The Moral high-ground is still there. Clinton had sex in the white house with an intern, and Studds had sex with an underage man. Clinton is a liberal icon and Studds was re-elected. People defend Clinton to the death, albeit in the face of perjury, inappropriate sexual behavior, etc. People re-elected Studds, more than once.

Foley is thrown to the wolves, resigned himself (because he knew that his actions were reprehensible), and will be out of politics forever.

Democrats? No way... sex with underage male pages, BJ's with employees in the oval office... that's all dust in the wind... has nothing to do with this at all... whatever.

Let's review the information.



Months ago GOP leaders somehow found out about some "over-friendly" e-mails from Foley to a page in the House of Representatives. The information that was received was given to the authorities which didn't conclude in any arrest or investigation.

Apparently Foley was known to be gay and also had alcohol and depressional problems.

Ok... how did they receive this information about e-mails?

Some "months" ago a blog was started....

http://stopsexpredators.blogspot.com/



Following?

Now on to the parents :

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/15260-1.html



So we have some vague e-mail information that somehow was passed onto the GOP "months ago" that even authorities didn't purse and the media didn't even find newsworthy.... we also have a blog that started "months ago" ..... we have parents that "don't want the matter pursued" .... we have some IM's released one month before the election. All of the sudden the previous e-mail information is a huge conspiracy.


Alright nighttimer I think you might be on to something here, it does sound a bit like a conspiracy so far with the information that we have.

It is not "just partisan attacks" to inquire what Denny Hastert knew about Mark Foley's predatory habits and when he knew it and what (if anything) he DID about it. It's partisan to suggest the man who sits two heartbeats away from being President of the United States cannot be questioned as to how well he's doing his job.

Speaker Hastert enjoys the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I don't dispute that. But I do know that his memory sure has gotten pretty bad since last Friday.



I'm starting to wonder Aevans176, you keep harping on Bill Clinton and Gerry Studds who both had to face the music over what they did and insist on trying to join them to hip of Mark Foley who resigned and beat a retreat without making WORD ONE in the way of an explanation besides the lame excuse that he is suffering from a problem with alcohol (which sounds better than saying he has a problem getting hot and bothered over young boys in their underwear).

The moral high ground is going-going-GONE as Mark Foley shreds the holier than thou hypocrisy of the Republicans and their "do as we say, not as we do" philosophy and Senator Bill Frist advocates "cut and run" in Afghanistan.



Would you recognize an "objective factual statement" Aevans176 as you would first have to prove I've ever said "Republicans are scum?"

Keeping it real is refusing to agree with you that Foley is a pedophile without a legal argument to support the allegation and at the same time calling out conservatives/Republicans when it’s their turn to exaggerate. Saying people who disagree with your opinion are making excuses for a pervert, a noun we can all agree applies to him, supports your argument as well as that Wikipedia article. You’re free to disagree with yourself.


That’s the second time you say the GOP didn’t wait for Foley to resign. According to you he was kicked out: “[Foley] was kicked out of the house.” (Link) Everything that has so far been broadcast and printed contradicts your claim. Do you have something to support this claim? Is it a hunch, a hope; are you privy to undisclosed information? Saying Foley was kicked out without any support over and over again doesn’t change what we know happened: Foley resigned on his own.

If we go by the legal age of consent (in some states16; others as high as 18) as the definition of being a pedophile, then Foley may be off the hook. If, however, he gets his jollies with 16-year-olds, how do we know that 14 or 12-year-olds or whatever don’t do the same for him.

I guess I'm trying to mediate between two people on the board, I like and respect by saying we don't really know if Foley is a pedophile. Unfortunately, this is a psychological thing. Fortunately, we can’t see into each other’s minds.

BTW: I have been a consistent advocate of due process ever since I came on the board. The age of consent in Foley’s home state - Florida - is 18. It is my understanding that the FBI and Florida Department of Law Enforcement are investigating. Should law enforcement find that he’s broken a law, and prosecutors decide to push the matter, then he is entitled to the same rights as any other defendant – a fair trial without an excess of emotion.

Whether it is Mark Foley, Scott Peterson or whoever, I'm not fond of public trials and guessing about someone's guilt or innocence. I'm not talking about the emails and instant messages, but criminal culpability.

OK. If that's the line, then that rules out the Democratic Party completely then. Recall the Post Office check scandal, which is the absolute epitome of using congress as a personal cash register, and which Democrats vastly outnumbered Republicans in offenses, and they have certainly had their share of sexual transgressions. So, does this mean we're poised for the Libertarians to take over? Granted, the issues you go over here are more recent, but the Democrats certainly have absolutely no room to claim any moral high ground here--although it is certainly true that Republicans have certainly slipped off that peak a bit as well. Hooray! Now they're all down in the mud together, which is all the better place to sling it from. Which brings us to.....



Absolutely true. The degenerate behaviour of ONE sleazeball representative. So, we will have the Democrats busy trying to paint the entire Republican party with that same brush, and the Republicans trying to prevent that from happening. The winner of that battle will determine the answer the thread question. The reality of the situation is that we have an issue with one representative, who is gone now. But reality seldom determines the outcome of elections.

Nighttimer, I never said inquring was a partisan attack, again let's look at what I actually said,
Accusing him of a coverup, or anything else really is a partisan attack. I don't know that you have accused him of anything [and I wasn't referring to you at all when I wrote what I wrote], however there are some extremely accusatory posts and statements in this thread that in my opinion are partisan and unjustified, not to mention without any factual backing. So again, I certainly was not talking about you.

CP

I am still not defending Tom Foley, but...

Has anyone considered the provenance of these instant messages. They are reportedly 3 years old, and came to ABC News from "former pages." Brian Ross and ABC better be really confident about the source and authenticity of these IMs. ABC link
Based on the way ABC is posting them, it seems that we could be seeing a message a day until November 9. If this was really about the victims, I don't see why they would want to release all of the kinky details on the ABC website. "Reader Discretion Advised" - ABC site Anyway, it seems a little creepy, if we are so concerned with the underage aspect of this, why release all of the lurid messages?

Maybe the pages just want revenge on the creep, but it still seems kind of strange to release all of these publicly. Like when the Republicans made Ken Starr put the cigar thing in the public report. More details to get the public to notice how weird it was.

From Carlto's link.

This may be a problem for Foley, maybe not. The age of consent in Florida is 18.

Could this scandal hurt the GOP come election time? Definately. The dismal truth is that the democrats will use this scandal as an attack on the family values stance of the republicans and i'm sure it will cost the gop a seat or two. I think it's more important however to ask SHOULD this scandal harm the GOP? And the answer there is no. The actions of a single rep should not reflect upon the entire party uless it be proven that there was indeed a coverup of illegal or immoral activities.


I would like to be the first individual to come out as actually defending Foley. I know that this puts me in the impossible minority of 1 but I feel strongly in the rule of law in this instance. Foley should not have given up his seat until a complete investigation of the messages by law enforcement had been conducted. Of course with the nature of scandal in this nation he would have then needed to resign for the good of the party and the country, but the current discussion of his actions has the sound of a pedophile witchunt about it. The idea that because he gets his jollies from a 16yo means he may go for 14 or 12 seems to be a bit extreme. Could the same not be said for someone who prefers smaller women? Perhaps a taste for ultrathin=a tendency towards pedophilia as well? And if the sending of explicit messages to someone over the age of consent is deemed illegal perhaps the law against doing such should be looked into and reconsidered.

As an observer, far away from the U.S. political arena, I have to say I agree with you on this point. I think in this case the actions of one Republican politician should not be reflected upon the party as a whole. But considering the fact that their political opponents will use this scandal against their moral 'highground', and the fact that a certain part of the American people do not approve of (are horryfied by) middle aged men trying to seduce children, I think it is arguable that this will cost the Republicans some important votes. (how many votes this will be will probably never be known)



I am not sure if I agree wth this second part though. Foley could of course remained at his place until the complete investigation was done. But from a political perspective this would really have been damaging for him and his party. I am not sure if the Republican party would have supported him, with the upcoming elections in mind, during the investigation. Although they could defend their position by saying "everybody should be presumed innocent until proven guilty", they would placed themselves in a thight corner. Defending a politician who is facing such accusations as Foley could create a very negative perception in the public eye. Even if the investigation turned out that Foley did not do anything illegal and remained in his seat would not change the perception of the public. Some people would still have doubts about the whole story and probably would think the whole thing was a cover up. Foley would always be an Achilles heel for the Republican party, a stained politician. Such negativity is the last thing a party wants when elections are on their way. In any case Foley in the short or long run would probably have been ditched by his own party.



We are talking about politicans here. Politicians should always try to uphold the moral highground. If a politician decides to sent explicit messages he should accept the fact that this will damage his credibilty and his position as a representative of the people. In Holland a well known member of the city counsel of Amsterdam had to resign because he had visited a prostitute (which is perfectly legal here in Holland). He had to resign because his political position was no longer sustainable because of the damage this whole affair did on his political credibilty. The same more or less apllies for Foley in this case.

Well, now it's the fault of a clergyman who abused Foley while he was young Source.

See, here's the basic problem: Foley is gay and won't admit it. He is blaming alcohol and now an unnamed clergyman for what he is. Certainly he could never have been born gay, could he have? I mean, that's not within his moral constitution, is it?

This destroys the Republican slant that gay people make decisions to be gay, rather than being born with that orientation built in. This in turn demolishes any late campaign slants about gay marriage needing to be disallowed to save hetero marriage, and so hurts all Republicans running for election.

I think the moral highground loss has been well documented here, so I'll just say the moral highground is toast as well.

Maybe tomorrow it will be the devil's fault. Ah well, denial. It's a strange stage to be in, and so gosh darn human, even predictable.

I don't think the nurture argument is an official Republican plank in the platform. Also, I haven't seen anything to indicate that this is Foley's personal stance either. Basically you made up this entire post out of whole cloth.

As far as the alcoholism, I'm sure nobody here has done anything stupid while drunk. I know I have. The center that Foley checked into is reportedly an alcoholism and behavior problem facility.

Yeah, but let's attack him for trying to get help.

I agree with your insinuation that Foley's actions are the responsibility of one person: Foley.

Sorry I just had to laugh when I read this. I mean, I did my fair share of in college but I never took home some one of the same sex. Maybe I didn't party hard enough, I don't know...

Alcohol may have inhibited his decision making and made him do things public he otherwise would've kept private or not gone through with (that's why it's called liquid courage) but it wouldn't change his sexual orientation.

Now, for those of you going back and forth over if he's a pedophile or not. It doesn't matter. He broke the universal "Half your age plus 7*" rule. If I'm 24, the youngest person I can date, check out, flirt with etc. is:
24 / 2 = 12 + 7 = 19. Any girl younger than 19, makes me an unethical creepy old man.



*Note: Said rule does not apply to women.

AML, then I guess Republicans are not for a marriage amendment to the Constitution? They're not on the side of homosexuality being choice, not inherent?

That's news to me, and the rest of the nation too.

We've got a couple of choices to make regarding this issue on our state ballot this year. Gee, someone must be thinking about it, and by gosh if I don't have memories of Republicans being against gay marriage.

The implication of Foley being molested by an unnamed clergyman during his developmental years is an argument for nurture verses nature. It isn't his fault that he's gay. It's that dang clergydude!

Meanwhile, I still maintain that he needs to admit that he's gay, and that it's not a fault at all. Otherwise he's blaming others, which is certainly not taking responsibility, but it's also denial of his natural condition. He needs to accept this to move on in life.

I expect a book to come out from him maybe a year or two from now. It'll either be a born-again thing or a story about his acceptance of himself. Probably a best-seller either way.

psyclist,



I've not seen that formula before. Where does it come from?

According to the Chinese restaurant placemat, people are most compatible with others 4 or 8 years older or younger than themselves. So, the 24-year-old ought to date 16, 20, 28 or 32 year olds. Forget the 16-year-old in Florida though. Oh, and be careful about birth months due to calendar differences.

This scheme does apply to women equally.

Asked and answered.

WASHINGTON — After what they have seen and heard over the past few weeks -- events including the news of a Republican congressman's improper correspondence with a teenage page and the recent release of journalist Bob Woodward's unfavorable portrayal of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq - respondents to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, by more than a 2-to-1 ratio, say they have a less favorable impression of the Republicans maintaining control of Congress.

What's more, a strong plurality believes the Iraq war is hurting the country's ability to win the war on terrorism, a significant shift from a month ago.

Then later that week, reports of journalist Bob Woodward's new book "State of Denial" -- which notes, among other things, that the White House ignored a plea in 2003 for more troops to quell the insurgency there -- dominated the news cycle. Finally, word came out that not only had U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., sent suggestive emails and messages to a male teenage page, but that Republican House leaders had known about some of that correspondence for months. Foley resigned from Congress on Friday and then checked himself into rehab for alcohol abuse.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15117698/

Regards "attacking" Foley for trying to get help, checking into rehab is always the first step in the celebrity/politician pity party plan. A public mea culpa to the folks back home in Florida he betrayed and the young men he preyed upon might add a degree of sincerity to his road to redemption. They say confession is good for the soul. He might also win some points by offering some type of financial compensation to his victims as well.

The more Foley and his apologists cry and paint him the victim of his own uncontrollable deviant urges the less I care.

I never said alcohol made him a homosexual. Check your pre-conceived notions at the door.

According to Foley's spokesman, he says the he wrote all this stuff while under the influence. (There seems to be some dispute there.) Alcohol reduces your inhibition levels, I think we'll all agree to that. The decision to do something like this was stupid, if not criminal.

So the alcohol allowed him to make the poor decision about this behavior. I never said if he were sober he'd have targeted young women.



Come on, AM, this was in your link this morning. link

Hey! Where'd that period come from?

Here's what I actually wrote:



So okay, AML, Foley admits to being gay and an alcoholic. His spokesperson says that admitting to things is the first step, and I agree with that.

There will be many more steps coming up. Hope the guy gets his head together and finds meaningful occupations in life. I also hope he does that book and does it honestly. I'd read it. Just don't call it something like A Million Easy Pieces Write it sober.

Anyway, back to if this hurts Republican chances in November. It's only a month away, so yeah, I don't think enough can be done before then to rectify the situation. This sort of thing has residuals that could go on for years, persistent spots so to speak.

I just came across this interview on teh internets. I heard that Hastert said this elsewhere as well.

I think that Foley's resignation was kind of like a lot of other 'resignations' - they asked him to leave, and he left.

It would seem a lot of people knew Foley was gay before he finally admitted it to himself (along with a sad, self-serving story of past molestation). One might feel sorry for the guy if it didn’t feel like such a desperate, pathetic attempt at salvaging his reputation.

There is some almost predictable funny Edited to remove attempt at bypassing profanity filter going on around this whole mess. Fox News misidentified Foley as a Democrat not once, not twice, but three times.

Fox News Subliminal Oopsie
wink wink nudge nudge

There's obvious some hurt is going on. The Republicans' very own base isn't satisfied with Foley resigning – they want blood. Granted, this is from an opinion article, but I hardly think Kentucky is a liberal hotbed.

1) Of course this will hurt GOP this fall- I am willing to bet Foley's seat goes to a dem- which seemed to be a lock for Foley before he was known to be a perv.

Whether Amlord or LH or other apologists for Republican bad behavior like it or not- the GOP set themselves up as a "family values" party and "fiscally conservative" party etc- and thier behavior has not shown them to be either.

If you are going to talk the talk, better walk the walk, because some reporter is going to out you for the hypocrite you are!

And Amlord, since Clinton wasn't "CONVICTED" of anything- I guess this makes him innocent in your eyes too? I mean, let's be consistant with your application of "guilt" eh? Oh yeah, and OJ is innocent too- because he was not convicted of anything.

Bottom line is that NT has listed all these poeple in the republican party that has made great hay and publicity over casting stones at others- and quite nicely being set up in Glass houses- and I think the poll numbers are starting to show all but the LH types can see the hypocrisy and lack of ACTUAL values that they themselves espouse.

I was glad when Dan Rostenkowski got thrown in jail- and I thought alot of Dems should have gone with him- and I think the republican minority was correct in thier outrage to chase the post office scandal to ground- now it it the republicans turn to clean house.

I know damn well Hastert knew everything along time ago and covered it up- just like I am quite sure OJ is guilty- they just didn't want to part with that seat, hoping he would keep this under wraps until the election was over, then they could appoint another repub to take the seat.

Late 80s lib leadership was terrible- it is just that convervative republican leadership today is even worse.

Politicians suck from both sides of the aisle- why are folks like LH and Amlord so ready to defend these guys when they are so ready to call "sleaze" on the other side of the aisle? Maybe that is the real weakness in America- the uneven application of morals? If those that are really concerned about "family values" actually applied them to thier own leaders, perhaps we would actually be doing something about them?

I think I can answer that.

One has to play the hand that's dealt them.

As a matter of fact, this is the only defense available to them - not a good or convincing defense, but the only defense.

What on God's green earth are you talking about? Seriously, you are this close to getting me banned from for comments like this.

Have I defended Foley's actions? I think I've used the term "inappropriate" "grounds for dismissal" "creepy" "sick bastard" "sicko". That was all in the first post I made in this thread!!

Now, if you are talking about Hastert, then yes I have defended him because there has been exactly zero evidence that he knew about the most sordid details of this case. And when he did (Friday) Foley was gone the same day.

At least two newspapers had the original e-mails and decided there was no story there. If the Fourth Estate didn't see a story, Hastert should be psychic and do something?



Foley's actions are the responsibility of Foley and no one else. Not having ESP is not an indictable offense, to my knowledge.

The last I checked it’s not the responsibility of newspapers to monitor and/or indict congressmen for irresponsible behavior. Saying that a newspaper didn’t do anything has no bearing or merit with this situation, in fact it’s yet another excuse. Remember, a lot of news organizations are still running on tip toes after the boondoggle at CBS involving Dan Rather and "the memo".

Interestingly, from your same source:


I’m assuming Ms. Sloan knows what she’s talking about considering her previous experience noted in the quote. Why didn’t the FBI do anything? Maybe because they report to the President? I sincerely hope the cover up doesn’t involve the White House but I also hope the Justice Department follows up with the FBI and we get the entire picture.

There’s no denying there was a cover up, just how far and wide it goes remains to be seen. Regardless, it’s an appalling indictment of a ‘family values” institution that they would protect their own power over the innocence of a young man.

The emails weren't dirty. Say it with me - the emails weren't dirty - the emails weren't dirty. The emails did not cost the 'innocence of a young man.' The emails asked "how are you doing in the hurricane, and could you send a picture" - weird, but not dirty.

Ms. Sloan and CREW make up a George Soros-funded 527 group dedicated to electing Democrats at all costs. The Democrat equivalent of "Rove's Dirty Tricks." They, and lots of the media, want you to remain confused about emails which were friendly and maybe a little creepy, and instant messages which were basically online sex. If CREW had the IMs and provided them to the FBI in July, the FBI would have had Foley nailed in July. No conspiracy, no coverup. Hastert apparently told Foley to knock it off when he saw the emails, but there wasn't evidence to do more (as the newspapers and apparently the FBI also came to the same conclusion).

The question Amlord is posing is who had the 3-year-old Instant Messages, and for how long did they conceal them? Obviously, they reveal Foley to be a creep and a pervert. But who had them, and why did they just come out now?

One more thing regarding the emails:
John Aravosis, a gay activist who runs AMERICAblog.com and "outs" Republicans (or blackmails them into voting his way), had these emails long ago. If even gay-Republican-outing-activist-guy couldn't make hay with them, it's really not likely to be a "cover up." link



Aravosis admits he had emails "months ago, did not report on them"


Lower in the page he shows the 'creepy' emails. Weird, yes, but not the hot chat IMs you are thinking.

Lesly, it doesn't look like I was wrong. ABC's source, Matthew Loraditch denies that pages were "warned" about Foley's sexual proclivities:




You sure are in a hurry to leap to conclusions, aren't you F&D? It's unseemly to see so many Democrats gleefully exploiting this tragedy for political gain.

You are just not informed carlitoswhey.
where do you unload it
Just read this and you may find yourself retracting your statements. If there is a cover-up, Republicans should renounce their leadership and rise above partisan politics.

Those aren't emails. Those are IM transcripts. The ones that nobody saw before ABC News released them on Friday. Some partisan Democrats are deliberately conflating the emails and the IM transcripts, but I will charitably assume that your confusing them is due to ignorance rather than malice.

Thank you for the link to the INSTANT MESSAGES, which were revealed by ABC news last Friday. Hastert and everybody saw the emails, as did several newspapers and the FBI. No one acted on the emails, because they were not dirty notes. They were just notes, which seemed inappropriate to one congressional page. Which is why, for the 4th time in this thread, I'm telling you that there is an orchestrated campaign to confuse the two things - email and instant messages. Again:


edit - sorry I didn't see Jobius' post already addressed this. Oh well, can't blame people for listening to Nancy Pelosi, future Speaker of the House.

It comes as no surprise to me that any newspaper worthy of the title might be reluctant to run a story that could potentially open them up to a nasty libel suit by insinuating that a powerful congressman had inappropropriate communications with minors. Unless there were incontravertiable evidence all there would be is a naughty rumor and that's hardly enough to go to publication with.

Meanwhile, as Foleygate rolls merrily on, we've already seen John Boehner and Tom Reynolds distance themselves from Denny Hastert

WASHINGTON Oct 4, 2006 (AP)— A senior congressional aide said Wednesday he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office in 2004 about worrisome conduct by former Rep. Mark Foley with teenage pages the earliest known alert to the GOP leadership.

Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that when he was told about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene."

The conversations took place long before the e-mail scandal broke, Fordham said, and at least a year earlier than members of the House GOP leadership have acknowledged.

Fordham resigned Wednesday as chief of staff to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2527827

Wonder how long Hastert is going to keep peddling that line of crap that his staff never brought the Foley matter to his attention? If Hastert did know what was going on and didn't act on it to protect Foley's safe Republican seat, he covered up Foley's inappropriate and possibly illegal behavior. If he didn't know when so many others clearly did then he's too incompetent to hold on to his job.

Which may not play well in Peoria or with the rest of the Republican base.

Activist Richard A. Viguerie was among those who called for Hastert to step down. "The fact that they just walked away from this, it sounds like they were trying to protect one of their own members rather than these young boys," Viguerie said on Fox News.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15129898/from/RS.3/

On a MSNBC.com poll with close to 100,000 responses 68 percent say Hastert should resign.

Is it too early to start the Denny Hastert Deathwatch?

I wish to clarify my remarks. I can’t see where Amlord or lordhelmet have directly defended Foley.

By only defense, I mean the Republican tactic we’ve seen the last few days of blunting the impact of the Foley case on other Republicans by shifting the blame to Democrats who did naughty things a decade or more ago.

I posted this in the joke thread, but I’m reposting it here to bolster my point.

Here's a video from last night's Countdown (Olbermann had the night off) showing Republicans in full shift the blame mode - uh, sort of like here yesterday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

Click the link and then the pic of Rush with that damned smelly cigar.

Note: Limbaugh, the most demnable fraud in medialand fantasy space, had the nerve to suggest that Democrats are jealous because they didn't "get in on the action."

I was wrong. Republicans do have another tactic. Faux news tried to make Foley a Democrat. They labeled Foley incorrectly – Mark Foley (D) Florida (including Bill O'Reilly's show) three times yesterday. This was on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show today. They haven’t posted a video yet.

Sorry guys. The trading deadline is past. We don’t want Foley in our “big tent” either.

You're right, I did not realize that there were e-mails as well. I have not seen the e-mails, so I won't comment until I do. There has not been a concerted effort to differentiate the types of communication, though it may be a deliberate attempt to confuse the two, it is probably the former rather than the latter. Accept my apology and could you please provide me with a link to the e-mails?

Barnaby, please see the ABC News story that started this scandal rolling. ABC posted copies of three emails -- apparently the same ones that had been given some months ago to House leadership, the FBI, and at least two newspapers. ABC was the first to go public with them. Quotes & links:

"how old are you now?"

"did you have fun at your conference…what do you want for your birthday coming up…what stuff do you like to do."

"how are you weathering the hurricane…are you safe…send me an email pic of you as well…"

The much more explicit IMs came out the next day. Foley apparently resigned immediately after he was show the IM transcripts by an ABC reporter. Some people want you to think that Hastert & Co. knew about the IMs earlier, but there's no evidence for that accusation, and I find it completely unbelievable.

I've been holding back a little as this discussion has been rolling along to get a few more facts. Yesterday, I though crucifying Hastert was simple democrat opportunism.

Clearly, Foley is the root problem and I don't think anyone has defended him. The only defense of him has been that while his behavior seems morally reprehensible, it doesn't seem illegal. After all, in most states he could have legally had physical sex with the guy. Given the lack of ambiguity in those laws, I believe trying to find criminal behavior due to emails or whatever is simple partisan revenge. Obviously, that is only my opinion and open for debate.

With that being said, I'm beginning to think Hastert has been part of the problem. The defense of Hastert simply doesn't pass the smell test. Firstly, two of the top leaders - Hastert and Boehner - have changed their stories (I'll refrain from using the "L"" word). Now, top aids are making accusations. The bottom line is, someone is lying. If there were no "there" there, everyone would be more straightforward in dealing with this matter.

But the biggest indicator to me that Hastert knew about it and did nothing is the fact that this was brought to his attention in the first place. Seriously, does anybody really believe that someone would bring this issue up to the speaker - on top of the thousand other things he has to deal with on a day to day basis - if this was not that big of deal? I'm sorry...it's just not plausible to believe this scenario:

Aide: Mr. Speaker, set aside the war in Iraq, the immigration bill, homeland security, and most importantly, your re-election efforts so we can discuss Mark Foley.
Hastert: Ok, make it quick.
Aide: He wrote emails to pages.
Hastert: Umm...uhhh...ok. What about them?
Aide: They were...ahem....overly friendly.
Hastert: Well, it's a good thing you brought it right up to the top. Tell him I said to cut that out.
Aide: Ok.

Honestly, how can anybody believe this issue would have made it that far up through the food chain (through lower staff, chief of staff, etc) and onto the speakers impossibly important plate without it being a significant issue?

I'm sorry...it doesn't add up. Hastert has changed his story and no way did the speaker of the fricken house have to deal with something somewhat innocuous. Hastert bet they could sweep it under the rug and he got burned on it. There is no other plausible reason for the non-action before the story blew up. Hastert has to go because he doesn't even know how to make sure everybody has their stories straight.

LATE BREAKING NEWS: The page was 18 years old when he chatted with Rep. Foley online. ABC News was incorrect in reporting the boy was under 18. Though still morally wrong, IMHO, there is no longer a legal issue. Additional question for the thread: Did the Democrats know this latest fact prior to ABC breaking the news? If so, what should be done?

Do you have a link The Founders Intent?

On Edit: Sorry, I didn't realize that was a link...I'm an idiot.

CP

I never said they were dirty and I understand the IM’s and the timing of it all. But you don’t have to be an expert on pedophiles, or holed up in a cave the last 3 days and haven’t heard at least one predator behavior expert say something to the affect that “this is where it all starts”.

You don’t have to be a master political strategist to understand the reasoning for wanting to keep this quiet, even if it was just the emails. You’re right, the emails didn’t cost this particular young man his innocence, but the grip of GOP power that swept this under the rug might not have saved the innocence of the next young man.


So the FBI should only take action when information concerning questionable activities comes from non-political sources? You even admit it was “weird”, but in the eyes of experts your interpretation of weird translates to predator.



Please show me where I’m being gleeful. My statement indicates that I hope there’s nothing there (FBI/White House).

The fact remains the FBI was notified that a fifty something year old man was sending emails to a sixteen year old and that should ALWAYS raise eyebrows. And as I type, FOX news is breaking a story (sorry, can’t find a link yet) that evidently Foley showed up drunk at the page dorm and GOP leadership was once again informed. So yes, there was an attempt by the GOP to keep a secret that they had a serious problem with one of their own and if it became public the fall out could be hurt the party. Call it what you choose, but that sounds like a cover up.

Are you that naïve to think that if the shoe were on the other foot the democrats wouldn't be getting a kick in the seat? And deservedly so.

OK, strike the "gleeful."


Again, I think you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions. The GOP wasn't the only ones who had the emails. The FBI had them, and there's no evidence of any political interference with their investigation. You just assumed there was, with absolutely no basis. Two newspapers also had the emails, and didn't think they were worth investigating. Did the GOP somehow shut them up too?

Isn't the most obvious inference that the emails didn't appear to show a "serious problem"?

I don't think anyone is buying this stuff about Democrats doing this to Republicans. It's so obvious that Foley did this to himself, and it's also very obvious that certain Republicans are trying hard to sling the muck back at Demos, but this is magnetic muck. The harder the attempt, the faster it comes right on back.

So to answer the questions: Nobody cares at this point. Nada.

But keep up the good work. The sorry attempts at shifting blame are helping Demos and thereby hurting Republicans seeking reelection.

Not only did the democrats know this but they made sure the information got out there using a strategy of blog creation and left wing web sites.

Fake blog

The democrats learned of Foley and waited until the right moment to pounce.

But, as usual, the democrats haven't thought this all the way through.

The party that condoned sex between a married president in his 50's and a young intern barely out of her teens wants the spotlight on this issue?

Do they want the Mel Reynolds issue dragged up again? Reynolds was convicted after having sex with a 16 year old campaign worker. He was, not surprisingly, pardoned on Clinton's last day in office (along with a raft of other felons). Do they want the Barney Frank issue brought back to life? How about Gary Studds who was censured after having sex with a 16 year old male page. Do the democrats want the voters reminded of these issues?

Sex scandals have occured across all political stripes. The difference is in how they were dealt with. When republican are caught, the biggest charge against them is that they are "hypocrites" as though that's worse than the actual offense.

When democrats are caught, it's a "private matter" that is none of our business.

This double standard is pretty evident and I don't see how it helps democrats in November.

To sum up what so many others try to tell you folks who keep saying, "yeah, but look what the other guys did", two wrongs don't make a right. We could play tit for tat all day long. I'd be hard pressed to bet which party has had more members who have been caught with their (ahem) in the wrong (ahem), but does it really matter? Clinton is ancient history (even tho both were consenting adults) Gary Studds is ancient history(even tho both were consenting adults). What happened to Foley happened NOW, a month beofre a big election. Don't blame the Democrats for Foley stepping on his (ahem) at the wrong time.

The more I see and hear about this issue, the more I'm reminded that it has sucked all the attention away from the real crimes of this administration.

Ummm... I don't know about that. Consider how much "Rathergate" hurt CBS, and inadvertently smote Mr. Kerry. My personal opinion is that most likely someone knew, but maybe not the entire DNC. Frankly, I'd bet next month's pay that ABC knew, if not SOME democrats... I can't wait to see how that turns out. Self righteous Blankety-Blanks.

To me, it just proves that some folks will stop at nothing to regain Democratic power in the US. This undoubtedly should've been a big "HEY-We made a mistake" headline on every news channel this morning. Was it??? Nope.

I personally would LOVE for the tide to turn and Americans take three steps back and stop feeding this mud-slinging frenzy... but then again this is the same nation that gets more votes for American Idol than for the Presidential Election.

I mean seriously. NO ONE can prove that the Republican leadership knew about this (I've asked for someone to prove otherwise like 1/2 doz times), this has nothing to do with party politics, and really is just one dude. Moreover, Democrats in America have been some of the most forgiving folks on the planet when it comes to sex scandals. Partisan politics is dividing the US as opposed to fixing any problems. We've become a bickering and ill equipped society to tackle any real problem, in that millions of dollars and man hours are spent attempting to malign the other party.
Sickening... and plain ol' just sad.

Oh yes. No question about that. First of all, unless you haven't noticed, Democrats have been out of power for 6 years now. So the party currently in power always gets more attention. However, the Dems are not the party which constantly talks about "Judeo-Christian moral values" and traditionalism, about disintegration of traditional family values; about constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; etc. Quoting H.C. Andersen - "The King has nothing on!" Turns out, a Republican speaker of the House repeatedly commits adultery; another republican (Foley), a closet gay, preys on teenagers on the Internet while chairing a committee on Abuse and Exploitation of Children; and a third one tearfully admits in a TV ad that he committed multiple infidelities, denies charges that he beat up his lover, and asks the voters for forgiveness. Nope, it's not "just one dude". I see a pattern there. Of course Democrats want to highlight these issues. Wouldn't you?

At this point it's pretty obvious that either

A : ABC
B : Democrats
C : Both

knew about these IM's beforehand. I find it highly unlikely that the Democrats didn't know about these IM's beforehand and even more unlikely that the GOP did know about the IM's because of the timing of this release they would be just flat out stupid not to kick him out before if they did.

The timing is just to perfect, especially for something that happened years ago not to mention ABC said he was underage which apparently could be a flat out lie.

Given the people responsible are Foley and the teenager.... but you would have to be blind to not believe the Democrats setup the release date of this, meaning they were the ones that knew about it beforehand... either that or just simply extremely partisan.

YOU can bring up Mel Reynolds, Gerry (not Gary) Studds, Barney Frank and Bill Clinton if you want lordhelmet. And you have repeatedly. It isn't giving your team any traction, but desperate times call for desperate measures. The dilemma is trying to convince somebody---ANYBODY--that those prior bad acts such as a illicit, but consensual sexual relationship between Bill and Monica is in any way are equvialent to Mark Foley's skeevy fantasies about tighty whities and Jergens lotion.

Nobody is buying that garbage except for right-wing enablers like FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and a few righties on this board who seem to think "personal responsibility" is great only when it applies to Democrats. "Do as I say and not as I do" and all that...

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm loving every minute of watching the righties squirm like worms on a hook as they contort themselves like pretzels trying to rationalize, conjure up ridiculous conspiracy theories and invoke the scummy behavior of Democrats to excuse the equally scummy behavior of Republicans. It