For those who were wondering what sort of idiot would try to fob blame for the Foley scandal over to the Democrats, wonder no more. From the AOL news feed:
“Hastert told the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday night that he has no thoughts of resigning. He blamed ABC News, which broke the Foley e-mail story, and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal.”
PAD
• 
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 dámņëd 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 mášŧûrbáŧëd, 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 áššëš 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. 😛
“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 gøšhdámņ time and I am pìššëd øff at any politician trying to play these ÐÃMN GAMES of blame and “he knew but didn’t knew” just because it’s a dámņ 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 bìŧçhëš 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 bìŧçhëš 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…”
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.’
The Republican would be back with an ad featuring Gary Studds (the one who actually, you know, HAD SEX with a page and got a slap on the wrist for it). If teh Democrats go to far with this is could backfire. If they are smart they will let Hastert do their work for them.
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.
No it doesn’t. If there was any attempt to manipulate the timing it would have been done by whoever gave ABC the IMs. Again, the website that seem to have originated this is something of a mystery.
Were this a Democratic congressman the DU and DailyKos gang would be screaming “Karl Rove” at the top of thier lungs but one needs more evidence before claiming conspiracy.
The stuff Drudge was talking about may only apply to one page–the one who hired a lawyer. The story is that he was goofing on the guy and passed the iMs around and predictably they fell into “the wrong hands”. I have to say, that sounds quite plausable and while an interesting twist in no way changes anything.
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 bìŧçhëd and moaned about how the dems were ruinning everything. When they became the minority party, they bìŧçhëd 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.