Video: Michelle discusses Foleygate on O’Reilly; Update: WashTimes calls for Hastert’s head, nominates … Henry Hyde
posted at 9:07 pm on October 2, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The stars align as Michelle, Bill, and KP agree that Mark Foley is a predator for whom no one should be making excuses. I didn’t think anyone had been, and in all candor I find it somewhat offensive that wanting the same standards to apply to both sides should be considered tantamount to apologizing for what he did. No one’s letting Foley off the hook. The fact is, if someone knew what he was up to and didn’t act to stop it immediately, they’re complicit in child abuse. Period. Republican, Democrat, politician, civilian, what have you. Makes no difference.
But people can disagree about these things, I guess.
I forgive the boss because she pays my salary and I forgive O’R because he pays her salary, but I’ve got no reason to forgive—
Oh, okay. All’s forgiven, baby!
Update: Drudge has the siren up with a teaser that the Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, will call for Hastert’s resignation tomorrow. Before finding out what he knew and when he knew it. Who’s playing politics here — the “investigate both sides” crowd or the people who want heads to roll now, as quickly as possible, to minimize the fallout on Election Day?
Update: The Democratic playbook — literally:
1. Pay no heed to the distinction between the e-mails and IMs. There’s no evidence (yet) that any Republican leaders knew about Foley’s cybersex IMs. There’s plenty of evidence that they knew how uncomfortable the “overly friendly” e-mails made at least one page. So the Dems will press the GOP on what they knew about the former and will constantly, in their press releases, refer to the “GOP’s knowledge of the sexually explicit e-mails.”
Pointing out what a nasty, underhanded tactic this is apparently constitutes “making excuses” for Mark Foley.
Update: Lorie Byrd’s disgusted with the WashTimes, too.
Update: Perfect. Not only does the WashTimes cynically call for Hastert’s head to roll ASAP to get this scandal off voters’ radar screens, they want to nominate as his successor Mr. Impeachment himself, Henry Hyde. Brilliant, Tony Blankley.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
The fact is, if someone knew what he was up to and didn’t act to stop it immediately, they’re complicit in child abuse. Period.
Exactly.
Mr. Bingley on October 2, 2006 at 9:13 PM
Michelle pulled no punches. She was giving both barrels, and it seemed Bill was trying to keep her calm. Give ‘em H-E-double-hockey-sticks, Michelle.
Kirsten…nice outfit – nice legs.
Lone Star on October 2, 2006 at 9:19 PM
DO NOT LOOK AT THE LIBERALS LEGS!!!!
…..amateur…
/sarc
HerrMorgenholz on October 2, 2006 at 9:31 PM
1. Foley = pervert. Michelle doesn’t pay my salary – who’d she have in mind? I haven’t seen/read anyone defending Foley, not a one, yet! Anywhere.
2. O’Reilly pontificating about sex-matters just makes me laugh.
3. Kirsten, playing the role of Sister Teresa also makes me laugh, and I didn’t notice her legs.
4. The Libs playing this ‘moral high-road’ is also risible.
5. You’re not going to like this, but the kid played along, and I don’t care what age he was then – if he was old enough to be left alone in Wash. D.C. to be a page, then he was old enough to know.
6. If the walls in Wash. D.C. could talk, on page incidents, male and female, and each Congressman and Senator would have to resign, or would have had to over the years, we’d have been bereft of a forum for most votes over the years.
7. That’s not to say that I approve of or defend it; it’s just saying what has been and still is.
8. For the Dems to be the priestly on this, is the ultimate irony.
9. For the Repubs to have given them the opportunity is the ulitmate stupidity.
10. The jackasses are us!
Entelechy on October 2, 2006 at 9:43 PM
Sorry Michelle, but Allah is right and you are wrong on this one. Demanding accountability for BOTH sides is not in any way shape or form letting Foley off the hook. If there were people who knew this was going on but kept it a secret
so they could spring it on the public at the most politically opportune time, then they are complicit in whatever wrongdoing that Foley might have committed. If the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans or conservative media kept knowledge of similar wrongdoing by a democrat secret until a politically opportune time, would you be willing to let them off the hook because the democrat bore ultimate responsibility?
Keeping revelations of the type of wrongdoing that Foley is accused of secret for any reason is disgustingly wrong and quite possibly criminal. Doing it for political gain as it may have been done here is especially slimy, and pointing that out
thirteen28 on October 2, 2006 at 10:04 PM
AP–
No one’s letting Foley off the hook? You should see my e-mail. I’ll print some tomorrow. But just read some of the comments here first:
And this:
And this from Drudge’s radio show:
More:
He goes on to complain about the loss of Internet freedom and regulations on online gambling.
Oookay.
Michelle on October 2, 2006 at 10:30 PM
AP at KP
I shudder to think how an AP/KP IM would sound…
RightWinged on October 2, 2006 at 10:31 PM
Michelle,
You’re talking oranges while Allah is talking apples.
Regardless of those emails, those of us asking “who knew?” about this are not letting Foley off the hook. We are asking who allowed him to continue what he was doing by protecting his secret. If guilty of protecting the secret, they are complicit, and pointing that out is holding an additional party accountable – it is not letting the chief culprit off the hook.
There is a valley-wide difference between what Allah is saying and what those emails are saying.
thirteen28 on October 2, 2006 at 10:35 PM
Timing or not; if this is what it takes to get us a Speaker who won’t shit on the Speech and Debate Clause in order to shield Congressmen from corruption investigations, then I’m all for it. Hit the bricks, Mr. Speaker, and take Neville Frist along with you.
Kid from Brooklyn on October 2, 2006 at 10:36 PM
It would be a horrible time for Hastert to step down, we are giving the Dem’s just what they want if we have a fight for the leadership just before the election.
mesablue on October 2, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Michelle, I’m with you in being disgusted by Foley.
Several years ago, I inadvertently ended up helping a forum by offering to be their chat moderator, and within 2 days I demanded that only adults be allowed in their chat room, and that adult meant 21+. Not only were there adult perves there, but we got flooded by kids in a hurry to prove how grown up they were. I refuse to assist any strange[r] kid in increasing their sex education, and I got my way. My [Danno]Junkyard Dog nickname came from those who approved of my ruthless immediate kicking out of any who did not meet my standards.
I’ll be real interested to read the WT article on why Hastert should resign. As far as I know, he didn’t know about the Im’s, he did turn over the e-mail matter to the person responsible for watching over the interns welfare, and he has demanded an investigation into this matter. I hope the paper includes the necessity to know who knew what, and when, but if I’ve read right, and Hastert did not know of Foley’s further actions, then Hastert should not resign. If I am wrong, then get out of my way as I’ll be pushing to get to the head of the line in calling for Hastert to get out.
DannoJyd on October 2, 2006 at 10:46 PM
I don’t know what Drudge’s and Daily Pundit’s issues are, but the vast, vast majority of righty bloggers are focusing their pushback not on defending Foley but on trying to hold the people who sat on those IMs responsible for their complicity in this. And why shouldn’t they?
Allahpundit on October 2, 2006 at 10:49 PM
Amen, Allah.
I think I have to question why Brian Ross is asking for…
I thought they had all of the info they needed, and why ask only for Foley’s contacts with pages?
DannoJyd on October 2, 2006 at 11:02 PM
I don’t think a lot of folks on the right are defending Foley per se. Most of what I have read and heard on the issue is he is a digusting perv, and despite the logistical pain the GOP will have from losing his seat, we’re well shut of him. Most of the focus seems to be on the timing of the ‘discovery’ of these IM transcripts. A lot of callers on talk shows get drawn into the ‘Well, the dems did it first’ mantra because the media is riding this one like a pogo stick. We can only hope there will be a philosophical groining resulting from their over enthusiasm. The human damage done, which is the angle I think Michelle is coming from, is receiving very little attention, which says quite a bit about how jaded and emotionally calloused we are as a society. It seems most are inclined to say ‘Yes, yes, some poor 16 year old was sexually harassed by some snotty old power preening perv, but this timing really stinks’. From what I’ve read here, I don’t think there’s a lot of disagreement, I think we’re just looking at a lot of angles and getting to the same place at different times….
austinnelly on October 2, 2006 at 11:06 PM
I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t do so. Praised investigative blogger efforts here. But just as Dems are in danger of overreaching on their end in “holding Republican leaders accountable” (read: unfairly blaming the entire GOP for Foley’s filth), so are Repubs in the Beltway in danger of overreaching in holding the IM-sitters more accountable than the IM initiator himself. Not saying righty bloggers are necessarily doing this. But I’m reading it in my mail and hearing in on conservative talk radio. And it does not bode well.
Michelle on October 2, 2006 at 11:15 PM
The righteous indignation from the Left is beyond hypocritical.
That Repbublicans seemed shocked there are (whispering) GAYS in the party is beyond funny.
That we don’t have a viable 3rd party is scary.
SouthernGent on October 2, 2006 at 11:23 PM
What Foley did was wrong,disgusting, and deplorable, but that doesn’t justify what appears to be a manipulation of the “facts”.
Pam on October 2, 2006 at 11:23 PM
But that’s partly because there’s nothing left to say about Foley, really. He’s done. He’s a child predator, he’s left the House, he’s finished politically. It’s not that the IM-sitters are more accountable, it’s that Foley’s culpability has already been established. Theirs hasn’t. Yet.
Allahpundit on October 2, 2006 at 11:23 PM
I think the outrage on the right doesn’t seem as directed at Foley as it might, is that it’s sort of obvious to us. He’s a sicko and it was necessary that he resigned. Unlike the other side, we weren’t going to sit around weeping about his “disease” and just scold him. He’s done, and Hastert called for a criminal probe. But again, we are outraged, but the force behind that outrage is sort of toned down because action has been taken and continues to be taken, rather than excuses made for his behavior.
I think the right is pissed that the Dems hope to win this election because of some sicko writing IMs to some kid, rather than because anyone supports them or their ideas (or lack thereof). It’s terrifying that this could tip the scales for the party of obstruction and no ideas. It’s terrifing to think what we’re in for, all because someone sat on this information and released it at the right time with the proper media spin on “what the leadership knew”. And it’s the selective outrage by the left that is so infuriating.
RightWinged on October 2, 2006 at 11:27 PM
Great minds think alike.. Glad to see, after I hit “submit comment” that AP was on the same wave length here.
RightWinged on October 2, 2006 at 11:29 PM
I have seen a few emails trying to use the age of consent in DC (16 years, also the age of the boys at the time of the emails and IMs) to construct a defense of Foley as to whether he did anything that was actually illegal or not. They don’t seem to be defending him from a moral point of view, but from a legal one and political one, and I suspect that that’s what Michelle is referring to (meaning she isn’t talking about you, AP). But I could be wrong. Having seen a few of those emails, which have nothing to do with the legitimate points made here and elsewhere about the roles played by CREW etc in bringing the IMs to light, I have to say that I find that particular line of thought unpersuasive. It may keep Foley out of jail, but doesn’t keep him out of moral hot water and doesn’t answer legitimate questions about the GOP leadership’s role.
The overarching point here, to me, is that Foley abused his position of power and trust to prey on boys whose parents reasonably trusted him to at least not pursue, if not actively protect, them. It doesn’t look to me at this point that the GOP House leadership was in a position to deal with anything before the IMs surfaced, but that hasn’t stopped the politics of that angle from getting way ahead of the facts. The Dems are running with a Watergate and the WashTimes is already demanding Hastert’s head. Neither is in a position to demand what they’re demanding or claim what they’re claiming.
Right now it’s looking like the handling of the IMs will rebound on some on the left and tar them with holding evidence that a predator was on the loose for purely political reasons. Their only defense, if that’s what they did, will be that Foley’s actions weren’t technically illegal (because of the age of consent law, ironically aligning them with the only people who have even attempted to defend Foley at all). If they held the IMs for political reasons and that’s proven, this is going to be one bloody election. You could have two scandals spreading into both parties, one about what the GOP leadership knew and when about Foley; the other, about what the left knew and when about Foley and why they held what they knew as long as they did. If you think the last five years have been acrimonious, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Bryan on October 2, 2006 at 11:41 PM
The explicit IMs were first revealed Friday afternoon. This is only the first full MSM news day of the scandal. Today, we saw more predatory IMs released today. I don’t want to just hurry up and move on from Foley. I think it’s worth pausing and reflecting and hammering at Foley’s M.O.–sidling up to teens, winning their trust, showering them with praise and gifts, etc.–because it’s the M.O. of every successful sexual predator. Yes, he resigned. But I don’t think it’s an empty or moot gesture to focus on how he did what he did, because it’s not clear to me at all that he has ‘fessed up to his predation. He says he’s an alcoholic with “issues.” That does not cut it with me.
Michelle on October 2, 2006 at 11:46 PM
Guess I wasted my time writing a long post on the earlier HotAir thread on this subject a couple inches below.
I haven’t seen anyone defending Foley. In fact, just the opposite; As usual, We call for draconian punishment of OUR transgressors, while the Dems consider them resume enhancers when the perpetrators are themselves Dems.
What I do see is Conservatives not rolling over like much beaten dogs and allowing the DNC to blow this up into something larger than reality seems to indicate.
WE are calling for the appropriate punishment for Foley, and for anyone else involved in any coverup… Regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on.
While it is apparent that (most of) the Dems faux outrage over the known facts of this episode is based ONLY on political advantage, not because it offends any moral compass that they may have.
It’s so cliche any more, but “I question the timing.”
And we can’t allow the Dems to make any more ‘political hay’ out of this than the reality of it deserves. If any of THEM knew about this earlier and ’sat on it’ until the maximum political effect could be gotten from it, they are just as guilty as Hastert if he knew the more lurid details long ago.
And from what I have heard, the provenance of the more lurid IMs is quite suspect.
I don’t know if AOL actually keeps a complete record of IM messages, especially that far back… Barring that, unless the youngsters involved made screen captures of the IM’s and preserved them to the satisfaction of computer forensic specialists, the things being published COULD be complete fabrications by someone who wants to smear all of the GOP. I’m not saying that they ARE fabrications, but I raTHer think that they could very well be.
I’m glad Foley is gone; we don’t need any creepy Congressmen even if they actually broke no laws. But I don’t want to see the Dems get away with any dirty tricks either, so this whole thing needs to be looked at under the microscope by any conservative pundit or blogger that has any interest in it.
Let the TRUTH out, let the chips fall where they may, and even if it costs us the majority in Congress, so be it… But don’t let anything but FACTS cost that majority.
LegendHasIt on October 2, 2006 at 11:47 PM
Is it “making excuses” for him, though, to point out that he kept things appropriate with some of these kids? I’m willing to conclude he’s a child predator; I’m not willing to conclude that every kind gesture he ever made towards every kid he ever encountered was a ploy to get their pants off.
Allahpundit on October 2, 2006 at 11:48 PM
It’s probably as futile as spitting into the wind to propose that we make short work of Foley as bloggers and commenters. However, I do propose that we quickly vent our righteous indignation and then promptly go back to talking about the looming crises of our time. We’re disgusted in one way or another by Foley’s emails, IMs, and pants-chasing, but we also have much more important sexual issues to which to attend. Someone breaks one or another of our numerous rules about sex every few seconds, but the moon doesn’t fall, and the sun doesn’t go dark. I assure you, though, that if we don’t start conceiving more children when we do have sex, we’ll wish the moon would fall, so we won’t have to watch our liberal democracies be inherited and be destroyed by imams and ayatollahs.
The only sex that really matters now is sex that makes babies. It should be obvious that Foley isn’t going to be much help in that connection. Securing the future by having children, early and often, is necessarily the responsibility of men and women of normal sexuality. I don’t see that responsibility being taken up.
Kralizec on October 3, 2006 at 12:00 AM
Well, I guess the FBI and Florida state investigations will tell us whether it was closer to 3 or closer to 13, and whether the graduation cards and Morton’s outing were merely kind or more than creepy.
As for Kralizec’s proposal, I’ve contributed two–and they are more than I can handle right now. The rest of you get busy and pick up the slack. I’m going to sleep.
Michelle on October 3, 2006 at 12:21 AM
Someone else had better contribute four, then, because the big A ain’t contributing squat.
Allahpundit on October 3, 2006 at 12:23 AM
Personally, I’m waiting for the other shoe.
If it is just sexually explicited email… while horrid and undefendable, I question his timing for leaving the race in disgrace and hiding in rehab. I am afraid there is more to it than what we have.
However, I am going to sit here on my hands and wait more *facts* to come out. I’m still puzzled as to where the emails and the IMs came from. They don’t just magically appear from thin air.
Someone must of hacked the mail server, or one of the two parties leaked the emails… as for the IMs… someone must of saved them on their PC.
Who knows… maybe his laptop crashed and some jerk at Best Buy found them and emailed them around.
I’m glad Foley is gone, but I fear the worst is yet to come.
E L Frederick on October 3, 2006 at 12:44 AM
AP,
The vast majority of conservative bloggers are
A: Glad Foley is gone and taken care of judicially
B: Curious why a sex scandaled party (Democrat) would bring back more attention on itself
C: Realize that manuevering for that elusive 2% will cause a series of say anything comments from the party out of power
EricPWJohnson on October 3, 2006 at 1:09 AM
On Kralizec’s proposal, I’ve contributed 2, one of which served in the Army. He, with his wife’s able assistance, is now working to give us 2 more great lil conservatives.
Having read the WT opinion piece, I think that Blankley needs to look for a new job as I’m sick and tired of those who would pile
baseless chargescrud on republican speakers as has happened to Newt, and his solution is to place in the position a man who is, politically speaking, on his last leg? In this case, Tony would have us react like a bunch of freaking, panicky homophobes. Stuff that.In America, a person is still innocent until proven guilty, right?
DannoJyd on October 3, 2006 at 1:13 AM
au contraire Kralizec. While I understand your point as a whole, at least conservatives are cranking out WAY more children than libs. The population replenishment by Muslims is a major concern on Europe’s doorstep right now, but that hasn’t hit our shores. We’re quickly turning in to a hispanic majority country though which is bad in that it’s the result of illegal immigration/open borders, but not on racial grounds. I’d be happy to find myself a hot hispanic chick. At least it’s better than being taken over by radical Islamists.
So anyway, I’m not sure that study refutes your actual point or not… but it’s good news one way or another, especially sense the claim is that California could be decidedly red in a decade. All the more reason we can’t “give up on Republicans” this election because of bitch moves like what Frist said today… Democrats are desperate to get voting rights for 10s of millions of illegals to counter the “fertility gap”. Giving them any power gets them that much closer to this goal.
RightWinged on October 3, 2006 at 1:20 AM
I’m begging you: PLEASE, take us OUT of the 60’s. Please stop appending “Gate” at the end of every scandal.
I just read the Washington Times op ed that Michelle linked on her site tonight. I’m inclined to agree that Hastert should resign. Combine this with his opposition to the FBI’s involvement in the incident with the “cold cash” wrapped in aluminum foil in the freezer….
It seems to me that Hastert is more interested in covering for the good ol’ boys in the House rather than running a proper ship.
I also wonder if the timing of this scandal is going to backfire on the Dems somehow. A “full investigation” may reveal that Hastert wasn’t the only one who knew something was amiss.
On the one hand, the point is moot if this issue tips the scales so they take control of the House in this election. If that happens, they can bury this investigation once they take over and turn their focus toward Impeachment.
On the other hand, if the RINOs retail control of the House, the public (and the MSM) will have forgotten about this incident by the time the investigation is concluded.
In either case, my guess is we won’t find out any significant facts about “who knew and when did they know” until after the election is decided. You can’t conduct an investigation when Congress isn’t in session because everybody is out campaigning. ;)
Dave Shay on October 3, 2006 at 1:25 AM
I want to avoid getting personal, but since you’ve mentioned the particulars of your case, I’ll go as far as to say that if federal, state, and local government weren’t directly or indirectly taxing away 50% of your earnings, you’d have an easier time reconciling the demands of family and political activism.
Kralizec on October 3, 2006 at 1:40 AM
Where’s my last comment? Held for approval or something?
RightWinged on October 3, 2006 at 1:40 AM
Hey Kralizec, I wrote a lengthy reply to your earlier comment, but I suspect the spam filter picked it up because of it’s length and because it had a link. Anyway, I don’t feel like retyping it all, but check this story that I think is kind of related to what you’re talking about.
RightWinged on October 3, 2006 at 2:05 AM
I understand. The importance of privacy and, if need be, even hypocrisy in connection with political activism is very simply that it’s often impossible or infeasible to practice what one preaches, sincerely, as being advantageous to one’s society. In the case at hand, it seems possible to be poor, ugly, gay, infertile, or just unlucky in love, without the truth of one’s message regarding demography being at all impaired. Moreover, one is plainly likely to have more time and energy for the politics of demography, if one isn’t a parent. So there are all these complexities, like “wheels within wheels.”
Kralizec on October 3, 2006 at 2:15 AM
To RightWinged (October 3, 2006 at 2:05 AM). Yeah, isn’t it delicious that abortion is, in a way, self-annihilating? Randall Parker, the FuturePundit, has even speculated that abortion selects against any genetic tendency not to want children, and it selects in favor of any genetic tendency to want a child so much as to be unwilling to abort a baby. He speculates that over time, in a closed system, abortion would produce a populace filled with individuals with an intense desire to have children, the rest having died out.
Kralizec on October 3, 2006 at 2:27 AM
As a father of two little girls, I think I get where Michelle is coming from on this. This goes beyond politics. October surprise or not, this isn’t something that can be handled with the usual political judo (and yes, I saw Ann C. making just those moves the other day). This one has to sink in a bit. And if Hastert knew and covered it up, he should be run out on a rail.
But even though I’m not focused on the politics of it, the stench of hypocrisy from Dems who’ve spent years telling us “Everyone lies about sex…” is too much. You just know that somewhere right now Bill Clinton is sticking out that bottom lip and tsk tsking over this.
We can deal with the stench of hypocrisy later. First we need to clean up the stench of predatory behavior and cover-up.
John on October 3, 2006 at 2:42 AM
Interesting Kralizec… Anyway, I think that story is important in that it’s possible that California will be a decidedly red state witin a decade, which is why you see the desperation move by Dems to get voting rights for 10s of millions of illegals. The fertility gap, partly due to abortion practices of liberals, is really biting them in the ass. If they don’t take power in either house this election, it will essentially be the beginning of the end of them.
RightWinged on October 3, 2006 at 2:55 AM
Michelle,
Foley has no excuse for his behavior. It is not justifiable. And he must not be given a pass.
I have pointed out elsewhere that there are others who are complicit in the endangering of the young man.
Those people are the members of Congress who knew about his predatory behavior towards the pages; specifically this page.
Any member of Congress who had knowledge of these IMs and did not come should be expelled from Congress and, if appropriate, prosecuted as an accessory after the fact. The same applies to any staff employee.
The reaction of the Democrats and the way this scandal was broken indicates that there were Democrat leaders who had knowledge of this and withheld notification of Foley’s behavior to the authorities for POLITICAL reasons.
This is inexcuseable. It is not only being an accessory to a crime, it is a cold, calculated act to leave the young man in jeopardy in order to advance their agenda to regain control of Congress.
I am angry at Foley and any Republican that tried to cover this up, if any.
But I am even more angry at the Democrats for feasting on this like ghouls, and for deliberately letting Foley continue his behavior because the time was not politically ripe.
So, WHAT DID NANCY PELOSI AND RAHM EMANUEL KNOW AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT?
georgej on October 3, 2006 at 4:07 AM
I’ve just read Thomas Lifson’s article from the American Thinker, Two Narratives: the Politics of the Foley Scandal
archived at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/two_narratives_the_politics_of.html
Here’s part of it:
Ladies and gentlemen,
On the purely practical politics of winning the election, irrespective of Foley himself, unless conservatives and Republicans want to live under Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid, we face individual and collective destruction.
If the Democrats win control of Congress, they will pass a new “fairness doctrine” and YOU will be silenced, as will Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest of conservative talk radio and blogs, including Hot Air.
President Bush WILL be impeached by the House. You can take that to the bank. Whether he is removed by the Senate will depend on how bad the Democratic Party sweep will be. Ditto for Cheney. By my estimate, it is possible, with the NE RINOS voting with them, that the Democrats will make Nancy Pelosi, the 1st woman President by removing both Bush and Cheney.
If the Democrats win control of Congress, kiss goodby any firearms you own. Sarah Brady won’t stop with so-called “assault weapons” — she will want them all banned.
Say hello to the “death tax” and higher income taxes AND Social Security taxes. Watch how the Democrats will all of a sudden discover that Social Security and Medical are about to fail.
And say hello to your new illegal alien neighbor — because the Democrats WILL pass “amnesty” and “open borders” and “fast-track citizenship and voting rights.”
The war on terrorism? FORGEDDABOUTIT!
The Democrats WILL immediately cut and run from Iraq AND Afghanistan. The NSA and the SWIFT programs will be TERMINATED. There will be no interrogations of Al Qaeda terrorists without their ACLU lawyers present. Gitmo will be shut down — Dick Durbin will see to that.
Expect to see a major American city struck and struck hard, with thousands of deaths. Hey, it’s just a “law enforcement problem,” not a “war.” So, some city will have another hole in the ground, the cops will come and “take a report” and issue a report number, and make sure the paperwork is completed. And President Pelosi, like Clinton, won’t waste her time with a Presidential visit.
The military? Watch for most of the military to quit — and not be replaced because the Democrats *WILL* cut the defense budget.
Judges? President Pelosi will insure that all US districts will look like the 9th — only leftist America-haters need apply.
And what are some of us doing about it?
I’ve read the Washington Times editorial
However, I don’t see how asking for the heads of the House Republican leadership starting with Hastert will either (1) appease the Democrats and the media, or (2) convince the conservative and Republican base and moderate-independents to turn out and vote to retain Republican control of Congress.
Because the drumbeat won’t stop by sacrificing Hastert and Boehner and Reynolds. The Democratic talking points and strategy are already up at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010107.php
And they mean to DESTROY the Republican Party — and then to make sure that they never, ever lose control of the government again.
Lifson, in his American Thinker article nails it:
Foley is scum. Good riddance to bad rubish.
But it is time to move on and keep our eyes on the prize!
georgej on October 3, 2006 at 7:26 AM
Georgej,
I have been thinking along similer lines. I can see that only happening IF the dems win a vast majority of the house and senate.
But I can also see a large portion of Americans following the words of Thomas Jefferson. The gist being “A strong right to bear arms is necasary for the people to rise up and wrest control from a government that has grown tyranical”
Wyrd on October 3, 2006 at 8:17 AM
I hate seeing this become political. Anyone, regardless of either party, who knew about Foley and his predator exploitation of children, should resign. This man should have been stopped when the first hint became clear. Whether or not it was emails or IM’s, Republicans or Democrats, people knew and made the choice not to do anything. It’s too bad our system doesn’t punish enablers.
moonsbreath on October 3, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Nah, we on the conservative side should engage in all kinds of self-flagellation and hand-wringing, turn on each other, call for the heads of our own congressional leadership while completely ignoring any evidence that the DNC-media complex sat on this information and allowed Foley to continue to indulge in his predatory perversions so that they could reavel it at a more convenient time.
This is called taking the high road.
/sarcasm off
Enjoy Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.
thirteen28 on October 3, 2006 at 11:05 AM
thirteen28, how on earth could you have read what I wrote and come up with that? Where did I even hint at ignoring the Democrats, or anyone else who sat on this information? Did you not understand when I said “anyone from either party?” To me, this isn’t much different from a teacher who is a predator of children and the principal and other teachers knew about it. When you look the other way, you’re an enabler. Period.
That’s ok, you don’t need to reply. Unlike you, I don’t know who is guilty. However, I can surmise from your last sentence, you already know who is guilty and who is not.
moonsbreath on October 3, 2006 at 11:50 AM
I was under the impression that the people who were sitting on the IM info were the pages/ex-pages themselves; I thought I heard that they came forward once ABC broke the e-mail stuff. No?
I am no fan of Hastert but find it hard to believe he swept this under the rug deliberately. On the other, if he didn’t then Reynolds is lying.
Well look at this way my RW friends–it keeps Iraq off the front page. It’s an ill wind indeed.
honora on October 3, 2006 at 11:58 AM
I’ve been out of the loop on this for a few days – really busy around the casa – but i’m wondering WHO had these emails and IM’s. it seems to me that the IM’s are the ones that are so damning, not the emails.
Anyway, I don’t think ANYONE is making excuses for Foley. he’s a sick bastard. but it is curious that some of these events happened several years back and even “curiouser” that these facts are just now coming to light. Why did it take so long? what were they waiting for? an election, maybe?????
I think Hastert would have been a fool to sit on this, knowing the political implications of doing so. but i’ve been fooled in the past… it will be interesting to see how this all pans out in November.
pullingmyhairout on October 3, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Shhhh, that’s why Rove did it. Foley isn’t a real person, he’s a cyborg fall guy. Just like he caused the dip in oil today and then Turkish plane hijacking to scare us. Couple it all with the Atta tape…. It’s all coming together MWAHAHAHAAA. And now time for the Bushinati to take over the world!
RightWinged on October 3, 2006 at 12:22 PM
moonsbreath – my thoughts weren’t what I read into your post, they were a springboard for my own thoughts. If you read the beginning of this thread where Allah and Michelle are in disagreement, and note that my position squares with Allah’s on this issue. If you do, you will see that I agree with you that anyone who knew what Foley was doing but chose to hide it should walk the plank the same as he does.
You will also figure out that I don’t think questioning the DNC/media complex’s possible sitting on these revelations until they could be sprung on the public at the most politically opportune time to be the equivalent to apologizing for Foley’s behavior in any way shape or form. And finally, you might figure out that my thought Republicans losing their cool and eating their own over this in an effort to appear to be taking the high road is exactly what will lead to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.
Comprende?
thirteen28 on October 3, 2006 at 12:25 PM
and moonsbreath, for your convenience, here’s what Allah wrote at the beginning:
thirteen28 on October 3, 2006 at 12:27 PM
Well, thirteen28, usually when a person uses a quote by another and adds comments to it, it’s called “responding.” So go “figure that out.”
Actually no, I don’t speak Spanish.
moonsbreath on October 3, 2006 at 1:26 PM
Just got through surfing Lucianne and FR, reading some posts on this subject.
I find it quite interesting that some of the ‘token leftists’ at those places who were calling Michelle names and cursing her existence a couple of days ago are now happily quoting (and misquoting) her on this subject ‘because she agrees with them that ALL the Republicans are scum and should resign’.
I’m distilling and paraphrasing…. But food for thought..OK?
LegendHasIt on October 3, 2006 at 1:31 PM
My apologies moonbreath – I will not quote you again in the future, regardless of the reasons.
Cappice?
thirteen28 on October 3, 2006 at 1:37 PM
Capisce.
honora on October 3, 2006 at 3:03 PM
Comment pages: