« The Pope and Muslims | Main | More Keith Olbermann Goodness »

October 03, 2006



gosh, gene, how can you actually look at yourself in the mirror and believe you reflect truth?

This is how this goes:
~ Republican does something bad.
~ Rightwing nutcases wave the penis -- "Clinton did it too!" (no matter what it is)
~ Me: "You have your facts wrong."
~ The Rightwing nutcases: "There you go again, sticking up for the Democrats."

I refuse to accept this bullshit.
You have your FACTS WRONG!

Here's the timeline for this crap --

FIRST post mentioning ANY person's party:
"This sounds like Clinton all over again except Mark will actually get punished as well as be removed from office." Posted by: fcc | October 04, 2006 at 06:06 AM

"He abused his power just as Bill did." Posted by: Gene | October 04, 2006 at 08:08 AM

"Do we really expect that McKinney, Jefferson, Kennedy, Delay or Foley will endure any real punishment for their transgressions?" Posted by: Gene | October 04, 2006 at 10:16 AM

Do you get to just go ahead and judge any Democrat you don't happen to like for their "transgressions" when the topic is as friggin' serious as pedophilia?

And THEN this utter hypocrisy:
"In retrospect, who cares what party Foley is connected with? [...] Both parties have corruption running out their ears and we want to sit back and point fingers at which party is more corrupt?" Posted by: Gene | October 04, 2006 at 04:00 PM

You're the instigator of all the finger pointing!
Why did you mention Clinton at the top of the post?
What was he charged with?
And do you ever FORGIVE anything?

Why did you mention McKinney? What was she charged with?
Why did you mention Jefferson? What has he been charged with?

fcc, I brought up people that served in THIS VERY Congress -- in response to gene.
For whatever reason then, YOU respond to me, with every Democrat you can goggle.
Can you even stay in this DECADE, nevermind this Congress?

And regarding Jefferson, gene... Isn't it SLANDER to spread a rumor based on your opinion?
Do you know how long Fox News has been spreading the rumor that Jefferson will be indicted "within days"? About a year now.
Maybe longer.
Oh, yeah, and Fox News decided that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, so he must be one, regardless of the jury's verdict.

Have you no shame?
You can't even discuss a PEDOPHILE without bringing in the Democrats, yet YOU ask who cares about party? YOU care about party! You.
And the biggest joke is, for whatever reason, you keep trying to convince us that you're an Independent.

You make the perfect Republican apologist.
All they can do this days is point the finger at someone else (including their fellow Republicans, from the cat fights I've seen in the last 48 hours) and say, "He did it. I didn't know a thing."

The polls for the GOP are plummetting over Foley. And you still have the same broken record going, as if you believe the nation is buying the Bush bullshit anymore.
And the irony of this situation is that the GOP hid it from the Democratic leadership, so now, just like our entire gov't structure, the GOP has no one to blame but themselves.

Tom, I agree with you. Convicting people before they've had their day in court is un-American.
Convicting them when they've never been charged with anything is even more sickening, as far as I'm concerned.



I admit I do find Fox to be the most honest reporting of all the news sources. Probably why they are by far #1. However, mistakes are made. CNN had the Bush-blooper and CBS flat out lied about Bush. CNN may have been a mistake, CBS was not. Mistakes are made and I doubt Fox intentionally labeled the guy a democrat. If anyone should be insulted it probably should be Foley:).


"I don't see any other options, this shouldn't be a political issue."

Unfortunately, it is all political. The timing of this Foley affair without a doubt was politically motivated. The fact it is on this blog and William Jefferson never was is politically motivated.
I wonder how long the democrats and republicans have sat on this issue? You can't help but wonder. Everything in Washington is so politically orchestrated it is sickening. Hillary didn't even by her home in NY until pollsters determined the best location. Manhattan lost out in the polls. Even though his political career is over, in the legal sense Foley did not break any laws and therfore will he ever really be indicted? I doubt it. If he was a women, as judges have shown, he would have no problem walking.

Da Troot

At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.

The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.

Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)

In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds - not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men - defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")

Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."

Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.

But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager -- oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy -- and a credit check, too!

When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.

The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaida -- solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"

Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."

We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:

Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.

Priests: No gays!

Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.

Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.

White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.

Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.

Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?

This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.

Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.


I understand this site would be a very boring place to post if everyone was in agreement on these issues, but we still have defenders of Clinton(the luckiest politician in my lifetime, and for more ways than one) and then we have defenders of the current crop( the most reprehensible, self-righteous, moralistic bunch of assholes I have ever seen) who go on and on about the other side doing this and doing that. Let us all hope this is the darkness before dawn and when we wake up all the talk about Republicans and Democrats will be a faint memory. WE NEED STATESMEN, PERIOD.

Thomas Williams

I just don't get it. The question is Rep. Foley and what was know by whom and when and what actions they did to prevent the types of things which happened. Let's deal with this particular issue, which is horrendous, and leave others out for now. The hypocrisy from the party of that family of wonderful drivers and the sudden ignorance of what was happening on their watch crowd both need to cease talk about the case and let the investigation by the FBI and others run their course. This running of the mouth without having the facts is what is making Rep. Murtha look like a chicken little (The Sky Is Falling) about Ramadi because he didn't wait for the facts to all become clear about that particular incident. Don't jump to any conclusions. Let the facts come out and the investigation run its course.



"When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds - not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men - defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district."

(LOL) Many Democrats are only outraged because in this vain they can hurt the Republican party. I had forgotten about Gerry Studds, talk about a bunch of hypocrites. Democrats voted this guy election after election and now they act so righteous over Foley. At least Foley is just leaving instead of fighting this thing. There is your choice America, democrats and Gerry Studds or Republicans and Mark Foley.

"Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't."

Now that is funny!


Intersting story developing at drudge (excellent source btw). So what did Foley do that Studds did not do?



Wed Oct 04 2006 20:32:06 ET

A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.

The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.

ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names."


On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.



Gene, making such an elemental mistake in such a major story? Then why haven't they come out and said "Oops!"? You really seriously expect us to believe that was accidental? Getting his age wrong, or misspelling his name, perhaps. But misstating the party of a politico under scrutiny?

Since Clinton seems to be the meausurement of choice here, for some, imagine if you will that back during the Monica scandal some news source had labeled him as Republican? Do you really think anyone would have just sat back and said nothing, passing it off as a simple typo?


The people Foley was with may have been 18 for those chats. But what about other chats? And the fact that Foley is in a position of authority? That seems to be another (bigger) sticking point for Foley 'getting off the hook.' A large issue here is the abuse of power from Foley, and from the Republicans for covering it up. This stuff goes all the way back to 1995 at least, with pages being warned about him. That likely means something was going on before Foley was first elected to the house.


about 30 posts here
Some interesting stats

1. Bev - Bernard Law, Denny Hastert
2. csm - Hastert
3. fcc - Bill Clinton
4. csm - no one
5. gene - Bill Clinton, blonde teachers, Clinton
6. derF - no one
7. Mike - Law/Hastert (-ish)
8. Bawdy (plea for statesmen)
9. csm (retraction of info)
10. Jeff - no one (gene/fcc)
11. gene - attacked 3 Dems while defending GOP
12. Bev - Duke C, Bob Ney, NH vote jammer, Coingate
13. dj - no one
14. Mike - no one
15. fcc - attacked 10 Democrats
16. derF - no one
17. Bob - Fox News
18. Bev - gene/fcc
19. Mike - no one
20. gene - Democrat William Jefferson
21. Jeff - Hastert
22. csm - no one
23. Tom - no one
24. Jeff - no one
25. Bob - no one
26. Bev - gene/fcc
27. gene - William Jefferson, Hillary Clinton
28. Tom - John Murtha
29. fcc - Democrats, Democrats, Democrats
30. John - no one (Foley?)

See if it's possible to separate those bad, bad atheists from the loving christians.
See if you can pick out who are the "accusers" and who they accuse.
And see who brings information.

OK, and see who is the constant accuser of gene/fcc of hypocrisy - and probably proud of it.
(And, of course, I'm a heathen, so I'm going to hell anyway)

Morning Op-Ed

This op-ed is presented using the facts as known today recognizing that what both men did was reprehensible and is not acceptable. The intent is to look more at this new disdain as now expressed by the Democratic Party. Interesting side item for what it is worth, the NYT reports that a George Soros organization in Washington leaked the Foley story.

Gerry Studds a homosexual democrat had a sex romp with a 17 year old page and whisked his young love to Portugal on tax dollars.
His reaction was to thumb-his-nose at the congress claiming he broke no laws and his young love was a consenting adult.
Democrats promptly voted him back into office for 5 more terms. We Americans know that DNC is quite capable of removing one of their own as witnessed by the swift removal of EL when he no longer reflected democratic ideals. It seems issues of morality take a back seat to issues of politics. As well, as a homosexual, any further accusations by the GOP surely would have brought the homophobe defense in the protection of Studds. Obviously any real disdain was missing from the democrats during Studds’ tenure.

Foley, a homosexual republican, had improper emails and IMs with young pages. These young pages were also above legal age. Reportedly, to date, the pages were 18 years or older. Foley as well, to date, has broken no laws.
Unlike Studds, His reaction was to step down without argument. He seems to have expressed genuine remorse and promptly has apologized.
Suddenly democrats are outraged with the actions of Foley. Their hypocrisy is on stage for the entire nation after serving with a man of similar but unapologetic character for 13 years. Foley reflects the democratic moral barometer therefore his only true crime would seem to be the letter after his name. As well, Foley, a republican will not have the homosexual watchdog groups looking out for his interest.

This newsflash is nothing more than a carefully orchestrated media circus by a hypocritical democratic party desperate to regain some measure of political power. Americans, we live in a dark day when our only choices are a corrupt GOP and a morally bankrupt DNC. When you go to the polls the political party affiliations names should be removed and replaced with “bad and “badder”.


I find today's Op-Ed by GOPer George Will to be far more interesting, especially for Libertarians or us ex-Republicans.

In part:
"This is one awkward aspect of what is supposed to have been the happy fusion between [...] two flavors of conservatism -- Western and Southern.

"The former is largely libertarian, holding that pruning big government will allow civil society -- and virtues nourished by it and by the responsibilities of freedom -- to flourish.

"The Southern, essentially religious, strand of conservatism, is explained by Ryan Sager in his new book "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party'':

"Whereas conservative Christian parents once thought it was inappropriate for public schools to teach their kids about sex, now they want the schools to preach abstinence to children. Whereas conservative Christians used to be unhappy with evolution being taught in public schools, now they want Intelligent Design taught instead (or at least in addition). Whereas conservative Christians used to want the federal government to leave them alone, now they demand that more and more federal funds be directed to local churches and religious groups through Bush's faith-based initiatives program.''

"To a Republican Party increasingly defined by the ascendancy of the religious right, the Foley episode is doubly deadly. His behavior was disgusting, and some Republican reactions to it seem more calculating than indignant."

Because I was never, ever a "Southern" Republican, this probably explains best why some of us fled as fast as possible when the Religious Right took over the Republican Party.


Hey, look familiar?

Need a grand summary of GOP talking points on the scandal? Dick Polman helpfully provides one:

"1. The 'all in good fun' defense. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary and one-time conservative commentator, tried this one yesterday. He dismissed Foley's chatter with the kids as 'simply naughty.'

"2. The 'yeah, well, what about Bill Clinton?' defense. This one was to be expected. Commentator Ben Stein wrote yesterday that Foley is just 'a poor misguided Republican man who had a romantic thing for young boys,' but that's nothing compared to 'a man named Bill Clinton who did not send suggestive emails as far as we know, but who had a barely legal intern give him oral sex. . . .

"3. The 'who's out to get us?' defense. Mark Levin, an attorney for a conservative legal foundation, blogged Sunday that the real outrage in the Foley case is that somebody was leaking about Foley to the press on the eve of the '06 elections: 'The timing of this revelation has more to do about helping Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats than protecting teenagers.' (But Brian Ross, who broke the saga late last week on the ABC News website, indicated in a New York Times story today that his sources were Republican.)

"4. The 'homosexual agenda' defense. One top religious conservative group, the Family Research Council, broke its silence on the story late yesterday by arguing that, even though 'the slow response' of House leaders is noteworthy, 'the real issue' is that Foley is proof of the depravity of gay behavior -- because he demonstrates 'the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.' (Actually, many abuse experts have long concluded the overwhelming majority of men who sexually abuse children live their lives as heterosexual men.)"


I don't use agree with morning Op-eds in a great degree, I do this one other than we need to recognize these parties do have SOME good people in them, but the leadership is faulty. I just goes to prove how politically motivated the timing of this story is if it has gone on as long as the democrats claim. Soros leaking it as he did is certainly no surprise.

Foley has done the right thing by stepping down even if no laws have been brokem. Studds should have done the same and the DNC should have seen to it. Is it not ironic and hypocritical how the dems are calling for Denny Hastert to step down? I can't help but be bewildered that they did not ask their own house speaker to step down as well? Not really.


George Will? He lost it a couple of years ago. I recall in 12/04 after the Tsunami, George made some off the wall claim the after 1755? Lisbon earthquake, priests walked the streets looking for heretics to hang. Turns out, history no where supports this allegations. After being informed, The Post would not retract the statement. Will even stands behind the comments. I had a lot of respect for Will at one time, but his time is done and so his credibility. Not to mention, he is more of a moderate dem at this point in his life.
I notice you link Libertarians and Dems together? Hardly, the only thing in common is that they don't like Bush and as well they criticized Clinton repeatedly. Libs are not linked with either one of these parties in any fashion.


I still want to thank Bev for bringing Libertarians up, sometimes I feel very lonely in my fight for my Party. maybe this is where the Libertarians can make their mark, sway the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party to their camp. Don't laugh, it could happen. Stir into this mix the disgruntled Independents, who knows.

I came across this quote from Thomas Jefferson concerning the power of any man or woman leading this country and I find it apropos, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Enough said.


10-4 Bawdy...


George Will is not a moderate Democrat... have another cup of coffee.


"by the chains of the Constitution."

Easier said than done Bawdy. Judges, of all folks, and congress keep changing what the Constitution states. That chain has had a lot of links removed and even added.


Read any George Will lately? Put down the coffee and read some. I know he was a Raegan conservative at one time, but those days seem to be well behind him.



See the post in the next thread, I never said democracy or our version of it was going to be easy. Easy is overrated.


Oh and BTW Gene in my opinion past Presidents in general and our current onein particular have done much more to harm the Constitution than the other two branches. This I find more of a detriment to this country because we are talking about only one person as opposed to branches with more than one memeber(less of a check on power). A consensus in Congress is hard to get. A consensus in the courts is not easy either. A consensus in the Presidency,an oxymoron.


Jon Stewart's take:

"So, the Republicans are blaming each other! Surely, this scandal can't be the fault of the party of moral values and accountability!!! Surely, someone can lay the blame where it truly belongs," says Stewart.

"The next clip shows Fox pundits and hosts trying various ways to suggest that Democrats share the blame.

"In one case, on Bill O'Reilly's show, the on-screen banner identified Foley as a Democrat. The graphic was shown several times during the course of O'Reilly's show, and Fox News did not correct it or acknowledge the error on-air."


"Foley, a homosexual republican, had improper emails and IMs with young pages. These young pages were also above legal age. Reportedly, to date, the pages were 18 years or older. Foley as well, to date, has broken no laws.
Unlike Studds, His reaction was to step down without argument. He seems to have expressed genuine remorse and promptly has apologized."

Outstanding Op-Ed! I wonder why all of a sudden NOW the dems are outraged with sex with young pages? Why not Studds who you re-elected 5 times!? Can any of the dems explain that, maybe BEV? Seems like a legitimate question that dems want to ignore.

Beautiful! and sums up Washington in a nutshell. Politics Politics Politics.

Thomas Williams

I didn't accuse Murtha of anything other than jumping ahead and making pronouncements before he had all the facts. Which is exactly what is happening here. We know what Foley has done and he has resigned and will probably face some sort of charges. The rest of the people making these sweeping pronouncements don't know anything, they are just piling on to secure or enlarge their positions of power. Lets let this investigation take its course and see what happens. Any and all involved should have to see the light of day on their involvement.




I guess the difference between Foley and Stubbs is that Democrats are willing to reelect a homosexual and the Republicans are not. When Foley knew the jig was up he had no choice but to resign as the religious right probably would have lynched him. I will also add, the great state of Arizona looks past someone's "personal" life and will reelect someone because of the job they do, example- John Kolbe, gay Republican.


Tom: "I didn't accuse Murtha of anything other than..."

So, Tom, you ACCUSED him of SOMETHING.

Why bring John Murtha's name into a discussion about a Republican pedophile and the GOP leader's potential efforts to cover it up?

What's your purpose in bringing up Murtha's name?
In fact, what's your purpose in bringing up ANY name?
Can't you just make YOUR point without needing to disparage someone else?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Syndicate This Site

  • Add to My Yahoo!