Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Will the Foley Scandal harm the Republicans
America's Debate > Archive > Election Forum Archive > [A] Election 2006
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Google
Christopher
Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

Considering the claims of the GOP about their devotion to "Family Values", will their failure to seriously investigate the claims of inappriopriate behavior by Rep Foley cause them harm in November do they deserve a negative reaction?
Google
DaffyGrl
Considering the claims of the GOP about their devotion to "Family Values", will their failure to seriously investigate the claims of inappriopriate behavior by Rep Foley cause them harm in November do they deserve a negative reaction?

Not only “yeah”, but HELL yeah! Oh, but wait, they’ve already revved up the spin cycle to blame the Democrats (all one of him on the Page Committee, who didn’t even know about the emails, as the rest of them did rolleyes.gif):
QUOTE(John Gibson @ Fox)
"Steve, are you saying that since there are a couple of Democrats who've admitted to more or less the same thing that Foley should've stayed on the ballot? Foley should've run?"
Stephen Elliott
and
Huffington Post

Side note - Seriously, I don’t know how anyone, Republican, Democrat or otherwise can defend the Republican party’s inaction regarding a pedophile in the freaking US Congress!! It’s just beyond disgusting. It’s really starting to creep me out that so many 50- and 60-something powerful white men are shtupping or wishing they could shtup young boys.

Sadly, I doubt this will have any effect on the hardcore Bush (et al) supporter. As the Who said, they’ve put in their earplugs, put on their eye shades, (unfortunately they haven’t figured out where to put the cork) and are blissfully unaware (and uncaring) of anything beyond the fact that Bush is a Gawd-fearin’ man.

I believe the sheer weight of the number of scandals should have an effect in November, how much is unknowable. I don’t think any one issue would or could have the same effect as the cumulative nature of the corruption…unless it was really high up and really egregious. hmmm.gif

edited to fix tags
Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(christopher)
Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

Considering the claims of the GOP about their devotion to "Family Values", will their failure to seriously investigate the claims of inappriopriate behavior by Rep Foley cause them harm in November do they deserve a negative reaction?


Of course the scandal will hurt Foley, as it should. If the Congress is serious about investigating the cover-up, yes, it will cause harm to any of them who did not pursue a remedy for this man's wrongdoing.

Isn't it ironic that the news came out just as Congress was winding up its business...What a slick bunch they are! dry.gif If they were intending to cover up the dirt, that would be the way to do it. thumbsup.gif

I've got to say, though, that hypocrisy runs rampant in all areas of society, and on both sides of the aisle. Having said that, I've also got to say that a semen stain on an adult intern's blue dress doesn't seem all that bad in comparison.

It's too bad, too, that issues facing the voters will take a back seat to salacious fodder for the nighttime pundits.

Let's vote out all sleaze buckets, especially those who feign religiosity to get elected/reelected.
Amlord
Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

Is there a "scandal"?

Hastert apparently was informed of "overly friendly" e mail contact between Foley and a page. He forwarded that information on to the authorities (who apparently, did nothing). The e mails themselves, although disturbing, were not illegal. They were potentially improper.

The boy's parents apparently wanted no part in going forward with an investigation. That, in and of itself, does not clear Hastert, but it is an contributing factor.

Now, the IM's are a different story. I have not seen evidence that Hastert or any other Congressional leaders knew about the IMs, which go much further than the e-mails. The IMs, while certainly inappropriate and grounds for Foley's resignation, are not necessarily illegal. I read them sour.gif , and there was a lot of innuendo, but no inducement to a sex act in them.

Foley is a sick bastard, but that isn't illegal in and of itself. He needs to have broken the law.

After all, we've had threads on ad.gif which discuss the taboos of sex with children: Archived thread. Not much was debated on them, since I think the vast majority of people find sexual contact between adults and minors to be indefensible.

So how does all of this affect the Republicans as a whole? I don't think it does. The bum is gone, his seat will likely go to a Democrat (unless some miracle write in campaign is successful) and the world goes on. This election is about security more than anything else, not about some sicko from Florida.
Vampiel
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
Sadly, I doubt this will have any effect on the hardcore Bush (et al) supporter. As the Who said, they’ve put in their earplugs, put on their eye shades, (unfortunately they haven’t figured out where to put the cork) and are blissfully unaware (and uncaring) of anything beyond the fact that Bush is a Gawd-fearin’ man.


So just why should it effect any Republican or otherwise supporter of any party?

Why should it have any effect on anyones opinion of George Bush?

Considering the claims of the GOP about their devotion to "Family Values", will their failure to seriously investigate the claims of inappriopriate behavior by Rep Foley cause them harm in November do they deserve a negative reaction?

I'm not really sure were you are getting a failure to "seriously investigate" from. I don't believe it will effect the elections.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/02/fol...uits/index.html

QUOTE
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Monday that no one in the congressional Republican leadership knew of sexually explicit instant messages allegedly sent from former Florida Rep. Mark Foley to a former page until they were reported in the media on Friday.

"When they were released, Congressman Foley resigned. And I'm glad he did," Hastert said Monday. "If he had not, I would have demanded his expulsion from the House of Representatives."
...
Hastert, R-Illinois, also asked the Justice Department to look into the response of anybody who knew of the alleged instant messages.
...
Foley resigned Friday after his alleged e-mail and instant-message contacts with pages were reported by the media.


Speaking of Democrats DaffyGrl isn't it interesting this information was all of the sudden reported to the media just before the elections?

edit : Just for the record DaffyGrl im an Athiest.
lordhelmet
QUOTE(christopher @ Oct 2 2006, 12:28 PM) *

Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

Considering the claims of the GOP about their devotion to "Family Values", will their failure to seriously investigate the claims of inappriopriate behavior by Rep Foley cause them harm in November do they deserve a negative reaction?


Why would this hurt republicans? The individual was kicked out of the house and the GOP leadership has initiated FBI investigations. They have DISOWNED him completely.

He's gone. He's history. He's in big trouble.

Democrats have gone easy on sex offenders within their own party historically. Barney Frank's (D-MA) "partner" was caught running a male sex brothel out of Frank's D.C. townhouse. Was Frank forced to resign? Nope. He serves to this day.

Democrat congressman Gary Studds (D-MA) was caught having sex with a 17 year old male congressional page. Was he forced to resign after this behavior with a legal minor? Nope. He was censured and then re-elected by his Massachusetts constituents. Democrats refused to force him out of office.

Gus Savage (D-IL) was accused of groping young female employees. Was he forced to resign? Nope. He blamed "racists" and escaped any disciplinary action. He was defeated by Mel Reynolds (D-IL) who was convicted in 1995 of having sex with a 16 year old girl. Democrats refused to force him out of office until after he was convicted. He too clamed "racism".

Reynold's Conviction


Ex president Clinton was sued for sexual harassment, accused of groping by a staffer, of rape by an ex campaign worker, and was caught in multiple infidelities including with a young unpaid intern while at the "office".

The contrast is striking. It would seem that "anything goes" in the democrat party if one is a member.
ConservPat
I'm lost, how would this affect the Republican Party as a whole? They aren't all perverts, it's one guy, and as has been mentioned, this one guy is up a particular creek without a paddle. I guess you can make the case that since the Republicans are so vehemently for family values [READ: their family values], that this may make them look hypocritical, but it isn't as though the Democratic Party isn't full of hypocrites either. Both parties are hypocritical, both parties have their problems, both are corrupt, both will do anything for a vote and both really don't care about the average person...That having been said, what makes the most sense to me is to vote them out, which would mean vote a third party in, but somehow that isn't going to happen. Anyway, to get back to the point, no this shouldn't hurt the RNC anymore than what LordHelmet mentioned hurt the DNC. And again, as LH said, this has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush or politics at all. This guy is a twisted freak, he's out of Congress and is being investigated, I'm not sure what more anyone want.

CP us.gif
Lesly
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 2 2006, 03:16 PM) *
Side note - Seriously, I don’t know how anyone, Republican, Democrat or otherwise can defend the Republican party’s inaction regarding a pedophile in the freaking US Congress!

Foley is not a pedophile.

1. Foley hasn’t been charged with any crime, let alone been convicted.
2. Foley won’t be charged with a crime unless new evidence surfaces alleging Foley had sexual relations with a 15 year-old in D.C. or he solicited congressional pages via the internet after the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act came into effect.
Therefore,
3. Republicans and Democrats are “defending” a hypocrite and non-criminal.

Hell, does anyone remember the 1980’s page sex scandals? I do even though I was quite young. Republicans, then the minority, couldn’t stop jumping up and down about abuse of power and the immorality by the status quo (that is, the out of control Democratic Party) even though one of their own was implicated. Clinton even pardoned a “pedo.” You no longer identify with the Democratic party Daffygrl so your heart should not give out at this news.

QUOTE(Vampiel @ Oct 2 2006, 04:01 PM) *
Why should it have any effect on anyone’s opinion of George Bush?

Because Republicans have effectively made use of one Democrat, Bill Clinton, to chip electoral votes away from the Democratic Party at the polls. It's just returning the favor, no matter how illogical it sounds.

QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Oct 2 2006, 04:05 PM) *
The individual was kicked out of the house and the GOP leadership has initiated FBI investigations. They have DISOWNED him completely.

Cute spin. Foley resigned after his email exchange with a page was made public and Republicans disowned him after the fact. There is no reason to believe Reynolds, the chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, the organization tasked with increasing Republican representatives to the House, was going to force Foley to resign after Foley wrote a $100,000 check to Reynolds’s PAC in late July. What was Reynolds waiting for? The check should have cleared by late August.

Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?
If Dems play their cards right it could harm Reps in two ways: reduce Republican clout as the “values” party, and drive home the complacent corruption within the Republican Party. The former is less likely to yield results worth the effort. Voters that believe God wants them to vote Republican will continue to vote Republican no matter how many naughty shenanigans happen on their watch.

I think the latter looks more promising. By keeping the lone Democratic member of the House Page Board (Dale Kidlee) in the dark about Foley, House Republicans have implicated themselves as the Party of Sidestep Ways and Rules.
Sleeper
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Oct 2 2006, 02:05 PM) *

QUOTE(christopher @ Oct 2 2006, 12:28 PM) *

Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

Considering the claims of the GOP about their devotion to "Family Values", will their failure to seriously investigate the claims of inappriopriate behavior by Rep Foley cause them harm in November do they deserve a negative reaction?


Why would this hurt republicans? The individual was kicked out of the house and the GOP leadership has initiated FBI investigations. They have DISOWNED him completely.

He's gone. He's history. He's in big trouble.

Democrats have gone easy on sex offenders within their own party historically. Barney Frank's (D-MA) "partner" was caught running a male sex brothel out of Frank's D.C. townhouse. Was Frank forced to resign? Nope. He serves to this day.

Democrat congressman Gary Studds (D-MA) was caught having sex with a 17 year old male congressional page. Was he forced to resign after this behavior with a legal minor? Nope. He was censured and then re-elected by his Massachusetts constituents. Democrats refused to force him out of office.

Gus Savage (D-IL) was accused of groping young female employees. Was he forced to resign? Nope. He blamed "racists" and escaped any disciplinary action. He was defeated by Mel Reynolds (D-IL) who was convicted in 1995 of having sex with a 16 year old girl. Democrats refused to force him out of office until after he was convicted. He too claimed "racism".

Reynold's Conviction


Ex president Clinton was sued for sexual harassment, accused of groping by a staffer, of rape by an ex campaign worker, and was caught in multiple infidelities including with a young unpaid intern while at the "office".

The contrast is striking. It would seem that "anything goes" in the democrat party if one is a member.



WOW!! I didn't know about any of those until just now... It still doesn't change my opinion of Foley and what he did and I am glad he is out and anyone that did try and cover for it should as well.

How are some of those above elected officials still in office?... Will those who call themselves Democrats on ad.gif call for the resignation of those above for their horrid actions?

Also how can the actions of one man be representative of the ENTIRE party? That would be like me saying all democrats should be ashamed because Robert Byrd was a member of one of the most racist organizations in the KKK? wacko.gif
lordhelmet


QUOTE
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Oct 2 2006, 04:05 PM) *
The individual was kicked out of the house and the GOP leadership has initiated FBI investigations. They have DISOWNED him completely.

Cute spin. Foley resigned after his email exchange with a page was made public and Republicans disowned him after the fact. There is no reason to believe Reynolds, the chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, the organization tasked with increasing Republican representatives to the House, was going to force Foley to resign after Foley wrote a $100,000 check to Reynolds’s PAC in late July. What was Reynolds waiting for? The check should have cleared by late August.


Hastert said today that he only learned of Foley's messages after ABC published them on Friday. He's claiming that nobody "warned" him about Foley and the page that claims that has been disputed by another page. Are you accusing Hastert of lying? If so, on what evidence? Who told ABC News of these message and why did they tell the news before they told GOP leadership or law enforcement?

Could it possibly be the "vast left wing conspiracy" of liberal democrats and the news networks? Was this the "October Surprise" that democrats were waiting to unleash to attempt to coopt the "values" stance of republicans just like the timing of the Woodward book (and his non-stop appearances on network TV and radio) was designed to hurt their credibility on national security issues?

I think it would be interesting to know WHO learned of these messages and who the conduit was to ABC News. The last Woodward book was in 2004 just prior to the presidential election and that was a blatant attempt to help Kerry get elected. This most recent book, combined with the Foley revelations is part of the same campaign to gain power for the DNC in Washington and part of the never ending campaign to undermine the Bush administration.

The left complains that a few AM radio stations and one cable TV station are "conservative". Yet, the fact of the matter is that the major media outlets in the USA led by the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are solidly in the liberal camp. Their "reporting" is more like a media outlet for the DNC than it is "objective" reporting.

This case is no exception.
Google
Lesly
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Oct 2 2006, 04:57 PM) *
QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 2 2006, 04:40 PM) *
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Oct 2 2006, 04:05 PM) *
The individual was kicked out of the house and the GOP leadership has initiated FBI investigations. They have DISOWNED him completely.

Cute spin. Foley resigned after his email exchange with a page was made public and Republicans disowned him after the fact. There is no reason to believe Reynolds, the chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, the organization tasked with increasing Republican representatives to the House, was going to force Foley to resign after Foley wrote a $100,000 check to Reynolds’s PAC in late July. What was Reynolds waiting for? The check should have cleared by late August.

Hastert said today that he only learned of Foley's messages after ABC published them on Friday. He's claiming that nobody "warned" him about Foley and the page that claims that has been disputed by another page. Are you accusing Hastert of lying? If so, on what evidence? Who told ABC News of these message and why did they tell the news before they told GOP leadership or law enforcement?

I haven’t brought up Hastert so why are you asking me if I am accusing him of lying? Why do I have to defend myself against something I haven't mentioned?

I have, however, noticed inconsistencies in the Foley timeline according to statements made by key Republicans (as did Eeyore) that cast doubt on your generous characterization of their inaction.

QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Oct 2 2006, 04:57 PM) *
Could it possibly be the "vast left wing conspiracy" of liberal democrats and the news networks? Was this the "October Surprise" that democrats were waiting to unleash to attempt to coopt the "values" stance of republicans just like the timing of the Woodward book (and his non-stop appearances on network TV and radio) was designed to hurt their credibility on national security issues?

I’ve wondered if this was an October surprise, but let’s not forget two things. A few weeks ago Republicans/conservatives were defending ABC against charges of conservative bias. Secondly, the GOP had years to avoid the possibility of an October surprise by informing a Democrat in the House Page Board about Foley’s follies:

QUOTE(ABC News)
A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page. Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.

Some of the sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley's abrupt resignation Friday were sent to pages in Loraditch's [2001-2002] class.

Pages report to either Republican or Democratic supervisors, depending on the political party of the member of Congress who nominate them for the page program.

Several Democratic pages tell ABC News they received no such warnings about Foley.

- GOP Staff Warned Pages About Foley in 2001

If Republicans didn’t want to out their own man I’m sure a Democratic congressman was up to the job.

As for your off-topic liberal media spiel, I’ll just refer you to the last paragraph of this journal entry.
Eeyore
Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

I think it already has. It likely is costing one seat in the House. With the present political winds in place additional reasons to vote against the Republican Party do not bode well for them in the coming elections. It could help tilt the majority away from the Republicans. Yet I suspect it will not cause that kind of damage.

The House Republican leadership has been fairly proactive on this matter in after the scandal broke, and they are left defending leaving him in his position.

Between then and now, damage control has already dug up the readily available proof that this is not a partisan thing and that such scandals are there to be found in the past. The most surprising one for me was the Clinton pardon that Lesly linked to, not because I am shocked that Clinton has ever made a mistake, but it just is a slimy pardon. (That presidential pardon IMO is an increasingly abused power and one that comes with too much potential for corruption.)

However, I think there is going to be some fallout in the election cycle. This could hurt national fundraising and harm the national reelection effort. If these people come to town as Republican leaders to support local House candidates in real election races, it could clearly backfire and I think most candidates will be saying no thank you to visits and support from the House leadership from here on out. (Think 2000 when most democrats including Gore didn't want Clinton on their side during the campaign.

But, if Hastert or other leadership figures are attached to a cover-up of this material, I think then the fallout could be at least 3 or 4 seats.
BoF
QUOTE(lolrdhelmet)
Could it possibly be the "vast left wing conspiracy" of liberal democrats and the news networks? Was this the "October Surprise" that democrats were waiting to unleash to attempt to coopt the "values" stance of republicans just like the timing of the Woodward book (and his non-stop appearances on network TV and radio) was designed to hurt their credibility on national security issues?


This could be lordhelmet. For a decade now Republicans have accused Democrats of whining. They used dirty tricks against Max Cleland and John Kerry and even one of their own – John McCain. Funny, but I’ve heard a lot of Republican whining of late. So if this is “dirty tricks” on the part of Democrats, then as the old saying goes “what goes ‘round comes ‘round.”

QUOTE
Hastert said today that he only learned of Foley's messages after ABC published them on Friday. He's claiming that nobody "warned" him about Foley and the page that claims that has been disputed by another page. Are you accusing Hastert of lying? If so, on what evidence? Who told ABC News of these message and why did they tell the news before they told GOP leadership or law enforcement?


What evidence? Isn’t this why we need an independent investigation?
DaffyGrl
QUOTE(vampiel)
Speaking of Democrats DaffyGrl isn't it interesting this information was all of the sudden reported to the media just before the elections?

edit : Just for the record DaffyGrl im an Athiest.

No grass growing on you! Please, I am certainly not naive enough to think the timing is anything but planned, but I feel the Repubs brought it on themselves by trying to bury it in the first place.

NOTE TO ALL: I am not, nor have I ever been, a Democrat. mrsparkle.gif Why does everyone assume I am/was? I refuse to align myself to either of the scum-sucking bottom feeders in the duopoly that is our political system. I just hold my nose and vote for the less odious option. I've even (gasp) voted for a Republican - rarely, but it has happened.

And if sexually titillating a 16-year old boy isn't pedophilia, then what the heck is it?
ConservPat
Just as a sidenote, DaffyGrl's right, Pedophilia is simply sexual desire for a child, which I'm pretty sure we can all agree this dude has.

CP us.gif
DaytonRocker
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Oct 2 2006, 07:03 PM) *

Just as a sidenote, DaffyGrl's right, Pedophilia is simply sexual desire for a child, which I'm pretty sure we can all agree this dude has.

No we can't. Your premise is bogus. If this intern shot and killed this congressman, he'd be tried as an adult. We routinely try 16 year olds as adults. But you seem to want it both ways because it conveniently feeds your hatred of child molesters.

You are calling this person a child because it fits your subjective criteria, but it doesn't fit mine. This intern was certainly a young person. But he's showed maturity beyond the "child" phase by being eligible for a job as an intern in the federal government and almost certainly, driving a motor vehicle to get there on the highways with people of all ages - including other 16 year olds.

So, please refrain from speaking for all of us. thumbsup.gif

edited to add:
The law in most states also disagree with your "child" premise. Most states allow sex with a 16 year old.
ConservPat
QUOTE
Your premise is bogus.

I don't know what "premise" you're talking about, I gave the definition of pedophile and used the legal definition of minor, there is nothing that I said that is not factually accurate.

QUOTE
If this intern shot and killed this congressman, he'd be tried as an adult. We routinely try 16 year olds as adults. But you seem to want it both ways because it conveniently feeds your hatred of child molesters.
What are you talking about DR? No one has mentioned child molesters here. This guy didn't molest anyone, but he is a pedophile, by definition. I'm not sure how anything I said pertains to my apparent hatred of child molesters [anyone here like child molesters?] or anything other than what my sentence was, a definition of pedophilia and the definition of minor.

CP us.gif
barnaby2341
Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?
It most definitely will harm the Republicans. How can it not harm them? This guy has his name on the ballot and will most likely be defeated by a Democrat. The only way this could not harm the Republicans is if he was likely to lose his seat.

Now, will this harm the Republicans nationally? I think it has to, to some extent. The upcoming election is the most anti-incumbent we have seen in our nation's history. The incumbents are the Republicans and the country is not happy with the direction of the country, whether it be the war, the energy crisis, the Congressional corruption, or whatever the story of the day is. The overall scorekeeping has the Democrats with less negatives than the Republicans. That's how it is going to go. The average citizen does not understand what their Senators stance on Net Neutrality or how they voted on the Medicare Reform Bill affects them. They will just remember the scandals and their bank account.
Lesly
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Oct 2 2006, 07:03 PM) *
Just as a sidenote, DaffyGrl's right, Pedophilia is simply sexual desire for a child, which I'm pretty sure we can all agree this dude has.

Well, I wouldn't want Foley around kids if I had any, but I don't think he's a pedo. Dictionary.com's first definition of a pedophile is "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children". 16 doesn't connote "young child" to me.

QUOTE(ConservPat @ Oct 2 2006, 08:46 PM) *
I gave the definition of pedophile and used the legal definition of minor, there is nothing that I said that is not factually accurate.

At age 16 these minors can engage in sex with legal adults in D.C. Local and federal authorities couldn't charge the adult with sexual battery or statutory rape. How can engaging in legal intercourse classify the adult as a pedophile? If an 18 year-old page had sex with a 16 year-old page would you call the 18 year-old a pedo?

Foley’s interest in young pages is not rational. What does a forty- or fifty-something have in common with a teen (16 or 18)? Nothing. That makes him a pervert. I’m not sure it makes him a pedophile.

In other news, some congressmen are passing very hard bowel movements tonight:

QUOTE(Think Progress)
Tonight on ABC, investigative journalist Brian Ross suggested there may be other members of Congress who engaged in inappropriate behavior towards congressional pages:

BRIAN ROSS: So far, Foley is the only member whose overt sexual approaches have been documented. Charlie?

CHARLES GIBSON: The only one to be documented, but are there other shoes to drop?

ROSS: We’re hearing quite a bit from former pages. They’re sending us all sorts of messages about possible other members.

- Pages ‘Sending All Sorts of Messages About Possible Other Members’
ConservPat
Fair enough Lesly and my appologies DR, pedophile is not the word to use. Jesus, I've been having a lot of trouble with grammatical/syntax errors recently.

CP us.gif
Jobius
Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

Probably. But the more facts come out about this, the less it looks to me like a Republican cover-up. First, as others have noted, the e-mails that Hastert and the other leadership had were merely creepy (asking for photos), not sexually explicit. The really sick stuff ("get out a ruler and measure it" sour.gif ) was in Instant Message transcripts that apparently* no one but Foley and the recipient had access to until ABC News broke the story on Friday. Given the evidence that the Republican leadership had, they were justified taking the action they did: telling Foley to break off all contact with the former page. If they'd tried to drum him out of office on that evidence, we certainly would have seen headlines like:

Congressional Republicans Conduct Homophobic Witch-Hunt

* I'd like to know the provenance of those transcripts. Most likely, the former page on the IM session brought them to ABC News after seeing the initial reports about Foley. But if some third party has had the transcripts for months, or even years, and held on to them until five weeks before the election in order to hurt the Republicans... that could backfire.

Edit: Swapped adjectives to make headline funnier
Christopher
I see the general theme from the right on this is that the GOP is blameless. I disagree strongly. all that comes from the Moral Majority GOP is Family values this and family values that. for them to fail to clean their own house of someone who desecrates the values they are supposed to hold so dear, to me speaks volumes about their integrity.
Hastert knew enough to have raised an alarm and brought a serious investigation at the very least inhouse by their own.
He didn't and let it slide.
As for the sad lame and very pathetic excuses involving Democrats, so what? they aren't the GOP.
They don't preach endlessly about morality and family values -- the GOP does, daily. on TV, on radio, and in blogs. trying to sidestep the issue using the Democrats is just sad. is that your excuse for it? Does anyone else have a memory echo of their Mother saying "If all your friends jumped off a bridge...."

The GOP claims to posess the moral high ground and always tries to paint the Dems and the left as moral weak pervs anyways, so trying to shield themselves by stating that everybody else does it is sad.

Honestly lord helmet is that an excuse you would accept? AMLord?

It doesn't really matter if Foley never got one of the pages, He was trying and just maybe never got enough nerve. I think the relevations from some pages that they kept quiet because they didn't want to sabotage their future political careers should show that Foley may have gotten a free field of play once he started. Also is the fact that he got caught, but other may have not.

So far it seems that Hastert knew more than he has said at first. The timeline moves around. The one time I would actually LIKE the GOP to act like the moral conservatives they stage claims too, and they fail miserably.
DaffyGrl
Pedophile. Pervert. Child molester. Does the term really matter?

QUOTE
In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent,[1] as well as those who have sexually abused a child.Wikipedia

The guy is 52 years old and he's sexually flirting with a 16-year old. Why do people make excuses for this kind of behavior? If it was your son, would it be OK for some old pervert to engage in sexual chat with him because the "age of consent" is 16?

And without making accusations, why was his behavior tolerated for so long?
QUOTE
Matthew Loraditch, who served as a page in 2001-02 and runs the US House Page Alumni Association Web site, told the Richmond Virginia Times-Dispatch that he knows three or four pages who served at the same time and "specifically had a problem with him after their service ended."

"There was, of course, the open secret that [Foley] was gay, though nobody ever talked about it openly," Loraditch told the paper.
<snip>
Staffers on the Congressional Page Committee also have told various news organizations that Foley's actions were known for some time and that the House leadership had been informed. But Democrats on the committee say they were never told. 365 Gay

There is no excuse for this kind of behavior.
Lesly
QUOTE(Jobius @ Oct 2 2006, 10:29 PM) *
But the more facts come out about this, the less it looks to me like a Republican cover-up. First, as others have noted, the e-mails that Hastert and the other leadership had were merely creepy (asking for photos), not sexually explicit. The really sick stuff ("get out a ruler and measure it" sour.gif ) was in Instant Message transcripts that apparently* no one but Foley and the recipient had access to until ABC News broke the story on Friday.

If ABC is to be believed several Republicans had prior knowledge of Foley's problem. Republican pages were warned as early as 2001. Those pages were given a copy of the instant message conversation: "Some of the sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley's abrupt resignation Friday were sent to pages in Loraditch's class."

QUOTE(Jobius @ Oct 2 2006, 10:29 PM) *
* I'd like to know the provenance of those transcripts.

So would I. I think it was either the page who received the emails or the person/people he forwarded it two. You give Dems too much credit. It takes a lot of gumption to pull this off. Of course, if pages working for Democrats got wind of this it's a possibility the party held on to it but I would only risk it if I was certain no Democrat or few Democrats could be accused of the same, and/or could not be proven they hit on pages in an independent investigation.

QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:45 PM) *
Pedophile. Pervert. Child molester. Does the term really matter?

Yes. Perverts aren't arbitrarily charged with child sexual abuse.

QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:45 PM) *
QUOTE(Wiki)
In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent, as well as those who have sexually abused a child. Wikipedia

The guy is 52 years old and he's sexually flirting with a 16-year old.

The page wasn't below the local age of consent and as far as I know Foley hasn't abused a child (a minor under the age of consent). Wikipedia didn't help you.

QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Oct 2 2006, 10:45 PM) *
There is no excuse for this kind of behavior.

No, there isn't, but inexcusable behavior is not automatic grounds for charging Foley with laws aimed at putting pedophiles behind bars.

Lordy. Keeping it real is hard work.
Jobius
QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 2 2006, 08:06 PM) *

QUOTE(Jobius @ Oct 2 2006, 10:29 PM) *
But the more facts come out about this, the less it looks to me like a Republican cover-up. First, as others have noted, the e-mails that Hastert and the other leadership had were merely creepy (asking for photos), not sexually explicit. The really sick stuff ("get out a ruler and measure it" sour.gif ) was in Instant Message transcripts that apparently* no one but Foley and the recipient had access to until ABC News broke the story on Friday.

If ABC is to be believed several Republicans had prior knowledge of Foley's problem. Republican pages were warned as early as 2001. Those pages were given a copy of the instant message conversation: "Some of the sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley's abrupt resignation Friday were sent to pages in Loraditch's class."

I didn't read that the way you did. It sounded to me like the 2001 pages were the original recipients of Foley's IMs. If I'm wrong, and the Republican leadership knew about this stuff earlier, I'll join in calling for their resignations.

QUOTE
I think it was either the page who received the emails or the person/people he forwarded it two. You give Dems too much credit. It takes a lot of gumption to pull this off. Of course, if pages working for Democrats got wind of this it's a possibility the party held on to it but I would only risk it if I was certain no Democrat or few Democrats could be accused of the same, and/or could not be proven they hit on pages in an independent investigation.

I agree it's extremely unlikely this story was in any way orchestrated by the Democratic Party. But a party can't always control its activists.
gordo
The only thing I can see this action hurting the republican party is if indeed its true that other members of the party did indeed try to cover it up. Beyond that everything else is just the same partisan battle and this being just another piece of ammo to be used, but I would not use it unless again it was shown that such was "covered up". Simply because if that is true it really does say something, though I am not exactly sure what that something could be or is, I do think the word ethical does come to mind, not so much the family values tour.

AuthorMusician
Certainly there's concern among the Repub ranks that this could happen. That's why Foley money is being dumped quickly: Source

Republicans dumping campaign money? This has got to be a first in political history.

This is also hard evidence that Foley has hurt Republican chances in the upcoming elections.
Amlord
QUOTE(christopher @ Oct 2 2006, 10:41 PM) *

I see the general theme from the right on this is that the GOP is blameless. I disagree strongly. all that comes from the Moral Majority GOP is Family values this and family values that. for them to fail to clean their own house of someone who desecrates the values they are supposed to hold so dear, to me speaks volumes about their integrity.
Hastert knew enough to have raised an alarm and brought a serious investigation at the very least inhouse by their own.
He didn't and let it slide.
As for the sad lame and very pathetic excuses involving Democrats, so what? they aren't the GOP.
They don't preach endlessly about morality and family values -- the GOP does, daily. on TV, on radio, and in blogs. trying to sidestep the issue using the Democrats is just sad. is that your excuse for it? Does anyone else have a memory echo of their Mother saying "If all your friends jumped off a bridge...."

The GOP claims to posess the moral high ground and always tries to paint the Dems and the left as moral weak pervs anyways, so trying to shield themselves by stating that everybody else does it is sad.

Honestly lord helmet is that an excuse you would accept? AMLord?


So Hastert should have ousted him when he learned he was gay?

Or maybe when he learned he sent e-mails to pages (regardless of content)?

Or maybe when he learned that he asked a page for a photo via e mail?

The e mails were creepy, but not grounds for an investigation, let alone a call for resignation.

The IMs are a different story. If the Republican leadership knew about them (which I have not seen evidence that they did) then they should be toast.

This is kinda like the 9/11 "why didn't they do more?" question. You can't act without some concrete evidence or at least some inkling about a specific event. From what I've seen, Hastert didn't have evidence of real wrong doing, since he did not have the IMs.
DaffyGrl
QUOTE(Lesly)
No, there isn't, but inexcusable behavior is not automatic grounds for charging Foley with laws aimed at putting pedophiles behind bars.

Lordy. Keeping it real is hard work.

If “keeping it real” entails making excuses for old men in powerful positions using that power over young people so those old men can indulge their perverse fantasies, then I’ll pass, thanks. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

QUOTE
The e mails were creepy, but not grounds for an investigation, let alone a call for resignation.

The IMs are a heckuva lot worse. No grounds? IMHO, our Congress should be worthy of respect; our representatives should have some gravitas. It shouldn't be "Animal House does DC" or "Old Dudes Gone Wild". There's a time and a place for that sort of behavior, and Congress ain't it.

I'm with Christopher - from a party who shouts loud and long about moral values, I find it - not surprising - but unconsciable that so many excuses are being made for this kind of behavior.

QUOTE
A former senior Republican official in Congress says Foley was one of a handful of members and staff whose behavior with pages was being closely watched.

But so far Foley is the only member whose overt sexual approaches have been documented.
ABC blotter

More to come, I’d imagine.
nighttimer
QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 2 2006, 03:56 PM) *


Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

Is there a "scandal"?

So how does all of this affect the Republicans as a whole? I don't think it does. The bum is gone, his seat will likely go to a Democrat (unless some miracle write in campaign is successful) and the world goes on. This election is about security more than anything else, not about some sicko from Florida.


You wish, Amlord. The election isn't just about security. It's also about the Republicans culture of corruption and sleaziness best personified by the new Axis of Evil: Ney, DeLay and Foley. Sounds like a law firm, but actually these three disgraced losers are the embodiment of how the Republicans have treated Congress like their personal cash register and a now a place for sexual predators to cruise for prey.

The only thing lower than Bush's poll numbers are those of Congress---the same Congress the Republicans have controlled for years. Foleygate speaks to the heart of how the GOP spends more time protecting its turf than protecting Americans---or even Congressional pages.

Careful you don't make yourself dizzy from all the spin. dazed.gif

QUOTE(Vampiel @ Oct 2 2006, 04:01 PM) *


So just why should it effect any Republican or otherwise supporter of any party?

Why should it have any effect on anyones opinion of George Bush?

I'm not really sure were you are getting a failure to "seriously investigate" from. I don't believe it will effect the elections.

Speaking of Democrats DaffyGrl isn't it interesting this information was all of the sudden reported to the media just before the elections?


Yep. And isn't it interesting that the Republican House leadership knew for months Foley was engaged in inapprorpiate contact with young males, but kept it on the down low preferring to take his contributions to the party and allow him to continue trolling for boys? Isn't it interesting Foley waited until after ABC News confronted him about the instant messages and that's when Hastert, Reynolds, Boehner and the rest turned on him like rabid Rottweilers?

Isn't it interesting the party that has made "traditional values" and all that jive their standard closed ranks around Foley to protect a safe seat and then ran for the exits when the creepy truth came out?

QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Oct 2 2006, 04:05 PM) *


Why would this hurt republicans? The individual was kicked out of the house and the GOP leadership has initiated FBI investigations. They have DISOWNED him completely.


Disowned Foley? Not hardly. Foley has given thousands of dollars to other Republicans and some of them can't give his dirty money back fast enough.

In New Mexico, Patricia Madrid called on her Republican opponent, Representative Heather A. Wilson, to return campaign contributions from Mr. Foley. Hours later, Ms. Wilson responded that she would donate the $8,000 she had received to charity.

Mr. Foley, who served on the House Ways and Means Committee, was a prolific fund-raiser. His campaign account had a balance of $2.7 million at the end of August, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Carl Forti, the communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Sunday that the committee would gladly accept Mr. Foley’sa money or part of it to devote to House races. Mr. Foley already gave $100,000 to the committee in July, campaign records show, as part of the party’s Battleground Program, to which members are asked to contribute.

"The money is in the control of Mr. Foley," Mr. Forti said. "Whatever he decides to do with it is up to him."


(emphasis added) Foley's Millions

Apparently Mr. Forti sees nothing wrong with taking Foley's money even while the party tries to throw him away like a dirty diaper. The stink is going to cling to his bucks and shame on the GOP for soliciting money from a sleazeball like Foley.

Meanwhile, Republicans in tight races are running like scalded dogs away from Foley's now-toxic money.

In Ohio, Rep. Deborah Pryce, a House leadership member, is facing questions about what she knew, and she joined other Republicans _ including Reps. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, Clay Shaw of Florida and Heather Wilson of New Mexico _ in saying they plan to donate to charities or return the contributions they received from Foley. Sen. George Allen of Virginia says he'll do the same.

Foley's money

Oh, and regarding the dirty deeds done by Democrats, Lord Helmet? Right back atcha, my man.

When I appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, I tried to mention several Republican political figures who had been involved in sex scandals, but O'Reilly wouldn't let me say that on the air. Maybe it's because the conservatives know that the sexual morality issue hits close to home for them.

Two of the leading GOP candidates for president in 2008 have both been involved in their own sex scandals. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has been married three times, was alleged to have been involved in an adulterous affair while he was married to his first wife. And Gingrich informed one of his wives that he was divorcing her while she was lying in the hospital recovering from cancer treatments.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani also had an adulterous affair of his own. He was even forced to move out of Gracie Mansion because of the public scandal involving him and his wife.

And that's to say nothing of Bob Barr, the Republican Congressman from Georgia who sponsored the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, but who failed to pay child support to the children of his first two wives and cheated on his third wife. Or about right-wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who has been divorced three times and charged with drug abuse. Or about Ed Schrock, the Republican Congressman who co-sponsored the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, who left Congress after he was caught soliciting men for sex.

And let's not even mention Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California, who had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28, and has been accused of sexual harassment by several different women. Republicans are very forgiving about their own political stars. For God's sake, they even forgave segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond, who raped and impregnated a 15-year old African American maid.



GOP Hypocrisy

QUOTE(ConservPat @ Oct 2 2006, 04:14 PM) *


I'm lost, how would this affect the Republican Party as a whole? They aren't all perverts, it's one guy, and as has been mentioned, this one guy is up a particular creek without a paddle...this shouldn't hurt the RNC anymore than what LordHelmet mentioned hurt the DNC. And again, as LH said, this has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush or politics at all. This guy is a twisted freak, he's out of Congress and is being investigated, I'm not sure what more anyone want.CP us.gif


Don't believe the hype---or the spin, ConservPat. Nobody ever said all Republicans are perverts. But they are the party that courts the so-called "values voters" and thumps their chest over how the protect "traditional values."

In 2004, protecting children against lurking threats was a theme with the Republican House committee running advertisements against several Democratic candidates in Texas, Kansas and Indiana, accusing them of being out of step with "family values" because the candidates would "allow the sale of violent and sexually explicit video games and movies to our children."

That theme has resurfaced this year. In the contest for Nevada’sa Third Congressional District seat, the Republican incumbent, Representative Jon Porter, is running a spot that notes his work to crack down on pedophiles.

"As parents, we need to know that our schools are not hiring teachers that are sexual predators," Mr. Porter says in the advertisement, which was paid for in part by the Congressional committee. "That’s why I wrote a law in Congress that gives our local school districts the information they need to ensure that sexual predators are not teaching our children."

And in mailings sent in recent months to voters in Pennsylvania’s Eighth Congressional District, the Republican incumbent, Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick, criticized the Democratic challenger, Patrick Murphy, who had raised objections to legislation seeking to protect children from online predators that Mr. Fitzpatrick proposed. Democrats said Mr. Fitzpatrick distorted the position of Mr. Murphy, who they said did not believe Mr. Fitzpatrick’s measure went far enough.


family values?

For years Republicans have clubbed Democrats for being soft on moral issues. That chicken has come home to roost with a vengeance. The fallout from Mark Foley hasn't even begun to be felt yet. If one page comes forward and tells the FIB, Foley wasn't just fishing for boys, but actually bagged one, that's game over. Denny Hastert's increasingly vague memory sounds like a guy who's been talking to his lawyers, not going over his records.

All this nonsense about Democratic sexual misdeeds may play well with the partisans here, but that "everybody else is doing it so why can't we?" garbage isn't going to fly with voters who were already surly. Trying to point fingers at the Dems only smacks of desperation and hardly cleanses the taint of Mark Foley from the GOP.

If the problem were solved simply by Foley's cutting and running, this issue would die with his career. However, unlike the budget, foreign affairs, Medicare, Social Security reform or most other issues, this is the kind of story people can easily understand. They also understand that the cover-up is just as repulsive as the acts being concealed. What happens if Foley gets tired of being held up as the lone offender here and decides to go on the record about what Hastert knew and when he knew it? Things might get verrrrrry interesting then.

This is a tipping point issue and you don't need a degree in political science to tell you that. If this is a "October Surprise" it may not have been a total surprise to Denny Hastert.
aevans176
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 3 2006, 10:11 AM) *

For years Republicans have clubbed Democrats for being soft on moral issues. That chicken has come home to roost with a vengeance. The fallout from Mark Foley hasn't even begun to be felt yet. If one page comes forward and tells the FIB, Foley wasn't just fishing for boys, but actually bagged one, that's game over. Denny Hastert's increasingly vague memory sounds like a guy who's been talking to his lawyers, not going over his records.

All this nonsense about Democratic sexual misdeeds may play well with the partisans here, but that "everybody else is doing it so why can't we?" garbage isn't going to fly with voters who were already surly. Trying to point fingers at the Dems only smacks of desperation and hardly cleanses the taint of Mark Foley from the GOP.

This is a tipping point issue and you don't need a degree in political science to tell you that. If this is a "October Surprise" it may not have been a total surprise to Denny Hastert.


NT, I wish you could take a step back from your horriffic disdain for the word Republican and make direct and legitimate statements about this topic.

I'll make a few statements- easy to understand, and instead of spewing hatred rhetoric for the GOP and all of those other things that your posts ordinarily employ... please debate them.

1. The GOP leadership didn't know this was going on. If anyone knew, it was one or two men (and I find this doubtful, unless it was literally a very short time prior to the news breaking). This type of thing is done completely and intentionally behind closed doors. It has NO reflection on the GOP or Republicans of the US.
2. GOP campaign money that came from this man had no "caveat attached". It didn't say "hey- take this money but I like to harass young boys, watch out". How would anyone have known? (I guess republicans all know about disgusting sex scandals... it's in our news letter). If someone had taken money from this man... REGARDLESS OF PARTY, they'll want to distance themselves. It's sickening in general. Why would you blame people for wanting to not attach this money to their party? Giving it to charity doesn't count? HUH?
3. This has no reflection on the party platform, the party itself, and the only way it will hurt the GOP is if the DNC can PROVE that the GOP covered it up. Otherwise, it's a weirdo that got booted as soon as we found out. That's what it really boils down to. There aren't republican meetings talkin' about Foley and harassing boys in passing...

Please. No links to left-wing websites, no rhetoric anti-GOP, and no conspiracy theories. I'd LOVE for you to debate the merits of these ideas with facts.
BoF
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 3 2006, 10:24 AM) *
Please. No links to left-wing websites, no rhetoric anti-GOP, and no conspiracy theories. I'd LOVE for you to debate the merits of these ideas with facts.


Fine! The conservative New York Post has run an editorial in the last hour or so calling for Hastert's resignation.

QUOTE
Reliable GOP ally the Washington Times is not impressed with Speaker Dennis Hastert's performance in the Foley scandal:

‘House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.’



http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/42485/

The link quoting the NYP is from a blog, but I just saw the same information on MSNBC. smile.gif
ConservPat
QUOTE(Nighttimer)
Don't believe the hype---or the spin, ConservPat. Nobody ever said all Republicans are perverts. But they are the party that courts the so-called "values voters" and thumps their chest over how the protect "traditional values."
Come on now Nighttimer, let's include everything I said when quoting me. This is what was included in your quote of me,
QUOTE
I'm lost, how would this affect the Republican Party as a whole? They aren't all perverts, it's one guy, and as has been mentioned, this one guy is up a particular creek without a paddle...this shouldn't hurt the RNC anymore than what LordHelmet mentioned hurt the DNC. And again, as LH said, this has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush or politics at all. This guy is a twisted freak, he's out of Congress and is being investigated, I'm not sure what more anyone want.CP

This is was whole thought, unedited,
QUOTE
I'm lost, how would this affect the Republican Party as a whole? They aren't all perverts, it's one guy, and as has been mentioned, this one guy is up a particular creek without a paddle. I guess you can make the case that since the Republicans are so vehemently for family values [READ: their family values], that this may make them look hypocritical, but it isn't as though the Democratic Party isn't full of hypocrites either. Both parties are hypocritical, both parties have their problems, both are corrupt, both will do anything for a vote and both really don't care about the average person...
[emphasis mine]
That's a pretty significant part of what I said to leave out, don't you think? I'm not buying into any spin, I think I've made myself clear in terms of how little respect I have for the Republican Party [and the Democratic Party for that matter], and I think I'm smart enough to cut through the partisan bull.

CP us.gif
Renger
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 3 2006, 05:24 PM) *

1. The GOP leadership didn't know this was going on. If anyone knew, it was one or two men (and I find this doubtful, unless it was literally a very short time prior to the news breaking). This type of thing is done completely and intentionally behind closed doors. It has NO reflection on the GOP or Republicans of the US.


In all honesty I do not think you can that easily say that the negativity surrounding this particular Republican politician will have not hurt the Republican Party . Even if nobody within the Republican party knew the negative news in regard to one of its members will have reflection on the party. Any politician caught in a scandal will leave a stain on the party he is part of. One rotten apple can spoil the whole fruit basket in the public eye, that is why (for example in Holland) every aspiring politician is being screened by the political party he wants to join and work for.

Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

I don't know, maybe it will blow over, but at this moment it isn't really helping the Republican party in winning the 2006 elections. It creates a lot of negative publicity in the public eye and it gives the Democrats free political ammo to use against their political opponents.

Editted to finish a sentence that I broke off unintentionally. smile.gif
Amlord
Instead of allegations about the affairs of others, how about some evidence of a cover up in this case?

Hastert knew about the e-mails, but those emails were not the smoking gun. The IMs were. Is there evidence of a cover up involving those IMs?

carlitoswhey
Of course, newspapers had the emails and decided that they weren't even newsworthy, citing the potential for charges of homophobia or whatever. Obviously Hastert looks like a dunce in hindsight, but if the papers in Florida didn't even smell a scoop it seems disingenuous to tar Hastert with anything.

QUOTE
The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald, which had been given copies of the e-mail with the Louisiana boy last year, defended their decisions not to run stories.

"Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story," said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Herald.


QUOTE
Some newspapers -- including this one -- knew of this message as well and did not find it worthy of a news story because it seemed innocuous. Thus, Democratic charges of a ''cover up'' of Mr. Foley's activities by the Republican House leadership seem not only premature but crassly political. But the discovery of other, more explicit, messages and confusion over who knew what and when raise questions that require answers -- preferably, under oath and soon.


As for the political opportunism, I'm sure that many (even some here) will continue to conflate the emails with the Instant Messages as if they are the same thing and incinuate that Republican leadership all had seen them. Asking for a photo in an email is not the same as what Foley did in those IMs.

Anyway, welcome to another October. Woodward book - check. Republican scandal - check. Outrage at immoral politician - check. People suddenly "remembering" things someone said 30 years ago - check. We should all set our TiVo for CBS' 60 Minutes for the next few Sundays.

update - Ugh. Now Karl Rove Muslim Turkish Christian terrorists hijack a plane to distract the American public from this Republican scandal. sour.gif
BoF
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 3 2006, 11:04 AM) *
As for the political opportunism, I'm sure that many (even some here) will continue to conflate the emails with the Instant Messages as if they are the same thing and incinuate that Republican leadership all had seen them. Asking for a photo in an email is not the same as what Foley did in those IMs.


Isn't this exactly why we need an independent investigation to sort out these things?

It seems there are those within the Republican Party oppostuistic enough to want to throw Dennis Hastert under the bus, that is, as Craig Crawford pointed out on Hardball last night, if anyone can find a bus with enough clearance to throw him under. laugh.gif
lordhelmet
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 3 2006, 11:11 AM) *


For years Republicans have clubbed Democrats for being soft on moral issues. That chicken has come home to roost with a vengeance. The fallout from Mark Foley hasn't even begun to be felt yet. If one page comes forward and tells the FIB, Foley wasn't just fishing for boys, but actually bagged one, that's game over. Denny Hastert's increasingly vague memory sounds like a guy who's been talking to his lawyers, not going over his records.



Yes, because they ARE soft on moral issues. The democrats are the party of "if it feels good, do it", of "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" and other expressions of degenerate behavior in our country.

You forget Garry Studds who not only "bagged" a young boy but got reelected by his "progressive" constituents in the People's Republic of Massachusetts after being caught. Why weren't statutory rape charges brought against the democrat congress"man"??

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 3 2006, 11:11 AM) *


All this nonsense about Democratic sexual misdeeds may play well with the partisans here, but that "everybody else is doing it so why can't we?" garbage isn't going to fly with voters who were already surly. Trying to point fingers at the Dems only smacks of desperation and hardly cleanses the taint of Mark Foley from the GOP.



Democrat misdeeds are hardly "nonsense". The democrats supported, and CONTINUE to support a president, a CEO, and a so-called "leader" who was sued for sexual harassment, accused of groping an intern (and other staff) and who had extramarital affairs with people in his office while at work. A good sexual harassment lawyer (who thanks God for Clarence Thomas and the democrat hysteria for his/her very JOB) would tell you that what Clinton did is create a "hostile work environment" where women who didn't "put out" were passed over. As they were. Monica was as dumb as a bag of rocks but her lack of gag reflex obviously qualified her for a 6 figure job offer (that's $100K plus for you NEA graduates) and a personal recommendation from democrat insider and all-around scumbag Vernon Jordan.

Voters are surly? Well, thanks to the never ending campaign by seditious democrats and so-called "patriots" who choose to undermine our country, our troops, and our government when we are at war, a war that received BI-PARTISAN approval!!!

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 3 2006, 11:11 AM) *


If the problem were solved simply by Foley's cutting and running, this issue would die with his career. However, unlike the budget, foreign affairs, Medicare, Social Security reform or most other issues, this is the kind of story people can easily understand. They also understand that the cover-up is just as repulsive as the acts being concealed. What happens if Foley gets tired of being held up as the lone offender here and decides to go on the record about what Hastert knew and when he knew it? Things might get verrrrrry interesting then.

This is a tipping point issue and you don't need a degree in political science to tell you that. If this is a "October Surprise" it may not have been a total surprise to Denny Hastert.


Foley isn't cutting and running (sorry Pelosi, your next face-lift will have to wait), he was BOUNCED from the GOP.

You curiously mention another list of "issues" that democrats have obstructed to make your point. I'm curious as to why?

Foreign affairs? Democrats have undermine our dealings during wartime.

Medicare and Social Security? Democrats obstructed real reform in both areas.

The democrats still haven't given us any "plan" for Iraq or any other such thing. The point out faulty republicans and then sit back all smug like they've actually DONE something.

Well, you and your ilk may get your chance in November. And rest assured that what comes around goes around and your so-called majority will encounter a storm that they could never dream of.

Best regards my fellow "American".

Vampiel
Something you will never see nighttimer post.

QUOTE
Yep. And isn't it interesting that the Democrat House leadership knew for months <insert Democrat here> was engaged in inapprorpiate contact with young males, but kept it on the down low preferring to take his contributions to the party and allow him to continue trolling for boys? Isn't it interesting <insert Democrat here> waited until after ABC News confronted him about the instant messages and that's when <insert Democrats here> and the rest turned on him like rabid Rottweilers?


No nighttimer, nothing you or anyone else has posted would hold up in court or to even someone that isn't extremly partisan as to a GOP conspiracy. Your just partisan bashing and jumping the gun.

Unless the Democrat's would like to be known as the Guilty until proven Innocent party.
carlitoswhey
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 3 2006, 11:12 AM) *

QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 3 2006, 11:04 AM) *
As for the political opportunism, I'm sure that many (even some here) will continue to conflate the emails with the Instant Messages as if they are the same thing and incinuate that Republican leadership all had seen them. Asking for a photo in an email is not the same as what Foley did in those IMs.


Isn't this exactly why we need an independent investigation to sort out these things?

They are already investigating who had them, where did they come from and did anyone see them and not release them for up to three years. Hastert specifically asked the Attorney General to investigate who knew what and when. You know darn well that an 'independent' investigation will be nothing but a circus, with no purpose other than political posturing. Think Ken Starr.

There is nothing to sort out as to the IMs and the emails. The emails were 'over friendly' and the IMs were online sex. Hastert, others and the press saw the emails and decided there was no 'there' there. Someone sent ABC the IMs and they were released last Friday. Some activist even started a blog a month ago, apparently with the intent of setting up these emails from Foley. Very strange stuff. It would be criminal if that person knew of the IMs for months before releasing them.
nighttimer
...and now another episode of "When Conservatives Eat Their Own." I'll get back to Aevans176 and ConservPat later. First up...

QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Oct 3 2006, 12:13 PM) *

The democrats are the party of "if it feels good, do it", of "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" and other expressions of degenerate behavior in our country.

You forget Garry Studds...

The democrats supported, and CONTINUE to support a president, a CEO, and a so-called "leader" who was sued for sexual harassment, accused of groping an intern (and other staff) and who had extramarital affairs with people in his office while at work. A good sexual harassment lawyer (who thanks God for Clarence Thomas and the democrat hysteria for his/her very JOB) would tell you that what Clinton did is create a "hostile work environment" where women who didn't "put out" were passed over.

Voters are surly? Well, thanks to the never ending campaign by seditious democrats and so-called "patriots" who choose to undermine our country, our troops, and our government when we are at war, a war that received BI-PARTISAN approval!!!

Foley isn't cutting and running (sorry Pelosi, your next face-lift will have to wait), he was BOUNCED from the GOP.


lordhelmet, in all your overheated rhetoric unrelated to the topic at hand perhaps you've missed what the issue really is here.

This thread isn't about the war in Iraq or social security or Medicare and if you want to debate policy on those issues, start a thread. This thread isn't about "seditious democrats and so-called patriots who undermine our country and blah, blah, blah. Been there. Read that.

This thread isn't about Gerry Studds or Bill Clinton. Neither one is in office. Using past bad behavior by Democrats doesn't excuse present bad behavior by Republicans. You don't create a positive using negatives. That's spin and nobody's buying it.

This thread is about the "degenerate behavior" of one sleazeball representative. That same representative who this time last week was a Republican in good standing with his GOP colleagues and by extension--you.

And do you really want to make a point using "Clarence (Pubic Hair on a Coke Can) Thomas" and "sexual harassment" in the same sentence? I mean, I wouldn't...but hey, if that's how you get down.... rolleyes.gif

Mark Foley quit. He resigned and ran out of town after ABC News confronted him and the game was up. He didn't get "BOUNCED" as you put it. I know sometimes you have a problem keeping your statements grounded in reality, but at least get the facts straight first. Later you can distort them to suit your agenda.

QUOTE(Vampiel @ Oct 3 2006, 12:17 PM) *

Something you will never see nighttimer post.

QUOTE
Yep. And isn't it interesting that the Democrat House leadership knew for months <insert Democrat here> was engaged in inapprorpiate contact with young males, but kept it on the down low preferring to take his contributions to the party and allow him to continue trolling for boys? Isn't it interesting <insert Democrat here> waited until after ABC News confronted him about the instant messages and that's when <insert Democrats here> and the rest turned on him like rabid Rottweilers?


No nighttimer, nothing you or anyone else has posted would hold up in court or to even someone that isn't extremly partisan as to a GOP conspiracy. Your just partisan bashing and jumping the gun.

Unless the Democrat's would like to be known as the Guilty until proven Innocent party.


Gee Vampiel, I wasn't aware any charges had been filed against Mark Foley or anyone else. Aren't the investigations still ongoing?

Aren't you "jumping the gun?" ermm.gif

You know why you won't see me posting about Democrats, Vampiel? THEY AREN'T IN CHARGE! The Republicans are. That's why we're talking about Repubican sleazeballs instead of Democrat sleazeballs.

Regarding "partisan bashing," guess we can throw the conservative Washington Times in that category, eh?

The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley of his committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened.

Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109th Congress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," and they shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come in all shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can't simply "get ahead" of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for a full investigation. The time for that is long past.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.
aevans176
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 3 2006, 12:21 PM) *

This thread isn't about Gerry Studds or Bill Clinton. Neither one is in office. Using past bad behavior by Democrats doesn't excuse present bad behavior by Republicans. You don't create a positive using negatives. That's spin and nobody's buying it.

This thread is about the "degenerate behavior" of one sleazeball representative. That same representative who this time last week was a Republican in good standing with his GOP colleagues and by extension--you


Who's ready to say it... "Game-set-match"...

Ok. Follow me here.
If this thread is about anything, it's about the title... how will this harm Republicans and the GOP. Realistically, the notions about the DNC and Democrats in the US historically, as far back as 1983 (Studds), is that they forgive things of this nature when it comes to their own (Studds and Clinton are great examples... heck, Studds did something WORSE).

No calls for resignation were made, one was made into a hero and the other was re-elected on numerous occasions. This has everything to do with what people say "by extension". The DNC defending immoral and inappropriate sexual behavior has set a historical precedent, TWICE> which we all know is worse than once. The Democrats have said that this type of thing isn't a biggie. No problemo.

My point is that Republicans have repeatedly renounced the sickening nature of this. We don't want to even see him. Yet you and others on this board act as if no one even cared, that there was a conspiracy, and that history has no bearing on the actions of today. I disagree.

I believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Democrats can forget and recover (if not RE ELECT!) child molestors and even homosexual ones... Foley shouldn't even be in the headlines by Friday... No Spin here. It's just the facts...
nighttimer
First, a reminder of what this thread is about as per Christopher.

QUOTE(christopher @ Oct 2 2006, 12:28 PM) *

Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?

Considering the claims of the GOP about their devotion to "Family Values", will their failure to seriously investigate the claims of inappriopriate behavior by Rep Foley cause them harm in November do they deserve a negative reaction?



QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 3 2006, 02:03 PM) *


If this thread is about anything, it's about the title... how will this harm Republicans and the GOP. Realistically, the notions about the DNC and Democrats in the US historically, as far back as 1983 (Studds), is that they forgive things of this nature when it comes to their own (Studds and Clinton are great examples... heck, Studds did something WORSE).

No calls for resignation were made, one was made into a hero and the other was re-elected on numerous occasions. This has everything to do with what people say "by extension". The DNC defending immoral and inappropriate sexual behavior has set a historical precedent, TWICE> which we all know is worse than once. The Democrats have said that this type of thing isn't a biggie. No problemo.

My point is that Republicans have repeatedly renounced the sickening nature of this. We don't want to even see him. Yet you and others on this board act as if no one even cared, that there was a conspiracy, and that history has no bearing on the actions of today. I disagree.

I believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Democrats can forget and recover (if not RE ELECT!) child molestors and even homosexual ones... Foley shouldn't even be in the headlines by Friday... No Spin here. It's just the facts...


Maybe it's just me, but I don't see ONE WORD in Christopher's topic starter mentioning whether the bad behavior of Democrats Studds and Clinton is morally equivalent to the current bad behavior Mark Foley has apparently engaged in.

It's not that I don't agree the GOP hasn't denounced Foley, Aevans176. It is that the denouncement came late and seems motivated more by the fact the elections are five weeks away and less out of any sense of sincere moral outrage.

This isn't about "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" or any other creaky cliche trying to tie prior bad acts with current ones. What it is about is whether the GOP---the party that loudly proclaims its allegiance to "family values" going to be in deep doo-doo because it's slipshod handling of Foley despite his inappropriate communications being well-known to the House leadership and among the Congressional pages.

I repeat: you can try to say what Foley is suspected of doing wasn't as bad as what Studds actually did, but SO WHAT? Studds isn't in Congress any longer and now neither is Foley. Invoking the name of Studds doesn't hurt Democrats and won't help Republicans. Past sex scandals don't absolve present sex scandals.

Nor does it absolve Republicans of their responsiblities in positions of leadership. dry.gif
aevans176
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 3 2006, 02:13 PM) *

I repeat: you can try to say what Foley is suspected of doing wasn't as bad as what Studds actually did, but SO WHAT? Studds isn't in Congress any longer and now neither is Foley. Invoking the name of Studds doesn't hurt Democrats and won't help Republicans. Past sex scandals don't absolve present sex scandals.

Nor does it absolve Republicans of their responsiblities in positions of leadership. dry.gif


So what you're saying is that the way that the Democrats handled sex scandals, even ones more abhorrid than this one, has nothing to do with the present situation??? Historical American precedent doesn't apply? What logic does apply if we're talking about whether the Foley scandal will hurt Republicans?

I believe that it bears truth that if the Public accepted what Studds did, or even what Clinton did with open arms... why can't Democrats turn the other cheek when it comes to Foley???

Arguing any other topic... race relations, foreign policy, etc all envoke historical precedent. Why doesn't it apply in this case? Is it because our logic shows an argument against your stance?

Again. Once more. Please state your case in objective factual statements as opposed to "republicans are scum"-esque notions.

If you believe that our History of handling these issues isn't relative, please tell us why. Right now your argument, to me, sounds like a "because I said so" commentary that doesn't hold water.
BoF
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 3 2006, 02:31 PM) *
I believe that it bears truth that if the Public accepted what Studds did, or even what Clinton did with open arms... why can't Democrats turn the other cheek when it comes to Foley???


Point of order aevans176.

I think we all know what a question mark [?] looks like without you using three of them. rolleyes.gif

Ah, here we go again on another thread:

QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 3 2006, 02:37 PM) *
What does that say about the media and bias???? hmmm....

aevans176
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 3 2006, 02:36 PM) *

QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 3 2006, 02:31 PM) *
I believe that it bears truth that if the Public accepted what Studds did, or even what Clinton did with open arms... why can't Democrats turn the other cheek when it comes to Foley???


Point of order aevans176.

I think we all know what a question mark [?] looks like without you using three of them. rolleyes.gif


One question mark or ten, the point is precisely the same.
Please feel free to debate the merits of the post as opposed to the number of question marks used. If Clinton can have sexual relations with an intern in the whitehouse, if a congressman can have sex with an underage man that he met at work and be re-elected... why on earth would Democrats be so upset about a Republican sending Instant Messages?
carlitoswhey
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 3 2006, 02:13 PM) *
This isn't about "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" or any other creaky cliche trying to tie prior bad acts with current ones. What it is about is whether the GOP---the party that loudly proclaims its allegiance to "family values" going to be in deep doo-doo because it's slipshod handling of Foley despite his inappropriate communications being well-known to the House leadership and among the Congressional pages.

Nor does it absolve Republicans of their responsiblities in positions of leadership.

I think what aevens176 was trying to say was that, the Democrats success in playing down these types of scandals could lessen their political impact. Once you dismiss sex with an intern in your office as nothing other than cheating on your wife, or a personal indiscretion, you have a hard time persuading people that hot chat like this is a big problem. Even if she was 23 and the page is 16 or 18. I wouldn't bring up old scandals to compare to this, but I would observe that, over time, some people just get numb to this sort of thing. Seems to me that this stuff drives down voter turnout, which could hurt both parties.

QUOTE(nighttimer)
the party that loudly proclaims its allegiance to "family values" going to be in deep doo-doo because it's slipshod handling of Foley despite his inappropriate communications being well-known to the House leadership and among the Congressional pages.

Question for you - if even the rational, even-minded thinkers at the daily kos, after seeing the emails, didn't think that Foley was a predator, how exactly should Hastert have come to this conclusion?

Lastly, for those of you arguing over vocabulary, here is the word you're looking for: ephebophilia
Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(aevans176)
I believe that it bears truth that if the Public accepted what Studds did, or even what Clinton did with open arms... why can't Democrats turn the other cheek when it comes to Foley???

blink.gif blink.gif **gulp** Why sure, aevans, just as long as it isn't my Johnny or Susie who's getting these IM's from a Congressman who--shucks--just didn't mean nuthin' by it!

Is that what you want???????*

Never mind that the guy headed up a committee pledged to fight the exploitation of minors...

Let me put it to you this way: If William Jefferson Clinton championed the cause of sexual abstinence to the point where he chaired a committee on it, wouldn't that make his behavior all the more hypocritical as well as pathological?

And why are you just talking about Democrats, anyway? It's not as though they have some libertine sub-organization that the Republicans don't, where they just go and do every immoral thing known to homo sapiens and call it "okay". (Don't anybody get "excited", now...)

The Republicans find Foley's behavior reprehensible as well. And it is to their credit.

*with apologies to BoF

FURTHER EDIT: If you will check my previous posts in other threads (but you won't), you will see that THIS Democrat actually wanted Clinton to resign for his hanky panky in the Oval Office. Take it for what it's worth.
BoF
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 3 2006, 02:43 PM) *

One question mark or ten, the point is precisely the same.
Please feel free to debate the merits of the post as opposed to the number of question marks used. If Clinton can have sexual relations with an intern in the whitehouse, if a congressman can have sex with an underage man that he met at work and be re-elected... why on earth would Democrats be so upset about a Republican sending Instant Messages?


Since you managed to confine yourself to one question mark, I’ll reward you with an answer.

While not excusing Clinton’s behavior, he and Monica were both adults.

Further, you might heed what Howard Fineman said on Hadball last night.

QUOTE(Howard Fineman)
If the Republicans are reduced to arguing the Democrats are just as bad, then the Republicans have lost what they thought of as the moral high ground that they built their party on for the last 15 or 20 years.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15116066/
ConservPat
Well, let me just say this, neither party wants this to become a "who's less corrupt" contest, because they'll both lose, and that's the reason why this shouldn't really affect the Repubs come election day. The fact is both parties have a fairly long rapsheet that is already public, we don't need to rehash each side's misdeeds it is irrelevant unless you're going to say that one party is morally superior than the other [which is like saying that the Christian Devil is worse than the Moslim Devil]. The true spin is exactly what we've been going back and forth about for the last few posts "Yeah we did this, but you're party did this." "Yeah we did, but you're party did this!" How far is that really getting us? The issue is this one pervert, who is now an ex-Congressman. As Carlito said, no one has any proof that Hastert knew about these IMs before we did, and until someone presents us some evidence than those accusations are just partisan attacks.

CP us.gif
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.