Foleygate: The Democrats’ October surprise?

Posted by: ST on October 2, 2006 at 9:41 am

The fallout from Foleygate continues, with House Speaker Denny Hastert calling for a Justice Department investigation (as well as a Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation) into the electronic communications between Rep. Mark Foley and House pages, and various liberals (as well as their cohorts in the MSM) trying to insinuate that there was a cover-up in the House regarding Foley’s behavior for several years.

While I’m glad Foley’s resigned as it’s very clear there was some highly inappropriate behavior going on between him and at least one page (and possibly more), there are other questions on this issue that pertain to more than just what he said and who he said it to – mainly, the question of the timing and who leaked the info. Was it leaked now for political purposes? It certainly sounds like it. Macsmind and Flopping Aces have two must-read posts up on this story today, that call into question not just the timing, but also the authenticity of at least one of the emails in question.

Pajamas Media has a lengthy link roundup of stories related to the resignation of Rep. Foley.

Update I: The race is on to replace Foley in Florida’s 16th Congressional district.

Update II: UGH.

Update III: Macsmind is still all over this story and is smelling a setup.

Update IV: Dafydd at Big Lizards is on the same page as Mac, and is flaming mad.

Update V: Check out the following video clips from Hot Air: 1) Of Hastert claiming that the House didn’t know anything about the explicit IMs and asking who knew about them and 2) WH Press Sec. Tony Snow having to clarify remarks the liberal blog Think Progress reported him as saying about the Foley scandal.

Others blogging about this: Malkin, La Shawn Barber, Tom Maguire, Gateway Pundit, Blue Crab Boulevard, Rick Moran

Prior:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • La Shawn Barber's Corner trackbacked with Mr. Speaker, You Must Resign
  • Talkwisdom trackbacked with Congressman Turned Predator!
  • Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with The Foley Follies
  • Flopping Aces trackbacked with Foleygate Has Begun
  • Iowa Voice trackbacked with Foleygate: Some Quick Thoughts
  • A Blog For All trackbacked with The Foley Scandal Grows
  • Wizbang trackbacked with Will There Be Foley Backlash?
  • Jon Swift trackbacked with Mark Foley Scandal Hurts Democrats
  • 48 Responses to “Foleygate: The Democrats’ October surprise?”

    Comments

    1. Severian says:

      Foley is a pig, and deserves whatever happens to him, but if he was a Democrat he wouldn’t have stepped down, he’d be running for re-election. And his fellow Dems would support him.

      If this is the best thing the Dems can up with for an October suprise… 8-|

    2. Karl says:

      I told you in the other post I was holding my outrage a bit and this is why,

      The text messages are easily creatable in notepad or anywhere else, and that email was clearly doctored.

      Yes he is a guy with some problems and good riddance, but he was still set up.

      it is unbelieveable that the kid would be saying in his emails one moment that Foley was creepy, never mentioning the IM’s at all, then suddenly after writting for advice, he is having IM’s of a much more personal nature.

      Someone in between those two events decided to go trolling using the kid as bait.

      And Foley hit the lure.

    3. sanity says:

      I think an investiagtion is going to happen, and democrats may end up with egg on their face also…

      Think of this, these emails are a couple of years old, they 16 year old contacted and emailed them to a staffer (doesnt say which)…

      and now just before an election season….they surface and have been “leaked” to the press.

      Who was the “staffer”?
      Who was holding on to this evidence of wrongdoing until just now?

      I would be interested in knowing those answers myself.

    4. Christinewjc says:

      I agree that the timing of this smells of a purposeful, Democratic demonizing campaign to smear the GOP right before an important election. In fact, the stench is even worse than the sulfur smell that Hugo Chavez blew out his butt and left last week at the U.N. podium!

      After all, look at how they covered up their own sex scandals (Clinton and Monicagate; Barney Frank’s roommate gay sex brothel). And wasn’t there another Democratic congressman involved with a page a while back? How come he wasn’t investigated? Hmmm…double standard is alive and well…as usual in Washington D.C.!

      But I have a few other questions, too.

      In Who Protected the Pervert Congressman?, Cliff Kincaid said:

      “The failure to use the word “homosexual” in describing Foley’s dirty talk is likely due to fear over being labeled “homophobic” or biased by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which exists to make sure that only positive portrayals of homosexuality are permitted in the media. Plus, the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association previously warned the media, in connection with sexual abuse by Catholic Priests, to avoid linking homosexuality to pedophilia.

      The questionable line we already see emerging in the media is that Foley is guilty of inappropriate behavior toward young people but that it has nothing to do with his “sexual orientation.”

      In fact, the entire scandal might have been avoided if Foley’s homosexuality had been exposed and confronted, rather than protected, over the last several years. Top Republicans and the media were part of this cover-up.

      Peter LaBarbera, who began his writing career at Accuracy in Media, raised questions about Foley’s secret life back in 2003, after alternative newspapers and columnists began running stories about Foley’s homosexuality, even reporting that he had a “boyfriend.” LaBarbera gave credit to Bob Norman of the Broward-Palm Beach New Times newspaper for exposing Foley. However, LaBarbera found that most non-homosexual newspapers did not pursue the matter and that homosexual Republican groups were protecting him. For example, LaBarbera quoted Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual activist group, as saying, “I could care less about [Foley's] sexual orientation.” Guerriero insisted that the congressman had no obligation to discuss it.”

      I was wondering the same thing. Why does the media omit the fact that Foley is a homosexual? It appears that he is more of a pederast, rather than a pedophile, since he doesn’t go after pre-pubescent boys.

      In the past, I have come under fire for labeling people like him as homosexual pederasts (or pedophiles, as in the Catholic priest sexual abuse scandal.)

      Several people have felt the need to “correct” me and say that men who molest young boys are usually heterosexuals. But how could this be if they are attracted to having sex with a same-sex child?

      From the article, it is obvious that Guerriero, of the Log Cabin Republicans, didn’t want to “discuss Foley’s sexual orientation.” Did he know that he was a homosexual predator of teen boys? Did he not want Foley known as a homosexual man in case his perversion came out one day?

      Like Mr. Kincaid, I’d like to know which people (and how many!) have been attempting to cover up Foley’s perverse preferences for all these years that he’s been in congress!!

      John Walsh, who stood near Foley when the Adam Walsh bill was signed by President Bush must be so upset and disgusted.

    5. Drewsmom says:

      Foley is gay, he did a horrible thing, but we have

    6. Drewsmom says:

      SORRY, hit the wrong key, but we have have several democrats that are openly gay and have done guestionalbe things but they keep getting re-elected, ie: barney franks running a prostitution ring out of this house, but the dems don’t mind his behavior, they only rise eyebrows if a Conservative is involved, but Foley resigned immediatley, unlike any of the dems.
      When is jefferson going by the way.
      I am glad this is gonna be investigated cuz I wanta know why the press sat on this for so long, they are so in collusion with the dems , but like I said, I’m glad he is gone, not that he is gay but that he was trying to come on to a kid.

    7. - The Left may have bitten off more than they can chew by over-reaching in the attempt to “get Hastert”, whom I don’t have a lot of use for anyway.

      – Now that they’ve decided to open the “who-knew-what-when”, it will also extend to which Dems knew what when. Undoubtedly the posting of this on a new, unsourced blog-site, is an attempt to distance the party from this. As others have said, it will be interesting to see where the “trail” leads. In the mean time, if this is the best the Dems can do for their OKtober surprise, what with Bush’s approvals up another 2 ticks today @44%, I’m encouraged. Remember, they needed something desperately, to offset the essentially lost seat with their brilliant Lame-mont/Lieberman stratedgy.

      – There’s rumors of a real October surprise in the works for the Dembulbs to gnash their teeth over.

    8. Derrick says:

      Great strategy people. If the Republicans did something wrong obviously the Democrats just had to be involved. And of course what they did had to be worse than what the Republicans did. These are some unbelievable leaps of imagination going on, with zero facts.

      I also just love the “Well, Suzy did it toooooo, teacher.” arguments. They demonstrate that moral clarity that Republicans are so found of trumpeting.

    9. Lex says:

      CREW did not withhold anything (and absent evidence to the contrary, your claiming otherwise may leave you wide open to a libel lawsuit). It turned e-mails it got over to the FBI as soon as it got them, back in July.

      This might indeed be a setup, but if it is, then it looks as if someone other than CREW is to blame.

      As for the authenticity of the e-mails, Foley certainly seemed to think they were genuine. Could “fake but accurate” be making a comeback?

    10. Get a clue, Derrick. Maybe if you’d read more than what you wanted to see in the arguments being made, you’ve have recognized that this isn’t about ‘if it’s ok for one, it’s ok for the other’ and ‘Democrats made him do it’ – Republicans everywhere are condemning this guy, so it’d probably be a good idea for you to can the moralistic sermon.

    11. sanity says:

      Not that this in any way excuses foley, and i am not bringing it up to do so, but do you realize (and something that no one has brought up in the media) that the age of consent is 16 in Washington?

      State Age of Consent Laws lists tha age of consent by each state.

      Again not excusing him, but if this is true, then what he has done is immoral not illegal.

    12. brad says:

      itlooks like he’s been to several states. visiting young men.

    13. Severian says:

      Again not excusing him, but if this is true, then what he has done is immoral not illegal.

      And at the very least fattening! 8-|

    14. tom says:

      How is this the Democrat’s “October surprise”? Foley was pushed out by his own party. The Dems are only calling for investigations along with some honest Republicans- including the new Republican candidate for Foley’s replacement.

      Macmind’s (blog) charecterization that this amounts to a “Gay Republican Outing” is a laugher. Seems to me Foley “outed” himsself years ago – it was general knowledge within his own staff that he was gay, or liked to spend time with young male pages.

      So now we have the right-wing blogosphere screeching and crying foul that information was withheld for political timing purposes. Big surprise. And do you really think Joe Public cares about the timing? On the other hand, if it was covered up (by Hastert et al), that *is* a problem.

      The fact that this is now mainstream news – that a Republican legislator (gasp!) could be gay – is the bigger issue here for the Republican’s to appeal to their consertative base. It’s hard to get out the anti-gay vote when the gays are on your team too.

    15. Ryan says:

      Here we go… the anti-gay vote..

    16. forest hunter says:

      Well if I didn’t know it was Autumn aka voter fraud season by now, I can easily tell by the nuts falling out of the trees.

    17. Great White Rat says:

      tom,

      Whether Foley is homosexual has nothing to do with it. Foley’s bahvior would be just as repulsive if he were involved with a teenage female page. He’s gone and good riddance. And if there’s anything illegal there, throw the damn book at him.

      The key, interesting points to take away from this are two:

      Notice how the GOP rank and file responded to the news. Almost unanimously, we wanted him out of Congress. Immediately. You’ll find that to be true anytime one of our own crosses the legal or ethical line. Contrast that with the Democrats. When they get caught in even worse acts (think Studds, Frank, Clinton), they NEVER demand that one of their own resign. Basically, the Democrats really have nothing against child molesting. As long as the molester votes the party line.
      If someone knew about this for any substantial amount of time and kept it under wraps for political purposes, that person should be in a cell right next to Foley for deliberately endangering other kids. Sad to say, that sort of power-above-all-else attitude is so characteristic of the extreme left, it’s tough to think of it coming from anywhere else.

    18. - Throw another log on the pile GWR. Recall how the pure heart Nancy (the problem with) Polosi, who is demanding investigaations on everyone, including the janitor staff, Supported and endorsed Condon for re-election, and keeping his seat AFTER he was exposed as a Congressional diddler.

      – From another standpoint, apparently its a whole lot better to get abused by a Republican, remembering that several Dem “victims” have not faired so well. Kopeckne, Foster, and Condon’s gal friend come to mind.

      – Either way, If people on either side of the aisle, the Reps for want of avoiding bad press, or the Dems looking to mine this for political gain, (Are you listening Polosi?), either way they should be called to atone.

      – Bang **==

    19. tom says:

      Great White Rat-

      Foley’s homosexuality is very relevant to the Republican party. He couldn’t even tell his constituents he was gay when the issue was raised in 2003. Why? Because Republicans don’t elect homosexuals (with a few exceptions). Let’s not pretend otherwise.

      Frank’s and Clinton’s were scandals all involving legal adults. And all three (including Studds) were consenting. I noticed you didn’t mention a Repub representitive named Dan Crane that was charged with having a sexual relationship with an underage page. He was censured at the same time Franks was. Why wasn’t he forced to resign from this party of true morality?

      You said “You’ll find that to be true anytime one of our own crosses the legal or ethical line.” HA! I won’t even begin on non-sex related scandals your party has been involved in. (see Delay, Abramhoff, et al)

      But when it comes down to it – I’d rather have my congressman having sex with the staff, than stealing and misusing my tax money. That’s just me.

      And lastly – I’ll be waiting for your calls for resignation for those House leaders that knew about these Foley emails (or IMs) and didn’t take immediate action. We’ll see where the investigation leads.

    20. Great White Rat says:

      tom,

      Nice try to change the subject, but it won’t wash. I don’t care whether he’s homosexual or not. I care if he’s involved in illicit or illegal activity.

      You’re willing to excuse Barney Frank for having a prostitution ring run out of his home because they involve “legal adults.” That speaks volumes about where you’re coming from.

      You also jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to Lewinsky when I referenced Clinton. Actually, I had things like travelgate, illegally taking FBI files on his political opponents, and lying under oath. You know, CRIMES. Again, you don’t have a problem with any of that. Tell me, is there any crime a Democrat could commit that would make you want him out? (And no, supporting the war on terror is NOT a crime.)

      You also excuse Studds, the admitted child molester. Thanks for proving my point: as long as the pervert is a Democrat, anything is acceptable.

      I probably should have mentioned Dan Crane because that case proves my point even further. The GOP rank and file didn’t rally to him; in fact, he was dumped in the primary when he wouldn’t resign. Contrast that with Studds – he wouldn’t resign and the Dems in his district shrugged. Still want to dispute my main point that you guys really don’t have a problem with child molesters?

      You want to talk about non-sexual corruption? Fine. When Duke Cunningham got caught taking bribes, did you see anyone standing up for him. Nope…gone. On the other hand, it’s been a year since William Jefferson was caught with his cash in the freezer. But he’s still in Congress and I don’t see you getting upset about it. As for Delay, he’s been convicted of nothing.

      And if any House leaders knew anything that proved Foley had crossed the line and sat on it, yes, I’ll want them out too. Now, if it turns out that the Dems knew as well, but held on to this for political purpose, are you going to demand that Pelosi & company resign? Somehow I doubt we’ll be able to find you if that happens, but you’re right on one thing – we’ll see where the investigation leads.

    21. sanity says:

      GWR, tom might want to read the Washington Posts latet story…a real shocker that one:

      “The Redder They Are, The Harder They Fall; Republicans More Damaged by Scandals.”

      Read it at NewsBusters, in which they give a nice break down of portions of hte article.

      Foley’s creepy behavior might have done him in even if he’d been the most liberal of Democrats. But that’s not assured. With a Republican at the center of the seamy scandal, however, it was almost a slam-dunk that Foley would have to quit.

      ….

      “The reality is that Democrats seem to get away with more,” says Chuck Todd, editor in chief of the Hotline, a daily political journal. “They can have an affair and bail [themselves] out. There’s a lower threshold for Republicans. I guess it’s more of a hypocrisy thing,” he adds, because such scandals put Republicans at odds with the party’s socially conservative image.

      Todd thinks he knows who’s to blame for this: “It’s the media, to be honest. What is the standard ‘gotcha’ story in the media? It’s hypocrisy. If we can prove hypocrisy, we have a story. . . . So in a sex scandal, the bar for Republicans is lower.”

      Read the article and read up over at NewsBusters, as NB says, someone pinch me.

    22. sam says:

      Foley could be re-elected in Florida easily if he changed his affiliation to Democrat. You can’t violate standards if there are not any. If there are “no absolute standards” than is not that statement wrong by definition.
      This is the new reality between conservative and liberal If you are a conservative you must reason with logic. If you are liberal you can just call people bigots, use moral equivalency, and never answer questions about your beliefs. Think, answer questions, have ideals that are consistent, be a true conservative.
      good night

    23. RichB says:

      If you all are going to get your knickers in such a twist about homosexuals in the Republican party, how about you look into the other flaming closet cases:

      Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee — you know, head of the party and all

      Sen. Lindsay Graham from South Carolina, the one who led the Clinton impeachment

      Rep. David Dreier, the head of the House Rules Committee

      How about you end the Republican Gay Agenda (a.k.a. the Closet)?

    24. Rich, do you have anything to add to this blog beyond moral relativism? If so, please do, because I’m tiring very quickly of your nonsense.

    25. PCD says:

      tom, you hypocrite, how about exposing and punishing the source of these IMs for hiding this informaion until the timing was politically useful for the Democrats? Tom, people like you sicken me. You’ll allow abuse of children just so you Democrats can gaing some power and privilege. You are the sicko that should resign, disappear, and be punished.

    26. sanity says:

      Rich your response is inflammatory in just that you want to try and stir up that which is not there.

      We have no problem with homosexuals, in or out of the party and if you cared to read even a small portion of the responses and ST’s comemnts before you got diareah of the mouth, you would recognize that it is not about homosexuality in Foley, but his inappropriate actions concerning a 16 year old page, the timing of it all, who “released” the 3 year old IMs after the emails were not enough, the call for Hasterts resigning from his post, plus more.

      Where in all that, and all that we discussed, have you gotten any kind of response about homosexuals in the republican party and we were getting our “knickers in a bunch”?

      As I said, your comments were to try and stir up trouble, and cause the discussion to veer off into some kind of bashing of homosexuals.

      Well bud, ain’t gonna happen, cause that is not what we are about and it has not been any part of this discussion.

      Can’t even say “Nice Try”, cause it was a poor attempt to change the discussion.

    27. tom says:

      GWR – I don’t recall changing the subject, I was responding to your post that “homosexuality has nothing to do with it.” Maybe it isn’t an issue for you, but it is for a good portion of those that vote Republican.

      And no, you probably should *not* mention Dan Crane because it does *not* prove your point. He was *narrowly* defeated by his Democrat opponent in 1984. This leads me to beleive that he still retained most of his support from “rank and file” Republicans.

      Duke plead guilty to taking millions in bribes! Who, in any party, would stand up for someone like that? He was hardly forced out by his own party. His home was raided in July 2005 by Federal agents. Over 5 months later (still in office) he plead guilty on Nov 28th and finally resigned a week after that.

      Regarding Jefferson, soon after this scandal broke, the House Democratic Caucus voted to present a proposal for Jefferson’s removal from the Ways and Means Committee and he was removed from it. He hasn’t plead guilty, however, and won’t step down from his House seat. I don’t think that’s a reflection of any party’s support of illegal and illicit activity. As you say, like Delay, “he’s been convicted of nothing”.

      As far as Delay goes- if you can honestly convince yourself that this guy is not corrupt, then good for you. Sleep well.

    28. tom says:

      PCD – you don’t deserve a reply to your comment, but I’ll waste a minute anyway. Nowhere in my post do I attempt to defend any one that originally held the emails/IMs. In any case, it seems to me much more egregious for an elected official, who’s job it is to oversee the conduct of HR reps, to cover-up or ignore these warnings than it is for some politically motivated group (or newspaper) to hold on to information for a story. Agree? So turn down the screech factor a few notches and easy with the hypocrite tags.

    29. Great White Rat says:

      tom,

      Sorry, pal, you did switch topics. My point was that perverts of all stripes and all parties deserve condemnation. All you’ve offered in response is a steady stream of selective indignation – if a Republican does something wrong, hang him, but if it’s a Dem, well, you’re happy to look the other way.

      Regarding the Crane vs. Studds comparison, you lost sight of the main point: voters in a heavily GOP district sent Crane packing, but voters in a heavily donk district sent Studds back for another 6 terms and a hefty pension.

      You still justify child abuse, as long as it’s done by a Democrat.

      Interestingly, you couldn’t come up with one crime that would justify removing a Dem from office. Seems like it’s a fair statement that Dems think any act is acceptable if done by one of the party faithful.

      And that’s the bottom line, which goes right back to my original post. Republicans want anyone who has the taint of scandal, even if only suspected (Delay, for example). Dems, on the other hand, will give standing ovations to child molesters (Studds). And when forced to, they’ll stage half-hearted faux ‘punishments’ (example: changing Jefferson’s committee assignments – at least until they’re sure no one’s watching).

      This should be clear, even to you: anyone, from either party, who sat on Foley’s IMs instead of contacting the proper authorities should be out of a job. You can let us know when you’re willing to say the same thing about a Democrat in analogous cases. Till then, we have every reason to treat you as just another partisan troll here.

    30. druidbros says:

      Well just a couple of corrections here.You know facts they are a funny way of being ignored by y’all. First Drewsmom, Barney Franks was not running a prostitution ring out of his house. One of his staff was running a prostitution ring out of his office. When Franks found out about it he fired the staffer.

      Second, being gay does not mean someone is a child molester. They are two seperate things.

      Thirdly, alcohol has nothing to do with Foley being a molester. Stop giving alcohol a bad name. I have had many a drink and I never wanted any young teenagers after imbibing (nor before).

      Finally, this WILL bring down the Republican control of Congress. As it should. And the longer the House Leadership stays the worse it will be. They cannot get over on this one. No matter how hard you try and spin it your stuck because the whole spectrum of the American public understands this issue. As Mr Carvelle might say – Its the cover-up stupid.

      Sister T, I’m telling you this will only be over when Hastert, Reynolds, Boehner, and Shimkus have all resigned their positions of power. But you guys keep trying to defend them. It makes the Democratic Party look really good.

    31. “Well just a couple of corrections here.You know facts they are a funny way of being ignored by y’all. First Drewsmom, Barney Franks was not running a prostitution ring out of his house. One of his staff was running a prostitution ring out of his office. When Franks found out about it he fired the staffer. ”

      “One of his staff”? LOL! Try a male prostitute he hired, who turned around and ran a prostitute ring from Franks’ basement? Franks denied knowing about it, of course, was reprimanded by Congress, and has gone on to get re-elected several times. Don’t lecture about facts unless you actually KNOW them.

      “Second, being gay does not mean someone is a child molester. They are two seperate things.”

      Wow. What a revelation!

      “Thirdly, alcohol has nothing to do with Foley being a molester. Stop giving alcohol a bad name.”

      As far as I can tell, Foley seems to be the only one implying this. Pass your message along to him.

      “Sister T, I’m telling you this will only be over when Hastert, Reynolds, Boehner, and Shimkus have all resigned their positions of power. But you guys keep trying to defend them. It makes the Democratic Party look really good.”

      Don’t need your permission to defend people who at this point I feel are getting too much of the ‘blame’ for this. And as far as making the Dem party “look good” about the only way that would happen is if 98% of Dems resigned from Congress.

    32. tom says:

      GWR – OK I get your point but the Dems previous scandals aren’t the issue to STs post here, “so enough with the they do it too” arguments. And let’s be honest about the CRANE re-election. You’re trying to tell me that Republican voters in that district would rather send a Democrat to congress than simply replace CRANE with another Republican during a Primary challenge? Are you serious here?

      But back to the point of my original post: The fact that Foley is gay is as much an issue as his conduct. It’s these supposed “values” issues that are important to the Republican base. Sanity referenced an interesting article upstream in this thread. An excerpt was:

      “The reality is that Democrats seem to get away with more” says Chuck Todd, editor in chief of the Hotline, a daily political journal. “They can have an affair and bail [themselves] out. There’s a lower threshold for Republicans. I guess it’s more of a hypocrisy thing” he adds, because such scandals put Republicans at odds with the party’s socially conservative image.

      The Republicans run on being the party of morality, so when immorral acts are uncovered, they can and should be tagged as hypocrites. For the Repubs, this includes not only innappropriate sexual conduct but the perps sexual preferece as well. So this scandal is kind of a double-whammy, you might say.

      Since Hastert has admitted he knew about problematic IMs at least a year ago, shouldn’t you be calling for Hasterts resignation like Tony Blankley is?

    33. tom says:

      GWR – two other responses to your post

      And when forced to, they’ll stage half-hearted faux ‘punishments’ (example: changing Jefferson’s committee assignments – at least until they’re sure no one’s watching).

      My point here is that the Dems do what the legally/procedurally can. As I understand it, the whole Rep controlled House can vote for censure or for Jefferson’s removal. Why aren’t the Repubs calling a vote? Instead they come to his defense when the FBI searches his office.

      This should be clear, even to you: anyone, from either party, who sat on Foley’s IMs instead of contacting the proper authorities should be out of a job. You can let us know when you’re willing to say the same thing about a Democrat in analogous cases. Till then, we have every reason to treat you as just another partisan troll here.

      I agree here, and am willing to say that if a Democrat in congress knew about the IMs/emails/problems here than they should receive just punishment. But I think investigations that no Dems knew because the Repubs tried to sweep it under the Rug. The only only Dem on the Staff Page Committee (or whatever its called) has already said that he was never briefed on these problems. Look at your posts, the knee-jerk reaction here is to blame everything on the Dems. It’s the timing, they (political group and newspaper) waited to hold this info, etc. So what? They are not elected officials. They have a political agenda. It seems to me much more egregious for an elected official, who’s job it is to oversee the conduct of HR reps (Hastert), to cover-up or ignore these warnings than it is for some politically motivated group (or newspaper) to hold on to information for a story. Do you at least agree with this?

    34. PCD says:

      tom,

      You are shameless and in top spin form. Yes, the people who held the story for maximum political gain need to be prosecuted, convicted, and sent to prison for aiding and abetting this. You see a crime, you report it or be an accessory. It is that simple, except to a partisan, moral relativist like you.

      Now, this is a manufactured scandal where the media and the Democraps like you are telling half-truths and only looking for Democrats to gain power.

      I think everyone who applauded Gerry Studds molesting of Pages should be removed from Congress immediately, don’t you, tom??? Disagreeing proves without a doubt that you are a hypocrite, first class, tom.

    35. tom says:

      PCD – you’ve just got to get past the Studds incident it seems to be consuming you. Your last statement is histerical (in all senses of the word). And expand yout vocabulary beyond using the word “hypocrite”. It’s getting tiring.

    36. Great White Rat says:

      tom,

      Either you’re denser than I thought, or spinning like a top, or simply disingenuous.

      For starters:
      the Dems previous scandals aren’t the issue to STs post here, “so enough with the they do it too” arguments.

      No one here is making the “they do it too” argument. If we were, we’d be saying Foley should keep his seat, since that’s what you guys did when Studds was caught with his hoo-hoo where it didn’t belong. So go put your straw man away, OK?

      Next:
      You’re trying to tell me that Republican voters in that district would rather send a Democrat to congress than simply replace CRANE with another Republican during a Primary challenge? Are you serious here?
      What, you’re now challenging the election returns? The scandal broke post-primary, as I recall, and the voters turned their back on Crane. Again, you seem incapable of grasping the point: GOP voters will reject pedophiles and perverts. Democrat voters embrace them. That’s central point I made in the original post. It’s the history and the track record, and no matter how you try to spin it, you have shown nothing in any of your posts to disprove it.

      Then we have this:
      The Republicans run on being the party of morality, so when immorral acts are uncovered, they can and should be tagged as hypocrites. For the Repubs, this includes not only innappropriate sexual conduct but the perps sexual preferece as well. So this scandal is kind of a double-whammy, you might say.
      Basically, this is a backhanded way of saying that the Dems are notmoral creatures, so in your view anything they do is OK – child molesting, rape, perjury, and maybe even murder. You wanted to know how I sleep knowing Tom Delay is a Republican. Maybe you can tell us how you sleep knowing your team finds nothing wrong with those.

      Oh yes, and I notice you tried again to slip in the gay-bashing…aren’t you guys supposed to be the tolerant ones?

      Further:
      Since Hastert has admitted he knew about problematic IMs at least a year ago,
      No, he knew about the Emails a year ago. The Emails that the FBI did not find actionable. So, no, given current evidence, I’ll make no such call.

      Regarding Jefferson:
      the Dems do what the legally/procedurally can. As I understand it, the whole Rep controlled House can vote for censure or for Jefferson’s removal. Why aren’t the Repubs calling a vote? Instead they come to his defense when the FBI searches his office.

      What, all the Dems in Congress came down with broken arms at the same time? Why didn’t YOUR guys call for censure or removal – unless they approve? I’ll grant you that Hastert should not have defended Jefferson from the FBI searches – that was plain dumb.

      Finally:
      It seems to me much more egregious for an elected official, who’s job it is to oversee the conduct of HR reps (Hastert), to cover-up or ignore these warnings than it is for some politically motivated group (or newspaper) to hold on to information for a story. Do you at least agree with this?
      There’s no evidence of a cover-up on Hastert’s part, so your question is hypothetical. FBI checked the Emails and did nothing.

      If it turns out that Hastert did know about the IMs and did nothing, then he should go.

      But also, if a Democrat group knew about them, and endangered other pages by sitting on them, they’re just as negligent.

      So let’s sum up the thread, because I’m done with you here.

      – You have defended Barney Frank allowing a prostitution ring to be run out of his basement.

      – You have defended Studds’, the admitted child molester.

      – I’ve invited you to tell us whether there is ANY crime a Democrat might commit that would cause you to call for him to resign. You haven’t been able to specify even one.

      In short, you’ve given a marvelous testament to my original point: we want our wrongdoers out of Congress; you want yours to stay. Or maybe go to the White House.

    37. tom says:

      ST – what happened to my response to GWR?

      And to my original point about Foley’e “outing” to the public and how that in particular hurts the Rep base.

    38. tom says:

      And let me help GWRs poor recollection of the facts about Crane’s reelection – On July 20, 1983, the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who subsequently apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984. QWR sez The scandal broke post-primary, as I recall, and the voters turned their back on Crane. Nice try but don’t you think thats an awfully early Rep Primary? And remember, he lost by less than 11K votes,that’s substantial support coming from somewhere. Maybe it was the Dems that tried to re-elect the pedophile here too?

    39. Several comments got stuck in moderation, tom. They’ve been released.