Aussies dance as convicted child-rapist’s home burns to the ground; Update: List circulating of closeted GOP staffers??
posted at 12:59 pm on October 4, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Torched by a “mysterious” fire after the perp was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. For raping a young girl.
The police suspect arson. But they’re not working too hard to solve it:
A fire investigator said the heat was too intense to identify an ignition point.
“That’s a shame,” said the father, who cannot be identified for legal reasons.
Heh.
More:
Even the victim, whom Ellis had threatened to kill if she told anyone about the assault, and who still lives nearby, came out to watch the timber cottage burn.
“You couldn’t wipe the smile off her face,” her father said yesterday.
There’s no such thing as a rape story that “ends well.” Let’s just say this one ended better than it could have.
Speaking of child predators, has the backlash to the backlash begun? Barnett, citing the first Democrat smear ad, thinks it has. And if he’s wrong, if it hasn’t yet, just wait a day or two. Dick Morris claimed last night on Hannity & Colmes that at least one person in the Democratic leadership has known about Foley for months — and said nothing. Greg Tinti has video. The Prowler, meanwhile, quotes an unnamed Democratic staffer as saying this has been in the works since spring:
“We’ve been hearing about some kind of oppo effort for close to six months, though there weren’t names attached,” says a House Democrat leadership aide. “You socialize with political types off the Hill and you’d hear rumblings that we were building up some pretty explosive stuff for the fall, and you got the sense that CREW was a big part of it.”
I see from Blogometer that Josh “I question the timing” Marshall is having trouble grasping the significance of the timing here. What difference would it make, wonders JMM, if it turned out Democrats sat on this info while a potential child molester went about his business in the halls of Congress?
I don’t want to draw rolled eyes. But think about it.
One former page says he was warned by another page about Foley all the way back in 1995. Meanwhile, the feds wonder: is Foley a criminal, or just a perv?
Update: Liebs? Up a sawbuck in Rasmussen’s latest. There’ll be things to be happy about on election night, I promise.
Update: Plamegate pusher David Corn claims to have obtained a list of closeted gay GOP congressional aides which, he suggests, is being circulated by House Republicans who suspect the aides of having “helped” Foley. He concludes, naturally enough, with a veiled threat:
[A]nytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets–even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions–as they probably already have–for if I have a copy of The List, there’s a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone.
Update: To be clear: Corn said the list had been drawn up by “gay politicos” without specifying their party, but he also said that House Republicans were angry at the gay staffers. I took that as a suggestion that Republicans were helping to circulate the list in hopes of having these people purged. Maybe — hopefully — I misread.
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:
It wasn’t a proper celebration.
There’s no mention in the article of marshmallows, hot dogs, or beer.
Vic on October 4, 2006 at 1:13 PM
Cosmic justice.
Still making excuses for Foley, are you?
/sarcasm off
thirteen28 on October 4, 2006 at 1:16 PM
Someone in the crowd was reportedly overheard saying “throw another shrimp on the BarB” though…
tsk tsk
GoingThere on October 4, 2006 at 1:16 PM
Are we certain Corn was referring to gay republicans as being the source of that list?
DannoJyd on October 4, 2006 at 1:34 PM
He says House Republicans are the ones who are angry with the staffers. What other inference is there to be drawn?
Allahpundit on October 4, 2006 at 1:36 PM
I’m not following the right wing’s enjoyment that Leiberman will probably win his election. He’s an ultra-liberal who also supports the war on terror. That doesn’t seem like much to be excited about. Is it because Kos supports the other guy that makes it fun?
Kevin M on October 4, 2006 at 1:50 PM
Because he’s part of the loyal opposition. The type of opposition that Lamont and the Kos Kidz represent is anything but loyal.
thirteen28 on October 4, 2006 at 1:58 PM
OK. I may be misreading the paragraph, so let’s take it apart…
Supposedly a republican in the House thinks that gay staffers somehow screwedled Hastert.
Casting the blame.
Republicans homosexuals outting themselves? I don’t get that. What purpose would it serve? I don’t think they want to assist in pointing out who the supposed republican[s] are blaming, but I could see liberal homosexual ‘politicos’ [Barney Frank?] doing that on request.
IMHO, the liberal Soros party is trying to raise homophobia to a level that they think would keep republicans home on 11/7. I just don’t see why any gay republicans would assist in that effort. Wouldn’t that be like shooting yourself in the foot?
I believe that when the homosexual wing of the ‘progressive’ party realizes what their representatives are doing that there will be a big backlash. Isn’t against the law to attack someone because they are homosexual? ;o)
DannoJyd on October 4, 2006 at 1:59 PM
Part of their war room strategy on this scandal probably anticipates the possibility of backlash, so they were ready with their response to try to turn it against republicans again.
thirteen28 on October 4, 2006 at 2:14 PM
Foleygate Damage Control Plan:
#1 Republicans voice outrage about the misdead of Foley… loudly and with passion.
#2 Denny Hassert takes the fall. Yeah I know it sucks, but the general public needs a sacraficial lamb that’s high on the food chain. It is quite possible that he had no knowlege of the incident. Of course Denny does not want or like this, but they could sway him with a spot on the House Appropriations Committee or some other primo position. Of course this would be a promised spot perhaps 18 months down the road.
#3 Refer to #1. Republicans need to embrace this controversy instead of waiting for it to go away. Bring up the subject with the press even if it is not requested. Talk about it until they are blue in the face. DON’T TRY TO JUSTIFY WHAT PREVIOUS DEM OFFICE HOLDERS HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. This is a black/white issue. Make it clear that what happened is not acceptible and measures are being made to prevent it from ever happening again.
natesnake on October 4, 2006 at 3:03 PM
Oh, and
#4 Don’t hire any more young, muscular, handsome, flawless complected, athletic, double-jointed, dark haired, tan skinned, well dressed, pieces of teenage man-candy.
It’s hard enough to get any work done. We don’t need those distractions around the office.
natesnake on October 4, 2006 at 3:11 PM
No offense, but I don’t think your career as a political consultant will go very far.
With regard to number #1, it’s already been done enough. Really, saying what Foley did was wrong, immoral, or disgusting is about as controversial as saying children should eat a balanced meal or do their homework on time. The outrage was best expressed by actions anyway, which involved immediately forcing Foley to resign and invoking a criminal investigation. There’s nothing more that can be done against him at this point, so continuing to restate the obvious outrage isn’t going to do much to control the damage.
With respect to #2 … are you f—ing kidding me?!? Brilliant – let’s give the left a head on a platter, which will only whet their appetites even further and will actually reinforce the view they want the electorate to believe. That’s not damage control, that’s gas on the fire.
#3 just goes back to #1.
What republicans need to do at this point is grow some frickin’ spine and pursue vigorously the line of questioning about who knew what and when – including those on the other side of the aisle. So far it appears that Hastert only knew about some emails that, while creepy, could hardly be used as a basis for forcing someone to resign.
There is evidence that on the other side of the aisle and in the pro-dem media as well, others knew of the explicit IM’s for at least a year and sat on them so that they could time their release for maximum political impact. In other words, for political gain, they allowed these pages to be exposed to the dangers of a predatory perv so that they could get maximum political advantage out of it. It’s bad enough that there are sexual predators in the world, but it’s even worse when others know about it but withold that information from the proper authorities, for whatever reason. Sexual predators will not just voluntarily stop what they are doing, it’s up to others to stop them. And if the dems/media sat on this information, it is every bit as much of a scandal as what Foley did in the first place, for they continued to enable him to do it.
The best defense is a good offense and it’s time for republicans to go on offense and strike back at those who would enable this pervert for their own political gain. They are no better than Foley himself.
thirteen28 on October 4, 2006 at 3:52 PM
Since there are others better with words than myself, I’ll put Hugh Hewitt’s advice vis a vis natesnake’s #2 above, which I unabashedly think it a completely linguini-spined response to the present situation (excerpted):
Unless someone has evidence that Hastert or anyone else knew more than the e-mail exchange which two newspapers deemed not newsworthy, the demands for Hastert’s resignation will become increasingly absurd against both the facts and also against the backdrop of what the election is really about: the conduct of the war. Editorialists like those at the Washington Times have done their own credibility great damage for a brief bit of pr posing.
thirteen28 on October 4, 2006 at 4:00 PM
The GOP is the anti-gay party? Politics is so pretty.
honora on October 4, 2006 at 4:22 PM
thirteen28,
No offense is taken.
That is exactly what I’m talking about. You stated “the election is really about the conduct of the war,” and of which is losing support outside the Republican base. I think it’s possible to turn the lemon into lemonade. The media is not going to let this Foley thing go away. They will continue to rail about this thing for the next five weeks. Republicans could use this opportunity to direct some of the attention from the war and show their intestinal fortitude to “clean house”. I put that in quotes because it’s a public relations move.
The more that Republicans try to direct the blame towards the media and the Dems who held onto this bombshell for several months, the more that it appears we are vaguely defending the actions of the accused. It’s best that the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder and state how this is not acceptable. Spending much time pinning some of the blame on the Dems will appear as lame as the “I was molested by a priest when I was 14.”
Don’t ever overestimate the intelligence of the sheeple. Anymore, unless you clearly state your stance, the sheeple are apt to conclude the opposite.
That makes Denny vulnerable. It doesn’t matter if he knew the full extent. The media is going to portray him as the one who not only knew the scandle, but neglected to remedy it. In the court of public opinion, he is guilty.
Do I personally want Denny to resign? Hell no. But here’s the rub, unless the sheeple see the Republicans go on the offensive, the media’s portrayal of corrupt Republican perverts will stick all of the way into the election.
I believe the best way to kill this story is not to starve it, but to feed it too much. It blurs the party lines and gives the media only one direct to point the finger; at Foley.
natesnake on October 4, 2006 at 4:35 PM
thirteen28,
Also, I suggested canning Denny. It doesn’t matter who the axe falls on. It could be any decently ranked Republican associated with Foleygate, and who is willing to take a public reprimand for the team. It is kangaroo-court at it’s finest.
The sheeple want blood. Give them some blood.
natesnake on October 4, 2006 at 4:41 PM
If by cleaning house you mean overthrowing Hastert, then no, it’s a total, pussified, positively French pre-emptive surrender that completely reinforces the left’s narrative on the matter. We already cleaned house – Foley was gone a nanosecond after the pervy IM’s came to light and another nanosecond later Hastert was on the phone with the DOJ. That’s about as forceful and decisive of a response as you can get.
Before that, he had no basis for dumping Foley. Two newspapers knew about the emails but chose not to run a story on them because nothing could be substantiated. The FBI had also looked into the matter and had found nothing worth investigating. So on what basis could Hastert have acted at that point when the other parties would not corroborate his actions? And yet you want to throw him under the bus to “show” the public that we can clean house. That’s form over substance, and it’s based on spinelessness and nothing more.
Bullshit. Again, focusing the attention on those who covered up the IM’s, which were the smoking gun in this case and were the evidence of Foley’s pedophiliac pretensions is not at all letting him off the hook – it’s taking those who would have enabled him into account. Keeping Foley’s behavior a secret is just as bad as the behavior itself because that is what enables it in the first place.
Please, this is just so lame it doesn’t deserve a response, but I’ll give it one anyway by saying: go conduct a poll of the sheeple and ask them whether or not they think pedophilia is wrong. Then come back and report your numbers.
If they believe the MSM narrative as you appear to, then yes. But if they actually look at the facts, then no, he isn’t. You seem to treat voters as a bunch of pathetic simpletons just like the dems do.
Not if the alternate media (blogs, talk radio) continues to get the facts out. Did Dan Rather’s National Guard storyline stick? And if you answered that question no, pray tell, why exactly did it not?
You underestimate voters and overestimate the MSM … either that, or you are just eager to surrender to them.
And if it stops with Foley, then we haven’t done our duty, because he’s not the only one culpable here. Those people who had knowledge of the explicit IM’s and knew the full extent of Foley’s behavior but chose to keep it a secret are equally culpable and should be called to account as well. Your suggestion is a preemptive surrender by throwing Hastert under the bus and hoping that your appeasement causes the scandal to go away.
It won’t.
thirteen28 on October 4, 2006 at 4:58 PM
If you ever get called for jury duty and want to get out of it, just print out that post and show it at jury selection. You’ll get booted from the pool for sure.
thirteen28 on October 4, 2006 at 5:00 PM
And finally natesnake, read this.
The money line:
“Caving in to groundless and hysterical criticism is the quintessence of spinelessness. Republicans have made a habit of it.”
thirteen28 on October 4, 2006 at 5:02 PM
Those staffers are about to discover the hard way that it’s better to serve the improved understanding of the issues and let others serve parties. Being wedded to the Republican Party is gay. That being said, the Democrats will regret renewing and intensifying the enmity of those gay Republican staffers; “Hell hath no fury,” as the case of Andrew Sullivan shows. One has to figure gay men have a lot of time on their hands to devote to vengeance, if they choose, and that if there is anything at all to the stereotype, their vengeance will be well-designed and–fabulous.
Kralizec on October 4, 2006 at 5:15 PM
Good lord I am having a hard time keeping track of everything that is going on with this Foley nonsense. The Web is so big and getting bigger by the second.
zerodamage on October 4, 2006 at 7:13 PM
Thirteen28,
You can have your strategy and I’ll keep mine. You’re welcome to perceive my idea as “spineless.” I don’t march heel-toe with Republican strategists. I’m an independent thinker and Hugh Hewitt is not Christ incarnate. You would rather go into a full frontal assault against the Democrats regarding disclosure, than to think outside the box. Shoot the messenger instead of focusing attention on the problem? Brilliant!
If you think FACTS will save the day, please consider this:
- 40% of the U.S. population believes 9/11 was an orchestrated government conspiracy.
- Democrats filibustered Civil Rights and yet remain the preferred minority party.
- Democrats lead the U.S. into Vietnam and yet it is seen as a Republican failure.
I’m glad that the blogsphere broke the Rathergate story and forced the media to cover it. But for every Rathergate that is exposed, there are hundreds of other facts I discover in the blogsphere that never see the light of day in the news media. The media has an agenda and the majority of the time it not sympathetic to Republican causes.
It’s admirable that you are passionate supporter of the party. It’s also dangerous and naïve. Politics is a rough business and deals are brokered behind closed doors all of the time. Facts sometimes take backseat to strategy. It’s not personal; it’s politics.
natesnake on October 5, 2006 at 10:40 AM
Where can I see the poll data on the 9/11 “conspiracy”?; Dems did filibuster Civil Rights; it was LBJ who drove the legislation thru Congress however and ever since Nixon played the race card (aka the Southern strategy) Dems have been the preferred minority party. (Prior to LBJ this was kinda a moot point; if you can’t vote, your preference doesn’t really matter does it?); I believe most Americans associate Vietnam with LBJ–where is the data to support your third point?
honora on October 5, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Comment pages: