Could have? Now that's a bad choice of words.

Kevin Drum wrote "But we should cut Hastert a break, I suppose. He was probably too busy overseeing those secret investments of his in land that skyrocketed in value after he earmarked money for a nearby highway." Link please!

"If they had done the right thing…"
Hahahahahaha!
What goes around comes around. If they were worried about doing the right thing, the history of the last five and a half years would be completely different.

Here's a link to a June'06 CBS News article on the Hastert land deal accusation:

http://tinyurl.com/lomwc

If Foley goes down, then along with Gingrich and Livingston, this will mark the third Speaker in a row to go down over sexual matters.

From the repugs' point of view, Hastert was probably OK so long as he was Tom Delay's stooge; now that the ventriloquist is off stage, the dummy is revealed for what he's really always been, an incompetent hack. A fomer gym teacher?! God, at least give us a former Latin teacher,

If Foley goes down, then along with Gingrich and Livingston, this will mark the third Speaker in a row to go down over sexual matters.

Or the third row to go down on the Speaker.

Uh-oh. It's getting worse:

ABC News, which first reported the sexually explicit messages on
Friday, said Monday that additional messages suggested that Mr. Foley
had met in person with a teenage page outside Capitol Hill and had
sought a relationship.

"I miss you lots since San Diego," Mr. Foley wrote, using his screen
name, Maf54, according to a transcript obtained and released by ABC.

"Ya I cant wait til dc," the page replied.

=-=-=-=-

Bob

If Hastert had done the right thing, he would have been fine.

But he did do the right thing. Hastert just saw some naughty e-mails, nothing more than that. How was he supposed to know there was anything more than that?

But also, Foley was a gay guy who was going after young boys. What else would you expect from a gay guy? If Hastert had gone after him, the homosexual lobby would've gone after Hastert as gay-bashing. If homosexuals had stopped complaining they are constantly being discriminated against, Hastert would've done more instead of fearing he would be attacked as being anti-gay for protecting the children from homosexuals.

Let your pages do the walking through the Yellowed Fingers.

Bob

Al:

That's not what social conservative activist groups think, Al.

Conservative activists think that the way you show leadership is by, umm, showing leadership.

Not by pointed yellowed fingers of blame.

ROTFL !

Bob

Questions. Why do we have a page system? What does it cost? Why not get rid of it?

"The maddening thing about this is if they had done the right thing" by informing Democrats early on and investigating it fully, "there would be no political fallout," he said.

Well, but that would require integrity, governing for the good of the country, and treating Democrats like partners. And if they did that, the terrorists would win. Or get broadband.

Let your pages do the walking through the Yellowed Fingers.

LOL!

You'd think that those with pages would also have a spine. Sadly, it appears that the Republican leadership has not been an open book.

If all the pages get transferred to another dorm is that taking a leaf from Foley's book?

Ity's good to see the Republicans in a bind over Foley's pages...

They honestly write themselves.

Thank GOD! For a while I thought we were going to have to deal with some actual issues.

"The maddening thing about this is if they had done the right thing" by informing Democrats early on and investigating it fully, "there would be no political fallout," he said.

Just out of curiosity, when DID the Democrats know about this? And what took them so long to bring it out?

Americans don't take enough vacations. Really, you people spend way too much time talking about your government.

Step away from your computers; spend more time with your families, take a walk, learn a new hobby...

For the sake of the country, let's all agree to take a four week break from politics, and come back in mid-November refreshed and ready to go!

Deal?

Joel Rubinstain -- link is there to Chicago Tribune via Huffington Post.

I swear there was a congressional page furore in the early 80s but I can't pull a reference. Anybody else remember that?

Al --

good god, are you a sad apology for a human being. I guess you think of yourself as only fit to lick the feet of your beloved leader. There might be some repressed homosexuality there somewhere.

Paedophilia has nothing to do with being gay. Guess you're thinking of becoming an old-time Mormon so you can get some underage sex with a moral free pass.

You've been dragging this same argument for days now. This dog don't hunt. Consensual, legal sex = O.K. Predatory, under-age sex = not O.K. No sex but predatory internet messaging = not O.K.

The Rules of Congressional conduct somewhat broader, though you wouldn't know it, and subject to review by the whole panel (that includes Democrats).

Oh, Al, under the law, even down-loading illegal under-age porn not O.K. either. Better get that harddrive really, really clean. Someone might check up on you.

Find something new to say.

Just to recap:

1.Surely no parent would find anything alarming about a 52 year old barely closeted gay man maintaining ongoing email contact with their 16 year old son.

2.House GOP leadership policy is to bend over for teh gheys. (giggle)

3.Those popcorn futures I bought are going to make me a fortune.

If Hastert had gone after him, the homosexual lobby would've gone after Hastert as gay-bashing.

On what planet are you living? Even granting the stupidity that is the bedrock assumption underlying this claim, why in God's name would Republicans be afraid of gay activists? Christ on a crutch, given that Fear of Teh Gays is a fundamental building block of their campaigns, they'd welcome and pray for such attacks.

The Washington Times calls for Hastert's resignation in today's lead editorial.

Hastert says he didn't know about the smoking gun of the e-mails, the one in which one of the parties allegedly asked "Do I make you horny?" I believe the Speaker. But the thing is somebody knew the content, they've known it for two years,and somebody put it out a month before the election. That should be the story. Who was that masked leaker? Can it really be traced back to a Soros-financed group?

Why did Foley resign, anyhow? Gerry Studds (Congressman from Maryland) didn't resign over his affair with a page. He just told everyone to get over it and served another 13 years. Barney Franks tried to fix 33 parking tickets for his young boyfriend. No big consequence over that. Foley didn't actually do anything. Conservatives here in Washington got rid of the mayor of Spokane (Jim West, now deceased) because he seemed to be willing to get city jobs for young guys he met on the Internet. Democrats here were largely silent on that business, but now there is a big furor over Foley, who never actually did anything physical that we know of?

Though there have been few issues where I agreed with Republicans (with the notable exception of Cold War matters dealing with the Soviet Union)I used to respect them as worthy adversaries. However, this current bunch is a real piece of work. One looks in vain to find any high principles or sense of personal responsibility. Power has corrupted them; or perhaps many of the current problems can be traced to the deal with the devil they made 6 years ago when they chose the electable but obviously incompetent George Bush to lead them.

It seems that a tipping point occurred in the last week. Things are going downhill fast for the GOP. I now think their losses in the November election are going to be much bigger than anyone had previously predicted.

Let's just hope the old adage, "Beware of what you pray for because you might just get it.", does not come to haunt the Dems....

James

Mike Cook:

did you spank it this weekend yourself ;)

you're getting horny?
i am never too busy haha

There's a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans:
Worthless. Scum. Every. Last. One. Of. Them.

Democrats:
Worthless. Scum. Except. For. A. Few. Of. Them.

Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

But what about Doolittle? Isn't he going to be indicted any day now? Won't this just come as a complete surprise to the Leadership? Much like Ney, and Cunningham and...??? I mean, who else have these guys "investigated into innocence"?!

Yeah, well who cares what you think, Mr. Very Frenchie. Go back to your pathetic little nation and your freedom fries, moron.

If it weren't for us you'd be speaking German or Russian or something and this is the thanks we get. Typically pathetic.

If it weren't for us you'd be speaking German or Russian or something and this is the thanks we get. Typically pathetic.

You're a WWII veteran then?

If it wasn't for the French, Jay, you'd be speaking English.

You're a WWII veteran then?

No moron. But I'm American. That's enough for the likes of you, Mr. Cut and Run Frenchie.

Hastert's resignation has been called for by the -- get this -- Washington Times.

Fat Denny can still land a gig as the national spokesperson for Preparation H.

Many Americans are cowardly criminals (such as your president). How many more decades do you suppose French people should kiss the rings of disgusting loud-mouths such as yourself who may or may not be the descendant of someone who actually contributed in some small way to help French people generations ago?

jay isn't a veteran of anything, he's a republican't. and didn't they invent cutting and running in Vietnam and Lebanon?

And the Drama Queen of the Morning Award goes to:

Mr. Very Frenchie.

I suspect he's a veteran of spewing indecipherable gibberish from one of Bush's fuck holes.

Am I the only one to notice that Mike Cook, in the middle of an election in Washington state, has taken time out of his busy schedule to defend a pedophile on the internet?

Somebody should really get on that.

Mike Cook: Why did Foley resign, anyhow? . . .

Mike, you might have gotten away with convincing people you were sincere with your questions if you hadn't slipped in that Soros reference, which gave away your Powerlimp/Hindrocket-fed paranoia.

Foley resigned because he violated the very law he helped write, the one that makes using the internet to sexually solicit anyone under eighteen a federal offense. You remember the Adam Walsh Act and its fanfare ceremony at the White House, don't you? The one with Foley upfront, alongside John Walsh, Bush and the rest of the GOP leadership. Followed by a pandering Foley hitting the airwaves and applauding his own efforts to protect minors from cyber-sex stalkers.

Hell, even Denny Hastert was preaching the need for the government to protect minors from cyber-sex predators on his official House website until this weekend, when all references were scrubbed for some reason.

Why did they define a minor on the internet as anyone under the age of eighteen, when Foley was sending those "naughty" cyberpace messages to a sixteen year old? Why Mike? Are the rules different for them? Say it aint so, Mike. Say it aint so.

GOP = Grand Old Pedophiles

Well, the best thing in Mike's post was the "let's focus the ire where it belongs -- on the leakers" bit.

Goddamed free press, enemy of would-be benevolent despots everywhere ...

Bob

Take it from Al, the White House realizes this one won't spin.

Is there a "real AL?"...MY GOD, the 1:47am post SHOULD BE unbelievable...but given what more folks are finally realizing about the MORALS PARTY, and it's trolls, HYPROCISY is their first priority! I knew it wouldn't take long for the ALL GAYS are PEDOPHILES meme to get out there...and am totally enjoying watching CLinton, other past scandals, and, of course Barney Frank, being used as cover by these poor, pitiful fools! New Republican bumper sticker..

WE'RE JUST AS BAD AS THEY ARE!!! But, we'll keep you safer...HA!

At least Monica Lewinsky was a consenting adult.

I have a theory, possibly crackpot, about the political significance of the Foley scandal.

While the Democrats have held a strong lead over the Republicans in the polls, I've never regarded that as a particularly accurate indicator of how they would fare in the actual election.

Why? Because, in campaign season, the Republicans have always been very good at bringing back into the fold a sizable number of those initially disaffected from them. They do this by employing appeals carefully designed to affect the more primitive portions of the human brain. The polls before the campaign season mostly reflect how people evaluate the Republicans and Democrats intellectually. But the Republicans purposely target the reptilian part of the brain, engaging primal instincts regarding safety and sex. These appeals undercut what the rest of the brain is telling people for long enough that they vote Republican.

But here's where the Foley scandal kills them. The Foley scandal gets at the same portion of the brain, and in a most powerful way. It engages both sexual disgust and the desire to protect children. It entirely neutralizes the appeals the Republicans might make to primitive feelings. Indeed, it probably well outweighs anything the Republicans might muster on their side, winning even this battle for the Democrats.

Given that the Democrats now have won intellectually, and are winning on the "gut instinct" level, I predict a true electoral catastrophe for the Republicans.

They've got nothing to come back with. They are finished.

According to ABC this morning other pages and former pages have come forward to claim there are other alleged sexual predators in congress. Their names haven't been released because ABC hasn't been able to confirm any of the allegations.

I would suggest we all take a deep breath.

That's not crackpot in the least, frankly0 (how could it be when I've been espousing the same theory?).

The GOP has really dug its own grave here--live by the visceral, primitive emotions, die by the visceral primitive emotions. They have no way to counter this with moderate voters and their own base, which is fucking furious. Or furious about fucking, which is exactly the state of emotion in which the GOP has tried to keep them all these years.

There is talk that the Republicans will SwiftBoat Democrats by accusing one or two of them of the same kind of sexual predation as Foley. The charges may or may not be accurate.

I don't think that will work. The problem with Foley isn't that it fires up the Democrats (they are plenty fired up already.) The problem is that Foley (and especially the coverup) has disaffected the Republican base. That is why I am convinced that everytime Tony Snow trys to minimize the problem by use phrases like "naughty emails" or "overly friendly emails" the Democrats win.

If some Democrat is caught, so what. The best it does for Republicans is allow them to say Democrats do it too. The Republican rank and file doesn't want anybody to do it.

"The GOP has really dug its own grave here--live by the visceral, primitive emotions, die by the visceral primitive emotions. They have no way to counter this with moderate voters and their own base, which is fucking furious. Or furious about fucking....blah blah blah" - shorty

When it happens to Democrats, their Presidents commute the sentences and they sweep it under the rug. Oh, but the moral outrage is real this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds

"In August of 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a sixteen year old campaign volunteer yet was allowed to continue running for re-election. In November of 1994 he was reelected. Reynolds initially denied what he claimed were racially motivated charges. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995.

Reynolds was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be released in 1998. However, in April of 1997, he was convicted on fifteen counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators and as a result, was sentenced to an additional six and a half years in federal prison. After serving 42 months of his 78 month sentence, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted his sentence and Reynolds served the balance in a half way house."

"In August of 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a sixteen year old campaign volunteer yet was allowed to continue running for re-election" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds

When Republican pedophiles are caught, they resign in shame

When Democrat pedophiles are caught, they run for re-election.

Actually Jay at the same time Studds was caught a Republican values guy from Dan Crane from Illinois was also caught with a 16 year old girl. Like Studds he was censured.

They both stood for reelection the next year. The Crane lost his reelection bid. Studds won. Blame the voters for Studds, don't blame Democrats.

Let me smooth the language a bit.

Actually Jay at the same time Studds was caught a Republican values guy named Dan Crane from Illinois was also caught with a 16 year old girl. Like Studds he was censured.

They both stood for reelection the next year. Crane lost his reelection bid. Studds won.

Blame the voters for Studds, don't blame Democrats.

Crane sure as hell didn't resign in shame.

You really shouldn't play recent history with old people. Nice try, though. Dissembling is your life.

Real compassion is hard to find on this subject.

From the earliest ages we teach our kids the mechanics of sexual behavior and expect them to be strong enough to mentally refuse to be involved with it? Predators are every where; the only hope we have for our kids is to teach them to refrain from getting sexually involved. I keep pushing back the minimum age that I will allow my kids to use the internet.

Did this young man's parents really say they weren't concerned about the emails from a 52 year old man? There appears to be a whole group of irresponsible adults surrounding this young man.

Is this supposed to be used as an issue to gain political power? I believe we are going to find that Democrats also had a hand in delaying or blocking this information from coming out.

It's another piece of evidence of how we are regressing instead of progressing.

How weird...yesterday when we were talking about all the sanctimonious Republicans who had to resign or be publicly humiliated when their adultery was revealed during the Clinton impeachment (Gingrich, Livingston, Hyde, etc.), I asked what had happened to congresswoman and cheating wife Helen Chenoweth. It turns out she was killed in a car accident yesterday.

Jay, I'm glad you're on record as formerly adjudging David Koresh's screwing of 12- and 13-year-old girls as acceptable because "they can be married in some countries," but now understand that sexually preying on teenagers is wrong. We've been a positive influence on you. That does my heart good.

It's a simple choice -- you can stand with the pedophiles and their accomplices in the House Republican leadership, or you can stand with under-age children and their families. Where do you stand?

"Gerry Eastman Studds (born May 12, 1937) is a retired American politician, born in Mineola, New York. He served as a Democratic Congressman for Massachusetts from 1973 until 1996. He was the first openly homosexual member of the US Congress and, more generally, the first openly gay national politician in the US. In 1983, he admitted having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male page a decade earlier."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

"After his 1982 re-election, Crane was charged with having a sexual relationship in 1980 with an underage female congressional page and was censured by the House in 1983. Crane plead guilty to the charge and issued profuse, tearful apologies. He was defeated for re-election in 1984. (See 1983 Congressional page sex scandal.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Crane

Oh well my apologies. When Republican pedophiles are caught, they at least display some remorse.

"Blame the voters for Studds, don't blame Democrats." - Ron Byers

Are you saying he was re-elected by his Republican constituency?

Orwell: Did this young man's parents really say they weren't concerned about the emails from a 52 year old man? There appears to be a whole group of irresponsible adults surrounding this young man.

Absolutely. That's why the "but his parents wanted it kept quiet" excuse being limply employed by the GOP House leadership doesn't fly. They had an obligation to prevent this from happening to other pages, regardless of what one page's idiot parents thought.

But they didn't. They didn't investigate. They did nothing.

Just so we know where Jay is coming from here, remember this post of his below, in which he says that raping and impregnating young children does not "constitute child molestation." (To put in the context of the discussion, "teen girls" was referring to girls as young as 12). It rather explains why he's so willing to defend a sex predator.

Fathering children with girls teen girls doens not constitute child molestation specifically when girls of that age are allowed to marry in many countries, even in some states in this country....
Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Stefan's with me on this. No doubt he shares my joy at Jay's born-again conscience.

Republicans. In addition to everything else that's wrong with them, they don't know when to keep their mouths closed.

There is talk that the Republicans will SwiftBoat Democrats by accusing one or two of them of the same kind of sexual predation as Foley. The charges may or may not be accurate.

The point to emphasize about the Foley/Hastert scandal, though, isn't really that Foley was going after teenagers -- it's that Hastert and his accomplices in the House Republican leadership knew about Foley's predilections, and not only didn't do anything about them, but actively covered them up. It may turn out that some other Democratic or Republican congressmen was harassing the pages -- but it won't be the same scandal if the leadership didn't know about it and didn't collude with them.

What's most shockng here is not Foley's crime -- it's the active and knowing complicity and collusion with that crime among the Republican leadership. It boggles the mind that they could have learned of this, and that their collective response was not "how do we protect the children?" but "how do we protect ourselves?"

This is just some facts for the "reality based community". Age of consent worldwide as low as 12.

"http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm"

Age of consent in the US, as low as 13.

"http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm"

Does this make it right? No. But these are the facts, for those liberals in the fact based community.

It may turn out that some other Democratic or Republican congressmen was harassing the pages -- but it won't be the same scandal if the leadership didn't know about it and didn't collude with them.

Yes, and since the object of everyone but the most craven and cowardly is to actually get rid of predators, the Democrats will be able to present a united front as a party in calling for criminal and ethics investigations (note that the GOP leadership is stringently avoiding a House ethics committee investigation, and Boehner blocked Pelosi's call for same) of any Dem against whom similar evidence is presented.

I believe we are going to find that Democrats also had a hand in delaying or blocking this information from coming out.

Explain the basis for this "belief" since, as we know, the Republicans in the House actively conspired to keep the news of Foley's behavior from Congressman Dale Kildee Contact, the sole Democratic Member of the House Page Board. Kildee released a statement in which he said:

"As the Democratic Member of the House Page Board, any statement by Mr. Reynolds or anyone else that the House Page Board ever investigated Mr. Foley is completely untrue. I was never informed of the allegations about Mr. Foley's inappropriate communications with a House Page and I was never involved in any inquiry into this matter. The first and only meeting of the House Page Board on this matter occurred on Friday, September 29 at approximately 6 p.m., after the allegations about Mr. Foley had become public."

"What's most shockng here is not Foley's crime -- it's the active and knowing complicity and collusion with that crime among the Republican leadership." - shit for brains

Hastert has called for a complete investigation to include himself.

Here's the libs again convicting without due process after screaming at the top of their lungs about rushing to judgement on Gitmo detainees.

Can you say HYPOCRITE.

I would have thought the Valerie Plame case would've taught them a few lessons.

By the way, how is that lawsuit coming along by Americas most covert spy and her Greatful-Dead-wannabe husband.

Jay does seem remarkably well-informed and interested in age of consent laws around this country and the world, doesn't he? No, nothing suspicious about that. That's merely something lots of conscientious adult men take the time to find out -- after all, you wouldn't want to be trying to seduce a 12 year old in a state where the age of consent was only 13 -- imagine the embarrassment....

Shit-for-brains, you seem to be ill informed. But now that you know, I can expect to see you fight to change those laws, right?

I mean it's all about the children, right?

Shorter Jay: look over there! Valerie Plame! Bill Clinton! Guantanamo Bay! Age of consent laws in Uttar Pradesh! JUST DON'T LOOK OVER HERE AT FOLEY AND HASTERT, FOR GOD'S SAKES, WHATEVER YOU DO!

Remember, when you're a troll, you get paid for quantity, not quality.....

The GOP is objectively pro-pedophile.

If we don't fight the pedophiles in the House Republican leadership over there, we'll have to fight them in our homes over here.

Hastert has called for a complete investigation to include himself.

Wrong. Go back and read the statement. Hastert and his partners in crime called for a complete investigation of a) Foley and b) whomever knew about and "leaked" the IMs. The GOP leadership specifically excluded itself.

However, this one's out of their control now. They're done.

I would suggest we all take a deep breath.
Posted by: Ron Byers

Well said, Ron. Expect this thing to completely blow up. Rightards will scream "but dems did it, too!". The fact is, if it comes to that, vote all the fuckers out.

Fathering children with girls teen girls doens not constitute child molestation specifically when girls of that age are allowed to marry in many countries, even in some states in this country....
Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, Jay, you are scum. I always knew you would grasp at any thread of argument to augment your point, but to try to explain away such hideous behavior as some "age of consent" thing is below contempt.

Why would we ever take anything you say seriously? You've made it completely obvious that there is no bottom to how low you will stoop. Why do you even bother to show up here? That is the most despicable comment I have seen on any board.

Hastert has called for a complete investigation to include himself.

Well, how nice of fatass to ask for an investigation that had already begun. And, as shortstop mentions, his letter specifically excludes house leadership from being investigated. What a swell guy.

Hypocrite? Look in the mirror, Jay. When it supports your argument, pedophilia is fine, when it doesn't, it's not. If that's not the very definition of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

No one could have anticipated a Republican pedophile in our midst.

--Denny Hastert

It's incomprehensible!

If Hastert had done the right thing, he would have been fine. But that's the whole problem, isn't it?

But somehow, to them the "right thing" has morphed into "whatever the hell we want to do" hubris. Protect a seat at all costs...

And Foleys little trip to rehab? What a farce. "Rehab" has replaced patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Alcohol did not make him gay. Or cause a lust for young men. Alcohol lowers inhibitions, but it is not the root cause of the behavior.

When politicians run to rehab to hide, they cheapen the efforts of every recovering addict who struggles daily to maintain sobriety. Talk about feckless.

More on Hastert, from waynemadsenreport.com:

"Congressional sources told WMR that Hastert, while working from 1964 to 1980 as a popular history/government teacher and wrestling coach at Yorkville High School, in Yorkville, Illinois -- a suburb of Chicago -- was the subject of persistent rumors about inappropriate contact with male members of his high school wrestling team. The culture of the times usually resulted in such alleged behavior being covered up by public and parochial school authorities. However, the rumors were enough for his Yorkville constituency to reject him when he ran for an open seat in the Illinois House of Representatives in 1980. However, Hastert lucked out when another sitting Republican House member who represented the three-seat district had a stroke and declined to run for re-election. The GOP machine bosses selected Hastert as the replacement candidate."

"Why would we ever take anything you say seriously?" - he did lose his brain

But what if I told you I was Muslim. Surely you would have some compassion then, right?

"Hypocrite? Look in the mirror, Jay. When it supports your argument, pedophilia is fine, when it doesn't, it's not. If that's not the very definition of hypocrisy, I don't know what is." - lost brain

Not really, I think all the bastards should be in jail.

You on the other hand believe that one should have been killed (David Koresh) and the other should have been re-elected (Mel Reynolds)

I am just trying to figure out where you stand.

> But the thing is somebody knew the
> content, they've known it for two
> years,and somebody put it out a
> month before the election. That
> should be the story.

Indeed, that should be part of the story of the Radical Republicans' utter moral bankruptcy in this affair. The FBI was given the e-mails more than a year ago. Why did the FBI not press an investigation? Was there pressure on them to drop the matter? Did the pressure come from Gonzales? From Rove? From George Bush? Why didn't the FBI and the Justice Dept dig into this a year ago when they first received the damning evidence? Does the coverup extend all the way to the top and throughout the Republican party?

Yes, by all means let's have a full investigation of those e-mails posthaste.

Cranky

Two underlying propositions: First, conservatives generally believe either that humans are born with original sin (which predisposes them to engage in any kind of sin) or the slightly more contemporary view that we are all born as blank slates. The slates may be tilted a little bit by genetic predisposition, but only slightly and they are still basically blank.

It is therefore incumbent upon society (we right wingers believe) to drill young heads full of mush into the values we believe will be BEST FOR SOCIETY in the long run. Such values might be keeping one's word and respect for contracts, never giving false testimony, patriotism, but particularly to be unremittingly brainwashed towards monogamous heterosexual long-term relationships.

The deal with teen-agers is that they naturally experiment with absolutely everything. Some will never come off their early experiments, but others can be groomed, brainwashed, indoctrinated, subsidized, rewarded, shamed, and generally molded by the dominant cultural and economic influences.

Conservatives are upset with Hastert because he didn't realize right-wingers put an importance on grooming that goes far beyond the legalistic criteria by which the original Foley investigation (was it by a police agency and why were no charges filed?) Hastert apparently took Foley at his word that someone had done an investigation and nothing would come of it.

Something did come of it, with exquisite timing, which brings up proposition two: do right wingers routinely get ambushed by double-standards? I started believing this back in the early 1990's when it became obvious to me that the Clintons in Arkansas and later in the White House were able to push right to the line of illegality in every financial deal they touched. They would never be accused of impropriety by the MSM despite the overwhelming smell of conflict of interest, insider advantage, and the appearance of impropriety to nearly every business arrangement they engaged in.

Republicans anywhere near the fine letters of the line between ethical and non-ethical conduct, however, get destroyed. I believe that, and I take time out from my own campaign to point it out. I intend to operate by Clinton rules, in everything. Nobody had better try to make me a second-class citizen by saying that Bill and Hill are sooo special, but I am not.

"Did the pressure come from Gonzales? From Rove? From George Bush?" - cranky

And here we go again. It's the Valerie Plame syndrome all over again.

Ironic how the left will convict Bush of ANYTHING and will convict Radical Islam of NOTHING.

Waterboard 'em all, make 'em tell what they know!

To be successful, predation depends on isolation. Once our society treats gay people with complete parity with the straight world, predacious individuals will lose their cover and their targets will be more empowered to say “No!” and/or to seek help to stop misbehavior.

Did Desperate Jay seriously just try to change the subject to radical Islam? I'm falling off my chair here laughing.

Mike Cook, would you try to familiarize yourself with this case a little bit before commenting further? Hastert did not "take Foley at his word that there was an investigation." There was no investigation of Foley, much less by a "police agency."

Keith G: Yes. But it's worth reminding people that incidents of hetero child predation outnumber homosexual ones by about 13-1, IIRC. The isolation factor works in all child predation cases, though I agree the stigmatizing of gay people makes it harder for kids to speak up.

"Ironic how the left will convict Bush of ANYTHING and will convict Radical Islam of NOTHING."

You mean like when the Repubs were busy investigating the blue dress while accusing Clinton of "Wag the Dog" for launching missiles at Al Qaeda targets?

jay....more like pity....

"Once our society treats gay people with complete parity with the straight world, blah blah" - Keith G

It's societies fault?

shorter mike cook:

what's the definition of "naughty"?

Are you saying he was re-elected by his Republican constituency?

Posted by: Jay on October 3, 2006

No Jay, Studds reelections occurred before Diebold. You know when the country was still a democracy. I would imagine he got more than 1/2 of the votes in his district.

My point is that both Crane and Studds were censured by the house. They both had to take the censure standing in the well of the house. They both ran for re-election. One won, one lost. That is the will of the people.

I don't think I've ever seen a conservative obfuscate as wildly and desperately as Jay is. David Koresh? Valerie Plame? Radical Islam? I'm dizzy from the whiplash.

"....while accusing Clinton of "Wag the Dog" for launching missiles at Al Qaeda targets?" - nobody important

Al Qaeda operated an asipirin factory in the Sudan?

You on the other hand believe that one should have been killed (David Koresh) and the other should have been re-elected (Mel Reynolds)

When did I say Koresh should have been killed (I would argue he made that decision himself, since evidence shows it was a mass suicide)? And where did I say Mel Reynolds should be reelected?

Spin all you want, Jay, but you brought up the "age of consent" crap. And it was a pretty hideous attempt to support your point. That is why you are a hypocrite, Jay.

When a dem is in legal trouble, you're the first one to cry about how morally corrupt dems are. Yet, when a rightard gets in trouble (and I think you'll admit, Jay, that there's been plenty of that, lately), your comeback is "well dems do it too!".

See the difference?

"...Studds reelections occurred before Diebold." - byers

Aw of course, the evil Diebold.

"One won, one lost. That is the will of the people." - byers

The Republican lost and the Democrat won, which would be the will of the Democrats. Apparently being a pedophile increases your chance to win a position in the Democratic Party.

"(I would argue he made that decision himself, since evidence shows it was a mass suicide)?" - lost brain

And I would argue that Janet Reno killed them all.

Wow Mike Cook,

All those paragraphs...it's hard work constructing strawmen isn't it?

Republicans anywhere near the fine letters of the line between ethical and non-ethical conduct, however, get destroyed.

When was this?

Nobody had better try to make me a second-class citizen by saying that Bill and Hill are sooo special, but I am not.
Posted by: Mike Cook

Holy crap, you are delusional!

"I don't think I've ever seen a conservative obfuscate as wildly and desperately as Jay is. David Koresh? Valerie Plame? Radical Islam? I'm dizzy from the whiplash." - wyatt

I am merely pointing out the plethora of Democrat inconsistencies.

Throw Foley in jail, it's where they all belong.

The Foley scandal is helpful to us, although there may be too many idiot voters and tricked-up voting machines to overcome. However - is it possible that the Foley revelation stuff was timed so it would obscure the closer-to-home damage from new Abramoff revelations? So, at least the latter wouldn't get around as much? Any evidence of that?

Jay,

In both cases the house took action. They censured both congressmen. They made serious changes in the page program. Don't blame the Congress. They followed the rules. They did the right thing. I would guess Democrats were as surprised as anyone when Studds won the next election.

We call it democracy. If the voters in Studds district were willing to forgive him, who are you to throw rocks.

"When a dem is in legal trouble, you're the first one to cry about how morally corrupt dems are." - lost brain

uh.......no I don't. There are plenty of scum on both sides of the aisle.

My battle with the Democrats centers on their lack of clarity re: the current geo-political climate.

".....who are you to throw rocks." - byers

Rocks? I want to throw him in jail.

And I would argue that Janet Reno killed them all.
Posted by: Jay

Since she wasn't at the scene, that would be pretty hard to argue, but don't let facts get in the way of your spinning.

Why Jay, you sound just like Mark Foley before he got caught.

Shortstop, yes indeed. Abusers of all stripes depend on the isolation of their victims. This includes straight spousal abuse as well.

Gay teens can be among the most personally isolated members of our society. Such isolation leaves them easy marks for both straight and gay individuals.

My battle with the Democrats centers on their lack of clarity re: the current geo-political climate.
Posted by: Jay

Shorter Jay: I want dems to kill all the Muslims!

"Since she wasn't at the scene, that would be pretty hard to argue, but don't let facts get in the way of your spinning." - lost brain

So then you are also saying that GW is completely innocent of all deaths related to the Iraq war.
I mean, he wasn't there.

Thank you for clearing that up.

"Gay teens can be among the most personally isolated members of our society" - Keith G

You should get out more.

I love Tony Snow's resonse...naughty emails...that sums up his usefulness to the country...a Fox hack excusing this type of behavior...sure...let's downplay it...we're busy doing....what? What a maroon...

Jay, unlike you, I am well beyond my thoughtless teen years, thanks for the offer, sweetie, but no.

what was hastert thinking? He was a wrestling coach..need more be said?

Come home J Dennis, we are starting to pile up.
Come home J Dennis and stay a good long while.

Al Qaeda operated an asipirin factory in the Sudan?

Assuming you are referring to the al-Shifa facility, it was a general pharmaceutical factory, for both human and veterinary products. And, yes, it now appears that it did not have any connection to bin Laden's Afghan Veterans' network in Sudan. Of course, the blame for that error lies with the CIA and Joint Chiefs, who exaggerated their intelligence to the White House when recommending targets for Operation Infinite Reach. I blame them, not Clinton for following their recommendations.

Does this mean that you agree with Noam Chomsky that the al-Shifa strike was an act of terrorism by the U.S. against the Middle East and Africa?

And, incidentally, al-Shifa was not the main target, rather it was the al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanitan. Their connection to the organization has never been disputed. If you're going to distract, at least get your facts right. Of course, attacks failed to kill the al-Qaeda leadership, likely because a spy tipped off Pakistan. When dead Pakistani intelligence service officers turned up at the sites, it was a bit... awkward. They're our "strategic partners" now, though, so I guess that's water under the bridge.

But I thought we were talking about a Republican cover-up of a sexual predator in the house?

I'm tired of the notion that a Representative's misdeeds can be forgiven by a political party as long as he continues to win elections. Studds had sex with a minor on the grounds of the Capitol, and , no, the fact that the enablers in his district continued to elect him is irrelevant to the issue of whether the Democratic Party should have tolerated his continued membership in the party. They shouldn't have. Studds should have been informed that while he still had the legal right to run for office, and to hold office if elected, he had no right to avail himself of the Democratic Party, and that his behavior had permenantly excluded him from membership in the party.

The fact that Democrats thought it was just swell to have Studds as a member for many years after his behavior was revealed proves that the leadership of the Democratic Party thinks that Representatives having sex with pages is tolerable behavior, as long as the Representative can still win elections. In other words, power remains everything.

I don't care if the Republicans lose the House over this issue, but at least they didn't tell Foley that as long as he could win an election he was welcome to caucus with the party. To be accurate, however, this likely is only due to the the contituents in Foley's district being more demanding of their Representative than the pathetic excuses for citizens that continued to re-elect Studds.

Ladies and gentlemen! Bring you live, pompous accusations of Democratic hypocrisy...it's the Will Allen Show!

Ladies and Gentleman! Bring you live enabling of sex with minors, it's the Gregory Show!

notthere wrote to Al:

Paedophilia has nothing to do with being gay. Guess you're thinking of becoming an old-time Mormon so you can get some underage sex with a moral free pass.
________________

And, likewise, messing around with a 16 year old boy is not pedophilia. True pedophilia involves victimizing children of either sex who have not yet reached puberty. A man who fools around exclusively with post-pubescent boys is a homosexual, though not a very admirable one.

"And, yes, it now appears that it did not have any connection to bin Laden's Afghan Veterans' network in Sudan. Of course, the blame for that error lies with the CIA and Joint Chiefs, who exaggerated their intelligence to the White House........" - wyatt

Do you really want me to point out that you just blamed faulty intelligence for a miscalculation on the part of the WH?

> I don't care if the Republicans lose the
> House over this issue, but at least they
> didn't tell Foley that as long as he could
> win an election he was welcome to caucus
> with the party.

I am sorry: what do you call a criminal conspiracy to keep the behaviour secret until after the election if not forever? THAT is what the Radical Republican leadership (possibly with the assistance of the Justice Dept) did in the Foley case.

BTW, I don't think you guys are going to get away with blaming this one on "9/11" or the "Islamofascists".

Cranky

Ladies and Gentleman! Bring you live enabling of sex with minors, it's the Gregory Show!

Disonest even for you, Will. I did no such thing, as you well know.

Of course, my characterization fo you was 100% accurate...and I bet that smarts the most, eh?

Your "let's talk about the Democrats instead" act is old, old, old, Will, and no one's buying. And of course it's a sheer coincidence that you only want to distract from Republican malfeasance, right?

Over to you, Will.

A man who fools around exclusively with post-pubescent boys is a homosexual

Not always.

Do you really want me to point out that you just blamed faulty intelligence for a miscalculation on the part of the WH?

By all means. Of course, faulty intelligence did not lead to a "miscalculation" by the Bush Administration in Iraq. Intelligence deliberately cooked by political operative at the White House's direction allowed the Iraq war to be sold to the public and the Congress. The real and openly admitted rationale for the Iraq war had nothing to do with terrorism, WMDs, or humanitarianism.

So I guess your little "gotcha" amounts to exactly squat.

First if all Cranky, I'm not a Republican, and if a criminal conspiracy to commit a crtime took place, it should be prosecuted. That isn't the same thing (however criminal it may be), however, as saying, "We acknowledge the behavior of having sex with a minor page, but we find it tolerable so long as the adult having sex with the minor page can still attract enough votes."

The former behavior acknowledges the intolerable nature of a Representative having sex with a minor page. Thus, the attempted cover up, if such a cover-up occurred. The latter behavior overty makes the case that a Representative having sex with a minor page IS tolerable, so long as desired electoral results are obtained.

Come home J Dennis, we are starting to pile up.
Come home J Dennis and stay a good long while.

Posted by: Leaves in Batavia on October 3, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

This made me shout with mirth. And I knew who wrote it even before I checked! Good one.

"Intelligence deliberately cooked by political operative at the White House's direction allowed the Iraq war to be sold to the public and the Congress." - wyatt

Oh, that's right.

Diebold!

Why is it then soooooooo easy to fool you guys?

Gregory, Studds has only been out of office for ten years. If you associated with the Democrats within that time frame, and did not demand the exclusion of Studds from the party, yes, you are an enabler of adults having sex with minors. If you deny that was what the Democrats did when they tolerated Studds' membership in the party, you are an enabler of adults having sex with minors.

Why do you choose to enable adults having sex with minors? Just to pick up some pathetic votes?

I believe Studds and Crane should have been forced to resign by their respective parties in 1983.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, this thread's subject is the currently crashing and burning careers of Denny Hastert, John Boehner, Tom Reynolds, John Shimkus, Kirk Fordham and as-yet-uncounted other House Republicans due to their cover-up of Mark Foley's behavior. Feel free to join in if you can stay on topic, Will.

Why is it then soooooooo easy to fool you guys?

My cynicism about taking the government in general and this administration specifically at its word has certainly taken a nosedive in the past three or four years. I was not taken in by the alleged al-Qaeda connections, but I did believe the White House when it said they claimed that Iraq array of advanced WMD capabilities. I thought the Iraq war was ill-advised, and one reason was because I didn't want to see American troops exposed to chemical or biological weapons for reasons that had little to do with our national security. I know now that I was lied to about those weapons capabilities.

As for the Congress that voted to allow this administration to break international law and the majority of Americans who still believe in an al-Qaeda-Iraq connection regarding 9/11, I can't speak for them. Propaganda is at its most powerful when it is at its most subtle, and I saw lots of subtle propaganda in the runnup to the war in 2002.

Shortstop, I wouldn't have posted at all if not for this post....

"In both cases the house took action. They censured both congressmen. They made serious changes in the page program. Don't blame the Congress. They followed the rules. They did the right thing. I would guess Democrats were as surprised as anyone when Studds won the next election.

We call it democracy. If the voters in Studds district were willing to forgive him, who are you to throw rocks."

...I find this reasoniong entirely morally repugnant, no matter which party the reasoner belongs to. If you wish to excoriate the wrongdoers in this latest instance of abuse of power by the scum who lead our major political parties, I join you. I just find most people who belong to these parties to be rather lacking in credibility. They, for the most part, simply want power, and their claims of moral outrage are entirely disingenuous.

Just a reminder: the Republican Party is and has been for some time the party IN power. A key member of the Republican House delegation engaged in conduct that was at best inappropriate, very likely reprehensible, and possibly illegal. This inappropriate and possibly illegal behaviour was reported to various parties including the Speaker of the House, a Republican, over the last 18 months. No responsible party took any significant action, and affirmative steps _were_ taken to keep the information secret both from the general public and from the respective House members of the Democratic Party. As a sidenote, the FBI was also informed and for reasons unknown appears not to have pursued an investigation.

That is the situation. Not what happened 10-20 years ago, not what the party out of power did, not anything execpt this: the Republican Party and its leadership engaged in and conspired to cover up gross violations of decency and in loco parentis responsibility. And quite possibly also broke laws that it had just finished passing with great "moral" indignation.

Cranky

Will Allen wrote: If you associated with the Democrats within that time frame, and did not demand the exclusion of Studds from the party, yes, you are an enabler of adults having sex with minors.

Oooh, look! Argument by assertion! I can play too:

No, I'm not.

Your "let's talk about the Democrats instead" act is old, old, old, Will, and no one's buying. And of course it's a sheer coincidence that -- despote your protestations of not being a Republican -- you only want to distract from Republican malfeasance, right? Shall we call your defenses of them "associating with" Republicans, then, Will (quite a wide net you threw, there, wasn't it?) and apply your tired guilt-by-association arguments to you as well?

Will, even greater than your pomposity, your hostility and your abundant intellectual dishonesty, your problem is you're boring. Get a new act.

Over to you, Will.

Gregory: I know it's annoying, but don't buy into the distraction, please. That's the intention.

(And I guess I did it, too, by poking Jay a few times in his many vulnerable spots. So boo to me. I guess I just find Jay's wild and changing-at-the-speed-of-light swings more entertaining that Will's dogged reposting of the same irrelevant point 800 times until he closes down the thread.)

Hah! Now it's ten years!

found at tpmmuckraker,

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001673.php

"Years before sexually explicit electronic messages sent by Rep. Mark Foley to teenage House pages became public last week, some on Capitol Hill say, the Florida Republican was known to have a special interest in younger men. . . .

"Almost the first day I got there I was warned," said Mark Beck-Heyman, a San Diego native who served as a page in the House of Representatives in the summer of 1995. "It was no secret that Foley had a special interest in male pages," said Beck-Heyman, adding that Foley, who is now 52, on several occasions asked him out for ice cream.

"Another former congressional staff member said he too had been the object of Foley's advances. "It was so well known around the House. Pages passed it along from class to class," said the former aide, adding that when he was 18 a few years ago and working as an intern, Foley approached him at a bar near the Capitol and asked for his e-mail address." (LATimes)

He went on like this for ten years!

'Hey, kid, you like some ice cream? heh heh heh.'

Will

I am the guy who posted the morally repugnant argument. Let me say it slowly.

The. . . . Voters . . . Reelected . . . Studds.

I wouldn't have voted for him. Neither would I have voted for Crane. Apparently in the 1980s what those two members of congress did wasn't illegal in DC. Morally repugnant, yes. Illegal, no.

Until the Christian Taliban takes over we still have a democracy. The congress did what it could, it censured both guys. The next election both ran for office. One won the other didn't.

If you don't like the result and don't believe in Democracy join the Taliban. Frist has recently attempted to rehabilitate them.

If you associated with the Democrats within that time frame, and did not demand the exclusion of Studds from the party, yes, you are an enabler of adults having sex with minors.

How do you figure?

Specifically, where is the evidence that Studds was "enabled" by his membership in the Democratic Party?

If you deny that was what the Democrats did when they tolerated Studds' membership in the party, you are an enabler of adults having sex with minors.

"If you deny my unsupported assertion, you are enabling adults having sex with minors." Wow, now there is a good, relevant, argument.

For people who've been wondering if he's technically a pedophile or not, perhaps the answer is in how he views his victims.

He doesn't invite them out for a beer, he invites them out for ice cream.

Gregory, if you associate with an organization which does not exclude people when they engage in misbehavior x, and you do not agitate within the organization to exclude people who have engaged in the misbehavior, and instead still tolerate the person who engaged in the misbehavior, and allow the misbehaver to enjoy the priveleges of membership, you are enabling the misbehavior. If you did not wish to enable that misbehavior in any way, you would not tolerate the membership of the person who engaged in the misbehavior.

What is old, old, old, and boring, Gregory, is your tolerance of misbehavior when it is engaged in by people who share your political beliefs. Why do you do this? Are you really that pathetic?

Just to be clear, Ron, I agree that Congress couldn't done any more than censure Crane and Studds...other than individual members publicly calling for their resignations. And I don't know whether that happened. You are, of course, right that this is ultimately up to the voters.

Apparently in the 1980s what those two members of congress did wasn't illegal in DC.

Note that in Foley's case, it wouldn't be illegal for him to have sex with the pages targetted in D.C., either: the age of consent in the District is 16. (It would have been illegal if there was sex at the apparent meeting in California, though, since the age of consent in CA is 18.)

But under the law Foley himself wrote, his sexually suggestive internet communications to a person under 18 might be illegal. And, when you leverage fear of child predators to pass a law, and then you yourself break it, well, the backlash is natural and to be expected.

And when your political colleagues help cover it up, in at least one case with at least the appearance of large quid pro quo payment buying silence, well then you've all collectively asked for a load of trouble when it all comes out.

First off, there were two posts in this thread I really liked. They are :

Posted by: frankly0 on October 3, 2006 at 8:39 AM

and

Posted by: Stefan on October 3, 2006 at 9:46 AM

frankly0's post works for me because what he is describing is exactly the core of how the GOP has been able to win by pandering to the basest emotional aspects of their base and voters generally. The Foley scandal and the clearly more significant damage done by the GOP House leadership in covering this up and protecting Foley (for whatever reason and for whoever long they intended it, they did protect him from anywhere from several months to five years depending on which accounts you believe) who was no backbencher. He as well as co chair on the committee dealing with child protection from sexual predators was also the deputy whip for the House GOP. This then has the ability to taint the entire House GOP leadership along with Hastert...indeed I wonder what Tom Delay knew about this prior to his forced resignation. Then there appears to be questions regarding what the Executive branch knew and whether there was pressure to prevent investigations into Foley placed upon the investigative elements of the Executive branch. This is not going away quickly, it also provides values voters already unhappy with the GOP as of late yet another reason to not vote and not help the GOP machine in Nov.

As for Stefan's post, his is focused directly on what is the real scandal here, the behaviour of the GOP House Leadership, something he has been since this broke. Indeed Stefan's comments on this issue over the last few days have been some of the best at dealing with the Trolletariat infestation this issue brought out. Stefan, shortstop, Gregory, Global Citizen and rmk1 in particular have caught my eyes with their writings and excellent commentaries and rebuttals of the Trolletariat's weak and mostly irrelevant deflections to past Dems sexual sins of any and all types. As I said when I first commented on this issue the other day it has really got to suck being a Trolletariat member having to defend this sickening behaviour of the GOP leadership in the House as well as the attempts to make false equivalencies with other sex scandals being blown out of the water right after they present them. As Chuckles used to say I LOVE IT!

This issue speaks to Americans in much the same way as the Schiavo issue did, and is about as hard to spin out from under from as well. This is something that the average person can see themselves having to deal with in their lives and therefore has that visceral feel to it that frankly0 mentions. The longer the GOP leadership tries to deflect their inattentiveness and unwillingness to investigate when they first were told the more this will resonate in the wider public, and do so in exactly the manner the GOP fears. Sexual exploitation of minors and young children is something no right minded person finds acceptable, no parent would accept hearing that someone that works for them may be doing so without strongly investigating unlike the GOP leadership, and no amount of pointing to Dem sins of the past will change this.

The only way for the GOP leadership to get out from under this is to do a major turnaround, accept full responsibility for their inactions and actions and resign to show they are taking accountability. This cover-up they committed is far too similar to what the American people watched the RCC do for the last 15 years or so and therefore will feel the echoes of it in the current attempts to deflect that the GOP has been doing as well as in their cover-up and protection of this man until this scandal went public. The GOP of course is almost certainly not going to do as I suggest they need to and that will only further deepen the hole they have been digging themselves in this matter.

cld, of course he didn't invite them out for beer. He's not out to corrupt minors, you know.

> Note that in Foley's case, it wouldn't be
> illegal for him to have sex with the pages
> targetted in D.C., either: the age of consent
> in the District is 16.

That would depend on the wording of the sexual harassment law governing federal employees and of course whether or not Congress dared exempt itself from that law.

Cranky

You're missing the significant distinction in the Gerry Studds story,

Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own.

Anyone standing by Foley?

Gerry Studds had one relationship with one guy. Foley has been avidly trolling adolescents for ten years.

Mr. Byers, there is nothing in regards to the principles of democracy which requires the Democratic Party to extend the rights and privileges of membership within their party to elected Representatives who have sex with minor pages. Yes, pure democratic ideals requires that such a person be allowed to run for office, and be allowed to hold office if elected. Such ideals make no demand on the decisions of an individual political party, however. Your reasoning is morally repugnant.

Gregory, if you associate with an organization which does not exclude people when they engage in misbehavior x, and you do not agitate within the organization to exclude people who have engaged in the misbehavior, and instead still tolerate the person who engaged in the misbehavior, and allow the misbehaver to enjoy the priveleges of membership, you are enabling the misbehavior.

"Enabling" is not the same as "not retaliating for past transgressions". You seem to have a problem understanding that, as well as lots of other things.

What is old, old, old, and boring, Gregory, is your tolerance of misbehavior when it is engaged in by people who share your political beliefs.

And you think that your attempts at distraction any time anyone on the Right is caught misbehaving by trying to redirect attention to other people on the Left, usually from the far past, isn't tolerance of misbehavior when it is engaged by people who share your political beliefs, and isn't very much enabling? You attempt to deflect, minimize, and distract from criticism of presently revealed misbehavior with your techniques: that is both enabling and a particulary slimy, dishonest manifestation of tolerance based on political agreement.

The congress did what it could, it censured both guys.

The Congress could have expelled both (see Art. I, Sec. 5); though I believe that leaving legal judgements to the courts and political judgements on the acceptability of particular representatives to the voters is the most appropriate course in the American democratic system.

The Congress could have expelled both.

Hmmm, I did not know that.

Back to the actual topic: Foley's been trolling for 10 years that we know of. How long has he chaired the child exploitation caucus? This means, I assume, that the GOP put in in charge of it knowing full well his predilection for preying on kids. Ugggggghhhhh.

frankly0, in an excellent post at 8:39, But the Republicans purposely target the reptilian part of the brain, engaging primal instincts regarding safety and sex. These appeals undercut what the rest of the brain is telling people for long enough that they vote Republican.

As an aside, this brings up another element. A couple of years ago researchers identified a cluster of neurons that, as I recall, they called 'brandedness neurons', where social elements like brand names, like Coke, or celebrities have managed to stamp themselves into a privileged position in the memory so that seeing them spontaneously activiates warm cushy feelings, a lot like religion.

As with any other mental capacity there are some people who have a lot more brandedness neurons than others, suggesting that, perhaps, they have less free will. If the image recorded in the brandedness neurons gets disrupted, it can get supplanted.

But I think Democrats will have to move really fast, and, most importantly, really comfortably. Comfort is the key.

Yes, cmdicely, 1996, when Studds was still tolerated by the Democratic Party, despite his having sex with a minor page, was so, so, long ago.

When the Democratic Party tolerated Studds' behavior, it informed the world that a Representative could have sex with a minor page, and still retain the rights and priveleges of membership within the Democratic Party, as long as he could obtain sufficient votes. That decision enables other people to engage in the same behavior, because thay can have confidence that membership in the Democratic Party will not necessarily be denied to those elected offcieal who have sex with minors. If you find a behavior intolerable, then don't extend priveleges to people who enage in the behavior. On the other hand, if, like you, what you really find to be the paramount concern is that people you oppose politically are defeated, then tolerating the behavior is perfectly logical when it is engaged in by people who share many of your political beliefs, and thus you put forth notion that 1996 was a long time ago. Congratulations.

shortstop, Foley's been trolling for 10 years that we know of. How long has he chaired the child exploitation caucus? This means, I assume, that the GOP put in in charge of it knowing full well his predilection for preying on kids.

That's absolutely correct. It's all a big joke, if you're a Republican.

A man who fools around exclusively with post-pubescent boys is a homosexual

Or a Republican congressman.

I agree that expulsion should only be used in instances of lawbreaking. There is nothing, however, that requires a political party to extend the rights and priveleges of membership in the party to people who have engaged in serious misdeeds, such as what Studds, Foley, and perhaps other Republicans in this newest scandal have engaged in. Our political parties would gain a lot of credibility, credibility which they now lack, if they refrained from doing so. They only rarely willingly police themselves, however (I have no doubt that if Foley were still electable, as Studds was, the Republicans would not be drumming Foley out), therefore it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the people who belong to such parties have only one principle that they adhere to, which is that the acquisition of power trumps all other concerns.

Will Allen,

Gerry Studds had one relationship with one guy, and it was apparently a real relationship because the guy stood up with him after the story broke.

Gerry Studds is exactly the guy Mark Foley is not.

cld, the "guy" you mention is more accurately said to be a "boy", and the fact that he later, when the boy was a man, stood up with Studds, is not relevant. Men, particualrly men with substantial power, do not get to have sex with boys, even if the boys, at time when they have become men, decide to stand up with the powerful men. Foley is intolerable, and would remain intolerable even if every boy he contacted later stood up with him. It is not relevant.

Yes, cmdicely, 1996, when Studds was still tolerated by the Democratic Party, despite his having sex with a minor page, was so, so, long ago.

10 years, and 5 Congressional elections ago, and Studds had by then a long history after the scandal for people to judge him on (and, indeed, at the time of the revelation and scandal, he had a long history after the events on which the voters could judge him.) Yeah, I'm going to continue to note that your attempt to distract from present revelations with attempts to spin Studds' treatment a decade ago for events revealed more than a decade prior to that that themselves had occurred a decade prior to the time they were revealed as an attempt to distract from and minimize the criticism of Foley and the Republicans caught actively covering up his wrongdoing, intended to enable both, based on your own political alignment.

When the Democratic Party tolerated Studds' behavior, it informed the world that a Representative could have sex with a minor page, and still retain the rights and priveleges of membership within the Democratic Party, as long as he could obtain sufficient votes.

The Democratic Party gets the members that register, not the members it chooses. Maybe you don't understand how political parties work in this country.

That decision enables other people to engage in the same behavior, because thay can have confidence that membership in the Democratic Party will not necessarily be denied to those elected offcieal who have sex with minors.

"Confidence"..."not necessarily". I'm not sure you understand what those words you are using mean: if the best you can get is "not necessarily", you can't have "confidence" of anything.

Will Allen,

It is relevent because did not engage in this conduct recurrently. It was a one-off thing.

It is relevent because Studds did not engage in this conduct recurrently.

And since Foley has been carrying on like this since at least 1995 there must be plenty of ex-pages who have had time to think it over.

Will any of them come forward to defend him?

Guys, c'mon -- don't bother with Will's pathetic attempts to defend Foley. He's boring -- ignore him.

Just a reminder: the Republican Party is and has been for some time the party IN power. A key member of the Republican House delegation engaged in conduct that was at best inappropriate, very likely reprehensible, and possibly illegal. This inappropriate and possibly illegal behaviour was reported to various parties including the Speaker of the House, a Republican, over the last 18 months. No responsible party took any significant action, and affirmative steps _were_ taken to keep the information secret both from the general public and from the respective House members of the Democratic Party. As a sidenote, the FBI was also informed and for reasons unknown appears not to have pursued an investigation.

That is the situation. Not what happened 10-20 years ago, not what the party out of power did, not anything execpt this: the Republican Party and its leadership engaged in and conspired to cover up gross violations of decency and in loco parentis responsibility. And quite possibly also broke laws that it had just finished passing with great "moral" indignation.

Cranky

He's boring -- ignore him.

Ah, Stefan, the unkindest cut of all!

I agree, though, that this has been a particularly disappointing Will Allen show. Boring indeed; nothing but a rerun.

I agree that expulsion should only be used in instances of lawbreaking.

Who are you agreeing with? Because, you know, no one else in this thread said that.

There is nothing, however, that requires a political party to extend the rights and priveleges of membership in the party to people who have engaged in serious misdeeds, such as what Studds, Foley, and perhaps other Republicans in this newest scandal have engaged in. Our political parties would gain a lot of credibility, credibility which they now lack, if they refrained from doing so.

Really, I think our political parties elite leadership would lose credibility if they tried to deny their own general membership, through the primary process, the right to choose their nominees for office, or, even moreso, if they started asserting a power to expel people from the membership.

But I guess the whole idea of an organization run by its members rather than a narrow elite at the top escapes you, but, as that's the whole basis for democracy, I think you'd do well to try to grasp the concept before you comment any further on American government.

They only rarely willingly police themselves, however (I have no doubt that if Foley were still electable, as Studds was, the Republicans would not be drumming Foley out),

The Republicans aren't drumming Foley out, nor is there any evidence that they drummed Foley out. To all evidence, he resigned on his own when it became clear that the information was going to become public, he wasn't forced out by the Party.

therefore it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the people who belong to such parties have only one principle that they adhere to, which is that the acquisition of power trumps all other concerns.

Even granting everything else you said, this is not a justified conclusion: what would be a justified conclusion is "inflicting maximum punishment on people who have inappropriate actions of a sexual nature toward people under 18 does not trump all other concerns in all circumstances."

cld, the "guy" you mention is more accurately said to be a "boy",

No, I think "guy" is more accurate; in the patchwork of age of consent laws he was above the age of consent in some jurisdictions and below it in others, so either "boy" or "man" is overly specific, while "guy" is not misleading.

and the fact that he later, when the boy was a man, stood up with Studds, is not relevant.

I think it is, in distinguishing Foley's series of actions targetting several pages from Studds isolated relationship with one page, and thus destroying your effort to pretend the two are equivalent.

What you don't seem to understand, cmdicely, or, more likely, are too dishonest to acknowledge, is that the Democrats in Washington D.C. are not required by law to associate with people who have engaged in intolerablwe behavior. They don't have to meet with such a person, they don't have to acknowledge such a person, they could literally turn their back on such a person every time he entered in a room, and shun him completely. The didn't, because they chose to tolerate the behavior instead, and they chose to tolerate it right up to 1996, thus informing the world that a Representative could have sex with a minor page and be welcome among Democrats. Your rhetoric about what fine fellow Studds was otherwise is just the type of attempted distraction that you accuse me of. If Democrats believe that a Representative having sex with a minor page is intolerable, then they shouldn't have tolerated it, and the fact that they did, right up to 1996, indicates that it is not the behavior that they find intolerable, but only who engages in it. My, how admirable.

From abcnews.com:

"Former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupted a vote on the floor of the House in 2003 to engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page, according to new Internet instant messages provided to ABC News by former pages.

ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys under the age of 18."

cmdicely, I have in inquiry. Do you believe there are conditions under which it is tolerable for a Representative to have sex with a minor page, such as the Representative still being able to win elections, and the minor page later standing by the Representative? A simple yes or no will suffice, but if you prefer to engage in distractions, feel free.

Oh, and if it is your belief that rank and file Democrats are more tolerant of their elected Representaives having sex with minor pages than the elite would be inclined to be, outside that tolerance by the rank and file, you're entitled to that opinion. The point is that any Democrat, be they elite or rank and file, who decided that Studds having sex with a minor page was tolerable, is cut from the same cloth.

Your rhetoric about what fine fellow Studds was otherwise is just the type of attempted distraction that you accuse me of.

I've made no comments about Studds being a fine fellow, and the type of distraction I've accused you of is bringing up events from the past to distract from and minimize new revelations of wrongdoign, so even if I had made such comments, they would not be the type of attempted distraction I've accused you of. Indeed, they'd be exactly the opposite, a dismissal of your attempted distraction.

What Studds did is different than what Foley did, and, in any case, no similar coverup—the real scandal facing Republicans in Congress—was even alleged to have occurred. The Congress censured Studds (and the Republican Crane at the same time, for his affair with an underage female), and the voters in his district weighed the information and decided how to respond.

Perhaps you ought to stop lying about what I've said, and stop pretending that things that are not alike are identical.

If Democrats believe that a Representative having sex with a minor page is intolerable

The issue raised by the Foley case isn't a "Representative having sex with a minor page" (there is only the faintest indication of actual sex.) Nor is it whether it is "intolerable" in the sense that such a wrongdoer must be forever shunned as you suggest.

Its whether the persistent, serial sexual harassment of pages by a member of Congress by means which violate House Ethics rules and the laws crafted, ironically, by that very same member of Congress, and the subsequent coverup of those actions by other members of Congress from that members party, are acceptable, and, if not, what the response should be.

Foley's actions are different than Studds', and the actions of other members in response to their knowledge is unlike anything that was at issue with Studds. The two cases are not at all the same, and the only point of raising the one disposed of long in the past is to distract from the one in the present through false analogy, and distorted attempts to launch charges of hypocrisy.

Do you believe there are conditions under which it is tolerable for a Representative to have sex with a minor page

I don't believe that "sex with a minor page" is more than tangentially relevant to the current discussion, contrary to your attempts to distort the issue, and I will therefore not dignify your attempt to recast the subject in a false light by responding to any question beginning in this way as if it were meaningful.

Sorry.

Takes a break from voting on Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations bill to wank off online,

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html

Now we know how seriously they really take the War on Terror.

Excuse me, but I notice you all have forgotten poor Dan Crane.

Short history lesson. The next election he ran for congress as a Republican. He was voted out by his consituents. He wasn't barred from running by the Republican party. The Republicans properly left the decision to the voters, just like the Democrats. You all have spent 2 hours debating a non-issue with Will Allen.

Well, cmdicely, if the "long history" regarding Studds you referenced above did not indicate he was a fine fellow, outside his having sex with a minor page, thus convincing people to tolerate Studds having sex with a minor page, I guess your entitled to that opinion as well, although it is a bit strange.

Similarly, if you choose to believe that tolerating a Representative who has sex with a minor page is only tangentially relevant to a discussion of actions ten years later, when it becomes known that a Representative sent sexually harrassing messages to minor pages, and the subsequent reponse to that behavior, thanks for confirming my point, which is that Democrats find it tolerable when a Representative they approve of has sex with a minor page, but find it intolerable when a Representaive they disapprove of sends sexually harrassing messages to minor pages. Why didn't you just say so to begin with?

Personally, I find it highly doubtful that Foley has never engaged in sex with a minor, given his communications over the past ten years, but I of course will wait for proof before saying I know for sure. If it turns out he did, no, I won't think it mitigating if the minor has now reached majority and is willing to stand by his man.

Yes, some Republicans may have engaged in cover up here, and if they did, it is intolerable, which means that any who participated should be excluded from ever participating within the party in D.C., no matter what their constituents think of the Representative, which would be unlike the Democrats, who think it is tolerable for a Representative to have sex with a minor page. I don't have any real belief that the Republicans would act that responsibly, but we will see.

Yes, Ron, because unfortunately those Republicans reasoning was as repugnant as yours, in that they concluded that enough votes for a candidate would mean that such behavior was tolerable, in terms of being worthy of being welcome in a political party.

By Will Allen's line of reasoning someone who tried a line of cocaine once is every bit as much a junky as the most demented crack addict.

Amazing - we have a minimum of 4 of the most senior Republican politicians in the land - the party in power - using their power to commit and/or cover up sexual crimes and the Radical trolls think it can be deflected into a discussion of how immoral the Democrats are. Look at CNN and ABC oh Scaife Counter-Bloggers: this one ain't goin' away. Even Fox is going to have to start covering it soon.

This REPUBLICAN immorality and the REPUBLICANS are paying for it. Quit wasting your time; there will be no spin deflection on this one.

Cranky

Any day now, I expect Foley to come out of the closet and admit that he has, in fact, all these years, actually been a Democrat.

Well, cld, I don't think there is any moral element in the ingestion of cocaine, so your analogy is silly.

cld wrote:

For people who've been wondering if he's technically a pedophile or not, perhaps the answer is in how he views his victims.

He doesn't invite them out for a beer, he invites them out for ice cream.
_________________

Either that, or he was being extremely careful. It's even possible he is telling the truth about not having had sex with any minor (except, apparently, internet sex). He could use his position to cultivate an intimate, though non-sexual relationship with a teenager, for the purpose of sex after the teen turned 18. That way, he could always claim he never had sex with a page.

So, in his own weird way, he could be an ethical creep.

Will Allen,

But Republicans are always finding 'moral elements' in all kinds of implausible places.

I don't know what your last post means, cld, but the reason I don't belong to a political party is that, for the most part, people who dominate such organizations tend to be moral cretins, as this thread gives further evidence to.

In the story of Gerry Studds and the fellow he had a relationship with we can see a necessary element of moral or ethical concern, as their subsequent history demosntrates. In the case of Mark Foley there is no such element or concern for others, as he simply flits from one to another as opportunity warrants.

Cocaine is inert and it's the use or over-use of it that demonstrates some ethical econtent.

Will Allen:

If you're going to argue the point from the POV of moral absolutism -- that's fine; you're more than entitled.

But since the rest of us are actually flesh-and-blood human beings, rest assured that your entire dance with cmdicely and cld had the resounding ring of total irrelevance.

It's okay. You can go back to your monk's cell now and continue contemplating Higher Things.

The rest of us are discussing, uhhm, politics in the real world, so don't bother to keep the light on for us.

Bob

Yes, bob, I grasp that because you are a flesh and blood human being who is concerned with politics, you find it tolerable for a Representative, with whom you have affinity in terms of political views, to have sex with an underage page, while you find it intolerable for a Representative, with whom you do not have such affinity, to send sexual messages to underage pages. I also grasp that you find discussing the difference irrelevant, which was kind of my point.

cld, if you wish to contend that there are circumstances in which it is tolerable for a Representative to have sex with a minor page, have the courage of your convictions and simply state that this is your belief. I disagree that the use of cocaine has any moral content.

"As for the Congress that voted to allow this administration to break international law and the majority of Americans who still believe in an al-Qaeda-Iraq connection regarding 9/11, I can't speak for them." - wyatt

Wow. Dripping liberal.

International Law? Would invading your neighbor and violating 17 UN resolutions over twelve consecutive years be considered "breaking international law"?

Should any nation then feel free to violate cease-fire agreements and not suffer any consequence?

The majority of Americans still believe in a Iraq-9/11 connection? That's a liberal fallacy and a lie. But a majority of Americans do understand this conflict a lot better than you and no, you don't speak for them.

In fact, you don't speak for much.

Q: Why did the Republican caucus leaders hold a secret meeting in the rear of the White House?

A: So they could all get on the same page.

Will Allen:

Will, experts agree: You're an obfuscating douchebag.

I could give a flying fuck about the underlying age-of-consent issue. Some people may like to hyperventilate over that "for the sake of the children," but I'm not one of them. Studd's contact was apparently consensual, the guy (generic term, no age referent) stood by him, and the voters weighed his transgression against his legislative record and made a fully informed decision.

No coverup. Studds stood in the well of Congress with Crane and had the riot act read to him.

Foley, OTOH, *didn't even try* to defend himself. His conduct was *non*-consensual. The IMs were brought forth to the press not by any Democratic conspiracy -- but by aggrieved former pages. You know -- solidly Republican kids with solidly Republican parents who would be amenable to an argument for not airing their dirty laundry right before an election -- if they didn't feel the conduct was so off-the-scale heinous.

Foley *solicited* sex from kids who weren't even certain of their own sexual orientation -- exploiting their inner conflicts. Studds, apparently, did not.

You can't tar me with the brush of hypocrite, because I am no hyperventilating anti-sex crusader. I draw the line at consent -- and coverup by a clueless leadership that even the Washington Times says should resign over this.

So stop trying. I don't fit into your lame liberal strawman caracature of a sexual hypocrite.

Bob

You disagree that cocaine use has any moral content yet you object to sex with an underage page because for a moral reason?

In my view it is a person's attitude and manner toward something that carries the moral content.

Without knowing the actual circumstances of how Studds got into that relationship, but seeing the outcome, we can say that it was qualitatively different.

Not a good idea, certainly, for him, but, for the page, apparently not a bad idea, either, which is why the comparison with Mark Foley is enlightening. Foley keeps at it, one after the other, for at least a decade while cloaking himself in righteousness and moral hypocrisy. Foley feels nothing toward them but his own selfishness and infantile incapacity for self-restraint.

How do the pages he so assiduously seduces feel when he drops them like a used kleenex? And, for them, that has probably been the least unpleasant outcome.

I've been wondering, what would have happened to one of them if he'd had a go at blackmail? Are there any stories of ex-congressional pages who've wound up oddly dead?

That's 'posted by: cld'.

Fine, bob, you're on record as saying that there are circumstances in which it is tolerable for Representatives to have sex with minor pages. That makes you a moral cretin, which was one of my points as well.

Will Allen:

But not a hypocrite.

And since -- despite all your attempts to hide the fact -- you are every bit as much flesh and blood as I -- you are, unlike myself in this instance, no doubt a moral hypocrite.

You're only more skilled at covering it up.

Bob

cld, if you can't grasp why the conduct that elected Representatives towards the human beings we call House Pages innately carries with it moral content, whereas the conduct that an individual has in regards to vegetable matter does not, well, I'm afraid you've proved one of my points as well.

Well, bob, I am a human being, so no doubt i am guilty of hypocrisy; I just find it strange that so many get exercised when their obvious hypocrisy is pointed out. Nice to see a moral cretin own up to it, by the way.

Will Allen:

I'm only a moral cretin in your opinion, Will.

Which is, you know, perfectly fine with me.

Because otherwise I'm known as a pretty sexually moral guy otherwise. You know -- by the people who actually know me.

So it's not like I have anything to prove or disprove in the eyes of thread-disrupting "contrarian" attempting to spin the thread away from the topic at hand.

Bob

Will Allen,

If you can't follow what I wrote I can't help you any further.

As I understand it Congress is in a position of guardianship toward the pages, therefore individual members have the same obligation toward the pages as do surrogate parents. (I may be wrong about that.)

Since I haven't read anything concerning the origin of Studds' relationship, we can't say much about it except in view of its outcome, which isn't the same thing as condoning it, or any similar relationship.

Yeah, bob, I'm sure most adults in powerful positions who use minors for sexual pleasure rationalize the behavior and obsfuscate as you do; "Gosh it was consensual, and anybody who objects is a hyperventilating anti-sex crusader". Way to go.

Well, yes, cld, House Members do have that responsibility and since having the guardians bang the minors carries with it all sorts of issues, even if the minors agree to it (which apparently has escaped bob's fine moral compass), it has inherent moral content. On the other hand, an individual's relationship to a vegetable matter does not.

Hey, bob, what advice would you give to somebody who really likes sexual partners who look really young, although well into puberty? Getting a teaching job in a high school? Hey, as long as the junior and seniors consent (are sophomores o.k. too?), everything's fine right? I mean, as long as the prep schooler sends out the first signals, anything goes, right? Have you experience in this?

Will:

Nice set of straw men. Studds was censored (along with Crane.) There was no coverup. The GOP leadership didn't call for his head. He stood for office and the voters balanced his indiscretion (which nobody is defending per se) against his legislative record and voted accordingly.

Foley, OTOH, was a moral crusader. He excoriated Clinton endlessly during the Lewinsky mess and co-wrote the Adam Walsh Act to criminalize precisely the sort of internet behavior in which he indulged. He did not try to defend himself, held no press conferences with any of the former objects of his lust. He meekly resigned when he found out that the IMs were coming out.

The one who's attempting to draw a moral equivalency in this picture is you, Will, not I.

Just because I can cognize degrees of wrongness in behavior like this doesn't make me, or anyone else, a "moral cretin."

In fact, it's actually more like a demonstration of my moral intelligence.

You're the moral cretin in this picture because you judge everything with a one-size-fits-all analysis.

Bob

Will Allen:

Reducing yourself to launching strawman ad-hominem attacks is further evidence of your own moral imbecility.

For the record, I do not approve of Studd's conduct.

I merely wish to judge it in context rather than in an absurd radically individualistic vaccuum.

Bob

Will Allen,

I have to say it is refreshing to find the one conservative who doesn't view substance abuse as a moral failing.

Nice try, bob,. You wrote....

"Foley *solicited* sex from kids who weren't even certain of their own sexual orientation -- exploiting their inner conflicts. Studds, apparently, did not.

You can't tar me with the brush of hypocrite, because I am no hyperventilating anti-sex crusader. I draw the line at consent -- and coverup by a clueless leadership that even the Washington Times says should resign over this."

...thereby saying that as long as the minor consents, it is acceptable, since then it is on the side of the line which you find acceptable, which has been the rationalization by creeps with short eyes have put forth since time began. Way to go.

cld, I'm not a conservative. Why people think that anyone who believes that the Democrats are as morally cretinous as Republicans must be a conservative is beyond me.

Will Allen:

I probably shouldn't have used the word "consent" -- since consent is fairly meaningless. As cld said, you can talk a horny teenager into virtually anything.

The key difference from what I understand of the Studds situation is that he had some kind of long-term relationship with this person. IOW, the kid wasn't merely used or thought of as a sex object. To this day, this adult speaks highly of Studds.

Now -- does this make what Studds did "right?" Of course not. It's not anymore right than that teacher who had sex with her 14-year-old student, had a child by him, went to jail, came out and started a relationship and got pregnant with him again. It's kind of sick and creepy.

But it also qualifies as an affair of the human heart -- and the human heart has motivated people to do some pretty sick and creepy things -- like revenge killing and suicide.

I view this as a whole other order of phenomenon than Foley's arouse 'em 'n' discard 'em approach to pages. He thought of these kids, apparently, as nothing more than diversions, objects of his momentary pleasure that he'd fake a "relationship" out of by pulling a few strings for 'em here and there. And he did this serially.

So yeah, Will -- it's entirely possible to draw meaningful moral distinctions here without in any way approving of the act which is the lesser evil.

Woah. Try to wrap your mind around that. It's *hard*, isn't it :)

Bob

Why people think that anyone who believes that the Democrats are as morally cretinous as Republicans must be a conservative is beyond me.

If you don't know by now, you're seriously conservative.

But it's possible to get past that. Just remember: the Republican party was invented as an instrument of corruption and it's entire history has been nothing but an illustration of that, every single thing a Republican does is evil or fraud or in direct support of evil or fraud.

Republicans like to hang their hats on three Presidents, Lincoln, TRoosevelt and Eisenhower, but in each case those people were parties of one who used the Republicans for their own purposes and were so good at it the entrenched powers were unable to resist, even though they tried.

Reagan was simply a puppet who put himself forward as a puppet and liked being a puppet, hence he is beloved by evil everywhere.

Think of this in your prayers tonight and in the morning you will be on the path to recovery.

He says it's his alcoholism and childhood abuse. But the truth, hidden even from Foley himself, is that years ago Democrats abducted him and implanted one of our liberal perversity chips in his head.

So take that, Karl.

I am beginning to think that Hastert only knew about the questionable but only subjectively inappropriate e-mails after a complaint by the parents of a page. I think that Hastert damn well knew that Foley was a closet gay, but Hastert wanted to believe that homosexual males are not necessarily pedophiles and that there really would be no more to the story beyond what Rep. Foley assured the Speaker would be the case.

Little did Speaker Hastert understand that the power of a habitual addiction is more than sufficient to compel the addict to put his tongue out on the third rail. I believe Hastert and the rest of the Republican leaderships based all their decisions on the e-mails and the assumption that even a log-cabin type of Republican must have a little integrity or, at the least, sense of self-preservation.

Alas, not so. So where did these 52 long-preserved Instant Messages come from? To my mind, the real villain of this tale is he who darn well knew that Foley was a predatory pedophile and yet who sat on this knowledge (and the proof) until the politically most auspicious moment for Democrats.

George W. Bush wants to know the answer to that question, as does (of course) Mr. Hastert. We will have our answer, by and by. Who was holding these 52 sordid little messages? Why were they not concerned about on-going pedophilia and active grooming for same by the Florida Congressman? Who held this vital criminal information back for the soul purpose of taking an extraordinary cheap shot at the Republican Party?

Darn it, sole, not soul

Mike Cook:

We all know you're a politician now, so try not to insult the taxpayers' intelligence by being such a dolt.

Mike, where did the IMs come from? From former pages. You know -- good Republican kids with good Republican parents, parents who are probably donors. The same sorts of parents who didn't want to release the first kids' name, wanted it kept out of an investigation and were satisfied when Hastert told Foley to knock it off.

But then another page came forward with the IMs, and all hell broke loose.

Why? It couldn't have been a Democratic plot, that's for sure. Nor the so-called liberal media. Two newspapers knew of the "overly friendly" emails and decided there wasn't enough there for a story.

My guess is that it was personal revenge. That a kid who had these IMs felt extremely guilty about the whole thing, and quite ambivalent about his own conduct. There was plenty of pressure not to say anything -- but there was also a part of him who felt harrassed and abused. And so these two sides warred until either by plan or simple coincidence he couldn't take it anymore and unloaded it on the media.

Think about it. What other explanation is there? Nobody else could've had possession of those IMs save for him and maybe his ISP if they happened to be looking into the server at the time.

But we know they came from the pages themselves.

Since these pages who worked under Foley are hardly bastions of Democratic or liberal opinion, I think we can safely rule a political conspiracy out.

You'll have to make do with, uhh, cultural conspiracies :)

Bob

Well, Bob, Hastert is saying tonight he didn't even see the e-mails. They were forwarded to the page committee or some-such. I find it hard to imagine that a page himself would have saved the Instant Messages, unless it was a really personal thing and he was only out to ruin Foley himself right before the election.

I'm kind of getting the feeling that we are all going to be arguing about something else next week. Probably the twerpster in N. Korea will demonstrate a two-kiloton nuclear device and by December Japan will have a totally secret trillion-dollar X-project. The Japanese will not stop at back-pack nukes, but create robot men capable of walking the sea floor over to Korea and wading ashore with their bombs.

Seriously, the suicide bomber thing has been unstoppable wherever tried in any variant, with total dupes driving the bomb, with family members of hostages forced to drive, with drugged up fanatics. Robots will be the next step.

Mike Cook:

Woah ... robot suicide bombers ... that's quite a diversion there, Mike.

Well, it's easy enough to do with any number of background programs that save screen messages. Technically speaking, the only places those IMs could've come from are the page's computer, Foley's computer, a nosy programmer/technician at either's ISP or an FBI wiretap. And nobody's said they came from anywhere save from the pages themselves.

Is this a little fishy? Does it smell like entrapment? Yes. People don't normally use screen capture programs when they IM. But it could've been done immediately after the fact; the page merely saved his screen buffer. But it's still fishy.

It's not hard to extrapolate motive, though. Apparently Foley had a reputation. So a few of the pages wanted to catch him in the act, with themselves as bait. It makes no sense there'd be political motives here, because these were the pages Foley knew -- plus, the pages' names would have to come out in any investigation (and the FBI is involved at this point), so it's kind of self-destructive on the pages' parts. Except if the pages felt they had no other choice.

The only thing that makes sense here, Mike, is that these guys felt they had to do whatever they could to try to stop a serial sexual harrasser.

Bob

BEFORE 9-11:

rice was warned - result: no action

gwb was warned - result: no action

BEFORE KATRINA:

gwb was warned - result: no action

BEFORE FOLEY:

reynolds was warned - result: no action

hastert was warned - result: no action

The Japanese will not stop at back-pack nukes, but create robot men capable of walking the sea floor over to Korea and wading ashore with their bombs.

O, Cassandra! There you go again.

Yes, I do worry about the obvious directions that technology can take warfare. Maybe five years ago on a physics site I posted several lengthy speculations on what a wonderful terrorist weapon even a fairly small concentration of anti-matter would make. A bomb as small as an egg could bring down the Empire State Building. Fortunately, so far even collecting a small amount of anti-matter is prohibitively expensive and would take one of the huge new particle accelerators being developed.

If we are well and truly defeated in Iraq the suicide bomb gets much of the credit. Soon enough it won't even take a nervous, living human to drive the car and you won't be able to stop the car by shooting the driver. Robotics will be the thing.