That sound you hear is the unmistakable hiss of a huge media bubble deflating. I can see Ann Coulter smirking, even as I type this...
Update: Ace of Spades has a lot more about who knew what, when. There's also this link, from the comment section of the above post, to a cached forum discussion among a number of congressional pages, including Jordan Edmund, about the possibility of publishing a Washingtonienne-type tell all book about page life on capitol hill.
Update 2: CNN broke the allegation about a page prank last night, and it was my impression that Edmund's lawyer equivocated quite a bit about whether or not it was a prank. I also heard him saying that there was a lot about the incident that was like a practical joke, which is about the opposite of what both Drudge and Michelle have him saying. I may have misheard him on the "practical joke" content, but even assuming that, his comments certainly didn't seem an unequivocal denial of the "prank" story. Therefore I still tend to think it's true. The denial attributed to him by Drudge and Malkin might be a lawyerly way of deflecting inquiry by referencing the consequences of the prank as "not a joke" rather than the original intent. He didn't speak to original intent at all.
Anyone have a clip of the interview?
Tenet tells me the deflating bubble is a slam dunk.
Wouldn't surprise me if Foley got sandwiched between his own inappropriate behavior and Democrat dirty tricks.
An FBI investigation has started. Ask Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart what that means. Why did the kid hire McVeigh's attorney? Somebody effected the outcome of a federal election through potentially illegal activities possibly ncluding the monitoring of electronic communications. Somebody may be in trouble.
Why did the kid hire McVeigh's attorney?
No comment.
Seriously, the simplest explanation is so that Edmund can dodge the press without entering rehab.
Not.
See http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/04/that-drudge-headline-is-inaccurate/
Hehe, Andrew.
I think we've turned a corner on this Foley story.
I believe this Foley story is in its last throes.
The next six months are critical though...
As to Foley, nothing changes for me. I don't (and didn't) give a damn that he's gay; his sin is breech of conduct. While he was on the clock, he was obligated to keep both hands on the wheel and his eyes on the road.
He didn't...now he's gone. End of story.
As to Hastur, as far as the current evidence goes, he did what he supposed to do (asked to do...) based on the information he had on hand. Could he have gone the extra mile? Yeah. Would he have been tarred as homophobe for doing it? Hell yeah.
Am I happy with his tenure as Speaker? Not really. Do I hope that a conservative with sharper teeth becomes the new Speaker? Hell Yeah. I do note that he has called for two investigations: one for Foley [to which I say...why? He's resigned.] and one for the ENTIRE page program; I suspect more than a few donk bungholes froze shut at that announcement. We shall see.
As to the Drudge newsflash...I only wish I had a vendor's cart, in front of the DNC HQ, selling clean underwear. I daresay I could retire on the day's profits.
Prank? Hey foley get over here and convince this kid you want to take him camping, itll be a hoot! I dont get it.
Mark, if you don't get it (and if the story pans out), wait for the South Park episode.
Here are the email scraps from ABC News' blog that launched these thousand ships. Link at comment #22 here--
Nothing there. Whatever caused Foley to resign, it wasn't those. And whatever Drudge may claim, it wasn't some sophomoric prank gone awry, either.
The questions remain:
One doesn't have to love Hastert et al. to believe that the bar for running someone out of town ought to be higher than innuendo.
The mischievous nit-picker in me demands I make a useless joke out of this typo in #7, though doing so will admittedly contribute nothing to the discussion:
Even Howard Dean would admit there's a bit of difference between Dennis Hastert and Hastur from the Cthulhu mythos. The thought that it was a Freudian slip gave me the giggles for a few minutes, but then I'm easily amused by obscure jokes.
Yes, the last few years would certainly have been more... "interesting" if the Speaker's chair had been occupied by Him Who Is Not to be Named. Part of me wants to paint a few entertaining scenarios, but I've already typed too much without contributing anything of substance to the thread. Carry on then, just ignore the nerd snickering in the corner.
Nice, Un,
You could have also done something with "innuendo."
Trent:
The headline I'm referring to is the one about the instant message being a result of a page prank, which I think is rather typical of the stuff that HS kids do. It doesn't mean that Foley wasn't a predator, but what it does mean is that the supposed "victims", uhh.. weren't.
So far there has been no confirmation of the Drudge break in mainstream media, so it may not be accurate. If it is, I think you can expect not only to see the story deflate, but that there'll be a backlash against those pushing the story, which includes both partisan Ds and MSM.
But, again, it may not be accurate. (My gut tells me, however, that it is.)
Demosophist,
"My gut tells me, however, that it is"
Your gut is on crack
Three more former congressional pages have come forward to reveal what they call "sexual approaches" over the Internet from former Congressman Mark Foley.
The pages served in the classes of 1998, 2000 and 2002. They independently approached ABC News after the Foley resignation through the Brian Ross & the Investigative Team's tip line on ABCNews.com. None wanted their names used because of the sensitive nature of the communications.
It is time to take off the partisan-colored glasses here. Otherwise, you have to explain a four year prank...
Here is what i've gathered personally, im sure i've missed some things:
-The emails were what Hastert and the boys got wind of. They seem generally innocuous but probably innapropriate. There was a legitimate argument that they were in the 'mentoring/friendship' type of tone, but regardless it is unacceptable to get 'too familiar' with a kid that age male or female if you arent a relative or close friend of the family. If thats all the Rep leadership knew im not sure i can drop the house on them for not blowing Foley up then and there.
The gay angle means nothing to me. Neither the dem argument that all Repblcans are homophobes, nor the republican argument that this wouldnt be an issue if the 'gay' angle wasnt attached to it and hence its the dems that are playing the gay angle. BS. If Foley were straight and had been communicating with 16 year old girls online the reaction would be worse if anything. Not that its right, but we know for a fact that our society is more protective of young girls than boys- witness the teacher sex scandals and how female teachers are treated compared to males.
-The IMing is the disturbing part. It is utterly irrelevant whether Foley was 'lured' into the conversations by the 17 year olds. Foley, of all people, is required to realize he is an adult and has control of the situation and must keep it appropriate because it was his job in Congress to pass laws about online predators. Ignorance is no excuse, 'entrapment' is no excuse. If an underage girl jumps in your bed that is not a legal defense if you dont put a stop to it.
- A lot hinges on how old these guys were, because this is a matter of law. The argument that, hey, it wasnt bad because the age of consent is X, doesnt work for me because thats not the law in question. Foley is the lawmaker that helped write online predator laws, he must be held to the exact letter of those laws. The Corey Mays of the world dont get the Congressman's privaledges of making these 'oops' arguments when they get caught up in lousy law. If Foley gets screwed cuz he wrote a law that seems kinda arbitrary and pointless- well welcome to the USA and please 'stay off the grass'. I'd call that divine justice.
Demosophist:
Dude, don't ever bet your reputation on a Drudge story.
Foley didn't quit and run away to rehab because it was all a prank. That's just silly.
My gut tells me that the contention that those specific allegations about the most damning IMs were the result of a page prank. Of course, had Foley not been a pederast the attempt to goad him into writing that stuff wouldn't have worked, but the difference is that the supposed "victims" were actually same rather sadistic kids. I lived through an episode like this myself, when I was in HS. The idea that kids this age are just passive defenseless victims waiting to be seduced simply doesn't reflect reality. A few are, but most aren't. And they're totally capable of victimizing an authority figure like Foley, with vulnerabilities.
That also doesn't mean that some of the accusations about attempted seductions aren't true. I'm pretty sure he tried that. The issue is whether or not he succeeded, and whether the attempts were either unambiguous or disgusting.
The details matter at this point.
And again, my gut tells me that the Ds are going to overplay this hand, just as they have every other, and create a backlash. There's already evidence this was happening according to some AP polls even before this Drudge break.
But you know, believe what rings your bell... This is my prediction, and I'm stickin' with it.
Mark:
I totally agree, with regard to Foley himself. The point, however, is that the ability to tar the rest of the R leadership disappears. The ethical/moral lapse was real, but there aren't any "victims" to grab sympathy, and therefore little justification to hold Hastert's feet to the fire. And the idea that because one R was a creep therefor all are just won't work. The Ds will try to sell that, and it'll backfire on them.
Unless they take their smart pills and back off.
I honestly don't know who's more of an idiot, the Dems that sat on this scandal until they could profit from it's exposure, or the Repubs that kept quiet & crossed their fingers.
But ultimately, I can't see this benefiting the Dems much, as the likely effect of this scandal is to cause voters to stay home in Nov. Conventional wisdom has generally been that Dems benefit most from high-turnout elections. Plus to quote a cliche, all politics are local (especially in an off-year election), so there's very few Repub incumbents that are likely to be directly affected.
Talhallus:
Not what I'm saying, though. He knew he'd been caught and wouldn't be forgiven simply because he'd been tricked. Plus it probably dramatized a pattern of life that he knew would preclude him from continuing in his position. But the point is that the scandal begins and ends with him. Well, mostly. There's a small argument that others were too stupid or self interested to do very much, but the Ds will overplay that and ruin whatever advantage it gives them. That's their pattern.
So even though Hastert and Co. received their "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" e-mails, the fact they they did nothing will sit just fine fine with the religious right?
Seems like a stretch...I don't think it's possible for the Democrats to "overplay" this one, especially seeing as absentee voting is already underway in a lot of places...
Demosophist:
Actually the Dems have handled this beautifully so far. It's the GOP leadership that looks like Larry, Moe and Curly in a pie-fight. Not a single major Dem has even called for Hastert to resign.
Meanwhile, the GOP has been flailing hysterically, blaming each other, blaming Clinton, blaming the pages, blaming George Soros, blaming the entire culture. It's pitiful.
The GOP media echo chamber launched into a witch hunt for Democrat Machiavellis and it turns out, according to The Hill, it was a GOP staffer who leaked the emails.
It's now actually too late for the Dems to screw this up. The damage has been done.
#19
It'll keep voters home, all right, but not Democrat voters. This will depress evangelical turnout. On a rainy day in November are evangelicals going to stand in lines for the party of money-wasting and boy-chasing?
What do the various commenters here think that Hastert (or Hastur...) is guilty of?
Mark Buehner already answered, in #15.
As far as I can tell, Hastert (or his office) learned of the emails displayed in #10 and told Foley to Back Off. Which Foley did. In the absence of knowledge of evidence like the damning IMs, I don't see that Hastert could have done much else. Without being accused of hounding a congressman simply because he's gay.
Perhaps there is another piece of this story that's still to come out, and Hastert's conduct is much worse than I've described. However, the New Redbaiters of the Republican-loathing press sure aren't waiting for that to happen. Perhaps they are acting on the basis of word-of-mouth hot gossip. Or perhaps they don't know any more than the rest of us, but are indifferent to the what the facts might suggest. Fake but accurate.
Well, there's an argument, but I don't think it's a great one. One recipient of his emails seemed to sense something off in them, calling them "sick, sick, sick, sick".
I find the part where Foley asks about a preferred birthday present a little strange. I was a teacher for several years (every level student from 4th grade to HS to college students to adult trainees) and I have not once offered even my favorite students a birthday present. If you head over to a site like perverted-justice.com, their transcripts also start with a few minutes of seemingly-innocuous 'grooming' before they get gross. At the very least, seeing these emails would, in Shimkus's or Hastert's position, get me started on a quiet but genuine investigation—lots of pages were in the know, it seems—to see if worse yet lay in the dregs.
Demosophist, I hope you have a better gut about your children's safety than the pages'. Foley did not quit and pull down his office website on the spot because he fell for a prank. "Gee, officer, I don't know how that cocaine got in my car—must have been a prank!"
PS: You might look at comments here and wonder how many of Foley's defenders there already feel like chumps.
[ Released from the queue late, on 10/6/06 at 12:50 pm --Marshal Festus ]
Mark: The gay angle means nothing to me. . . . [Not] the republican argument that this wouldnt be an issue if the 'gay' angle wasnt attached to it and hence its the dems that are playing the gay angle. BS. If Foley were straight and had been communicating with 16 year old girls online the reaction would be worse if anything.
I think you have the gender-switch backwards. If Foley were a 50-something-year-old woman, would Matt Lauer interview her without using the word "pedophile"? Its Foley's conduct we're judging.
I believe, and frankly I know, that some Democrats think that simply knowing Foley was gay put the Republican leaders on notice of a potential problem. I don't think this is necessarily a majority position in the Party.
I seriously don't see any elected dem trying to make such a silly claim.
Could they overplay this? Sure. But they won't have to. Right now they can make general comments about how congressmen shouldn't try to seduce teenagers and sit back while the 3 or 4 GOP congressmen and staff members continue to claim the others are liars.
#24
What Hastert is being accused of is having known for a period of months and possibly years that Foley was chasing 16 year old boys who were under Mr. Hastert's protection.
He's accused, along with Mr. Reynolds, of urging Mr. Foley to run for re-election after he knew Foley was a perv.
He's accused, along with Mr. Reynolds, of having accepted a 100k donation for the NRCC from Mr. Foley after he knew about Mr. Foley's activities.
Each of these accusations is coming from Republican sources.
Repeat: from fellow Republicans, like Mr. Fordham and Majority Leader Boehner. So spare us the knee-jerk media-bashing. This is GOP on GOP violence and we Dems are just bystanders.
National Review Online comments on the Foley situation:
Read the whole thing.
Talkhallus:
Democratic candidates are already running ads depicting the house leadership as all-but complicit. Moreover, even though a few Rs have called for Hastert to go, so are a number of Ds (including Pelosi). Note also that I said it isn't just the Ds that will oversell, but MSM. And MSM and Democrats are nearly joined at the hip as far as the public is concerned. They've figured that much out.
The only way I see this not playing out as I've indicated is if they get convincing evidence that Foley "consumated". Absent that, this will backfire and cause Rs to go to the polls just to punish the Ds.
It's also not beyond the realm of possibility that the public knows a thing or two about the War in Iraq that MSM hasn't spoonfed them. And that awareness will grow. Iran, N. Korea and the WoT might even eclipse Foley.
Plus, I notice the Page Prank headline hasn't been rescinded. It might be that MSM is checking the story.
Demosophist:
I don't believe Pelosi has called for Hastert to resign. If so I missed it.
The accusations here are coming from Republicans, not Democrats. Fordham is a Republican, not a Democrat. John Boehner is Majority Leader.
Sorry, but you're whistling past the graveyard. Internal polls show Hastert hurting the GOP badly. GOP insiders echo that judgment. I grant that conservative voters are dumb, but they're not dumb enough to fall for this line of Republican b.s.
Talkhallus: You might have missed it, but some of the news organizations are already talking about what a Democratic House would be like. I predict 2-3 rounds of buyer's remorse back and forth before the election.
Besides this theat of outing Gay House Republicans has the Democrats fingerprints on it, not the Republicans.
m. takhallus #27, #30:
Thanks for the response to my query in #24. You say that fellow Republicans are accusing Hastert of:
Do you have any links to credible stories that give the basis for these accusations? There is a range of possible interpretations in terms of what Hastert is charged with knowing:
Unless you can provide some good links, I'm left with politicians and journalists hyping the conclusions--accomodating boy-chasing, complicity with perversion in high places--without bringing the underlying facts to light. Without defining exactly what the charges are.
I don't have to respect Hastert to be appalled by this behavior.
"Knee-jerk media bashing"? I see the reincarnation of the ethos behind the "Who Lost China?" Redbaiting of the late Forties and early Fifties.
I hope you prove me wrong!
Remember Linda Tripp? She lured Monica into the spider web in a premeditated attempt to hurt Clinton?
My gut tells me that the 17-year-old(s) were toying with Foley, and that someone considerably older and wiser and meaner found out about it and somehow "acquired" the e-mails and the IM's and then set up a blog to act as a front to break them to the world. If the e-mails and the IM's were acquired by hacking that would be a very bad thing, and the FBI should be looking very carefully at everything. I'd also love to know who's responsible for the sexualpredator blog which was first set up in July.
My gut tells me a whole bunch of Democrats are involved in setting this up, and it has been very very carefully timed to be an "October surprise".
I also do not anticipate the MSM will feature anything further on this story unless it includes the word "pedophile" and their behavior will be an exact replay of what happened when the Dan Rather story on Bush's National Guard service fell apart. In other words, mum's the word.
Let's see if the FBI (or the blogosphere) can figure out who did what and when in the next three weeks.
#32
Start paying attention to the stories, it's not my job to give you a briefing on the last 7 days of news. You want a link? Read any one of the stories on this. Hell, read the Washington Times' coverage if you like. Read the WSJ. Read something. And then offer an opinion. Read The Hill.
The accusations that Hastert was informed 3 years ago come from Fordham, the former Chief of Staff to Foley and current (until he was fired) Chief of Staff to Reynolds.
You don't even know the players and you're doing color commentary.
Its not only a question of "what was known," but by whom.
"The current and former congressional staffers interviewed by The Times, who are from both parties, said it was well known within the Capitol's gay community that Foley was interested in young men."
LA Times
If Foley was widely known to be involved in truly dispicable behavior, then a pox on both houses.
I think another rather important point is being missed by the "just a flesh wound" crowd.
Pages are frequently chosen because they are the sons and daughters of the most generous Republican donors. These tend to be very sharp people who won't be fooled by Hastert's ham-fisted spin.
This mess will soon be hitting the Republicans in wallet in the closing days of the election when they most need the big guys to kick in extra funds...
But Fordham's not necessarily a disinterested party in this, is he?
"Another former staffer said it was an oft-repeated story around Capitol Hill that Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, would sometimes accompany the congressman to keep him out of trouble."
LA Times
m. takhallus #34:
> it's not my job to give you a briefing
And it's not my job to be civil to a a person of your caliber... but I'm doing it anyway.
As others may have gathered, the point of comment #32 was not to solicit "a link," but to locate a link that provides a level of factual detail sufficient for the reader to understand what the reporter is, specifically, discussing. Most stories are vague on the issue of what Hastert is alleged to have known before last week. The narrative in many, including some I've quoted on other recent threads here at WoC, depends on the readership's ignorance of the specifics of this scandal. They run, for instance,
takhallus' snark was doubtlessly fun to write, and it's informative to read, as well. Either s/he can't identify an article that addresses a simple and crucial point (what's the evidence for the charges against Hastert?) or s/he is too lazy to cut-and-paste a URL.
What is most interesting is ...
Dems don't want to listen in or in any way intercept "privileged" Al Qaeda communications (so we can stop another 9/11 or worse) ...
But have no problem leaking private E-mails and IMs.
WHY exactly should Dems get your vote?
Why exactly?
The Democrats aren't against us listening on "al Qaeda" communications, Jim. They just want a little oversight over the program to make sure it isn't abused.
The Republicans seem to have come up short once again in the oversight department on the Foley matter.
My previous comment seems to be hung in the moderation queue. In the interim, more pages have come forward to complain about Foley's behavior.
Meanwhile, over at WoC, I'm getting to see how the American Communists could swallow every new atrocity from the Soviet Union. All the facts are just one big conspiracy. I mean, what can you say about #39, which manages completely to mis-state the civil libertarian position on wiretaps while ignoring the fact that the Foley "leaking" is not being done by the Democrats, but by the recipients of Foley's emails? To write such a comment, you just have to disconnect your fingers from any sort of cognitive process.
I can see why people didn't recognize the initial emails as the work of a sexual predator, although if you go over to "PervertedJustice"http://www.perverted-justice.com/ you will see that Foley's grooming is SOP for the pervs before they get to the gross stuff.
Then the IMs about penis size came out, and the idea that Foley was just being friendly couldn't hold up. So, let's see, it was a prank. It was done by the Democrats. Well, it was done by Foley, but the Democrats timed the leak. (In real life, the Democrats don't seem to have had any role in the scandal whatsoever.) Anything to avoid the obvious. And it is obvious. If Hastert had made the least inquiry of pages after Foley's own aide told him there was a problem, he would have found out something he didn't want to know: that his champion against sexual predation knew too well of what he spoke. But if he had done this when he should have, it wouldn't be coming out right before the election, costing the GOP maybe another 15 seats.
Sorry to burst your bubble monkeyboy but some happy fun news is coming out. Ace of Spades HQ's latest post 'On That Fake Blog' is VERY enlightening. I won't spoil the fun, but I will give you taste: staffers of Conyers appear to be under the rocks that have been flipped over so far...
Once again, someone has under-estimated the collective power of the blogosphere. This coming apart like a $20 suit at the drycleaners.
Your smugness is trifle premature, monkeyboy. November 7th is not tomorrow morning.
CPT,
Nothing would please me more thn to have this election be about the Republican's handling of Iraq and the budget, but it looks like all my old friend Ace has come up with is the usual nonsensical, random pattern on the grilled cheese sandwich b.s. only the true believer will swallow:
People with the same names as John Conyer's Detroit office staffers just happen to have addresses in neighboring upscale suburb Royal Oak, Michigan.
Hehe, no wonder the Republicans haven't found bin Laden yet.
P.S. #41- AJL. Nice try. You do an excellent job of blending known facts and hindsight. 'Tis a pity they won't stay blended.
As to the future results of this election: 'Don't count your chickens...' Perhaps OBL won't his early EID present...
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.10.03.BeastBurden-X.gif
Sleep tight everyone, the adults are still in charge.
"Hehe".
Yes, it's a documented fact that only Republicans have been looking for him.
I seem to remember seeing you post something once that actually showed signs of rational thought, monkyboy. I must be misremembering.
What color is the sky on the planet you live on?
It's great to see the pure blindess revealed by the various republican supporters here. Christ, even RedState is being more honest about what has occured. Winds of Change is more blindly Republican supportive than RedState! this includes Demosophist, Amac, Nahncee (another "gut" heard from. I didn't realize that Colbert had you guys so pegged. His gut is always telling him ludicrous stuff too.)
Mark B, I disagree with, but at least there is a little coherence to what he is saying. It's at least possible, if unlikely. But the guys above - simply ridiculous.
How much stuff can you guys ignore? Are you checking your brain at the door intentionally, or are these simply trolls?
Pages have been warned about Foley since 1995, from the latest report.
Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds - these guys keep changing their stories, contradicting each other, saying one thing, then another. Clearly, covering up.
And you guys ignore the obvious stuff. Like the confirmation from Republican pages, over years. The shifting stories. The reaching to blame "the media".
Look, if the media hadn't said anything -then what? Would you prefer that this NOT have been exposed, so that Foley would happily get elected? is that what is bugging you? Good on the media for reporting that, don't you think?
keep a litte self-respect guys. Hastert - guy of the pay for play lobbyist, never met an earmark he didn't like, willing to do a Col. Klink ("I know nuffink!"), on a creepy gay predator Republican Congressman -
this is NOT the guy you guys want to blow any shred of credibility you have on.
I don't think The Decider has been very receptive to input from the Democrats on how he should run his wars, NM.
Are you now suggesting they have been a bi-partisan effort all along?
The "Outing List" is backfiring.
Anecdote:
I heard on the radio yesterday (Thursday) a gay Democrat (if you can believe what you hear) say that a witch hunt against gays sickened him.
To make this work (outing, etc.) the Ds have to violate their principles on a subject where they are supposed to be the leaders. They are coming on with "if he was gay Republicans should have watched him more closely". Which does not square with their position re: The Boy Scouts.
Can Ds win if gays reduce their contributions and votes?
Now if only the Jews would wise up.
Hypocrisy rules.
Hastert suggested that George Tennet investigate the whole deal. Pelosi stands in opposition.
Now why would Pelosi be against a Director of the CIA who was originally appointed by Clinton and re-appointed by Bush?
I wonder who Pelosi has in mind for leading the investigation?
As far as I can recall, monkyboy, participation in the efforts to nail various bad guys has not been limited to registered members of the Republican Party. This is what a simple reading of what you wrote suggests.
I find the image bizarre. For example, I doubt very much that any member of the Royal Canadian Armed Forces or the British Army is a registered Republican.
But I'm used to being baffled by you. Cheerio.
hypocrisyrules:
Congratulations on your spelling correction.
As for shreds of credibility: I thought it was clear no one but you had any.
[sotto voce] Sanctimonious tw*t.
You're a fundamentally bad and shallow person, Nortius, and if Hell existed I'm sure you'd burn eternally in it. Stop being mean to people who are intrinsically better than you.
/sockpuppettroll=off
NM,
You left out Tonga, Albania and Mongolia.
I'm sure Bush, Cheney and Rummy let them all have an equal vote in how the GWOT is being fought.
hypocrisyrules #46:
Here's a restatement of a question I've asked repeatedly:
What this request prompts is snark. "You don't even know the players and you're doing color commentary." "It's great to see the pure blindess revealed by the various republican supporters here."
If the issue was that blindingly obvious, I wouldn't have bothered asking. I've read articles in the NYT, WaPo, LA Times/Baltimore Sun and seen reports on NBC News that don't describe the rap against Hastert in these seemingly J-School terms.
I'm not a Republican. As a person who values integrity and as a parent, the only sorrow I feel about Foley is that his behavior wasn't exposed sooner. I don't know enough about Hastert to dislike him, though I suspect that would change if I followed domestic politics more carefully. But I have a day job, and other priorities.
From what I've seen, with a change of topic du jour and the players in different roles, Washington is re-experiencing the dynamics of redbaiting.
Hastert may well be guilty (there really were secret Commies in high positions in government). But before the Right-Thinking Thought Leaders pronounce the sentence and us proles fall in line behind them, are we allowed to ask, "Guilty of what, exactly? On what evidence?"
This didn't seem like such an outlandish perspective when I first expressed it at the beginning of the week.
If you have a link to an article that lays out the evidence, I'd be grateful for it.
Housekeeping note:
Andrew J. Lazarus' comment from last night got stuck in the queue; when released just now it slotted into position #25. It's worth reading.
As a consequence, the post numbers from (the old) #25 on thhrough #55 have just incremented up by one. This may cause some confusion in following arguments downthread.
Sorry about that.
There still has been absolutely no mention of the Drudge headline about a page prank, not even to falsify or discount it, and not even on FOX. Apparently Jordan Edmund's lawyer denies that there was a prank, but Jordan's peers still maintain that he told them it was prank. Who to believe, the lawyer or the peers?
In a real sense at least a sizable minority in both parties, and a majority of the media, are not rational about the Foley thing... and haven't the presence of mind to pay attention to much else. If, for instance, Korea tests a nuke then we're in a whole new ballgame in east Asia, with Japan in an entirely new role. But of course pederasty is a much juicier topic, or would be if anyone knew what the word meant. The performance of the media is, once again, stunning.
Amac, thank you for releasing and recommending my comment.
It's not easy to supply the anti-Hastert data you asked for, because (among other reasons) Hastert's story has changed often and is at odds with Fordham's story and others'. Americablog has a similar list of statements about what Hastert's office knew when, but it does not have links back to the original news articles. (Some of the items clearly come from Fordham.) Even by Hastert's own story though, at least, one of his stories, he was familiar with Foley's emails, and as I have posted twice before, while these emails were not immediately damning, they were not so innocent either. (There isn't something necessarily criminal about strangers offering kids candy outside the schoolyard, but we tell our children not to take it, and for good reasons, too. Foley's "innocent" emails were electronic candy.) And by all accounts, Hastert did nothing to see if there were more behind these emails. You might also ask yourself why, by all accounts, the Democrat on the Page Board wasn't informed of anything at all.
As for those of you looking for a magic bullet to blame the story on Conyers and make it all go away: pathetic. No analysis of fonts is going to dissolve Foley's ephebophilia. Democrats did not start a whispering campaign among the pages as far back as Foley's first term in office. Drudge's story about a prank made it to the MSM, when the page's lawyer described it as a "work of fiction". Didn't it strike you as odd that only the page's friends were quoted by Drudge? Didn't it occur to you even once that maybe these friends couldn't yet absorb that their conservative, Christian friend was gay, or at least queer enough to participate in a homosexually-tinged IM with a Congressman? And so they concocted this rubbish, either out of misplaced loyalty or confusion? At this point, I can't imagine what exculpation you are expecting. Foley did not leave town immediately because of Democratic-written forgeries.
It used to be liberal to demand evidence of culpability. The evidence of Foley's ethical abuses appears clear. The guilt of Hassert and Shimkus appear to be based on innuendo and second-guessing based on rumors.
Teenagers spread rumors about sex. My high school had a gay teacher that was the subject of countless bizarre, unbelieveable rumors of sexual encounters with students. They were made up. Friends would tell me stories that could not have been true and then changed them for more dramatic effect. After that teacher (wrongfully) placed me in detention one day, I spread some of that rumor. I'm embarrassed about that, but teenagers are evil. And they tell lies about sex. And they spread gossip about homosexuals.
And then ten years later, the teacher was fired for inappropriate conduct with a male student. Were the liers right? Did we somehow hone in on some truth about this teacher? Or was there a single rumor in the torent of lies that was true? The school didn't exactly advertise what happened. Is it possible that the teacher committed an ambiguous act that was construed against him in the light of his reputation? I don't know the answer to those questions. I know that I'm not one to give a lot of credence to rumors.
I'm also not inclined to think the GOP leadership was so desperate to save a GOP seat in a comfortably Republican district that they would risk hurting these young men. Too often people ascribe intentional misconduct for simple screw-ups.
Monkyboy:
Even now, it seems you can't actually read what you actually wrote as a simple declaration and understand it. Why am I not surprised?
Once more: the people actually directly engaged in attempting to deal with bad guys are not all Republicans. I would be very surprised if every person in the relevant US agencies who has ever hunted for bin Laden were all Republicans. But indicating that this is so comforts you somehow, so keep it up. You're in great company.
Metonymy and synechdoche are not cities in New York...
NM,
Are you blaming the American and coalition troops for our failures in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of the people who called the plays?
Still no coverage of the "prank" angle in MSM. If I could only figure out a way to arbitrage this I might be able to pay off my student loans...
"failures in Afghanistan "
Could you specify?
Mark,
We've been there 5 years now.
The Taliban is on the offensive.
Casualties have gone up each year:
http://icasualties.org/oef/
Bush is begging NATO to send more troops.
Pakistan is now a secure base for al Qaeda.
And this year's opium crop set a new record!
Offhand, I can't think of any "successes" we've had in Afghanistan.
"We've been there 5 years now."
True. Of course we've been in South Korea for over 50 years. Was there ever a realistic scenario where we pop into Afghanistan and are able to leave inside 5 years with a stable non-Taliban government left behind?
"The Taliban is on the offensive."
The Taliban has gotten their clock cleaned virtually everywhere they have popped their heads up.
"Casualties have gone up each year:
http://icasualties.org/oef/"
As have Taliban casualties. Can you think of a comparable war that has gone on for 5 years with less than 500 allied fatalities? Does that seem overly high to you?
"Bush is begging NATO to send more troops."
So? Isnt that a good thing?
"Pakistan is now a secure base for al Qaeda."
That is a huge overstatement. There is a single province in Pakistan (by far the smallest and most remote) where Al Qaeda can 'openly' operate. Other than that Mushariff and the Pakistanis have killed and captured more AQ members than anyone else in the world, including the highest ranking members we've gotten hold of.
"And this year's opium crop set a new record!"
Is this the war against opium now?
"Offhand, I can't think of any "successes" we've had in Afghanistan."
Well I guess you have to establish what you considered our goals in Afghanistan to have been.
-Is Afghanistan still a training ground for Al Qaeda? Do the places we chased the remnants offer nearly the facility to train, equip, and plan that an entire nation (even 3rd world) offered?
-Are the current political classes worse than the Taliban? Is the day-to-day violence?
-Do we not have a base where we constantly kill Taliban and Al Qaeda members in significant numbers to this day? Is this base not in striking distance of AQ and Talibans new stronghold across the border should we go that rout? Say what you will, but dropping tomahawks and gps guided bombs isnt nearly as effective as our troops scouring the Afghani countryside have been.
Im quite surprised you lump Afghanistan into your equation- aside from the obvious finger to the Bush adminstration. Aside from the (necessary im sorry to say) native bases we have established this is exactly the kind of fighting you claim to advocate.
Blindly dropping the 82nd airborn into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan for a few days would surely suffer us more casualties (ask the Russian paratroopers) and very well might not garner us as many enemy combatants laid by their heels. On the other hand our troops in Afghanistan manage to punk out Taliban scumbags on just about a daily basis.
I REALLY can't believe you are serious, AMac. I'm dumbstruck, speechless. (Hard to do to me, BTW.)
Simply follow the strings of TPM Muckraker. If you need a link, here you go.
Start from about a week ago.
And, what type of "guilt" are you going to be satisfied by? There isn't a guilt in a Hastert DID something type of way. There is negligence in a "I see nuffink!" Col. Klink. type of way.
Add it up:
a. There have been allegations - now since 1995 - of pages being warned to "be careful of Foley".
b. There were warnings from other pages - and other emails - link here about how other pages had been receiving emails for awhile.
c. There is at least one - and probably more - emails that started this. from 2005 - warning PDF file.
Now - turn this around - Bay Buchanan - a Republican, and heavily involved in the actual work of protecting children said the following.
I know one thing: that e-mail they call an �overly friendly e-mail� that had predator stamped all over it. No one in this country can suggest otherwise. You�re in a leadership position. You have a colleague you know is at least a potential predator and we have the pages coming through his office every day? They had an obligation, that same day, to investigate him further, to call in the FBI, if that was an appropriate action and also to call in those pages and make certain every one of them was interviewed to see if there is any problems here that goes deeper than what they already knew. They failed the parents of this country is what they did.
So - YOU TELL ME - if you were a principal (let's shift this to a high school, and Foley is a teacher) - and given the environment, given the warnings, given the emails - do you still stand by "If the issue was that blindingly obvious, I wouldn't have bothered asking."
do you disagree with Bay Buchanan? Do you disagree with the fact that the overseeing of the pages was obscenely negligent?
If you do - well, really, there is no hope for you.
[ Comment released from queue 4 hours late --Marshal Festus]
AMac,
My comment "sent to review", I suppose - that's new. Seeing if the review is based on email or name, by posting from different ones. I'll see if I get approved!
testing
Hmmm.
AMac, what's catching some comments, and not others?
Feel free to delete these "metacomments", once this is straightened out.
THX
Getting back to Foley. If it was a prank why did he cut and run???
Actually I can't decide. Perhaps if we knew the names of the peers? Perhaps if they went to the media instead of Matt Drudge to offer their claims?
However as it stands now we have conflicting stories. One reported throughout the media with th e boys actually attorney claming the story is false. The other listing unnamed "peers" of the the person in question.
Maybe I should send an anonymous Gmail to Drudge claiming the entire thing was fabricated by the boys and none of it, the emails, the instant messages, none of it, ever happened.
Whaddya think? 15 minutes before Matt has a new siren up on his page?
Andrew J. Lazarus #58 and hypocrisyrules #66:
Sorry about comments being snagged by the filter. I dunno how it sets its threshold. I'll try to nip in and see if 'real' things are getting stuck (actually, fewer seem to be than in Joe's old setup). When I'm not traveling, which I am right now.
Thanks for taking my query seriously and providing your answers. I'll start looking per your recommendations when I get back home.
I basically concur (from what I know now) that this is an issue of steps not taken, that--it's at least arguable--would have been prudent and proper. My main beef has been with articles that construe more severe malfeasance than that. Seeming, to me, to conflate what Hastert's office is known to have known about (G-rated creepy emails) with what he's not (to my knowledge) known to have known about (Internet-sex IMs). The 'typical' NBC viewer or Balto. Sun reader doesn't scan blogs, and has no ready cross-check on such implied information.
Again, thanks, I'll follow these leads as soon as I've got the time. They might be helpful to other readers, too.
monkyboy, #61
Is there any other way you would like to misunderstand my communication? Feel free to get them all out.
I am not blaming.
I am saying that to say "{subset of entire set of people attempting to do x} haven't {done x}" is to engage in sophistry and / or category error, and to imply that the rest of the set does not exist. There are a lot of people who say things like that. Often, I find, they are doing it for dumb reasons.
When I do discover that I am doing that sort of thing, I try to appreciate someone pointing it out as an indication that I am being sloppy or intellectually lazy. Sometimes that's hard to acknowledge.
I don't try to turn it into blame of anyone.
Being a self-labeled monkyboy, you are perhaps more comfortable capering and gibbering. Feel free. Same stuff, different day.
Permit me to extend this remark.
..."when the fact is that {the entire set of people attempting to do x} have not yet {done x},"
Clumsy wording. Ah well. Blame me, not Republicans.
"Hehe". :|
Tomorrow's story disagreeing with Hastert's timeline. A second staffer is backing Fordham's story that Hastert's CoS warned Foley in 2003, or earlier, that he was too friendly with pages. Hastert and his CoS deny this. The score is two against two, although AFAICT only one side has a good reason to be lying.
It's always possible, of course, that the two Republican staffers accusing Foley and Hastert are deep-cover liberals planted by George Soros.
On a less snarky note, I'd like to point out that even if the page Edmund were running a prank, in the sense that he was lying in the IM, he is not homosexual, and he is not physically interested in Foley, why did he think the prank would work and why does it excuse Foley that the person on the other end if the conversation was lying? The answer to the first question is that pages had been discussing Foley's sexual predation since his first term, and the answer to the second question is it doesn't, any more than when it turns out to be police/FBI pretending to be kids online. It's time to stop looking at the fonts in the IM transcripts waiting for lightning to strike, OK?
NM,
I am saying the plays called by the Republican leadership had no chance of success no matter how hard the players tried.
The blames rests entirely with Bush, Cheney and Rummy.
The fact that they have tried to blame others for their failures show they weren't fit for leadership in the first place.
If the Washington Post has already followed ABC's lead in degenerating to speculative reports based on an [anonymous | unidentified | unnamed] [staffer | official | aide] who isn't willing to go on the record and provided no actual evidence to support their accusations but who is [familiar with the investigation | familiar with one of the principals involved | familiar with the way things work in D.C.], then stick a fork in this "scandal". If there were named sources with any credibility left or some new independently verifiable evidence that might stand up to scrutiny, they would be reporting on that instead.
If recent history is any guide, we'll be treated to a media flurry of stories (containing no real new information) trying to maintain the original storyline until just after the election, at which point everyone will lose interest and the story will quickly and quietly disappear from the front pages. The official investigations will trudge on and eventually determine no wrongdoing occurred by the originally accused parties, and the whole thing will be forgotten except for sporadic mentions as the people involved pop up on a talking head/news magazine show to hawk their latest book giving their version of what happened.
see also: TANG Memos, Al QaQaa, SBVT, Valerie Plame
What I'm seeing is, People knew Foley was a perv. Buchannan seems to evidence that fact, and that they had measures in place (Including Fordham) to try to insure that he didn't get himself in trouble. Being a perv is not illegal (there are no thought crimes, sirs.) but doing perverted things, specifically, pedophilic perverted things, is.
Hastert may have seen the emails, and knowing Foley, warned him to stop it. Remember, these men know each other and may have friendships. Would you immediately out your friend? I don't know if Hastert and Foley were amigos, so that is not too apropros, but does provide that there are multiple explanations.
Buchannan thought, or thinks now, based on what was actually going on that Hastert et al should have done more. I agree. But, I cannot agree IN THE PAST. (sounds stupid, but hear me out.) I cannot say accurately what they should have done, because I was not there and I did not have the information they did at the time they did. Get over this foolishness.
As for the pages? Yes. They knew Foley was a perv. There is NOTHING illegal about being a perv, but actually doing those particular things is illegal. Knowing they could have been contentious troublemakers, like all of America's teenagers have been since its inception, they were messing around with him. It is possible that one of them decided that they were going to take advantage of his condition somehow. And, it still could have been a prank. The prank could have been done to create what looked like evidence enough to out the senator, or at least create a stink. The fact that those IM's were SAVED tells so much about this story.
Now, I am not excusing Foley's behavior or condition. Foley has a lot of sh*t to work through, and needs to spend a long time considering his own choices. That time should not be spent in office.
The reason why outing gay anybodies is wrong, is because being gay has never been a crime in the US. Perhaps doing gay things has been at a time, and certainly doing pedophilic things is. As for the morality of it (either homosexuality or pedophilia) I stand that they are both immoral. But the people who are afflicted with them are still people.
The democratic play is, and has always been, to try to make Republicans look perverse (in fact, this is used by both sides.) Why? People shrug at corruption and tell them to do something about it. Think the recent earmarks thing. No-one was outed. But perversity? That kills politicians in the US. So whenever a scandal breaks on either side alledging perversity, it is automatically suspicious in my mind. Not necessarily as to whether it is true, (though that may be an issue) but as why or when it came out. This goes for both parties, who know how the game is played.
As for monkyboy, can we all please agree to ignore him? It will heighten the discourse.
The possibility that Edmund's IMs were part of a prank brok last night on CNN. In the story Edmund's lawyer equivocated quite a bit, refusing to just come out and say that the prank story wasn't true. Indeed, he indicated that there was an element of the "practical joke" in it. To my ear it was a confirmation.
Andrew:
Of course it doesn't, but a lot of the power of innuendo to paint the rest of the R leadership rests on there being an actual victim. At this point it looks as if there wasn't one, at least not a victim of Foley.
As to why the pages thought the prank would work, well there were probably a lot of rumors about his homosexuality (not predation). They probably got him drunk and convinced him that X was "legal" and very interested in him. This seems like wildly inappropriate behavior, but frankly I know a lot of heterosexual men around that age who'd jump at the chance to seduce an 18-year-old woman who appeared to be infatuated. And I don't think that makes them predators so much as really really stupid. Which, of course, is what drink does.
Actually I just don't think there's much to this so-called "scandal", and never was. And it's certainly not the engine that will destroy the Rs. And as I said, it could very easily backfire on the Ds. The biggest plus for the Democrat scenario so far is that no one seems to be making a very big deal of this "prank" angle. But I'd wager it's probably true given Jones' response in last night's interview, so we'll see how the Rs choose to play it.
Of course it doesn't, but a lot of the power of innuendo to paint the rest of the R leadership rests on there being an actual victim. At this point it looks as if there wasn't one, at least not a victim of Foley.
At least three other pages have come forward to complain about unwanted advances, which makes the "prank" plan more like a "sting" whose object was just to have fun with Foley, not bust him. What we haven't seen yet is a page who admits to sex with Foley. My guess is that's just a matter of time.
78: I was thinking more like Vince Foster, Travelgate, etc. This story isn't going anywhere. And best, the Dems haven't even had to contribute yet.
#81:
Also:Yes, I already acknowledged that ABC is touting unnamed, anonymous sources trafficking in unsubstantiated accusations (since their named-source, document-enhanced accusations have been discredited). I was just pointing out that the WaPo is now reduced to that level as well.
I guess you could characterize the Dems as not "contributing" -- since levelling factually incorrect accusations isn't much of a contribution -- but claiming that the Dems are just innocent observers who aren't trying to shape the storyline is dishonest.
Wetterling Unveils Ad on House Scandal (Tues, Oct 3):
(As an administrative aside, a comment I made earlier [somewhere between comments 72 and 76] is still in moderation -- if one of the marshalls could either release it or let me know what I need to change to make it repostable, I'd appreciate it.)
I'm assuming there's little in the way of real evidence from these folks, and there are certainly no allegations of an actual seduction. If I'm wrong about that then it could be problematic for Rs, but as it stands I just don't see this tarring anyone other than Foley. Although I'm pretty sure Edmund won't have much of a political career. Those kids never intended this to become public, so in that sense it bears no resemblance whatsoever to a "sting". Any political ambitions they might have are now toast.
Such newfound suspicion of anonymous sources! Of course, this may be transitory anonymity. I haven’t heard that these sources will refuse to come forth publicly in an appropriate venue.
At the moment Republicans are arguing about who in the Speaker’s office knew what, when. The idea that it’s Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean who need to be interrogated in this matter is a joke.
Hmmmmm, so what we have here is "failure to communicate".
The Left (also known as the Loony Liberal Left and/or, more fondly, Moonbats and renowned for their couture in tinfoil hats) are determined to stress the evil of pedophilia and pederasty, and how dare the Leadership of Congress allow someone who is gay to troll publicly for years. Even though no one appears to have been physically touched and no one is pressing charges.
The Right (also known as Neo-Cons, baby-killers, over-budget spenders, world-alienaters, and BusHitlerites) consider the bigger evil to have been setting up an ambush in advance (if this is what has happened), sitting on the evidence (if there is any) for a year or so, timing the springing of the ambush to affect up-coming elections, and then denying and running for cover once the ambush has been detected (see Rather/font sizes/forged documents for the playbook on these tactics).
It would be nice if each poster, upon submitting his or her comment, could designate if they intend to rant and rave on (1) pedophilia by elected representatives, or (2) conducting ambushes to affect elections. Topic number (3) could be the example of monkyboy who is pre-against absolutely everything in advance, regardless of what it is -- he's agin it. It would make it easier to keep the whole thread straight in the reader's mind.
NahnCee,
From what I've read of this matter, at the very least...
The Republican House leadership
The F.B.I.
several Florida newspapers
...have all known about the Foley e-mails for many months, if not years.
It only became an "issue" when ABC reported it.
I think real story here is that the "MSM" is still very powerful...
Nahncee, I haven't seen a whole lot of "ambush" evidence. I mean, I could spout off that Bush and Cheney knew about 9/11 in advance (I'll put forth as 'evidence' that they ignored the August PDB because they already knew all about it). Now I'll demand that instead of doing something about 9/11 we concentrate on the evidence that Bush and Cheney created an ambush.
Leaving aside the paucity of evidence, I'd say sexual predation is much the more serious crime.
Andrew:
We have it from Edmund's lawyer that nothing about this is a joke, so if you're caught smiling you may be in trouble.
Don't you mean "taking note of the paucity of evidence" [for advance knowledge]? Or do you mean leaving aside the paucity of evidence for sexual predation?
Heh.
"Leaving aside the paucity of evidence, I'd say sexual predation is much the more serious crime."
Something that can't be proven, due to the completely disappointing absence of any evidence, is more serious ?
The mind boggles.
As you can tell by reading, I am saying that there is no evidence that this was an ambush. The ambush scenario arises from trying to back-fit some way of making this the Democrats' fault. And even if there were an ambush, its venality would be small potatoes compared to Foley's acts themselves.
Sorry (well, not really). Occam's Razor applies. Foley trolled for teen boys. Hastert was warned (when isn't, just perhaps, clear yet). Hastert made sure not to see how serious the matter was. The Republicans hushed it up. Reynolds even talked Foley out of retiring last election cycle. Republican staffers who don't believe in Partei Über Alles took action against Foley. (No one has associated one single Democratic Congressional source with the information, except in fantasy.) Even the page Edmund appears to be a committed Republican. I repeat: there are no Democrats in the narrative. I'm sorry you can't believe in a nightmare without them, but it's that simple.
Andrew:
You're certainly welcome to moralize about it any way you like. I'm suggesting that the combination of the primary "evidence" being created as a result of a youthful prank and the apparent fact that Foley never actually victimized anyone sexually, even assuming there wasn't an "ambush", will mitigate and ultimately render ineffective any attempt to create a broader indictment of the R leadership. You can take that to heart, or ignore it...
My expectation is that Ds will ignore it, push things too far, and suffer a backlash. But that depends, in part, on whether they remember to take their smart pills.
Of whether said smart pills are kept in a bottle with a child-proof cap.
You know Demo,
The propensity of the Republicans to act like some poor, oppressed minority party that everybody is out to get whenever they screw up has got to be one of their least attractive features...
The Republicans are the only team on the Foleygate field and they keep scoring own goals...complaining to the refs ain't gonna help them one bit.
Interesting thread. Smells like denial to me.
Foley was a freak. Hastert knew something was up but quite frankly probably didn't want to know much more. He's the speaker, not their babysitter. If Foley was setting fires in his spare time we'd expect people who knew a crime was committed would report him. There's no evidence that Hastert knew of any such thing. If you can find somebody that knew Foley was guilty of anything more than being weird and didn't report it, bring out the evidence.
Having said that, Hastert et all are guilty o the most heinous thing imaginable -- they're making the party look bad. For that, they have to go. Same rule as with Lott. I never thought Trent was a racist, but he goofed up enough that his fellow Rs gave him the axe. Same deal with Hastert.
I'm with the bunch that says that this is purely a game for the Rs. The Ds got to be laughing their collective hind-ends off about this. They can just sit back and watch the Rs go at each other a couple of weeks before the national election. Priceless. From a damage control standpoint, perhaps if the entire Republican leadership checked themselves into Betty Ford, AND there was some evidence of alien mind control -- nope, even that's not going to work. The beauty of this from a political theory standpoint is that it kills the Rs where it matters, their base.
There might be enough time for a recovery. The electorate are very forgetful.
From the "be careful with your language" department, when #10 said "Who deserves to go down with Foley?"
Perhaps a better choice of words, considering the allegations might be appropriate? We've already heard the jokes -- "They kicked Foley out of the library because he kept bending his pages" Enough is enough already. There are people harmed here.
Speaking of paucity of evidence, if there was a sex crime or crimes, where are the victims? Did any of the receivers of the e-mails or the IM's file a complaint? Did any of those receivers mention it to anyone in authority? Did their parents? The only thing I have read pertaining to this is that the parents of the young man involved did NOT want to pursue it.
You can prosecute for murder without a body, but can you prosecute for sexual harassment (or whatever this is being called) without a victim?
If the Democratic Party pursued sexual deviants in the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts as avidly as they are pursuing this case, I'd pay more attention to their moralizing. Lacking any evidence that Democrats are really really concerned with the moral fiber of 17.5-year-old youths, I still have to consider this to be an October surprise ambush attempt.
Dan:
If the Republican base can't bring itself to go to the polls in order to support their agenda--ending the Islamofascist threat, stopping abortion, ending the slide to "multi-culti" as the state religion, a fair and balanced press, and an objective and honoralble education mandate--all because there was an aspiring pederast in the fold, then the Republicans deserve to lose because they don't have the character to rule.
Wow, Demo,
That's the agenda of the Republican "base" these days?
I think that might win about 10% of the vote.
The wealthy Republicans are interested in one thing only...shifting their tax burden onto future generations of Americans.
I don't think they care about the other stuff...
You don't think they care about being set up and taken advantage of?
Demosophist,
I'm sure you already know these things, but allow me to repeat them for the benefit of the reading audience.
First, politics ain't bean bag. This isn't about who did what to whom. This is about how people are going to vote, period.
Second, whatever your agenda, however honorable, good, and appropriate, if you don't get votes you might as well go smoke a rope. Great concepts, poor voting, and five bucks will get you a cupa joe at Starbucks.
Third, it's not about "The Republicans" any more than it is about "The Democrats" -- those are just broad concepts we throw around to have something to talk about. It's about the individual voters. Broad concepts do not apply at the precinct level. It's a numbers game, not an ideology game. There's a difference.
Fourth, in the best of times, the country was about 50-50, with maybe 7-8 points of slack in the middle -- folks who are unable or unwilling to commit to a vote before they actually go pull the lever. During this election, the situation ain't that good for the Rs. I'd say they're about 5 points down nationally. In the local fight, where it matters, on average they were hovering around 1-2 points down in critical house races (I generalize).
Finally, based on the above observations, it's not about what the "Repubicans" care about or believe in. It's about the possibility that 1-2 percent of Rs -- say older church goers who have a difficult time getting out to vote anyway -- can be discouraged enough to stay home. If the electorate swings just a couple of points, and/or if the swing vote continues to swing the other way, it's a done deal for the Ds.
A party just can't stay in power forever, or we have bigger problems than war on our hands. Time may be on the Rs side, as long as the Ds don't come out with something else to keep the Rs off-balance. If I were an R running in a tight race, I'd be in every church I could find from now until election day. The ground game might still pull off some victories for the Rs. The dynamics, however, do not look good -- in tight races Rs will be tempted to come out vehemently against Foley and the leadership in order to score those couple of points with the local electorate. The crappy part about that is while it might make a insecure R happy for a week, it hurts the rest of the party nationally because the media senses blood in the water and the feeding frenzy is on.
Dems, please keep the snickering down a bit.
Dan:
I have a friend (a well-known Democratic election consultant) who, in grad school, developed a model of voting at the precinct level suggesting that if the election were an a rainy day an aggressive program to drive people to the polls would make the difference in the election. Fine.
What that model says is that if the people who care about the outcome do what's necessary to loft the people who don't care so much to the final production they have a better chance of winning than the opponent. My argument is that given our current "rainy day" if those who care don't do that this time around then, simply put, they don't have the moxy to lead. I don't see how one could argue otherwise.
In a broader sense it's precisely what leadership of a country during wartime demands. One side says that if the going gets tough you pick up your equipment and saunter off the field, while the other side says the exit strategy is winning. If the voters fail to reflect that disparate commitment then leadership will change hands. Simple as that.
boy:
Except for the abortion issue I maintain that all of those commitments reflect the majority preference in the US. (The fact that you think otherwise amounts to an admission.) I don't agree with Rs about the right-to-life issue, but I recognize that if they're not committed to it, no matter what the reason, their chance of impacting the abortion and cloning policies declines quite a bit. That's as it should be.
"...ending the Islamofascist threat"
So, it's wrong to judge all Republicans based on Mark Foley's actions, but it's perfectly fine to judge all 1.3 billion of the world's Muslims based on the actions of a few terrorists?
"a fair and balanced press"
How are the Republicans going to bring this about?
With censors and an offical government news agency?
"an objective and honoralble education mandate"
No Child Left Behind has hurt the future of our kids, particulary the poorer ones. They now spend years learning to perform tasks that a $5 calculator could do for them...
"ending the slide to "multi-culti" as the state religion"
Not even sure what that means. A vague desire to return to the good ol' days, back when the Democrats ran Congress, maybe?
Used to be the Republicans were for term limits, balanced budgets, states rights and no unnecessary foreign entanglements.
In twelve short years, the Republicans have come to represent everything their supporters opposed.
Time to impose some term limits on these frauds...
I can't make sense of that comment, sorry. What are you talking about? If I said the Phalange was Christofascism would that amount to an indictment of Christianity? A spade is a spade.
How about simply insisting that the press clean up its act, and supporting media that don't toe the party line on the primary meme: that we're losing in the WoT, and that it's because we challenged in Iraq? They might also insist on some non-biased reportage on the current minor meme: That there's incontrovertible evidence that Foley is a predatory pedophile/child-molester.
Regarding education, there is still no consistent evidence or analysis countering James Coleman's primary finding that money in education doesn't matter much, especially regarding the "race gap". His production-function model has never been refuted successfully. (Coleman was a Democrat, BTW.)
They were split on term limits.
They still support balanced budgets, but the meaning of that for Ds is now raising taxes, which they are loathe to point out themselves.
States Rights is an old codeword for segregation, but there is a rather robust case for states being able to define their own policy prescriptions for other issues. And in general Rs are more likely to favor that than Ds--by a pretty wide margin.
The reference multi-culti means simply that the religion of multiculturalism (currently dominant in our institutions of higher education but also infecting most institutions) established as an "end around" by the school of western Marxism, is balkanizing and destructive. It proposes a concept of "group rights" based on identities that runs directly counter to the anti-factionalism of James Madison and the founders. The father of Multi-culti, Michel Foucault, repudiated it prior to his death. In addition, a recent Church of Endland document finds that "interfaith" policies by the British Government are contributing to, rather than diminishing, religious tensions among Muslims.
These are matters of survival for western civilization, as Qutb well knew. Democrats are more likely than not to be wrong on all of them.
A little math:
Of the 232 Republican House members in the 109th Congress, four (Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley and Tom DeLay) have resigned because of their, er, ethical lapses.
That's 1.7% of Republican House members.
1.7% of the world's Muslim population equals over 22 million.
Yet if you add up the number of Muslims involved in terrorist attacks against America, you might have around 100 total.
So, on average, a Republican Congressman is over a million times more likely to be corrupt than a Muslim is likely to be a terrorist threat to America.
Which statement should a rational person believe:
All Republican Congressmen are corrupt.
All Muslims are terrorists.
As for Michel Foucault, I bet less than 1% of Americans have even heard of him, much less believe in his ideas...are you telling me that the Republicans who have borrowed $3 trillion in our kid's name over the last 6 years and funneled most of into their own pockets are less corrupt than a Marxist regime?
The estimate of the number of muslims involved in or directly supporting the Jihadist cause varies from !% to 5%, although the number of Islamists varies from 20% to nearly 50%, depending on the country. Clearly Jihadists are no where near a majority, but that doesn't mean that Islam isn't, by its very nature, vulnerable to such radicalization. The numbers of Jihadist supporters and Islamist are estimates made by Clovis Maksoud.
Your argument might have some merit if it were even close to empirically sound, but it isn't. As for a comparison of corruption between Ds and Rs, I really don't think you want to go there. I mean, especially if we count only actual convictions, and not merely accusations.
Michel Foucault may not be significant to you, but he is to the millions who actually know something about the ideology they support (which appears to be an extreme minority). Multiculturalism has insinuated itself into just about every aspect of American life, primarily by stealth as well as the innocuous-sounding contention that "all cultures are equal" (except our own, of course, which is evil by definition). But as the knowledge that Foucault himself repudiated his own philosophy begins to combine with the practical experience of the consequences most of the institutions nestled in the bosom of this false belief will fold up like a cheap suit.
If 1% of Muslims being involved in the "jihad" implies that Islam is "vulnerable to such radicalization."
Then 1.7% of Republican House members being corrupt implies that Republicans are "vulnerable to such corruption."
Even 1% of Muslims equals 13 million "Jihadists."
Yet we've only been attacked 5-6 times.
Either this isn't much of Jihad, or those estimates are wilding overestimated.
Your "peril of multi-culturalism," which has...
insinuated itself into just about every aspect of American life, primarily by stealth as well as the innocuous-sounding contention that "all cultures are equal" (except our own, of course, which is evil by definition)
...sounds like a textbook example of paranoia to me.
Isn't it more rational to assume the Republicans have simply pushed some unfounded stereotypes on the country so they could jack up government spending...and channel the extra money to themselves and their cronies?
Um Yall, Could we get back to Foley? Fox News has a story that Foley had sex with a page. I only caught part of it. What have yall heard?
It's something of a tangent, but is Demosophist one of those people who goes bananas over "Happy Holidays" in lieu of Merry Christmas? And the only genuine connection to Foucault I can see is similarly promiscuous sexual activity.
The prank story's fifteen minutes are over, the Republican Congressmen are still accusing their own colleagues, and now that former Clerk of the House Trandahl (Republican. And gay.) is coming into the mix, the timeline is going to be revised back to 2003.
Monkeyboy,
Your math needs work, DeLay did not resign because of an "ethical lapse". He resigned because of an indictment of dubious validity for a campaign finance law violation.
Hehe Robin,
If DeLay is innocent, why did he cut and run from Congress? I think he and his best golfing buddy Jack Abramoff will sharing a cell real soon...
Like many of your comments, Monkeyboy, that one reveals that you know nothing of the prosecution case at all. The reference to Abramoff is especially revealing as the case has nothing to do with him.
Monkyboy:
I just don't see the relationship between the belief system of 20% of the world's population, and their obvious fascination with fascism (a TV series popularizing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was the most popular in Egyptian history) and the percentage of congressmen guilty of corruption. But if you're really interested in the latter topic Steve Ansolabehere at MIT wrote an interesting paper a number of years ago demonstrating that the level of corruption in the US Congress was been pretty consistent since the founding, and approximately equal by party.
Unfortunately the percentage of Muslims at various stages of increasing extremism has not been constant. If you're prepared to minimize the the significance of that by drawing foolish analogs I'm not really interested in discussing things with you. But you might meditate on a mathematical or physical model of an avalanche.
13 million seems about right, as an estimate of those either directly involved or directly supporting jihad. And the estimate for the number of attacks mounted by these jihadis worldwide is a little on the short side. According to the US State Dept. the number of terrorist attacks is north of 10,000. I wonder why you think it acceptable to deliberately attempt to disorient a valid discussion by stating such a distortion unless you just like tossing your feces around the cage for fun?
But you're skating on thin water, as a friend of mine used to say.
It's not even tangential, but it does seem monumentally stupid to proscribe "Merry Christmas" on the grounds that it might offend atheists. I mean, don't you think? Maybe it's causing them irritable bowel syndrome.
As for the connection with Foucault, either you're being coy or you really don't know that part of the history of ideas. Here's a CHE Book Review of Foucault 2.0 just in case you're not pulling my leg. (Requires subscription, or you can check out the book.)
I don't know why the prank story hasn't been picked up as part of the theme, but suspect that's because it's in a Republican blindspot. They don't see it as useful. I've never thought the Rs particularly good at politics. Anyway, I thought the IMs were sent in 2003, so don't see what difference that makes.
I still maintain that the fact that the "victims" were actually playing a joke is more than a little relevant to the political implications of this scandal, but no one in the Republican establishment is asking me for advice. (Might be because I'm a Democrat.)
Andrew:
Sorry, I didn't see that you'd included a link to the 2003 reference. I'm not sure what to make of that situation, but it appears that either Palmer wasn't told about the actual visit and circumstances, or the meeting never even took place. According to Fordam's version:
Indeed. It doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that he was skeptical. As some have indicated, Fordham might even have downplayed the incident because he was a closeted "gay" and didn't want to draw attention to himself, something he might be conveniently forgetting now.
Again, though, where are the victims?
Although it runs sharply against conventional wisdom, I think the reason the Republicans aren't playing the "prank" card is that they like this scandal just fine. It means we're not talking about a lot of other, serious problems to which they have no good answers (though at least they have bad answers, which is more than can be said for the Democrats at this stage).
Meanwhile, the two underlying themes of the scandal will play to their base. Once the initial anger subsides, this story leads to two conclusions: gays can't be trusted with our children, and government is corrupt and needs to be restrained.
Both themes are regular features of Republican turnout efforts. I see no reason that, by election day, the Foley story won't be playing for the Republicans instead of against them. By then the anger will be gone, and the Republicans can be producing "remedies" to the "problems." They can play hardball on both the anti-gay and the anti-government themes in a way the Democrats can't.
Thus, the final Republican word on this will be -- OK, gay Congressmen preying on children is a problem! Who do you trust to handle it -- the Republicans, or the Democrats? We'll do X and Y and Z -- what will they do?
The Democratic answer, if they can come up with an answer at all, will have to be: "Well, this isn't about gays. It's about Republicans!" But it's not about Republicans -- the people who are upset aren't upset because a Republican did this, or because a Congressman did it. They're upset about the pederasty (virtual or otherwise).
Suppressing pederasts is not a Democratic theme. I won't be looking for this "scandal" to die before the election -- the Democrats think it's good for them, and so are pushing it; and the Republicans seem to think it's good for them, and are happy to talk about this instead of (say) Iraq.
A review of what Rush Limbaugh has said on the subject lately would seem to confirm that they've decided they can play with this ball. The Republicans seem to want to clear their leadership, and then spend the rest of the time talking about solutions and who you trust with "problems" of this sort. As well they might. Pushing the anti-gay and anti-government themes is quite likely to work for them -- it usually does.
I'm an atheist and I like "Merry Christmas." I even enjoy watching "It's a Wonderful Life" and "A Christmas Story" each year. I also enjoy Adam Sandler's "The Hanukkah Song."
Don't try to blame us...
As for the "terrorist" report...Travers also pointed out that the overall figure of 11,111 incidents includes acts by designated terrorist groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, and the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.
Although only half of the incidents resulted in loss of life, more than 14,600 noncombatants were killed
That's less than the number of children that die each day due to easily preventable and curable diseases...
Yet we spend $600 billion a year on "defense" and a couple billion a year to help the poor of the world...
I don't see any attacks on the U.S. in there...why should we go broke fighting a problem that we can do so little about and results in a modest number of casualties when we could save so many more people fighting hunger and disease worldwide with the money we're blowing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
[ Originally submitted Oct. 7, 2006 at 5:50 am, but held in the queue until Oct. 9, 2006 at 4:10 am --Marshal Festus ]
AMac, my guess is that comments with 3 or more hyperlinks are getting flagged as possible spam.
[ I think you're right. I just submitted a series of 'dummy' comments (take that as you will!), and the ones with four and three embedded links got stuck; the one with two links passed. --M .F. ]
With regards to the citations from AJL [#76] and HR [#66] --
The evidence that's left once you actually get past all the innuendo is:
Kudos to you, AMac, for having the perseverance to keep asking the question of "what do we actually know about the situation" rather than blindly joining in the accusations and moral preening. I'm glad Foley's gone even if nothing he did was illegal, because his behaviour seems a bit stalker-ish. And it sure looks like he has some personal problems and a lot of guilt over something since he resigned immediately and checked into rehab.
But I think the Democrats are going to regret trying to paint this as a Vast Right Wing Child Molesting Conspiracy, especially as more information comes out during the course of the investigations (both official and unofficial) that are now under way.
Housekeeping note:
It looks to me as though the higher the number of URLs that are embedded in a comment, the greater the likelihood that the Winds comment spam filter will flag it for moderator's approval. The "ceiling" might be three or four.
The filter is, sadly, necessary, and it's a work in progress: I expect that those with actual knowledge of the processes in question will tinker and pronounce over the next week or so. Until then, please use suitable workarounds.
Our apologies to those who have seen the publication of their thoughtful and well-constructed comments delayed.
For now: if you have a comment that's eaten by the system, please drop the post's writer and me an email (main Winds screen, right-hand column). For my part, I'll release it as soon as I can (provided it's not mainly concerned with V1AGRA or sharing Nigerian Lottery winnings...).
- At least one former page has admitted to a sexual relationship with Foley. There are surely more who do not relish the idea of admitting they got screwed by a serial seducer.
- It is definitely true that Fordham's first story did not implicate Hastert and Reynolds. That changed when he saw that he was the one who was going to take the fall. He has offered to tell his current story under oath, and at least one (still unnamed) source has corroborated it.
- Foley flirted not only with ex-pages, but with current pages, so notoriously the news seems to have been part of Orientation Week. (So far only an ex-page has reported actual sex.)
- Someone, instigated by Rep. Kolbe's office (Kolbe himself? Was he out then?), was supposed to give Foley a knock-it-off message after a complaint from a page about a sexually-explicit email, in 2000.
- Once a news reporter thought the Foley emails were worth an investigation, it took, what, one day? one week?, before he got the damning IM transcripts. The failure of Fox News and the FBI to investigate probably says more about either a reluctance to take on an influential Republican Congressman or a quaint unfamiliarity with the M.O. of internet sexual predators, or both, than anything genuinely exculpatory. Remember, Foley fled DC the same day ABC read him the IM transcripts. That's how bad they are.
So, when all is said and done, not too much is left of Shad's list except: Foley is gay, and he trolled the page pool like it was his personal fishpond.Let me give you-all an analogy you might find helpful. When Clinton was running in the Democratic primaries in 1992, he was about my last choice. One of our neighbors has known Clinton since Yale, well enough to still be on a first-name basis. He assured us that Clinton was a great candidate and would make a great president (true enough in hindsight). He also confided that any story we heard about Clinton and a woman was going to turn out to be true. So when Clinton lined up all those defenders about not having sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, I didn't believe it for a minute. I felt sorry for people like Sid Blumenthal whom he sent out there to lie. You guys defending Hastert and Foley might want to look at the accuracy of the stories they've told so far—are Reynolds, Boehner, and Hastert consistent yet?—before you profess any more skepticism about any of the accusations.
Fascinating spin, Grim (#114). Sort of like a "Southern Strategy" except against gays. I'm not buying it, but it's a fascinating concept. I hate to spoil the news broadcasts the night of the election, but the theme this time around will be "take out the center!" So we must part company.
Demosophist (#100) -- I'm not sure I'm following your comment to it's logical conclusion. Are you saying that, say, if I know a Christian mother who is very busy with her kids and just says "Enough already! I've got important things to do on election day and the Congress can go jump in a lake!" -- my job (if I am for the war) is to encourage her to vote in agreement with my wishes?
My oldest kid is a Jon Stewart skeptic, gay, and fairly apathetic. Votes with the Ds more because he's a kid and kids tend to be idealistic and liberal. I asked him yesterday if he was going to vote. He said he needed a ride to the polls, so one of us will pick him up and take him.
Now I'm a Independent Libertarian, but I'll probably vote with my local Rs because, frankly, I like them and their policies more than the local Ds. But heck, I'll pick the kid up and give him a ride to the poll anyway, even though I know his vote is cancelling out mine. The war is extremely important, but common civility, the encouragement of one's duties, and the importance of participation are more important.
That might not make sense to you. Perhaps it does. In either case, I don't think it fits into your sort of Darwin-esque version of partisan political warfare. Does the party work for me, or do I work for the party? I kind of thought the way it was supposed to work was that I vote on the candidates on their merits. At some point, the country has became so polarized that now I have to vote a party-line just because I am in favor of the war on terror?
Perhaps you can look at this another way. Perhaps if the Rs get booted from Congress and/or the Senate, it was because they did such a poor job of governing that even in wartime, the people didn't want them in office any more. The American public are fickle. Sooner or later they are going to want a different bunch of crooks and perverts in Washington. It might not be this year, but it's going to be soon, and that's a good thing. If we fall backwards in the GWOT for a few years and the result is that more of the electorate learns about how serious it is, then I wish to God the people weren't so slow in learning, but people have a right to be in denial and take their time learning these tough lessons. More people will die, but it's not because of this election, it's because of the nature of convincing large populations the nature of subtle threats.
Andrew, you're being dishonest again (as you were when you claimed that it wasn't Democrats trying to push this scandal -- see comments 81 and 82).
Despite being held over the weekend and missing a few news cycles, everything I pointed in my recently-released comment remains accurate.
The "former page [who] has admitted to a sexual relationship with Foley" was 21 at the time, so there's not much of a problem there -- unless your argument is that it's scandalous and unAmerican for gay men to have sex. (And increasingly, that does seems to be what the Democrats are trying to connote: Look! A gay man! Being sexual! Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!)
You can claim that Fordham's diametrically contradictory statements are somehow "proof" that you're right, but I don't find his Brock-like conversion from "I was totally lying through my teeth in my earlier statements" to "now you should accept what I say at face value because I'm an honest guy" very convincing.
If there's some actual evidence of this Kolbe coverup you're insinuating, please present it. Similarly, if there's some non-discredited evidence left in the ABC stories -- beyond anonymous accounts of unsubstantiated claims -- it would be good to highlight that as well.
No one has disputed the idea that if ABC (or CBS, or Newsweek) puts out a call for gossip harmful to a Congressmen which took place in the last decade, people will be willing to come forward and tell stories as long as they are guaranteed they will remain anonymous and that their stories won't be checked out. But some people don't find stories wholly made up of an anonymous source has made a claim that X is true, although they offer no evidence to support their claim to be convincing anymore.
DM:
The post isn't spin, or even advice -- my personal feeling is that Foley merits only a very little attention, a great deal of personal scorn, and then our nation should have forgetten him.
All I was offering there was an analysis of what the Republicans seem to be doing, based on comments on the Rush Limbaugh show and elsewhere. I think I'm right about what they're attempting, and also about why it might work.
Of course, thanks to North Korea, Foley may no longer matter -- which is how it should be. He is not important. Other things are.
The standards for 'dishonesty' and 'dramatically contradictory' are rather elastic here. Speaker Hastert isn't on the first version of his story, either: did he or did he not have a conversation with Rep. Reynolds about Foley? And although some Dems are using Foley in their campaigns, as well they should, what's keeping this story near the top of the news is new revelations all coming from Republicans.
One thing that the scandal isn't about is gay sex. Saying that because the first page to come forward about actual sex was 21 misses the point (on purpose), which is that Foley tried to seduce pages year in and year out. The fact that in at least one case he waited to consummate the relationship doesn't reduce the disgust people feel at his trying to pick up teens, wholesale. Don't try to pretend that I'm disgusted because the sex, when it happened, was homosexual. I'm tired of fact-free GOP talking points in general, but that one I also resent.
It's been an interesting exercise to have been largely out of touch for 3 days (Friday till today, Monday--traveling), and then try to make sense of where things stand.
My concern has been that the news media have been using Foley's disgrace to imply to the general public that House Speaker Hastert is guilty of sheltering a sexual predator, in the absence of credible evidence to that effect. I have compared this media atmosphere to Redbaiting. I have no way of knowing if such accusations are:
Two precedents come to mind:
So which is it?
Today's WaPo has Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages In 2000. It paints a grim picture.
But a careful read gives
Back to the start. Did Hastert/Hastert's office make a within-the-realm-of-reasonable judgement call about Foley's G-Rated emails to pages? Was he only aware of distasteful but legal advances by Foley towards consenting males over the age of majority?
Alternately, was Hastert made aware of the broader pattern of behavior, e.g. as AJL says above,
To me, these distinctions matter a great deal with respect to evaluating Hastert's culpability. The issue isn't Foley's conduct per se, it's what the Republican Leadership knew or should have known about his conduct. That damning Foley IMs are revealed in early October 2006 doesn't settle the issue. The same goes for additional communications and testimony on sexual encounters that are revealed in mid-October 2006. In my opinion, anonymous accusations of "Hastert Knew" should get little credence in this environment. Detailed, sourced charges should get a great deal of attention.
In terms of the Electoral Game, it probably doesn't matter.
There are other issues with the Foley story, but I'll stop, and wait to see what the next few news-cycle harvests bring in. I agree with Daniel Markham, above: Voters now know that this, however defined, is what they get when they vote R. We also have a very good idea of what we will get with a D return to power. Like many commenters here, I have no enthusiasm for their program, or pseudo-program, on the issues I care about.
It's going to take a while for the electorate to work through these issues. Meanwhile, maybe the prospect of actual power will bring Dems to a more nuanced view of threats and opportunities. Maybe a return to the wilderness will help Reps get their house in order.
We'll see.
D: Look at these serious charges being made against the Republicans!
R: Indeed, those are serious charges. But the evidence presented to support them has been discredited, and the only named source has provided diametrically opposed statements regarding the situation.
D: But there are news stories with anonymous sources also making the serious charges!
R: Do they provide any actual evidence to support these serious charges?
D: Look! A gay man came forward and claims to have had sex with Foley!
R: Uhm, Foley having gay sex doesn't support the serious charges.
D: Are you're trying to ignore these serious charges?
R: Well, no, I'm asking for any actual evidence to support these serious charges.
D: I'm tired of your Republican talking points!
R: ...
I find myself largely in agreement with AMac's approach here. To what he has written, I have two important points to (re-)add: First, the Catholic Church sex scandal included both pedophiles and ephebophiles, and the considerable psychological damage to victims the latter class, to which Foley also belongs, surprised me. Now, it may be that Foley did "better" by confining consummation of the relationship to older and more willing partners than did the priests, but even that isn't obvious. Second, Foley has run into a place where many liberals' general support for sexual freedoms is trumped by a paternalistic concern for potential harrassment of the younger, less-powerful party in this sort of relationship. College campuses, those alleged hotbeds of leftist conspiracy, are regulating sex between professors of Foley's age and graduate students who are much older (usually mid-20s) and presumably more independent and mature than the Congressional pages.
In contrast, Shad's comment is just drivel. Why don't you try grappling with the inconsistencies and retractions in Hastert's, Reynolds', and Boehner's timelines first, and then get back to us. Why don't you refer to their defense as discredited? And where the comment isn't hypocritical, it's disingenuous. Lots of gay men have had sex with Foley. What's significant is that an ex-page reports having had sex with Foley after exactly the sort of earlier emails that seem so innocent to you. That doesn't immediately reflect on Hastert but it does show a longstanding pattern and practice on Foley's part that would have been detected with the slightest investigation. I would caution you, Shad, that you're making a mistake—do you remember that at first ABC had actually to retract its initial story that there was a semen-stained blue dress, for want of confirmation—because given what's now clear about Foley's behavior, you're likely to be very badly embarrassed by what's exposed in the future. (As if you care.)
I continue to agree with you that serious charges have been made.
And I continue to wait for the presentation of actual evidence in support of them.
From Ted Kennedy to Jerry Studds, Democrats simply have no basis for any criticism at all of Republicans in this matter. Zero.
going after 15- and 16-year-old pages
I've been gone a few days, but why are the Congressmen mentioning 15 year-old pages in the Washington Post article (AMac line in #123)
Its my understanding that the page program only admits people 16 years old and up