By Hanlon, on October 9th, 2006 at 07:42 PM
 Provided this goes as planned, I think we’re going to be in for some surprises. The House Ethics Committee is looking into the page scandal, and the net cast is wide indeed.
The letter distributed to the 432 House members now in office was signed by House Ethics panel chairman Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican, and Howard Berman of California, the panel’s senior Democrat.
AC_FL_RunContent(‘codebase’,'http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0′,’width’,’175′,’height’,’130′,’align’,'middle’,'src’,'http://today.reuters.com/media/editorial/election2006/electionsNews_3headlines_v1′,’quality’,'high’,'bgcolor’,'#ffffff’,'name’,'foo’,'allowscriptaccess’,'always’,'pluginspage’,'http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer’,'movie’,'http://today.reuters.com/media/editorial/election2006/electionsNews_3headlines_v1′ );
It asked that “you contact current and former House Pages sponsored by your office for the purpose of learning whether any of those individuals had any inappropriate communications or interactions with former Representative Foley or any other member of the House.”
Provided the pages themselves aren’t going to be submitting this publicly (meaning there is some kind of privacy protection), I have a feeling we’re going to find out that Foley wasn’t alone in this, and I don’t believe it’ll stay on one side of the aisle. I’m also curious to see just what is said by the Congressmen and their staffs.
I will say this: if a Democratic Foley-esque scenario emerges, that will signal the end of any chance they had of taking Congress. I’ll wait for the results to make those kinds of conjectures, though.
By Hanlon, on October 8th, 2006 at 11:41 PM
 I’ll tell ya, these kids today are COMMITTED to pulling these pranks. When I was in high school we’d stop at the IMs, but it seems Foley actually had sex with one of them. Now, he was 21 at the time, so not a page, but it’s the second paragraph that alarms me.
And a Florida congresswoman says she’s learned Foley was turned away from the page dorm late one night in 2002 or 2003.
Okay, now what could Foley POSSIBLY have been doing in that dorm late at night? And more than that, what was he doing that caused him to be turned away? Do we think that he’d never been there before? These are some important questions, I think.
By Hanlon, on October 8th, 2006 at 10:08 PM
Take a look at this debate. I want to highlight one part of it, but the whole thing is good.
Enjoy Emanuel railing Putnam hardcore at the end. Now, what’s killing me is Putnam’s talking point, which is being reiterated by many, is that the Studds argument neglects one big point. Namely, the Studds/Crane (remember, a red was involved as well) deal was determined by the Ethics committee. The Foley scandal was discovered by the media thanks to a leak.
As soon as Studds and Crane were found to be having their inappropriate relationships, their asses were in front of the HEC and they got censured. Foley, on the other hand, was hidden for years and as much as everyone says “Well Foley stepped down!” the fact remains that he was encouraged to run for re-election just this year when the whole GOP leadership knew even according to the most generous claims.
And that’s where we find our differences. The right acts swiftly to purge anyone in the party doing these kinds of things… but only after the story has already been made public. The president asks for new “interrogation” and surveillance authority after it’s discovered that he’s been overreaching his authority. The right talks about lobbying reform after Abramoff is exposed. And now the GOP boots Foley once his page scandal is exposed, but had been pushing him for re-election previously.
Then we get into another problem. Foley had a RECORD of preying on pages. At least eight have come forward from various years between 2001 and 2005, with accusations of the man already having a reputation as early as 1995 which would indicate that he was doing it previously. That tells me we’ve got a span of time longer than a decade, during which Foley harrassed and solicited who knows how many pages.
Studds and Crane? Well they had sex with a single page each. One male, one female, both of legal age. These guys weren’t predators in the way Foley was, they could hardly be called that at all really. Calling a guy who has sex with someone of legal age doesn’t really equal “predator”, though it definitely counts as inappropriate and creepy. A man who continually goes after pages for sex whether they want it or not, using his stature to force them to go along with him? Age or not, that’s predatory.
And further past that, we’ve got the whole party standards thing. The Democratic party, traditionally, has less of a problem with these kinds of things. The left is, duh, liberal when it comes to sex lives. So to find out that Congressmen had sex with a page, while bothersome because it’s someone having sex with an underling, isn’t that against our morals so long as he’s of age.
The republicans, meanwhile, seem to act like anything but sex after marriage with a woman for the purposes of procreation is as sinful as it gets. Gay sex, affairs, big age gaps, these are all heavily looked down upon as disgusting sins by the vocal right. You’re not going to find a lot of republicans who would have been kind to Studds even if the guy was 35 and just someone he met at the bar. Thus, a Congressman with a reputation for being weird and creepy to pages sending troubling emails should have set off all sorts of alarms.
It would be like if a severely pro-prohibition, anti-alcohol group found a beer bottle cap on one of their member’s desks. Not enough to think he’s a drunk all by itself, but a clear indication that something is up, and as it goes so completely against everything the group stands for they should have the common goddamn sense to look into it pretty heavily to make sure nothing’s happening.
And that’s where the dual standard falls apart most glaringly. No matter what Hannity says, no matter what Rush says, this situation is not Studds. The situation is not even Mel Reynolds who was re-elected during an INDICTMENT (whereas we know Foley did these things NOW). Reynolds, who was indeed charged with sexual assault amongst other things, resigned later.
What we have here is the hypocrisy of a party who spent years dragging Bill Clinton through the mud, acting like the pious and righteous harbingers of justice while at the same time hiding a man who was preying upon multiple pages. What we have here is a party who will hide their indiscretions and only act upon them once discovered. All the while they continue their masquerade of morals and values.
The Foley scandal would have lasted all of a week or so had the leadership done their jobs. If it were true that Foley had been doing this for as long as he had, but no one knew about it and the evidence said that their first discovery was a week ago then it would already be out of the news. Instead, the republicans made it the party-wrecking debacle it is by hoping to keep it under wraps all these years.
Point at scandals from decades past all they want, try to pull down all the Democrats they can, the republicans cannot change that simple fact. It’s not the media’s fault, it’s not the Democrats’ fault, it’s theirs. And now they’re getting their just desserts.
Take a look at this debate. I want to highlight one part of it, but the whole thing is good.
[youtube]T3UVgKgcgik[/youtube]
Enjoy Emanuel railing Putnam hardcore at the end. Now, what’s killing me is Putnam’s talking point, which is being reiterated by many, is that the Studds argument neglects one big point. Namely, the Studds/Crane (remember, a red was involved as well) deal was determined by the Ethics committee. The Foley scandal was discovered by the media thanks to a leak.
As soon as Studds and Crane were found to be having their inappropriate relationships, their asses were in front of the HEC and they got censured. Foley, on the other hand, was hidden for years and as much as everyone says “Well Foley stepped down!” the fact remains that he was encouraged to run for re-election just this year when the whole GOP leadership knew even according to the most generous claims.
And that’s where we find our differences. The right acts swiftly to purge anyone in the party doing these kinds of things… but only after the story has already been made public. The president asks for new “interrogation” and surveillance authority after it’s discovered that he’s been overreaching his authority. The right talks about lobbying reform after Abramoff is exposed. And now the GOP boots Foley once his page scandal is exposed, but had been pushing him for re-election previously.
Then we get into another problem. Foley had a RECORD of preying on pages. At least eight have come forward from various years between 2001 and 2005, with accusations of the man already having a reputation as early as 1995 which would indicate that he was doing it previously. That tells me we’ve got a span of time longer than a decade, during which Foley harrassed and solicited who knows how many pages.
Studds and Crane? Well they had sex with a single page each. One male, one female, both of legal age. These guys weren’t predators in the way Foley was, they could hardly be called that at all really. Calling a guy who has sex with someone of legal age doesn’t really equal “predator”, though it definitely counts as inappropriate and creepy. A man who continually goes after pages for sex whether they want it or not, using his stature to force them to go along with him? Age or not, that’s predatory.
And further past that, we’ve got the whole party standards thing. The Democratic party, traditionally, has less of a problem with these kinds of things. The left is, duh, liberal when it comes to sex lives. So to find out that Congressmen had sex with a page, while bothersome because it’s someone having sex with an underling, isn’t that against our morals so long as he’s of age.
The republicans, meanwhile, seem to act like anything but sex after marriage with a woman for the purposes of procreation is as sinful as it gets. Gay sex, affairs, big age gaps, these are all heavily looked down upon as disgusting sins by the vocal right. You’re not going to find a lot of republicans who would have been kind to Studds even if the guy was 35 and just someone he met at the bar. Thus, a Congressman with a reputation for being weird and creepy to pages sending troubling emails should have set off all sorts of alarms.
It would be like if a severely pro-prohibition, anti-alcohol group found a beer bottle cap on one of their member’s desks. Not enough to think he’s a drunk all by itself, but a clear indication that something is up, and as it goes so completely against everything the group stands for they should have the common goddamn sense to look into it pretty heavily to make sure nothing’s happening.
And that’s where the dual standard falls apart most glaringly. No matter what Hannity says, no matter what Rush says, this situation is not Studds. The situation is not even Mel Reynolds who was re-elected during an INDICTMENT (whereas we know Foley did these things NOW). Reynolds, who was indeed charged with sexual assault amongst other things, resigned later.
What we have here is the hypocrisy of a party who spent years dragging Bill Clinton through the mud, acting like the pious and righteous harbingers of justice while at the same time hiding a man who was preying upon multiple pages. What we have here is a party who will hide their indiscretions and only act upon them once discovered. All the while they continue their masquerade of morals and values.
The Foley scandal would have lasted all of a week or so had the leadership done their jobs. If it were true that Foley had been doing this for as long as he had, but no one knew about it and the evidence said that their first discovery was a week ago then it would already be out of the news. Instead, the republicans made it the party-wrecking debacle it is by hoping to keep it under wraps all these years.
Point at scandals from decades past all they want, try to pull down all the Democrats they can, the republicans cannot change that simple fact. It’s not the media’s fault, it’s not the Democrats’ fault, it’s theirs. And now they’re getting their just desserts.
By Hanlon, on October 8th, 2006 at 09:13 PM
Things aren’t looking well for old Denny. Tom Reynolds was one of the main names in the “who knew what when” game surrounding the Foley scandal, and now he’s joining the ranks of those saying they told Hastert a while ago.
He also reiterated his assertion that he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, about Foley’s behavior in the spring.
…
Reynolds said he told Hastert about the e-mails because he thought it was appropriate to inform his “supervisor” about allegations of possible sexual misconduct.
Once again the “I saw a bloody knife, but no body, so I didn’t think anything of it” defense is used. I’m not sure why this could possibly be accepted. Regardless, it seems everyone is trying to point at Hastert and say “I told him, I did all I could!” and wait for Hastert to go down in the hopes that they’ll be safe.
The problem, of course, is that all of the other evidence seems to suggest everyone knew this guy was a problem, and they were all hoping the “okay, quit that, buster” approach would solve it. Because obviously that’s the kind of kid gloves approach they publicly advocate with sinners, perverts, and moral degenerates.
By Hanlon, on October 7th, 2006 at 08:05 PM
 …and it’s his own staff. Yes, while ol’ Denny would have us believe that he only recently found out about Foley’s “activities”, it seems his staff disagrees.
The staffer, who asked not be identified because of the ongoing FBI and House Ethics Committee investigations, told ABC News of learning in November 2005 about an earlier meeting between Hastert Chief of Staff Scott Palmer and Foley, R-Fla.
…
“At that time, I became aware that there was a previous meeting” between Foley and Palmer, the House staffer told ABC News.
That seems to corroborate the account of Kirk Fordham, Foley’s former chief of staff, who said he had gone to Palmer to ask the speaker’s office’s to intervene and try to change Foley’s behavior as far back as 2003.
Whoops-a-daisy. And of course, Hastert is doing the ol’ “I won’t comment on an ongoing investigation” stonewalling that the White House was so fond of, leading to those 485 Abramoff contacts being dug up.
Much as they want the Dems to get pulled in, and much as Hastert is trying to blame Soros, Clinton, the Miami Herald, and anyone else who prefers the color blue, it seems he’s going to be the one that goes down for it. The question is just how long he’ll last.
By Hanlon, on October 7th, 2006 at 03:58 PM
 Okay, all you need to know about this one is that the redcoats are losing their goddamn minds. They’re reaching with all they’ve got, and hoping to take Democrats down with them.
Eleven House Republicans on Thursday told Democratic leaders they want them to appear before the House Ethics Committee to answer questions about what they may have known — and failed to disclose — about former Rep. Mark Foley’s communications with congressional pages.
Led by Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, the group sent letters to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean. The Republicans say Democrats shouldn’t be absolved from answering questions about the scandal, especially in light of suspicions that the crisis was orchestrated as a political move to harm Republicans.
Two things should be blaringly obvious.
One is that there is no indication that Democrats had a clue this was going on, as not one person involved has actually implicated a Democrat. They’re all pointing at Reynolds, Shimkus, Alexander, Boehner, and Hastert. Not one Dem.
The other is that the “suspicions” are entirely coming from Hastert and Sean Hannity. No one has answered the simple question of “if it’s true that it was orchestrated, how in the hell did any democrats find out about this?” We’ve had roughly 10 names in this whole thing, counting Foley himself, all of whom are reds.
I can predict a “chain of events”. See, they’re claiming that the “liberal media” had a hold of this and sat on it (despite FOX also having it and also doing nothing) simply to make the republicans look bad come election season. Thus, the evil liberal media led by George Soros sent it to democrats for no good reason, and they all agree to wait.
That sound you hear in the distance is the GOP leadership’s shoulders dislocating from reaching too hard.
Then there’s this little doozie:
This sad episode should not be a partisan issue. It reflects poorly on the Congress as a whole and weakens the trust of the American people. In order to restore that trust we must complete this investigation in a thorough and non-partisan fashion.
Of course it’s a partisan issue. Everyone involved is a republican, there’s no substantial evidence that any non-republicans had anything to do with it. If this was a Democratic scandal, you can bet your ass every republican on the Hill would be screaming about how it’s proof that Democrats are perverts and moral degenerates and they protect moral degenerates. Any suggestion that the pious right had any involvement would result in a furor, with Hannity/Rush/FOX/Savage/etc all getting on the air and railing the liberals for trying to drag innocents down with them.
The reds are desparate to pull Democrats into the muck with them, and for some reason no one is yelling about how completely illogical it is. Sorry guys, you did this. You dug your grave, now get down there.
Okay, all you need to know about this one is that the redcoats are losing their goddamn minds. They’re reaching with all they’ve got, and hoping to take Democrats down with them.
Eleven House Republicans on Thursday told Democratic leaders they want them to appear before the House Ethics Committee to answer questions about what they may have known — and failed to disclose — about former Rep. Mark Foley’s communications with congressional pages.
Led by Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, the group sent letters to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean. The Republicans say Democrats shouldn’t be absolved from answering questions about the scandal, especially in light of suspicions that the crisis was orchestrated as a political move to harm Republicans.
Two things should be blaringly obvious.
One is that there is no indication that Democrats had a clue this was going on, as not one person involved has actually implicated a Democrat. They’re all pointing at Reynolds, Shimkus, Alexander, Boehner, and Hastert. Not one Dem.
The other is that the “suspicions” are entirely coming from Hastert and Sean Hannity. No one has answered the simple question of “if it’s true that it was orchestrated, how in the hell did any democrats find out about this?” We’ve had roughly 10 names in this whole thing, counting Foley himself, all of whom are reds.
I can predict a “chain of events”. See, they’re claiming that the “liberal media” had a hold of this and sat on it (despite FOX also having it and also doing nothing) simply to make the republicans look bad come election season. Thus, the evil liberal media led by George Soros sent it to democrats for no good reason, and they all agree to wait.
That sound you hear in the distance is the GOP leadership’s shoulders dislocating from reaching too hard.
Then there’s this little doozie:
This sad episode should not be a partisan issue. It reflects poorly on the Congress as a whole and weakens the trust of the American people. In order to restore that trust we must complete this investigation in a thorough and non-partisan fashion.
Of course it’s a partisan issue. Everyone involved is a republican, there’s no substantial evidence that any non-republicans had anything to do with it. If this was a Democratic scandal, you can bet your ass every republican on the Hill would be screaming about how it’s proof that Democrats are perverts and moral degenerates and they protect moral degenerates. Any suggestion that the pious right had any involvement would result in a furor, with Hannity/Rush/FOX/Savage/etc all getting on the air and railing the liberals for trying to drag innocents down with them.
The reds are desparate to pull Democrats into the muck with them, and for some reason no one is yelling about how completely illogical it is. Sorry guys, you did this. You dug your grave, now get down there.
By Hanlon, on October 5th, 2006 at 09:24 PM
 Oh those crazy kids and their pranks. First it was a few IMs, now it looks like a few kids were so mean they actually forced Foley to solicit them for sex. The dastards.
“I was seventeen years old and just returned to [my home state] when Foley began to e-mail me, asking if I had ever seen my page roommates naked and how big their penises were,” said the page in the 2002 class.
The former page also said Foley told him that if he happened to be in Washington, D.C., he could stay at Foley’s home if he “would engage in oral sex” with Foley.
And hey, they even bring up ol’ Drudge.
An online story on the Drudge Report Thursday claimed one set of the sexually explicit instant messages obtained by ABC News was part of a “prank” on the part of the former page, who reportedly says he goaded the congressman into writing the messages.
“This was no prank,” said one of the three former pages who talked to ABC News today about his experience with the congressman.
Any bets on how they’re going to spin this one so it’s the kids’ fault? Maybe they were being too sexy and they knew creepy old Foley wouldn’t be able to resist? Come on, people! Use your thinking caps, we need a way to blame this on the democrats!
By Hanlon, on October 5th, 2006 at 04:52 PM
 I’m not sure how this qualified, but apparently in Hastert-speak, “taking responsibility” means claiming you didn’t do anything wrong, preventing any personal rammifications, and then blaming Clinton.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert will take responsibility for the unfolding page sex scandal but insist he will stay on as leader of House Republicans, a House GOP official said Thursday, as leaders of the ethics committee weighed when and how to act.
…
“All I know is what I hear and what I see,” he said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune on the eve of the ethics meeting. “I saw Bill Clinton’s adviser, Richard Morris, was saying these guys knew about this all along, If somebody had this info, when they had it, we could have dealt with it then.”
Boy, gotta love those good ethics of the right. That’s takin’ responsibility if I ever saw’d it! Well done, speaker, well done.
By Hanlon, on October 5th, 2006 at 03:52 PM
 Okay, Matt Drudge is crazy. I think we can all agree on that. He’s not always wrong, but he’s crazy. And check this one out: according to the Report, the IMs were a prank. Here, see for yourself.
According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.
The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the matter.
Yes, that’s right. Suddenly, it’s a prank. Now we’re back to blaming it on the KIDS. So, now, I guess that means that the fact that Foley asked them to measure their penises and talked about their “cute butts” and apparently met one in San Diego and asked another to come have drinks at his place is… all a big elaborate joke on him? Yes, I don’t really get it myself.
I think it’s safe to say we’re going to watch this one “develop” right down the crapper. Boy, the right is scrambling pretty friggin’ hard to make it look like it’s not actually any fault of theirs. This is disgusting.
Keep in mind, Drudge is the one who blamed the kids from the beginning, calling them beasts and such. You can listen for yourself.
And if anything, these kids are less innocent — these 16 and 17 year-old beasts…and I’ve seen what they’re doing on YouTube and I’ve seen what they’re doing all over the internet — oh yeah — you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You’re not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven’t got the whole story on this.
Gotta love Matt Drudge. See, because the youth of today is a little more corrupted than it was in days past, that means it’s their fault for somehow “forcing” a 52 year old Congressman to have internet sex with them, invite them to his house to get drunk, and tell them to send him naked pictures of them.
Just you wait, when that first story of him having sex with a page comes out, Drudge will find a way to blame that on the kids, too.
UPDATE: The story got picked up by the Freepers. Check out their take on it.
WHERE IS KARL ROVE????
His evil little nanites in Dem brains have done their job!
OMG, I hope the truth comes out NOW, especially if a HUGH apology is due to Foley!!
…
Any dem’s to apologize? Will Bob Beckel, dem operative that noted last night that gay men are pedophiles going to say anything crickets chirping
…
This is UNREAL!
dims INVENT the news. once again.
…
Its called OPTIMISM, people.
You GOTTA BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fish swim, scorpions sting, Democrats LIE.
That is just the way it is.
And this goes on for 10 or 11 pages. Yes, once again, this is the Democrats’ fault. I am continually baffled at the redcoat mindset and how their brains twist things around.
Okay, Matt Drudge is crazy. I think we can all agree on that. He’s not always wrong, but he’s crazy. And check this one out: according to the Report, the IMs were a prank. Here, see for yourself.
According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.
The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the matter.
Yes, that’s right. Suddenly, it’s a prank. Now we’re back to blaming it on the KIDS. So, now, I guess that means that the fact that Foley asked them to measure their penises and talked about their “cute butts” and apparently met one in San Diego and asked another to come have drinks at his place is… all a big elaborate joke on him? Yes, I don’t really get it myself.
I think it’s safe to say we’re going to watch this one “develop” right down the crapper. Boy, the right is scrambling pretty friggin’ hard to make it look like it’s not actually any fault of theirs. This is disgusting.
Keep in mind, Drudge is the one who blamed the kids from the beginning, calling them beasts and such. You can listen for yourself.
And if anything, these kids are less innocent — these 16 and 17 year-old beasts…and I’ve seen what they’re doing on YouTube and I’ve seen what they’re doing all over the internet — oh yeah — you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You’re not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven’t got the whole story on this.
Gotta love Matt Drudge. See, because the youth of today is a little more corrupted than it was in days past, that means it’s their fault for somehow “forcing” a 52 year old Congressman to have internet sex with them, invite them to his house to get drunk, and tell them to send him naked pictures of them.
Just you wait, when that first story of him having sex with a page comes out, Drudge will find a way to blame that on the kids, too.
UPDATE: The story got picked up by the Freepers. Check out their take on it.
WHERE IS KARL ROVE????
His evil little nanites in Dem brains have done their job!
OMG, I hope the truth comes out NOW, especially if a HUGH apology is due to Foley!!
…
Any dem’s to apologize? Will Bob Beckel, dem operative that noted last night that gay men are pedophiles going to say anything crickets chirping
…
This is UNREAL!
dims INVENT the news. once again.
…
Its called OPTIMISM, people.
You GOTTA BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fish swim, scorpions sting, Democrats LIE.
That is just the way it is.
And this goes on for 10 or 11 pages. Yes, once again, this is the Democrats’ fault. I am continually baffled at the redcoat mindset and how their brains twist things around.
By Hanlon, on October 5th, 2006 at 03:44 PM
 Hannity and the boys like to invoke Studds and Frank every minute or so in order to play the “But… but DEMOCRATS!” game, so I think actually hearing what one has to say is pretty revealing. Today, it’s gay rep Barney Franks weighing in on Foley. A great exerpt:
Do you see any correlation between this scandal and your own scandal in 1989?
The difference between Foley’s scandal and mine is that mine didn’t involve someone underage, and I wasn’t abusing my power over someone who worked under me. And of course I wasn’t the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. But since I was in the closet at that time, I understand how I was looking for physical and emotional outlets, maybe how Foley was. Being in the closet doesn’t make you do dumb things, doesn’t justify you doing dumb things, it just makes them likelier.
This is still true with Studds. Foley was taking advantage of his position to intimidate children working under him into going along with his advances. And of course, the Caucus thing is almost mind-bogglingly stupid. And one last bit.
Do you think the House Republican leadership turned a blind eye toward Foley’s behavior involving pages?
The hypocrisy of the Republicans is that they have more concern for a gay man who misbehaves than for fair treatment of gays who don’t misbehave. They told him to stop, but I think it was like they didn’t want to know. It was wishful thinking—they were hoping the problem would just go away. Maybe there were gay Republicans who were afraid of what would happen if any of this got attention. Hushing it up was better.
Smart man. Very smart man. And he highlights why, even if it wasn’t technically a crime, this is such a huge problem for the republicans.
|
|
|
