when, but i tend to think that those questions are best left to the people in his district. if it were up to me, all of the republicans who knew about this and sat on it should be gone.

and the blaming of the victim is despicable. but it is nothing new. the comparisons to clinton are appropriate in this way - both involved a person in a position of power making sexual advances on a person underneath them. and the democrats during the clinton-lewinsky scandal said almost EXACTLY the same way as the republicans are acting now:

1) "nothing really illegal was done"
2) "the one to blame is the page/intern"
3) "the press is blowing this out of proportion"
4) "it's a dirty trick/conspiracy by the other party"

i applauded the democrats (i remember joe lieberman for one, and there were others) who stood up and said that they thought that what clinton did was wrong, and that the apolgists were wrong. and i applaud the republicans who are standing up now and saying that foley was wrong and his apologists are wrong.

am i suprised that a number of republicans are trying to blame the democrats? nope. would i be suprised to find out that democrats knew about it some time ago and waited to leak the info until just before the election? nope. what would suprise me is finding politicians who are more concerned with doing the right thing than injuring the opposite party...

Of course, things could elevate from 'illegal' to 'just plain creepy' if reports turn out to be true that the emails and IMs in question were, indeed, sent during a time when the victim was 18, as is being reported in some places: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Blogger_outs_boy_in_Foley_scandal_1004.html

bob woodington -
the comparisons to clinton are appropriate in this way - both involved a person in a position of power making sexual advances on a person underneath them

And appropriate in that way only.

Contrary to what Hannity thinks, Lewinsky was of legal age in any state in this country, and was thus a consenting adult.

These pages? Not only most likely not of legal consenting age (although, as I said, that would depend on the state). But the fact that Foley also preyed upon after writing laws to protect them. I think that hypocracy alone should have been enough to throw him out of office.

I'm to the point now where if Hastert resigns, all the better. I can't help but laugh when Hastert says he wants the Ethics committee to look into this... the same committe where Hastert replaced 2 or 3 members with his own minions after the previous members dared to rebuke DeLay, just so they couldn't do it in the future.

Ahh... DeLay... another stain upon the Republican dress of power.

The stories I've read indicated the pages were all at least 16, the age of consent in DC.

Obvously, instead of soliciting pages for sex via the Internet he should have simply had sex with interns in his office, which I think the Democrats have made clear is not somthing that gets one kicked out of office.

These pages? Not only most likely not of legal consenting age (although, as I said, that would depend on the state). But the fact that Foley also preyed upon after writing laws to protect them. I think that hypocracy alone should have been enough to throw him out of office.

um...pages are all ages 16 or 17, and 16 is the legal age of consent in d.c. - other states don't really enter into it. and if he is of consenting age, he is just as legal as lewinsky. doesn't make either situation right, or moral, but they are then very similar.

and last time i checked, hypocrisy wasn't a crime. if it was, both democrats (who defended clinton to the end, but are now calling out the dogs) AND republicans (who went full bore after clinton, but are now apologizing for foley) should ALL be kicked out of office.

foley already resigned from office, so that is a non-issue at this point. should hastert be removed from office? i do NOT like the precedent of removing a duly elected congressman from office based upon actions that, though questionable morally, were not likely illegal in any way. he should be, and likely will be, removed as speaker of the house, and probably censured...

"You know, this has been badly handled...but you all ARE aware that Foley WAS forced out, right?"

Yeah, we all know that. But that's not the only thing about this thing that's got some of us slapping our head and saying, "I don't believe this!!!!"

My thing right now is how amazed I am (though I have no idea how on Earth I still could be) by the plays being made by so many talking heads and party spokesmen.

I would be out there disowning Foley, stating that these are not the actions that I or my party approves of or endorses and taking action to scuttle the career advancements of people that protected Foley. I would also be taking steps to help add better safeguards to the page programs.

And I would leave it at that. Let my actions to correct the matter stand on their own and keep my comments directed to those actions only. In other words... Try to be a responsible adult who's taking responsible steps to correct a wrong.

Instead I keep seeing the talking heads and party reps on TV and radio disowning Foley, claiming that this was a set up, blaming Clinton, Moveon.org, Soros, ABC, vast leftwing conspiracies, the Libs in general, the press for talking about it, rewriting history (Monica was a teenager), turning this into a "he's gay and we all know gays are sexual predators" issue and so on.

I should have learned by now that most politicians just can't do anything right to save their lives. But doesn't anyone on the hill have an aid or advisor who has the brains to tell them that they might get a wee bit more respect for not being a partisan hack all the time? Are there any talk show hosts left who haven't figured out that there are some topics and actions you just don't spin?

Then there's the other side of the coin. God help their souls, but I've actually seen and heard some of the more partisan players on the other side of the isle go beyond expressing outrage and almost drunkenly transition into displaying something akin to joy that this has happened and given them a great October Surprise. It's great that this guy preyed on some kids because they now have another weapon for this election year.

Politics has never been the cleanest game in the world. There has never been a good old days of clean politics that the "it's gotten worse then ever before" crowd drones on about. I know that. But does it have to make you feel like you have to scrub the slime off your soul just because you turned the news on at the wrong time? Does it have to be so bad that you know the choices you make anymore are for either bad, worse or rock bottom?

My new bumper sticker:

"Don't blame me. I voted for the just average, non-perverted, lying, cheating, stealing and only misdemeanor committing bum."

R.J. and Bob, I suspect the fact that the pages were at the age of consent in Washington DC may be such a technical point as to hold no weight whatsoever with anybody but a lawyer. I don't think the American public will be comforted by the fact, particularly in the towns that these pages came from.

Funnily enough, I was sitting at my computer yesteday afternoon, with Hardball playing in the background when my landlord stopped by to fix a clog in my kitchen sink. Hearing the interview on television, he yelled,'Boy, if it turns out that the Democrats were behind this all along, there's going to be hell to pay!' Not surprisingly, he gets his information from Fox News, but not quite prepared to have the kind of intelligent discourse we often have on this site.

As a Christian, as a father of two girls, as a big brother to my little sister, as a Conservative Republican, As a hispanic, I believe anyone soliciting to children in anyway shape or form needs to go to jail for the maximum. I don't care what race, religion or party this person is. This should not be about political views, this should be about right vs. wrong. Anyone in my party not condeming this act should be ashamed of themselves.

Joe V.

bob woodington -
um...pages are all ages 16 or 17, and 16 is the legal age of consent in d.c. - other states don't really enter into it.

Other states DO in fact enter into it if Foley has also communicated with other, former pages after they have left DC and they remain under age. Some reports have indicated that that is the case.

There is also simply the fact that it's going to be up to the police and FBI to decide this. Even if the age of consent in DC is 16, charges may still be filed.

Age of consent is a barrier that I tend to agree with - again, yes, it's an arbritary line, but it's the type of law the state has to mark somewhere. But it tends to hold little weight at times, more so in cases where it's an adult preying on the teen, rather than consentual from both parties.

and last time i checked, hypocrisy wasn't a crime.

I think you miss the point. No, hypocracy isn't a crime, but the court of public opinion is certainly going to take it into account, particular in Foley's case with what he did and what he psuhed for while in office.

Gerry Studds was a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from 1973 to 1997. In 1983 it was revealed that he had sex with a male congressional page. He was censured by the House for this. He did not resign. He was not forced out of office. He was not kicked out of office by enraged Democrats. What happened was he served five more terms.

I think what Foley did--soliciting sex from pages--was wrong. I think what Studds did--actually having sex with a page--was wrong. But the Democratic party's differing reactions in the two cases is rather hard to believe.

In 1983 it was revealed that he had sex with a male congressional page.

Lest we forget, in the convenience of blaming the Democrats, is that there was another Representative also caught up in that scandal:

Dan Crane, a Republican from Illinois, had sex with a 17-year-old female page in 1980.

He too was censured by the House. He too did not resign from office.

Only, his constituents voted him out a year later.

So, both men received the same punishment. One got voted out, the other didn't.

JERRY C. Politics has never been the cleanest game in the world. There has never been a good old days of clean politics.

Oh you are so very right, mi amigo.

from http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/004833.php

History shows that these sorts of unsupportable attacks and seemingly childish antics are not new to the election game. Candidates for all sorts of public office have engaged in name calling and public denunciations of their opponents from America's earliest days as a democracy.

Not even one of our most admired founding fathers was safe from personal attacks. According to a BBC news article, during the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson was "accused of favoring the teaching of 'murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest,'" by his opponent.

Perhaps one of the most venomous elections was in 1828, when John Quincy Adams was running for President against General Andrew Jackson. According the same BBC news article, Adams was "nicknamed 'The Pimp' by the campaign of his opponent…based on a rumour that he had once coerced a young woman into an affair with a Russian nobleman when he had been American ambassador to Russia."

In response, Adams' supporters came out with a pamphlet which read: "General Jackson's mother was a common prostitute brought to this country by British solders! She afterwards married a mulatto man with whom she had several children of which number General Jackson is one!!"

Then, there was the relentless slander and ridicule that Lincoln endured. According to an article in the Bradenton Herald, his opponents made fun of his "slang-whanging stump speaker" style, Newspapers made fun of his looks ("a horrid looking wretch"), and cartoonists pictured him in racist scenarios. One man from Georgia proclaimed that Lincoln planned to "force inter-marriage between children - that 'within 10 years or less our children will be the slaves of Negroes.'"

Merely two decades later, during Grover Cleveland's election in 1884, Cleveland, the son of a Presbyterian minister, was accused of fathering an illegitimate child, according to a Scripps Howard News Service article. Cleveland's supporters in turn called his opponent a liar.

By the 1950's, with America's red scare shadowing over much of the country, sympathy with communism replaced sex scandals as the most vitriolic accusation one candidate could hurl at another. Scripps Howard News Service article reports that Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy even accused the entire administration of President Harry Truman of harboring communists.

But then i read the following from
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/6887.html

Here's a dirty little secret about dirty politics: Americans love it.

American voters and TV pundits might talk about high-minded campaigns, but political scientists and historians say it's the political buzz and the horse race that get the blood going. That's why such tactics have been used in campaigns here for two centuries....

Julian Zelizer, a Boston University history professor, said smear politics is as American as apple pie.

"Americans like a good hard-fought football game," he said. Political campaigns know what interests voters, and realize that attack ads and mudslinging are winning tactics. "If voters wanted to hear about Social Security privatization, then we would hear politicians talk about it," he said.

Gil Troy, a professor and expert on U.S. political history at McGill University in Montreal, says that Americans throughout history have been conflicted about ugly campaigns. He collects quotes about people fretting about nasty campaigns back into the 19th century.

"It's a fact of political life, especially when the stakes are high, the country is polarized and partisans - on both sides - are angry, as they are today," he said.

Ugly campaigns have been an integral part of American campaigns back to the Founding Fathers. One 1793 cartoon, "A Peep into the AntiFederal Club," portrays Thomas Jefferson as a man who lusts only for power, and depicts the devil looking on, musing: "What a pleasure it is to see one's work thrive so well."

Politicians in the 19th century didn't have to worry about libel laws, and ugly, name-calling campaigns were common. The 1828 campaign stands out, with John Quincy Adams supporters accusing Andrew Jackson of murder, gambling, slave trading and treason. Jackson supporters returned fire, accusing Adams of pimping children for the Russian czar, stealing and gambling.

The campaign got so raucous that Jackson's mother and his wife, Rachel, were both called prostitutes. Rachel Jackson died of a heart attack in 1828, which Jackson blamed on his critics.

In the 1884 campaign, "Uncle Jumbo" Grover Cleveland, son of a Presbyterian minister, was accused of fathering an illegitimate child, and opponent James Blaine was labeled "the continental liar from the state of Maine." Republicans heckled Cleveland with the verse: "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" - to which Democrats rejoined after the election: "Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha."

Communism replaced sex as a theme of dirty politics in the 20th century, reaching a climax with charges by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., that Harry Truman's administration harbored communists. In the 1960s, neither John F. Kennedy's notorious personal life nor Richard Nixon's foul mouth was mentioned. But barely 16 years later, Jimmy Carter found himself mired in controversy after admitting he lusted in his heart.

Tim Blessing, a historian at Alvernia College in Reading, Pa., said voters closely monitor how candidates respond when mud flies. "It's a test of what's inside a candidate. It's really a shorthand way of deciding whether a president will stand up to a plane shot down in China," he said.

He recalled that Democrat Edmund Muskie's 1972 presidential bid collapsed after the candidate teared up when a New Hampshire newspaper attacked his wife, and Democrat Michael Dukakis failed to react with sufficient empathy in a 1988 presidential debate when asked what his reaction would be if his wife were raped and murdered.

"Campaigns over the last 25 years have become a lot more brutish," Blessing said, adding that the social issues dividing America such as abortion and gay marriage defy a political solution, and are being fought out by political partisans against an economy that is being transformed from the industrial age into the information age.

"The issues are very personal," he said. "I don't expect this blue-red-state issue to be worked out in less than a generation."

Joe V.

> But doesn't anyone on the hill have an aid or advisor who has the brains to tell them that they might get a wee bit more respect for not being a partisan hack all the time?

Yah, but that's from the voters, and who cares about them? They don't have much of a say in the presidential nomination process, after all. And that's more important right?

um...pages are all ages 16 or 17, and 16 is the legal age of consent in d.c. - other states don't really enter into it.

1) Other states do enter into it if the communications continued while Foley &/or the pages were out of D.C.

2) If no laws were broken, why did the Republicans try so hard to cover it up? And why have none of them tried to use this as a defense?

2) If no laws were broken, why did the Republicans try so hard to cover it up? And why have none of them tried to use this as a defense?
It was covered up because it is politically embarrassing even if legal. And a number of proxies are trying to use this defense.

Do the Rep. and their neo-con pets not understand? The "revelation" that the t-messages and e-mails that revealed this agent of the morally virtuous right to be the Bike seat sniffing pervoid he is were "held" back for 3 years is not something that can be laid at the Democrats door.

You douche bags were in charge then to.

If we allow you to blame Clinton for 9/11, and the liberals and Dems for Foley, can we blame W's daddy for Monica?

Just wondering.

Starwolf: Yah, but that's from the voters, and who cares about them? They don't have much of a say in the presidential nomination process, after all. And that's more important right?

--Absolutley not. Local government impacts us more directly then the federal government. Local, State & Federal should be the order of importance to us. If people truly want change they need to be involved in local government.

Joe V.

"pages are all ages 16 or 17, and 16 is the legal age of consent in d.c. - other states don't really enter into it. "

If you are legal enough to read Peter David's works then you are legal enough to suck another man's penis.

After all, isn't that what we all are doing to Peter--pardon the pun.

To believe that the Democrats didn't have anything to do with these IM's coming out 3 years after the fact is like beleieving that comic book fans don't masterbate.

Or that a liberal is truly open-minded----yeah, open to the point of being non-existent

X-Ray has a brother?!?

2) If no laws were broken, why did the Republicans try so hard to cover it up? And why have none of them tried to use this as a defense?

Well A-it assumes facts not yet in evidence, ie that a crime was covered up.

And B-They haven’t used it as a defense because nobody is defending Foley. Even if they think that Democratic operatives were behind the scandal breaking when it did that doesn't in any way mitigate Foley's offence.

>Local government impacts us more directly then the federal government. Local, State & Federal should be the order of importance to us. If people truly want change they need to be involved in local government.
Joe V.

All of which may or may not be accurate, but is irrelevant to the matter at hand since the individuals concerned are all operating at the federal level.

Bill,

I agree somewhat. Nobody is actualy defending Foley. But the R's problems are being created by all the crap that they're trying to stick to the walls.

The pols and the pundits, if you're not looking with 100% focus, do come off looking like they're defending the man because of all the excuse making that they're doing.

He did a bad thing but it was really the evil libs and press that did it to him. He was wrong but he was set up. He was out of line but those people knew about it and kept it a secret so that they could destroy him and the GOP now. He didn't do anything that Clinton or other Libs have done. It only seemed wrong at first but it was really just fun and games by the boys. He shouldn't have sent the IM's but it was all the fault of those cheap, slutty little pages who chased after him.

It's real easy to come away from a days news and think, thanks to all those "but"s and theories on why it "really" happened, that there are a whole lot of people on the right who are kinda defending the man. It's kind of why I still can't believe that so many people on the Right aren't smart enough to shut up and stop adding anything more after saying that he was wrong.

I'm not an R. Nobody who has ever read my posts can think that. But even I'm starting to wince when some of these guys open their mouths. Say he was wrong, explain how the situation is being fixed, shut up and go away. It's simple. Adding anything else after that about how someone else is really to blame for this is as good as giving your seat away next month.

Agreed. Hastert has shown another reason why he is no favorite of even those who WANT the republican party in charge. At this point it might be better for Republicans if Nancy Pelosi gets Hastert's job. She'll either do a good job--in which case she deserves it--or, more likely, do as well as I expect her to do, in which case we won't have her for very long.

"... if Nancy Pelosi gets Hastert's job."

I have nightmares about choices like this.

"Hmmmmm..... Do you want to be burnt alive or chained to an anchor and drowned."

Maybe I'll flip a coin in the booth this year.

Not prominently mentioned yet (well, in passing in one comment) is:

Foley, the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children

Hey - who better qualified, right?

Funny all the arguing about timing. Even some Republican pundit I caught a glimpse of on the tube said that if they'd just dealt with this a year ago when it first came out, they wouldn't have a problem now. Their own fault for hoping no one would notice.

I don't have time right now to read all the posts, so maybe this is duplicated info.

Some of the statements that were initially made right after Foley's scandal was revealed have been changed by those who spoke them.

In addition to this, some of the info on the statements that appeared online were changed to reflect the new(er) statements.

Surely somebody somewhere made copies of what was online before the statements were altered.
----------------
Related to altered info, Foley WAS ID'ed as a Democrat the first time the "news" was broadcast by Fox "News". When they repeated the show later that night, the "D" for Democrat was gone....but the "R" was never put in its place.

Yes, Jerry, it seems that X-ray has a brother. Pity while being so hyper-critical he couldn't take the time to spell "masturbate" correctly.

Just in case Michael (and anybody else) missed it: Florida's in on the case now. Why do I expect them not to be alone?

Question: Would the reaction have been this strong if things HAD come out sooner? Personally, I think so, although there wouldn't be the backlash against those that kept it quiet. I've noticed in listening to people talk about all this that it's almost like they're more upset that there are politicians involved than in the actual events. Now, I don't THINK there's anyone around here that would react like that, but I always tend to think of politicians as, well, people with jobs, not Titans or whatever. People have quirks, and they're ALLOWED(to a certain extent) to have quirks. I know people that thought Clinton was a good president until the whole Lewinsky thing. A politician's personal life doesn't really much matter to me, kind of like a celebrity's personal life. I don't know these people, what they do on their own time is none of my business, no matter how icky they might be. Anything that these people have accomplished, no matter how good, is going to be completely forgotten because of this. I just think that's sad.

(BTW, I'm not condoning old guys going out with 16-year olds, just in case in came off like that.)

Here's a new one: The Republicans are innocent because they're "inexperienced sinners"

There’s something you have to remember about Hastert and Republicans in general, they’re inexperienced sinners. Would you really expect Hastert, a poor naïve representative from Illinois to understand any of this child molestation business? He’s not a Democrat so he has no frame of reference for any of this. So let’s not tar and feather the poor man just because he was far too innocent to understand the seriousness of all of this.

http://cfav.blogspot.com/2006/10/forgiving-republican-party.html

"(Hastert) blamed ABC News, which broke the Foley e-mail story, and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal."

?!?

Amazing.

Actually, I never thought this Foley thing would have such a huge impact on the entire landscape of the upcoming elections. At the time I first heard of it, here's what I thought:

"All right! The Republicans, a.k.a. the party of homophobes, must be embarassed as hell now. There's no way that anybody who normally votes Republican will vote for Foley now, even if his party allows him on the ballot, so that means another seat is up for grabs for the Dems. Perfect!"

I didn't foresee any of this "The Republican party knew about this and kept a lid on it!" or any of this "The Democrats knew before us and just revealed it now!" stuff. Perhaps that's a testament to my political naivete.

Believe it or not, I'm actually starting to feel a little sorry for Foley. Since he's a Republican and since he presumably backed the Bush administration's policies, I do take pleasure in seeing karma bite him in the ass. But after a certain point you gotta say "ok, he's had enough."

When I think "child molester", I think of somebody who pulls little kids into dark rooms and physically forces himself on them over their sobs and screams. That's a far cry from cyber-sex with a post-pubescent male--yes, techincally a minor, but nevertheless past puberty, possibly gay or bi and certainly with sexual urges.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I believe that if Foley never physically forced himself on anybody, that if he never verbally pressured or harassed or coerced anybody into engaging in sexual activity (of any kind) with him, that if he never walked up to random teenagers and hit on them, if he never did any of those things then calling him a "child molester" is exaggerating.

I don't know exactly how he met these pages and who made the first move. For all I know, he may have done one or more of the things mentioned above and I just haven't done my research on this. If one or more of these pages felt like he had to talk dirty to Foley in order to keep his job, then that's certainly wrong and Foley should be held accountable for it. But if this was all consensual, then I'm sorry, but I don't see what makes it so bad. I didn't think Mary Kay Letourneau deserved to go to prison either.

Michael, you DO know that site is a satire, right? Just checking, I'm sure some will think it's serious.

Michael, I REALLY hope that's a gag site. Unfortunately, I know people that actually think that way.

Michael, you DO know that site is a satire, right?

Thought it might be, but the way some people will bend over backwards to defend the "party of values", you can't be too sure.

Besides, maybe a couple more people will get a laugh out iout of it.

>:)

I thought it sounded a bit too much like an arch liberal idea of what a conservative sounds like and the posting headlined "Israel Has the Right to Kill Everyone" kind of sealed the deal.

Plus, the "Note: Everything posted on this blog is satire and should be read as such." is a bit of a giveaway...

It's just a continuation of 'business as usual'. Remember the Abu Ghraib photos? The first people to be investigated weren't those in the photos but those who took them and leaked them. The first result: an examination of torture policies? No. Review of systemic mistreatment of prisoners? No.

The first thing that happened was the banning of cell phones with cameras.

It's plug the leak (unless you happen to be a CIA operative) and shoot whatever messenger is making us look bad (which certainly isn't us doing the bad stuff in the first place).

Forgive me for changing the subject somewhat, but there's a rumor I've now overheard from three different places, once at Wizard World Chicago, one at the Mall here in Fort Wayne, and once in Schaumburg, Ill. The gist goes like this:

Remember how, after the 1998 mid-terms, which indicated most Americans did NOT want to see Clinton impeached, many Republicans (particularly those rendered lame ducks by that election) banded together and proceded to vote for Impeachment while they were still in office?

Well, the theory/feeling/fear is that, this time, if they lose control of Congress, the Republicans, before they have to turn that control over to the Democrats, will vote to bring back the draft.

I know, Chicago and its suburbs are heavily Democratic areas. But Fort Wayne is not. (We're the seat of the Congressional District that first put Dan Quayle into office.)

Has anyone else heard this?

Wow. I have read or scanned most of the posts. Some of you (PAD included) seem to ignore one fact and accept an allegation as a fact.

You all ignore the almost universal condemnation of Foley by Republicans. I have yet to read a quote, particularly from leadership, that in any way condones or treats as minor what Foley did.

Second, the allegation (which right now is all that it is) that Republican leadership knew about Foley and failed to act has yet to be proven. There is no doubt that in hindsight most of us can see how they dropped the ball. But the FACT is that many sources (including some in the media), not just the RNC, knew about prior emails. The Republicans did take action according to the parents of the kid involved, so they didn't ignore it either. Until it is shown that they knew of explicit emails, it is NOT the same as them deliberately coverning up for someone they knew who was harming kids.

Finally, the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party is breathtaking. It is well documented that a Democrat had actual sex with a page, he was only censured, and he has been an active part of the Democratic Party. Clinton pardoned a guy who had sex with a minor. You look at the two party's, and there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. But for the Democrats to act like they are is laughable.

If, and this is a huge "if", it can be reasonably shown that Hastert knew of explicit emails / IMs and deliberately failed to act, I guarantee he will be out. But the evidence right now is that there were hints and clues that were missed, but nothing that would have made it imperative Foley be removed. There was no coverup. And in fact, there has yet to be even the allegation of Foley having sex with anyone. Should he have resigned? Absolutely. But forgive me if it seems to have been blown out of propoprtion.

Which leads to PAD's misleading post. If Foley is only guilty of explicit sexual messages, and if the RNC/Hastert/Republican House leadership did not know it was going on, then of course Hastert would say Democratic operatives were causing the mushrooming scandal. To call for Hastert's resignation before there is even a chance to find out what was actually known is a purely political move on the part of Democrats. That is how the game is played. Republicans tried to leverage the Monica scandal to get Clinton out of office. Neither was a wise move by either side, in my opinion.

Foley is guilty. No Republican leader argues otherwise. But Hastert has shown himself to be a man of integrity (see the editorial by the Chicago Sun-Times, not exactly a conservative paper). To assume he knew exactly what was going on and failed to act flies in the face of how he normally acts. So of course when he is attacked -- by Democrats -- he is going to fight back. If the media and Democrats had focused strictly on Foley, you would NOT have most Republicans saying this was the work of Democrat operatives. Some, like Rush, may have questioned the timing of when it came out (which is a fair question based on how many seemed to have known something before this--as demonstrated by the attack on Republicans for not acting sooner), but not the scandal itself. Foley is guilty of doing this himself.

Iowa Jim

Well, the theory/feeling/fear is that, this time, if they lose control of Congress, the Republicans, before they have to turn that control over to the Democrats, will vote to bring back the draft.

Oh for heaven's sake give it up! It isn't going to happen! The whole "the draft is coming back!" thing was an attempt to get young people to "rock the vote" and vote for the Democrats. Didn't work. The only people who even pushed it were people like Rangel who wanted to keep the issue alive.

But even if you absolutely HAVE to cling to the fantasy that Republicans want to kill us all try to look at this form a purely logical rational reality based point of view--given the small majorities that the Republicans have in the Senate and the House, it would be mathematically impossible for them to get this through.

C'mon folks, let's not get silly.

This is just a blame shifting wad of crap, and it's sad once againthat people are not calling this as they see it. If Congress was run like any buisiness, without having to worry about the press, Foley would be fired and possibly be placed in jail for soliciting an underage boy. Then, if it was noted that his superiors were told about his illegal actions (which they clearly were)and did nothing, they would lose their jobs as well. It wouldn't be drawn out, there wouldn't be this hoopla, the problem people would be gotten rid of. But since this has to deal with B.S. politic crap, it's going to take forever. The GOP needs to take their medicine and stop spinning this like it's someone elses fault. It's embarresing.

You look at the two party's, and there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

Yes, but in matters like this the Republicans are the much bigger hypocrites, because they're the ones claiming to be the "party of family values", the "party of morals", teh party of "personal responsibility", et cetera.

But for the Democrats to act like they are is laughable.

Why? Are the Republicans the only ones allowed to engage in witchhunts?

For all you right wing cheerleaders, you ever think this is more of a "what goes around, comes around" thing after the rain of s#!t the GOP sprayed on the Clinton Administration? To me, personally, this is ALOT more of an issue since the guy had a thing for underage teenage boys and was a member of the group responcible for pushing laws protecting children from being exploited. It's not like Clinton spearheaded a group about sexual harassment in the workplace when the Lewinsky Snandel came out. Some of you just need to stop trying to spread blame, and admit that there was alot of hypocracy abounding over this, and just chime in that the Speaker needs to do the right thing and step down since this happened under his watch and after he was told it was going on. America knows, it's just that these A-holes need to realise that they will be held accountable for their actions.

To those going on about the age of consent in D.C. making this a non-issue...

Foley sent at least some of the messages from Florida. The most explicit one I've seen, by Foley's own admission, was sent from Pensacola - the very same city I am typing this from.

Guess what, folks. The age of consent here in Florida is 18, with a "close in age" exception of six years if the younger party is at least 16. That means that if Foley had been 22 years old and doing what he did with a person also in the state of Florida who was 16, then he'd be free and clear.

But Foley was far, far older than 22. And the kid wasn't in Florida. And it's illegal to use the Internet to solicit sex from minors across state lines.

So there's a broken law for ya.

Finally, the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party is breathtaking. It is well documented that a Democrat had actual sex with a page, he was only censured, and he has been an active part of the Democratic Party.

Jim, see my earlier post about this.

Studds was NOT the only one involved in the 1983 scandal, a fact that Republicans, yourself included, continue to blissfully ignore.

A Republican was also caught in that scandal, and he also received the same punishment as Studds (censure by the House).

But Hastert has shown himself to be a man of integrity

Wow, now I have to outright laugh at you.

Yeah, the great Hastert, a man who replaced key Republican members of the House Ethics Committee because those members had the balls to rebuke Tom DeLay several times for DeLay's lack of ethics while in office.

If that's integrity, then I'm glad I'm not a Republican.

Well, the theory/feeling/fear is that, this time, if they lose control of Congress, the Republicans, before they have to turn that control over to the Democrats, will vote to bring back the draft.

That will not ever happen under this administration. If there's one sure way for the Republicans to remain the minority party till my grandchildren become grandparents, it would be to reinstitute the draft on the way out of power. Besides simply being a very unpopular measure, it would breed much additional resentment towards the GOP since the "chickenhawks" who evaded the draft in Vietnam and started the Iraq War would be the ones calling up people to serve.

And more importantly, reinstating the draft would be a tacit admission that the administration and GOP leaders made a mistake -- something they are almost congenitally unable to do.

But considering that this administarions apparent SOP regarding the war is to choose the worse course of action of ones available, the idea that they'd be dumb enough to actually reinstitute the draft isn't exactly unreasonable sounding.

Studds was NOT the only one involved in the 1983 scandal, a fact that Republicans, yourself included, continue to blissfully ignore./i>

A Republican was also caught in that scandal, and he also received the same punishment as Studds (censure by the House).

If one wishes to compare Crane and Studds, that's fine by me.

When you say that they received the same punishment, you're correct. What's left out is that some prominant Republicans--Newt Gingridge among them--demanded expulsion for both. They were voted down by the overwhelmingly Democratic House (if anyone has a breakdown of the votes by Party I'd like to know them).

(Gingridge is no favorite of mine--I don't even care to find out if I'm spelling his name correctly--but he was right on this one.)

Crane took his punishment hard, and seemed contrite (he probably knew his career was over). Studds turned his back on the members of congress as they voted to censure him and condemned the action. he characterized taking a 17 year old page out of the country and having sex with him as a"mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults." Which I suppose it legally is. I'm not sure that Foley did anything illegal either. Not the issue. (Julio, I'm not at all sure that the explicit IMs were to a 16 year old. What I've seen indicates that they were to a much older person. The emails to the 16 years old, while obviously creepy given who they came from, in no way reach the level of illegality.)

Crane was booted out by the voters at the first opportunity. Studds was returned 5 more times.

Just for the record, and according to Wikipedia:

"While Studds has often been reported as having "turned his back on the House" as the House read its censure motion aloud, contemporary reports made it clear that in contrast to Crane, who faced the House as the motion for his censure was read, Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his back to the other members."

Also, and for what it's worth (not much, but just to pick nits...), Studds' affair took place ten years before the scandal broke, when he was 36. A 19-year age difference is still creepy...but legal, and I know at least two married couples 18 years and 16 years apart in age.
I know, that doesn't excuse it, and it was still highly inappropriate. Just sayin'.

Jim, I have to ask you, how long have you worked in Congress? If you don't, as I expect, how do you know for your FACT that anyone knew anything at any time?

Also, and for what it's worth (not much, but just to pick nits...), Studds' affair took place ten years before the scandal broke, when he was 36. A 19-year age difference is still creepy...but legal, and I know at least two married couples 18 years and 16 years apart in age.

Doubtlessly then the folks outraged that Republicans let several years lapse before are absolutely LIVID that the Democrats let a full decade go by!

Hmmm, I'd always thought that Studds back turning was a very deliberate act. Wishj I could find an interview with him from that time. It's funny how hard it is to find interviews and info on events and people in the pre-internet era. Future historians will be able to reconstruct everything that happens tomorrow from looking at blogs and easy to find online. It's nice to have things so easy to check now.

Bill Mulligan -
If one wishes to compare Crane and Studds, that's fine by me.

Well, you're usually a voice of reason, Bill.

I was just pointing that out for Jim's benefit, since so many on the right are focused upon Studds, but ignore Crane.

And yes, did demand that Gingrich, something else you'd think right-wingers would mention more often.

if anyone has a breakdown of the votes by Party I'd like to know them

I haven't been able to find anything. The only thing I've found so far is that the Ethic Committee at the time recommended a reprimand, but the full House voted for censure of the two instead.

I did find a comment on a blog which eventually lead me to this site, where if you scroll down you can find the entries for the censure votes on both Studds and Crane: 421-3.

Crane was booted out by the voters at the first opportunity. Studds was returned 5 more times.

*shrug* That's an issue to take up with voters. More people voted for Bush in '04 than in '02. You care to explain that one to me? ;)

But, I'd be interesting to see how the vote went for Crane and Studds in that next election.

And just for the sake of further argument...

Studds was single, Crane was married with kids.

A Time Magazine article, linked from Wikipedia, had this quote at the very end:

(Crane's) press secretary, William Mencarow, suggested the entire matter was no big deal. "If we required the resignation of all Congressmen who slept with young ladies," he said, "we wouldn't have a Congress." He later apologized for the observation.

Ouch.

And yes, did demand that Gingrich

Wow, that was butchered.

Should've been: "Gingrich did demand that (their explusion)".

One thing to remember:

Politics is like driving.
To go backward, put it in R.
To go forward, put it in D.

More people voted for Bush in '04 than in '02. You care to explain that one to me?

Diebold.

"Politics is like driving.
To go backward, put it in R.
To go forward, put it in D."

I tend to see it more as one car with two engines, one in R and one in D, so that it doesn't go anywhere.

""Politics is like driving.
To go backward, put it in R.
To go forward, put it in D."

I tend to see it more as one car with two engines, one in R and one in D, so that it doesn't go anywhere."

God forbid either ever get total control, the levels of R in the government are disasterous enough the couple of years....

Yeah but most people get killed while in D.

Annnnnnd we've now beaten that metaphore to death. Look at the little guy twitching.

It's like when noted thinker Julia Roberts said "you'll find 'Republican' in the dictionary between 'Reptile' and 'Repugnant'." So then some Republicans wasted time coming up with offensive words found in the D section to sandwich the word "Democrat". Winston Churchill spins in his grave at how sad political insults have sunk.

Just remember, folks, Congress is the opposite of progress.

Annnnnnd we've now beaten that metaphore to death. Look at the little guy twitching.

Sorry, couldn't resist getting in one more cheap shot at the little bugger. :)

[quote]Yeah but most people get killed while in D.[/quote]

I don't care if it's dead, I'm gonna whale on it some more: you have a better view when you're in D and the lousy field of vision R affords results in drivers often backing into people with their cars. Plus the mirrors give a distorted view of things; objects are closer than they appear, right? There, now this methaphor will need a closed casket funeral.

Doubtlessly then the folks outraged that Republicans let several years lapse before are absolutely LIVID that the Democrats let a full decade go by!

True. Provided, of course, that you have some evidence that Democrats KNEW about Studds that far back...?

But, since pages were apparently warning each other about Foley as far back as 1995, (ELEVEN years), it looks like Foley is still the champ.

My complaint is that the relevant leadership didn't do its job. Complaining about how the Rs did this and the Ds did that is completely missing the point.

David,

Used to be a reader now am turned off. Sorry, you wrote great stuff but I cannot get around your blog here. I actually wish I never found it. Worst of all is the "Freedom Clock", if you truly were not free then that clock and your views would have been removed from the interent a long time ago and you and those with you locked up and put from the light of day. But here you are still writting and posting and making appearances so shouldn't that "Freedom Clock" already be at zero. So continue carrying your soup board with The End is Here. While I do not agree with you I support your right to voice your opinion and that is what America is all about. It just makes me sad that it is people like you that will destroy this country.

good luck

It just makes me sad that it is people like you that will destroy this country.

And there you have it, folks: using your right to freedom of speech is destroying our country.

Posted by: Bryans

David,

Used to be a reader now am turned off. Sorry, you wrote great stuff but I cannot get around your blog here. I actually wish I never found it. Worst of all is the "Freedom Clock", if you truly were not free then that clock and your views would have been removed from the interent a long time ago and you and those with you locked up and put from the light of day.

Moron,

Are you familiar with the little cliche that begins "When they came for the Jews..."?

They've passed their National "Real ID" Act, and it probably won't be long before they appropriate funds for dialog coaching for every cop, state trooper and security guard in the proper way to say "Your papers, please, fraulein", as required by the Act...

(Well, that might be a slight exaggeration)

If the Freedom Clock turns out to be inaccurate, and the Republicans retain control, i rather more than half expect to see internal passports before the end of the next ruling junta in Washington DC ... oops, i mean "Republican Administration".

As to the "Freedom Clock" (and, yes. it's on my blog and my website, as well) - do you happen to remember Fatso opening his radio programs every day till even dittoheads must have gotten tired of the joke with "America Held Hostage - Day X of the Clinton Insurgency"?

And it makes me sad that people don't know the difference between Peter David and David Peters.

Mike,

Limbaugh did not open every show with that, he opened every HOUR with it. I think that he often opened with it when he came back from commercial. At least the "American held hostage" bit. I don't remember the "Clinton Insurgancy" bit being said.

Bryans,

Sorry to hear that you can't get around Mr. David's political views. It's a shame that your disagreement with his views appears to interfere with your ability to enjoy his work. As to the "Freedom Clock"...regardless of your view of how free we are right now, we'll be free of President Bush on January 20, 2009. Once a President leaves office, his direct political career is effectively over and he can only excert influence very indirctly.

Mr. David dislikes President Bush enough to have a countdown to when he's gone. Mr. David has strong opinions about various political matters and posts them on his own blog. So what? One thing that I got from your post was that his political views were a surprise to you. I interpret this to mean that he's a good enough writer to keep his own views from coloring what he writes and for each character to have their own views distinct from his. So I'd think that his political views shouldn't detract from your enjoyment of his works. I'm sorry to see that it is otherwise.

It just makes me sad that it is people like you that will destroy this country.

So you would be happier if some other sort of people were to destroy the country?

Perhaps a group of people who claim to be devoted to personal freedom, smaller government, and lower taxes, while simultaneously clamping down on freedoms, adding massive bureaucracy, and going on a spending spree that would make FDR blanch?

Peter, I am dismayed to read that you -- and people like you -- are going to destroy this country. That is unnecessary and downright impolite.

I wouldn't have believed such a thing of you, but you cannot find a more unimpeachable source than some random guy who comes to your blog to blast you, now, can you?

By the way, may I ask who are the people "like you" who are going to destroy this country, by the way? Other liberals? Fellow authors? Really pissed-off bowlers? I mean, if you're going to destroy us all anyway, you might as well spill the beans.

Surely, someone who understands the concept of hyperbole enough to claim that Peter is destroying the country should be able to understand something as basic as the Freedom Clock.

I do find "soup board" to be a fascinating construction, however...

I'm going with Really pissed Off Bowlers. Look at Lee Harvey Oswald or, going back a bit, Trotsky. They have that Really Pissed Off Bowlers look.

If they were to add the physical prowess of the Civil War Reenactors and the cunning of the State Fair Carnies's, well, you can kiss our way of life goodbye...

BRYANS:

Man, I wish this "Bryans" left an e-mail address so I could write him personally. I think I might actually be able to get through to a conservative here...then again, I may simply be delusional again. But, Bryans, if you are reading this, please pay attention.

Bush's crowning "achievement", the Iraq War, came to pass because of "ends justify the means" thinking. The end of having a "free and democratic" Iraq where nobody had to fear a dictator justified the means of attacking Iraq without provocation, justified the means of killing a lot of civilians who had nothing to do with terrorism or Saddam's regime, justified the imprisonment of all Iraqis who appeared suspicious, because in the end the free Iraq would be worth it.

Now if you are at all familiar with comics, you will know that few real heroes believe the ends justify the means. Spider-Man doesn't believe that. Captain America doesn't believe it. The X-Men, at least during the first Claremont run on the series, didn't believe it. There are exceptions like the Punisher and, to a lesser extent, the Hulk, but mostly what has separated the heroes from the villains has been the belief that the means used to achieve your goals are just as important as the ends.

From the beginning, my opposition to the Iraq war was because the U.S. was acting like "bad guys." Only bad guys, I believe, fire the first shots in a war. Only bad guys, I believe, imprison people without evidence or access to a lawyer or a fair trial. Only bad guys, I believe, resort to torture.

As so many heroes in comic books have stated in the past, I believe that if the U.S. uses questionable methods, even for the most noble of reasons, it becomes as bad as every other dictatorial regime it has opposed in the past. It's splitting hairs to say that the U.S. under Bush still isn't as bad as Russia under Stalin--neither situation is acceptable, and both Stalin and Bush are, in my view, "bad guys."

So when a guy like Peter David takes a public stand against Bush, I am with him 100% and I think it's unfortunate that you seem to have viewed all the stories you've read in comics over the years as nothing more than slugfests and learned nothing about ethics from them.

Even Wolverine, who could be included among those heroes who use questionable means toward desirable ends, stopped Rachel Summers from killing the Black Queen in cold blood. In his view, the X-Men were supposed to stand for something better than that, and such an act by one of them was unacceptable. Even if it meant the Black Queen would go on killing innocent people. If Wolvie can understand that, why can't you?

"I support your right to voice your opinion and that is what America is all about."

Except you really don't. Because if you did, then you could continue to read and enjoy and support my work--which, as was pointed out, is so even-handed that you didn't perceive any political leanings from reading it. Instead you feel the need to be punitive for my differing opinions by no longer supporting my creative endeavors.

It drives me nuts when people speak of how much they support free expression and love their country, while then taking actions that denote the exact opposite...and never, ever, ever acknowledge the inherent hypocrisy.

PAD

"So continue carrying your soup board with The End is Here"

Oh...and it's called a sandwich board, because it rests on the carrier's front and back and thus makes him look like a sandwich.

A soup board. Jeez.

PAD

"I'm going with Really pissed Off Bowlers. Look at Lee Harvey Oswald or, going back a bit, Trotsky. They have that Really Pissed Off Bowlers look."

That's probably it. We've got special shoes that enable us to slide quickly, thus eluding capture. We've got reasonably good aim, and we're accustomed to hefting blunt objects of fifteen to sixteen pounds. We're kingpins, we come out of the gutters, live in the alleys and you never know where we'll strike next. No one will be spared.

Really Pissed Off Bowlers: Knocking the pins out from under the United States.

PAD

Why the big deal about "Bryans"? Based on his grammar, word choice, and sentence structure, I'm guessing he's about ten years old. He's a dolt who actually thinks he's punished PAD by posting on his blog.

Posted by: Den at October 11, 2006 11:36 AM

Why the big deal about "Bryans"?

No big deal. But how could anyone expect me to pass up on an opportunity to make a joke?

Posted by Peter David at October 11, 2006 09:51 AM

Really Pissed Off Bowlers: Knocking the pins out from under the United States.

Priceless!

Is soup-boarding like water-boarding, only with really hot chicken noodle?

But remember -- spending money (or not) is another form of freedom of speech, even if it's deemed a punitive response. Don't like what the Dixie Chicks say? Not buying their albums -- even if you did before -- is a valid form of freedom of expression. Not that boycotts work all that often...

"Don't like what the Dixie Chicks say? Not buying their albums -- even if you did before -- is a valid form of freedom of expression..."

No. It's not.

We're not talking about people refusing to buy tuna fish because dolphins are getting snagged in the nets. We're talking about a mentality that says, "I don't like what you're saying; I'll get you for that." Punishment is not free expression. It's retaliation. If a child says something a parent disapproves of and the parent slaps the child, are the two actions equal? No.

If someone says, "I am against freedom of expression and people saying things I don't like to hear, and I'm going to punish them for it," I can respect that. At least it's honest. The concept of, "I'm for freedom of expression, and thus will retaliate against someone who says something I don't like by trying to hurt them financially"...it's just bullshit.

PAD

To play devil's advocate here, I have two words: Mel Gibson.

Although admittedly, I'm not boycotting his movies because I disagree with his political views so much as I am because I think he's a pompous jerk. In any case, it's not because I'm out to punish Mel for his action so much as I do not enjoy his work in light of his recent actions. But then again, Peter hasn't written any blatantly anti-something novels or comics.

That's silly. The alternative is "I really don't like what they say, but I have to keep buying their albums because I don't want to punish them for saying it." Sometimes the consequence of free speech that others don't like is free speech that you don't like in return. Both sides have their turn in the whole free speech conversation, and sometimes, somebody loses.

No, the alternative is, "I'm going to buy/watch/patronize on the merits of the work and not to punish political views that I disagree with."

Let me ask this: How many would refuse to hire a plumber or mechanic if you found out they had political views that differed from yours? So why should writers be singled out?

""Don't like what the Dixie Chicks say? Not buying their albums -- even if you did before -- is a valid form of freedom of expression..."

No. It's not."

Yes. Yes it is.

Supporting someone's right to free speech doesn't mean supporting what they say. Just because you want them to be legally allowed to do something doesn't mean you can't go against the specific things they say. Don't like Bill O'Rielly? Don't buy his book. Hate the opinions of the Dixie Chicks or Toby Keith so much that you can't help but think about them when you hear their music? Don't buy their albums.

It's not remotely inconsistent to say that someone should be legally allowed to have an opinion, but you don't want to financially support that person.

"So why should writers be singled out?"

Or anybody else for that matter. I find the hypocrisy on the right to be far greater then the hypocrisy on the left here. I know far more people on the right then on the left who care more about the political views of an entertainer then they do the level of entertainment they themselves get from the entertainer's work.

"To play devil's advocate here, I have two words: Mel Gibson."

Not a great pick for the two words. Passion got him some flack for what was in the movie itself. Most people I know who thought that Passion was offensive crap still have most of Mel's other movies in their collections and quite a few think that his next film looks pretty cool. The Chicks got trashed because of an idea that they expressed, whle it was a concert, outside of their actual work. It was not in one of their sangs. Then the people who claimed that the Chicks trashed America (as if Bush IS America) demanded that all Chicks' songs be banned from radio airplay and got rid of their collections of chicks' stuff.

There's also a big dif in the extreme reactions of people who didn't like Mel's Passion and people who didn't like the Dixie Chicks talking about Bush. People weren't content with just getting rid of their chicks' stuff. Oh, no. I saw lots of places where people or radio stations were holding events where you could bring you chicks stuff on down and join in with the mindless masses by throwing it in the fire, watch it get crushed, etc. I didn't see any groups setting up mass destruction centers for Mel's films.

Nah, the two don't match up in the least.

"Don't like Bill O'Rielly? Don't buy his book."

Not even close.

Not liking O'Rielly for his political views and not buying his book filled with the same political views you don't like him for isn't even remotely close to the Chicks' situation. The Chicks weren't putting out albums trashing Bush or conservatives prior to their blowout with their fans. Not even close.

Or anybody else for that matter. I find the hypocrisy on the right to be far greater then the hypocrisy on the left here. I know far more people on the right then on the left who care more about the political views of an entertainer then they do the level of entertainment they themselves get from the entertainer's work.

Yet it's the entertainers on the right who are more afraid of losing their jobs if they "come out" as it were. Even Bill Maher, no right-wing tool he, (a tool, yes) has said it's hard to get conservative entertainers to take the risk of being on his show.

I have to disagree with PAD a bit on this. I know where he's coming from and if I had a job where my politics could potentially lose me money I might feel differently, I suppose. But I think it's perfectly valid for people to support the right of people to speak their minds while not supporting them financially. There are many entertainment options and only so much money to spend. The last Dixie Chicks album had plenty of political content and people who disagree with the content will probably not like the song.

Me, I like a song if it appeals to me, even if the lyrics are morally and ethically bankrupt. Public Enemy's Sophisticated Bitch is a great song. Horribly misogynist, great song. Wagner was a Nazi. Walt Disney was by many accounts a rotten guy.

But if someone refused to pay money to see The Passion because they believed it to be anti-Semitic based on what others had said I can't be too critical of them. Yeah, maybe they should have seen the movie first but if they did that and came away convinced they had just added another $10 to an anti-Jewish film they'd probably feel pretty burned. Similarly, I can easily imagine a lot of people finding some hip-hop songs too awful to enjoy, regardless of the melody.

Organized boycotts and out and out intimidation or violence are other matters. I'd say that I'm a lot more offended by people shutting down free speech at Columbia University than I am by someone not buying a ticket to a Dixie Chicks concert.

But make no mistake about it--the aim of Bryans' message was to punish PAD for his beliefs. it basically said "You lost a reader because you don't agree with me." He has every right to do so but not to pretend that there is anything admirable about it.

If you want to read virtually the exact same thing from the other side of the political coin read the comments on various boards about Orson Scott Card.

Let me ask this: How many would refuse to hire a plumber or mechanic if you found out they had political views that differed from yours? So why should writers be singled out?

Den makes a good point...but if I knew that the TV repairman down the street was a virulent racist I might avail myself of the services of others.

Also, it's unlikely that the plumber will in any way do something that has anything to do with his or her politics (maybe arrange my pipes in a swastika) but it's quite likely that a writer's philosophy will creep into the story. Once you're aware of their biases you can often see it where it had previously been avoidable. I try not to be too nosy about the personal lives of creators but it is true that when you find out that a filmmaker was, for example, a closeted homosexual, you sometimes can gain insights into the themes that run through their work.

But again, to the subject at hand--Brians, you're being a dick. Don't agree with PAD's politics, fine, right there with you sometimes. Don't want to read his stories now as a result? Ok, your loss, it's your money to do as you wish. Feel the need to tell him this, to try to either A-make him change his views for fear of losing his livelihood or B-just twist a little knife on the way out rather than have the guts to engage in an actual debate? Not cool. Cowardly.

It depends. If the plumber was Joe Liberal from uptown, maybe not. If he was someone from Plumbers & Pipes, Inc., and they happened to be someone who provided a lot of financial support to a candidate whose views you didn't agree with, then you'd be perfectly within your right to seek a different plumber.

I've seen some pretty fancy looking diamonds from South Africa, and I can't say that the gasoline from Venezuela is any less expensive or takes my car any fewer miles per gallon than another brand. But I choose where I gas up because I happen to care where my money goes (the diamond market not exactly being one where my influence has all that great an impact; nor the gas market, when it's just me, but one does what one can.)

With art, it's difficult to separate the creator from the creation, because there's always so much of the creator in the creation -- and sometimes moreso, because a consumer, knowing the background of the creator, may read more deeply into things that may otherwise have slipped by, things even the creator didn't intend.

Although I doubt anything accidentally slipped inot the last Dixie Chicks album.

Not Ready to Play Nice, eh.

"Yet it's the entertainers on the right who are more afraid of losing their jobs if they "come out" as it were."

Maybe. But I think some of that is b.s. and excuse making by guys who can't get ahead. Some of Hollywoods top money guys from the last two decades have been open about being conservative and even stumped for pols in open events.

Never hurt Arnold any. He was getting paid huge checks for as long as he could open big box office weekends and bring in truckloads of $$$$. It wasn't until after his films started doing less well that the big wigs started looking for the "new Arnold" rather then seeing him as their go to guy.

Bo Derek is open about her conservative beliefs. She doesn't get offered huge deals because she doesn't bring in huge cash. She knows this subject and has said as much. She was asked about that on Fox News one time (near the 2000 election I think) and said that it was so much bull. she flat stated that she never had her conservative beliefs held against her in Hollywood.

Tom Selek is a conservative. He claims it's held against him. Well, lets look at the record. He was open about it in the 80's while he was one of THE hottest TV stars of the 80's. Didn't gripe about it back then. He went to movies. When he did big money at the Box Office (Three Men and a Baby) and he got big offers. No real gripes then. When he did films that did less well (mr. Baseball, Three Men and a Little Lady, Quigly Down Under) he got less grand offers. Then he's being held down for being conservative.

Look at Fred Thompson. He was the leader of some of the groups that investigated Clinton. He was called names by the left, branded as a witch-hunt ringmaster and smeared left and right. What happened when he left office? He got an acting gig (his old job) on TV. Why? Cause he's a damned good actor.

Some guys may have run up against a butt headed boss or casting director in Hollywood who crapped on them for their conservative ways. I'll grant them that. But the last time I looked, Hollywood ran on green. They dodn't care what you are so long as you bring in the box office.

Hell, I'll even bet that Mel will be welcomed back with open arms the first time he wants to do a movie with the studio system. He makes the cash and he gets the pass.

The hypocrisy bit also shows up with the above guys and chat shows. The same people who say that the Chicks should shut up and sing and that actors should keep their mouths shut when not talking about their films are the same people having Toby Keith and some of the above actors on their shows to.... talk about politics.

It's not a matter of wanting stars to be seen and not heard. It's a matter of only wanting stars heard when they say what they (many conservatives) like. Don't say what they like and it's war. Keep saying what they don't want to hear and it's time to hurt the stars/singers saying non-conservative things.

That's just naked hypocrisy.

I have no real problem with most folks saying that they don't like a singer or actor because of what they do outside of their work. Jackson, TomKat, Mel and others have freaked out some of their former fans to the point that they can't watch them or listen to them without flashing on all the strange stuff.

I do have a problem with the people that say stars should shut up and sing/act or else when they say something the fan doesn't like but back the free speach rights of other stars who share the fan's politics and then claim that it's anything but hypocrisy.

I also have a problem with people, as you put it, being a dick. Bryans was one. Don't agree with him? Well...

"It just makes me sad that it is people like you that will destroy this country."

Nice thing post on this site to show yourself to be a twit. A group of cops, teachers, business owners, creators and others doing whatever they can to bring down the U.S. of A. by involving themselves in a free exchange of ideas and respect while, from time to time, posting nice bits of info that helps to offer help to others when they need it.

Yeah, we're all just waiting for that phone call from OBL with our marching orders. Any minute now....

"Not liking O'Rielly for his political views and not buying his book filled with the same political views you don't like him for isn't even remotely close to the Chicks' situation. The Chicks weren't putting out albums trashing Bush or conservatives prior to their blowout with their fans. Not even close."

It wasn't a comparison of their philosophy. I was talking about financially supporting someone you don't enjoy anymore.

If you never agreed with anything O'Rielly said and you don't want to hear more, then the logical thing to do is to not buy his book. If you can't listen to Dixie Chicks or Toby Keith without their political opinions ruining your enjoyment of their music, then the logical thing to do is not buy their albums because you don't enjoy them. Neither action is equivalent to saying they don't have a right to their opinions.

If you really don't think the two are examples work well together, just ignore the O'Rielly part. My point works just as well with only the part about the musicians.

I'm not saying that there are no conservative or Republican entertainers.

I am saying that you are far more likely to have a speech interrupted or be attacked on stage if you are a conservative author or celebrity. And if you are a Hollywood actor and id yourself as even a little bit conservative you will be "Conservative actor Jerry C" for the rest of time. Sowing up at a liberal or Democratic event will not get you the liberal tag--it's The Way It Ought To Be.

I don't blame any actor for wanting to keep their options open. Yeah, Hollywood is all about money but unless you are Brad Pitt you'd have to be a mental case to actually think that you are the only choice. It doesn't take much to get blackballed, for good or bad reasons. I'm sure the folks blacklisted during the McCarthy era could have made money for the studios but somehow the Big Shots managed to keep on going.

As to the Dixie Chicks and how much they've been hurt by the "boycott" (which seems to be mostly a chimera created by Clear Channel's not-blacklist memo, after which, curiously, Dixie Chicks airplay on Clear Channel stations ceased as PDs spontaneously decided to drop them):

DATUM POINT 1:..When they played Philips Auditorium in Atlanta (which is where the Hawks play - it's not a small hall) on their first tour after the controversy, it was a sell-out. And when someone booed them, one of them said "Hey - it's your right, you paid for it - we got your sixty bucks..."

DATUM POINT 2:..Despite receiving practically no air play (see above comment about Clear Channel station stations "spontaneously" removing the Chicks from their playlists) it took a brand-new Johnny Cash album to knock their current album - which includes a song that basically says "Yeah, we said it - deal." - out of the #1 slot on the country charts, where it had been for a while.

O'Reilly is a huge ass.

Wait, what were we talking about?

"Supporting someone's right to free speech doesn't mean supporting what they say. Just because you want them to be legally allowed to do something doesn't mean you can't go against the specific things they say. Don't like Bill O'Rielly? Don't buy his book."

Completely irrelevant. O'Rielly's books are entirely informed by his political opinions. My work isn't.

"Hate the opinions of the Dixie Chicks or Toby Keith so much that you can't help but think about them when you hear their music? Don't buy their albums."

But that's not a form of self-expression. That's simply displaying a personality so limited that one cannot separate the performer from the music. Call it what it is: Narrow minded and punitive. I've said it before, I'll say it again: No one in the industry, with the possible exception of Gary Groth, has been more consistently vitriolic toward me than John Byrne. But if he brought back "Next Men," I'd be there with money in hand.

"It's not remotely inconsistent to say that someone should be legally allowed to have an opinion, but you don't want to financially support that person."

It's called paying lip-service to a concept. It's also wandering off in a different direction from the original assertion: That getting back at someone whose opinions you don't like by no longer buying their work is a form of self-expression, on par with the opinions themselves. It's not: It's simply punitive. As I said before, admit that it's a form of punishment, a retaliatory action, and we have no argument. Claim that punishing someone for voicing opinions is no different than actually expressing the opinions, and I say that's bullshit.

PAD

Can I at least boycott snow? I am looking out my window at work and it's snowing. *sigh*

I often hear about how conservative actors are descriminated against, but I rarely see it in play. Tom Selleck? Well, it's already been noted that his career cooled because he made a bunch of bad movies and even with that, he still got a recurring role on Friends when it was the number sitcom in America. Charlton Heston? While he's semi-retired, he was never shy about his political views and it didn't hurt his career. Bruce Willis? Umm, yeah. He's been hurting for movie roles lately. Sure. Ahnold? Please. Mel Gibson? Well, aside from his religious views, politically, he's not a conservative and has been very vocal in his criticism of the Iraqi invasion. But even if you grant that there's a perception that he's a conservative because of the Passion, his career was going full steam ahead (Academy-award winning director and all) before his drunken tirade.

Yes, there are more liberals in Hollyweird than conservatives, but what Hollyweird loves more than anything else is money. If your movies make money for the studios, they won't care who you voted for.

Now, as to the Bill-O vs. PAD debate. It's really apples and oranges. The Big Giant Head is a political commentator. He's paid to write about his political views and to draw attention away from his lofa fetish. I mean. Nevermind. PAD is a fiction writer.

Now, if you don't want to read conservative political diatribes, nobody is forcing you to buy O'Reilly's books. Personally, I don't because he's an unctious bully and a bad writer. On the other hand, I read the columns of George Will and James Lileks regularly because they're really good and lucid at presenting their POVs, even though their styles differ dramatically. But when I want a good laugh, I read Thomas Sowell, just so I can count the number of times he makes the same broad generalizations and that he derides others for making.

But that's all about tastes in writing.

Now, with any fiction writing, it's always possible that the author's political views can creep into the story. When it's blatan and overbearing, it can detract from the story, which is why I can't read anything by L. Ron Hubbard. On the other hand, while I don't agree with a lot of Orson Scott Card's views, I love his writing so I buy his books because they appeal to my tastes, even when his views do sometimes creep into play (as some of his Mormon theology crept into the Homecoming series).

In any event, people should support writers based on how well their craft appeals to them, not because they regard their patronage as a reward/punishment based on political views unrelated to the work.

It always cracks me up the way that some people "make a statement" by NOT doing something. Usually just ends up calling more attention to the thing they don't like.

Do I think PAD is a better person than John Byrne? From what little I've seen, yeah. Would I buy a PAD title before a Byrne title? Probably, but only because I really don't like Byrne's writing. (His characters don't seem live to me for some reason.) But comparing PAD's work to Bill O' Reilly's work isn't comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing Apples and Playstations. Of COURSE O' Reilly's work is going to be affected by his political views, he's a political commentator! Or at LEAST that's how he sells his books. (Never read his novel, but I heard it wasn't bad)

This morning when I dropped Brian off at school, the reverend that they have their teaching some of the older kids was talking about homosexuality, and how "Brokeback Mountain" didn't do at all well, but all the Queers in Hollywood just keep making "those" movies that NEVER do well. Of course, the fact that movies in GENERAL haven't been doing well over the past few years doesn't have anything to do with it and the 3 Oscars that it won show that it's a nothing movie. Kinda shows where some people heads are on the whole gay thing.

No offense to your reverend Sean, but I'm not all that sure that there are a lot of members of the clergy that should take the high road as far as homesexuality is concerned. It's a bit like two bengal tigers bemoaning the fact that timber wolves are giving carnivores a bad name. Or Congressman Foley trying to protect our children from sexual predators by, well, preying on them. This isn't a knock against homosexuality you understand; I'm just not fond of people who rail against immorality in public, but behind closed doors engage in the very behavior they crusade against.

Something tells me that the term 'foley artist,' which is now a show business term for people who create sound FX for film and television, is going to have a very different meaning now.

Well, I'm willing to give Sean's reverand the benefit of the doubt and not assume that just because he's a member of the clergy that he's a child sex predator.

Even if Brokeback Mountain didn't make runaway box office numbers, it's hard to say that Hollwood keeps making all of "those" movies. How many gay cowboy movies have come out since? I can't think of one. You'd think there would have been dozens by now if "all the queers" were determined to flood the market with "those" movies.

Worst part is, he's not even my reverend. I'm sorta Catholic, which means I follow a lot of the stuff even though I haven't been to church since my dad's funeral.

And Joe, I've been DREADING someone coming up with the "doing foley" connection. Trust me, the station I work in a joke like that will live on YEARS past it's funnyness.

how "Brokeback Mountain" didn't do at all well

It did quite well. made a good profit, which is more than SUPERMAN RETURNS can say.

but I'm not all that sure that there are a lot of members of the clergy that should take the high road as far as homesexuality is concerned.

Well, it's probably best not to counter one example of stereotyping with another...

Meanwhile... speaking of liking the writing of people with whom you may disagree with politically...

I had the opportunity to review the "platinum release" of Disney's "The Little Mermaid", and it brought to memory one of my all time favorite "But I Digress..." columns. Any chance of getting a repeat on Snow White inducting Ariel, Belle, and Jasmine into the Disney Princess Society? :)

"I am saying that you are far more likely to have a speech interrupted or be attacked on stage if you are a conservative author or celebrity. And if you are a Hollywood actor and id yourself as even a little bit conservative you will be "Conservative actor Jerry C" for the rest of time."

I don't think either of these statements are true. Just recently Barbra Streisand was interrupted and verbally attacked on stage for her anti-Bush statements, but I can't think of any recent incidents in which something like that happened to a conservative (though that doesn't mean much, admittedly, since I don't exactly keep a watchful eye on these sorts of reports, and the media doubtless doesn't cover all of them). Moreover, I can think of dozens of actors and entertainers who are labeled as "liberals," but until I read Den's list, I couldn't have told you that Tom Selleck or Bruce Willis are conservative. In fact, I probably could have only thought of two conservative actors: my current governor and the president of the NRA, both of which are fairly obvious.

Actually, Superman Returns grossed about $390 million worldwide. With a production budget of $270 million, it made a solid, but not spectacular profit.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm

Just thinking about the leanings of performers and artists and etc. Even though I really liked Shawshank Redemption and his part in War of the Worlds, if I NEVER heard Tim Robbins or Janet Weiss, er, Susan Sarandon speak about politics again, wll, that'd be okeydokey with me. On the flip side, throw Patricia Heaton in there for the conservative side, same difference.

Den, I think it's odd the wya we keep posting the samee kinds of things around the same time. I'm really not copying him, people! Really!

Just thinking about the leanings of performers and artists and etc. Even though I really liked Shawshank Redemption and his part in War of the Worlds, if I NEVER heard Tim Robbins or Janet Weiss, er, Susan Sarandon speak about politics again, wll, that'd be okeydokey with me. On the flip side, throw Patricia Heaton in there for the conservative side, same difference.

Den, I think it's odd the way we keep posting the samee kinds of things around the same time. I'm really not copying him, people! Really!

Posted by Den

Actually, Superman Returns grossed about $390 million worldwide. With a production budget of $270 million, it made a solid, but not spectacular profit.

If it only grossed $300 mil on a $279 mil production budget, it lost money, big time by the general rule of thumb that says you have to gross half again to twice the production budget to break even - because the production budget doesn't include prints, promotion, distribution costs, etc, which add a *chunk* to the total cost.

And, if anyone had significant front-end points (and i think some people did), you can figure the break-even point as at least three times the production costs.

It's $390 million, not $300. And that's not including merchandizing and the future DVD sales. No, Superman Returns failed to meet expectations, but it made enough that the sequel is likely to go through.

Sean, I do agree with you. Many of the more politically active celebrities really irritate me, even those that agree with. I think it's because they think they're incredibility intelligent and well-versed, but as soon as they start saying words that were not written by someone else, they sound really, really stupid.

In addition to your list, I'd add Jeanine Garofalo and Alex Baldwin as people whose politics I don't need to hear about anymore.

Posted by: Den

It's $390 million, not $300.

Agggh. Time for a glasses tune-up.

And that's not including merchandizing and the future DVD sales. No, Superman Returns failed to meet expectations, but it made enough that the sequel is likely to go through.

Still marginal, though.

I think it's because they think they're incredibility intelligent and well-versed, but as soon as they start saying words that were not written by someone else, they sound really, really stupid.

And this makes them any worse than your typical politican how, exactly?

Touche, Craig.

from imdb.com:

Conservative Group Charges Media Exploiting Foley Case The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog headed by activist Brent Bozell, has accused the major television networks of using a "double standard when reporting the sexual proclivities of Republicans versus Democrats." In a report prompted by coverage of the Mark Foley scandal, the MRC observed that while the morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted 150 stories on Republican Foley over 12 days, the same programs referred to the scandal involving Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds 19 times over an entire year. Reynolds was convicted in 1995 for having had sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker. "The same networks that gave absolute minimal coverage to the Democrat are now flooding the airwaves with stories about the Republican, on the eve of the elections. If this isn't evidence of a liberal media agenda, nothing ever will be," Bozell said in a statement. Many of the reports involving the Foley matter have focused on alleged efforts by the Republican leadership to cover up the Congressman's misbehavior, an issue that did not arise during the Reynolds scandal.

Well, there's an easy explanation that I'm sure SOMEONE will come up with. The Republicans are ALL about conservative family values and homosexuality doesn't fit in there, so seeing one of their own, you know, there are just too many ways to say "implicated" in the vernacular that could also be taken sexually. Or maybe it's just my dread of causing another "that's what she said" moment.

I'd love to see Bozell's, or any other, reaction to the end of the post about the alleged, nudge nudge, say no MORE! cover up by Republican leaders. Now, one question does come to mind--does the MRC have people counting reports on Democrats just in case they might be able to use them 11 years from now? Imagine putting THAT on your resume? "I mined the news for stuff that somebody might be able to eventually use in case someone does something worse..."

I know the topic is old, but I saw Brent Bozell's name and I had to add my two cents. In case nobody knows, Brent Bozell also heads the Parent's Television Council(PTC) as well. This little organization floods(literally) the FCC with complaints about every show that this organization feels is obscene. His views are biased and skewed at best. What Brent's little survey failed to take in account is the media coverage we have now. FoxNews alone just celebrated its tenth birthday. Every single outlet is trying to one up the other. What made this story scandalous is the fact it was a GAY REPUBLICAN that this was about. The conspiracy theories that surround this amaze me as well. Republicans blame the Democrats. Sean Hannity called out the Democratic leadership. My question is: Why, if the letters weren't incriminating, are the letters a concern now? Because, they were just a piece of puzzle that needed to be solved. If this had been fully investigated a year ago, why are the IMs just now getting found? The truth is, there was not an investigation. If the letters were harmless, why bring in the FBI? My guess, they showed it to an agent: Would you consider this a crime?, asks the SOH. No, replys the agent. Thank you, says the SOH. The Republicans are no different than anybody else. When one of there own is trouble they ship him to a new parish... I mean no pages are allowed near Foley.(To any Catholic reading this. Just a joke. I only hold a few people with bad judgements accountable for what happened.)
P.S. Bozell can thank his favorite person, Mr. Bill Clinton for the current media coverage. I love Bill, but damn if he didn't make the media insane.