Foleymania! Thursday all-purpose thread; Update: **Three new pages accuse Foley**
posted at 1:32 am on October 5, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Rather than scatter posts all over the place, I’ll open this thread so that Bryan, Ian, and I can add to it as developments warrant. Check back frequently. There’s no telling who’s head will have rolled or which kid’s pants we’ll have learned Foley was trying to take off by this time tomorrow.
I’ll get the ball rolling with yet another installment in the Prowler’s popular series of fake-sounding, too-good-to-be-true quotes from “Democratic aides”:
“We’re getting into very dangerous territory, and I’ve warned my colleagues to be careful.” That’s what a Democrat leadership aide was saying on Wednesday, as word circulated about David Corn’s blog posting that revealed that a list of gay Republicans congressional staffers was circulating through emails…
“If that list is made public, all of the political gains we’ve made in the past 96 hours get flushed down the toilet,” says the leadership aide.
Also, a mini-bombshell from the Hill: they claim to have confirmed with the person who gave the e-mails to the media that the page he got them from is a Republican. That would jibe with what we’ve learned tonight about the page from the Drudge Report, but I can’t say more lest I find myself part of the dread “conservative outing mob.” In any case, the page’s political affiliation isn’t important; it’s the middleman who’s key. Which way does he lean politically? And how long were the e-mails in his possession? The Hill’s oddly coy on that subject.
Lots of updates coming eventually, probably!
Update: And here we go! Actually, just a footnote to the Hill article: it sounds like the page who’s the target of the “conservative outing mob” isn’t the one the Hill is talking about. They’re talking about the page (I think) who worked for Rodney Alexander and got the creepy but not overtly sexual “send me a picture of you” e-mail that started this shinolastorm last Thursday. The middleman who spoke to the Hill claims to have shared that e-mail with media outlets in July, but no one published it. Until, that is, ABC got wind of the e-mails posted last week on StopSexPredators.com.
Which brings us back to the question: who’s behind SSP?
Update: A clever attempt to answer that question. Anyone know anyone in Royal Oak, Michigan.
Update: Oy. Rasmussen says 61% believe the GOP is covering up. But GOP control of the House is back up to 48 on TradeSports.
Update: Supposedly Hastert has said he’ll resign if it’ll help the GOP retain control of the House in November.
Update: CNN heard back from the unnamed proprietor of StopSexPredators:
“My plans are to remain anonymous for the foreseeable future,” the Web site’s owner wrote in an e-mail. “I’ve been getting threats from folks and will no longer allow the posting of comments on the website. I can’t believe the anger out there for exposing a hypocritical sex predator.”
Update: Jonah makes the case for lightening up. Momentarily.
Update: Assassination prankster Randi Rhodes welcomes nutroots sex-scandal fave Jeff Gannon to her show this afternoon at 5:30.
Update: Uh oh: “With midterm elections less than five weeks away, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that about half of likely voters say recent disclosures of corruption and scandal in Congress will be very or extremely important when they cast their vote next month.”
Update: Just posted at the Blotter: ABC non-apologizes for its inadvertent outing of the page whose name I’m not allowed to mention.
Update: Hastert’s holding a presser at 1. Video will be right here.
Update: CNN ruins the suspense: Hastert will announce that he’s staying on. According to internal party polls, though, the scandal has put GOP control of Congress in serious jeopardy.
Update: Here’s a shocker. When Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds got caught having sex with a 16-year-old, ABC’s coverage was rather less diligent.
Update: Louis Freeh’s going to lead the probe into the page program. Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit says Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel have refused to take polygraphs. I’m not sure about the source on that, though.
Update: Not sure what it means to say that Hastert will “accept responsibility,” but the fact that this news conference has been delayed a full hour suggests that things are in flux.
Update: CBS, as impartial as ever.
Update: I’m cutting video of Hastert now, but Drudge has the big news. I don’t believe it at all but let’s see what the evidence is.
Update: Here’s the Drudge scoop:
According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded 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. This source, an ally of Edmund, also adamantly reports that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund.
The only real scoop is that Democrats were involved. The fact that it was a “prank” — if it was a prank, which I seriously doubt — doesn’t absolve Foley from his predatory intent.
An e-mailer makes a fair point, though: if it was a prank, that might explain why Edmund has (allegedly) hired a criminal defense lawyer.
Update: Fast-moving developments developing fast: Freeh’s appointment blocked by Dems; the House Ethics Committee issues almost four dozen subpoenas and refuses to say if Hastert is the recipient of any of them; and finally here’s the (heavily edited) video of the press conference.
Update: Did Betsy Newmark predict the Drudge scoop?
Update: Good lord. The internal polling is horrendous:
House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster, FOX News has learned.
“The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker,” a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. “And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss.”
Please note: the margin of control is 15 seats.
Update: Rick Moran floats a theory: Could Kirk Fordham, who resigned yesterday as Tom Reynolds’s chief of staff, be the source of the e-mails in the Hill article? Moran notes that Fordham himself was outed, sort of, two years ago (which jibes with my suspicions yesterday that he might be mentioned on David Corn’s list of closeted Republicans).
Update: A mini-bombshell from Bob Novak: “The fact is, Foley was reluctant to run for re-election because of pressure over his homosexuality. He was reportedly considering two private-sector jobs already, after the White House had panned him as a Florida Senate candidate, reasoning that he could not win statewide. But National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) talked a reluctant Foley into staying. Naturally, Reynolds, as the campaign chairman, wants all incumbents to stay in the House and to minimize open seats.”
Update: Better politics through technology!
Update: And the avalanche keeps rolling: ABC claims three new pages have come forward about having been propositioned by Foley. Ugliest detail:
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.
ABC quotes one of the three as saying, “This was no prank.”
Update: More poll woes from Time magazine:
Two-thirds of Americans aware of the congressional-page sex scandal believe Republican leaders tried to cover it up — and one quarter of them say the affair makes them less likely to vote for G.O.P. candidates in their districts come November. Those are among the findings of a new TIME poll conducted this week among 1,002 randomly-selected voting-age Americans.
I’m going on record with my prediction: Hastert steps down before the close of business tomorrow.
Update: Jeff Gannon cancelled his appearance on Randi Rhodes’s radio show this afternoon due to the “insulting” way they were promoting it. Not sure what that means, but it’s perfectly in character for Rhodes.
Update: The kiss of death.
Update: And yet another mini-bombshell: is the largest gay rights organization in America aiding and abetting gay McCarthyism?
Update: “Many conspirators seen behind Foley scandal.”
Update: Bob Owens predicts the GOP will hold the House even if Hastert stays on. Why? Because you can’t beat something with nothing.
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: 1 2 Next »
What’s the beef at this point,it’s not like they want to get married or anything.
bbz123 on October 5, 2006 at 1:52 AM
It’s a Blogspot site, right? If we were the Chinese government we could get it censored and learn who signed up for it.
Then we could find out at least one player in the plot to smear the GOP’s election by smearing former Congressman Mark Foley (R. NAMBLA).
Are any sites putting odds on potential persons? If so, what are the odds on the Glenn Greenwald, Jeff Gannon and Jason Leopold?
Bellicose Muse on October 5, 2006 at 2:02 AM
And now we learn the IM exchanges were with an 18 year old, not a minor. This is getting interesting.
bopbottle on October 5, 2006 at 4:55 AM
There is a clear bottom line here: impeachment. The email/IM details don’t matter – this is just one more attempt by Dhimmicrats to gain power by means other than fair elections (in this case, control of the House). If Republicans cravenly cave on this set-up (which has little or nothing to do with Foley’s behavior!) it could very well be the straw that breaks the already disgruntled base’s back, proving once and for all that too many in the GOP truly have no backbone.
Nothing would make al-Qaeda happier.
Halley on October 5, 2006 at 5:03 AM
While I may have found Foley’s action personally disgusting….
If the guy didn’t break any laws… what’s the hub bub?
And why did he resign?
Allah, Bryan and Ian…. do the good work that makes me read your page multiple times a day.
Oh, and if you need someone on the Massachusetts beat… gimme a jingle.
Mortis on October 5, 2006 at 6:47 AM
Okay, ladies and gentlemen.
It’s time to play rough and turn the tables on the Democrats.
I have been saying that we have no proof that the IMs are real and not forged. After thinking about this yesterday, I’ve come to this conclusion: It doesn’t matter because what I’m about to propose will destroy the Democrats regardless. But, if (as I suspect) some or all of the IMs *are* forged, the destruction of the Democratic Party will be total.
And yes, after what the Democrats have tried to do to steal this election using filthy tactics, we should play for keeps this time. We should hit the Democratic Party so hard that it will be decades before they can seriously hope to gain control of the Government.
You don’t realize it, but we hold ALL the cards here. the article titled Dem Timing Plays & GOP Silver Bullets lays out these strengths. It woke me up as to the potential WE have to prevail, even now.
Our strengths, their weaknesses:
WE are serious about the GWOT — and the DEMOCRATS are not.
Our Senators and Repreentatives, following the lead of our President on tax cuts, has given the American people an economy that is at near zero inflation, with low interest rates, effective full employment, and 4 years of SUSTAINED growth that is higher than most of the rest of the world. The DEMOCRATS have done everything possible to PREVENT the economy from growing and intend to tax America into poverty.
Then there is the way WE treat Foley vs. the way the Democrats treated Frank and Studds. Foley immediately resigned, and Studds turned his back on Congress and refused to even appologize. And Frank is a “senior statesman” after his lover ran a WHORE HOUSE outof his office.
WE support the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretaps, the SWIFT financial tracking, the DEMOCRATS do NOT! The Democrats support giving terrorists held in Gitmo ACLU Lawyers, the Republicans have no intention of letting a said ACLU lawyer find a technicality.
WE support an anti-ballistic missile defense and the DEMOCRATS DO NOT, and the western coast of our country is within range of North Korea’s ballistic missiles, ahd they don’t give a damn.
Despite Bill Clinton’s temper tantrum, it is George W. Bush who has taken the fight to the terrorists and only because Bill Clinton did NOT do so when he had the chance.
Okay, here the action plan.
1. Drop the dump Hastert talk. Hastert calls his caucus together and tells them bluntly: Shut up or find yourself stripped of your current assignments and reassigned to the Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, SIDEWALK INSPECTION COMMITTEE. Hastert should make it clear that if HE is pushed out, the voters will remember, and any surviving House Republicans can go ask Nancy Pelois for a committee chair; see where that gets them. Remind them that FOLEY IS OUT OF THE PICTURE and might even be on his way to prison.
2. Recall the House in special, emergency, session. File a formal finding remanding Kirk Fordham to the Justice Department for obstruction of justice and hiding evidence of the crime of pedophilia. Do the same to Mike Rodgers, and John Aravosis, the gay Democratic operatives behind this. Make it formal, FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO VOTE ON IT. When they vote no (and it pass no matter what they want), EVERY REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMEBER OR REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER HAS A BRAND NEW CAMPAIGN AD that the DEMOCRATS SUPPORT PEDOPHILIA and those who enable them.
AND if a House Democrat (or a staffer) is identified as knowing about it and not reporting it, HIS or HER opponent gets another advertisement, identifying by name the Democrat and reminding the voter that a vote for him is a vote for pedophiles.
Make it clear via press conference that Fordham, who attempted to “bribe” Brian Ross to PROTECT ONE OF THEIR OWN FELLOW GAY MEN, and that this act was attempting to obstruct justice. Tie it to the David Corn article. Show him no mercy.
Tell Bush to order Gonzales to begin one or more federal grand jury investigations — and NO SPECIAL prosecutors who could grandstand like Fitzgerald this time. Start by calling Fordham, Rodgers, and Aravosis before the grand jury. After all, this is exactly what the Democrats wanted and accomplished with Rove.
Call Brian Ross before the Grand Jury. Jail him if he doesn’t talk. Ask for his contacts and threaten him with a charge of obstruction AND aiding and abetting pedophilia.
If the grand jury finds that a crime was committed by Foley or anybody identified with possessing the information and not reporting it, they get prosecuted. If nothing turns up, well, so be it. But in doing so, the American people will SEE who is the party interested in cleaning up the sexual predators going after the pages. And that the Democrats are only interested in posturing for political gain.
3. Mark Foley’s name is not mentioned again. Ever. Questions from the press concerning the “scandal” are responded to with “the Democrats voted to stop the investigation, maybe they have dirty laundry of their own.” Do NOT let the media turn this into leadership scandal or even a party scandal — remember, THIS IS FOLEY’S FAULT AND NO ONE ELSE’S. And if necessary, forcefully remind the press of this fact.
When the asked why closer oversight wasn’t provided, REMIND THEM THAT THE DEMOCRATS OPPOSE HOUSE AND SENATE MEMBER’S IM AND EMAIL FROM BEING MONITORED. Remind them how the Democrats STRONGLY OBJECTED when EMAILS were discovered detailing their conspiracy to scuttle the nomination of Miguel Estrada’s judicial nomination because he was Hispanic. Tell the press that the DEMOCRATS WANT TO REQUIRE FISA COURT APPROVAL before reading Congresses IMs and Emails.
4. The minute a House Democrat’s name comes up as having been briefed about Foley before ABC went live with it, the House begins expulsion proceedings of that member for obstruction and aiding and abetting. It probably won’t pass, but it will FORCE NANCY PELOSI to defend her caucus instead of attacking Republicans. It will force the DEMOCRATS to go on the record that they refuse to go after one of their own for obstruction of justice. Then, make them RUN ON THEIR RECORD by a last minute ad-blitz.
5. Prepare new TV ADS.
Themes:
Example 1: Repubs support NMD, Dems dont’ — we live in dangerous times with Iran and North Korea going nuclear (video to show mushroom cloud).
Example 2: Repubs have resurected the economy that BILL CLINTON SMASHED in 2000 when his CULTURE OF CORRUPTION, and lack of federal prosecution allowed crooked managers to loot the economy. (Video to show Ken Lay, etc., being taken away with graphic stating “These men broke the law on Clinton’s watch, we Republicans were left to prosecute them and convict them”).
Example 3: Repubs want to protect the family business from confiscatory inheritance taxes and high income taxes. DEMOCRATS want to tax their inheritances and income. (Video – show a small business that uses trucks, a door with a sign mourning the passing of the owner, and then show an IRS agent padlocking the business until the taxes get paid) Voice over concludes with thanking the Democrats for not making the ‘death’ tax repeal permanent.
Example 4: Repubs support the war on terror. Democrats don’t. Show video of Harry Reid bragging that the Democrats killed the Patriot Act. Show video of promenent Democrats vocally opposing the NSA and SWIFT programs. Tie their comments to both Tim Russert’s and George Stephonopolis’s shows.
Or, show video of the people jumping off the World Trade Center towers, and contrast it with Leahy, Kennedy objecting to the NSA plan AND Dick Durbin calling US troops “nazis, gulag guards, and Pol Pot associates”) on the floor of the Senate.
Example 5: Remind the public that Democrats are LIBERALS. They stand for high taxes, HIGH GASOLINE PRICES, weak defenses, appeasement and cut and run. They stand for gay marriage and protecting pedophiles for political gain. Repeat what Bush has been saying about the war on terrorism for the last several weeks. Get Zell Miller to reprise his convention speech and include snippits of it in the TV ad. Remind the people how the Democrats have obstructed drilling offshore, in ANWR, or anywhere on federal lands, and how they blocked permits for new refineries or polution free nuclear power for the last quarter century. Make as many one topic advertisements as reqiored and run those ads continuously between now and 11/7.
And, if it turns out the EVEN ONE IM was forged or altered, you trout out this example: The DEMOCRATS used the media to forge documents, alleging a serious felony including a coverup by the Republican House leadership, in an attempt to throw the election their way. Include a tie in to Dan Rather’s forged TANG documents and explain that dirty tricks are SOP for the Democrats.
Tasks:
You, the Hot Air Crew, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, Mac and AJ Strata, have the necessary “suck” and contacts to get the message out to the Republicans in Congress and other media people, like Bill O’Reilly and Caputo.
Now, get busy….
1. Get to the vascillating Republican leadership and get them into the playbook. All you bloggers and talk radio hosts should get on the phone pronto and start lining up the ducks. Remind them that if they fail, the Republican Party will be dead meat on 11/8/06. And they’ll have to find a real job on 1/6/07.
2. Get to Hastert to get to Bush to get to Gonzales and get the three known Democratic-gay operatives before the grand jury pronto. What did they know and when did they know it? Waste no time.
3. Aggressively schedule regular press conferences giving “status” on how the search for pedophiles and their enablers in Congress is going. Be prepared to sacrifice any Republicans or their staffers if they are involved in a coverup or in harrassing pages. Be sure to HIGHLIGHT the difference between the way Republicans deal with scandals (they resign) and the way Democrats do (they refuse to leave and brazen it out).
The result will be FEIGNED MEDIA DISINTEREST because the scandal will have been turned around. Suddenly, the leftstream media won’t be able to chortle about the problems the Republicans are having and how the Democrats are going to take back Congress as a result.
I don’t know who is in charge of Republican election strategy — sometimes I wonder if anybody is at the helm. So rather than whine about the unfairness of it all, let’s start kicking ass and taking names.
They started this crap, let’s finish it.
Now tell me what I can do, specifically.
georgej on October 5, 2006 at 7:47 AM
Drudge’s headline hasn’t changed. So it was with an 18 yr old???
Rightwingsparkle on October 5, 2006 at 8:03 AM
The answer to that question will answer a lot of questions about Foleygate.
pjcomix on October 5, 2006 at 8:57 AM
The divine Ms. MM is walking the tightrope that comes with moral absolutes, and I suspect it isn’t that much fun. I, myself — being a flawed human in the eyes of God — enjoy a little slack (just kidding, Lord!)
So, from a partisan viewpoint, I get to advise the GOPrs to dig in their heels and call the Dems’ bluff. F*** this! Annie C (sorry, AP) nails it, as usual:
Sure I think that Foley’s a scumbag (from what we’ve heard so far), but I think that all these drunk, philandering scumbags should be sent home, unemcumbered of pay and pension, queer or straight. And anyone who wants to take their cues from cheating scumbags McCain and Gingrich is going to reap what they have sown.
Jaibones on October 5, 2006 at 9:16 AM
I believe that someone who benefits was responsible and I pick the lowest common dhimmicr@p, tim mahoney, foley’s opponet in the election.
He just isn’t acting like he was completely innocent of being in on this mess.
tormod on October 5, 2006 at 9:18 AM
I agree with pjcomix – did Foley actually break any laws?? Yes, we all know he’s a predator and a perv, but since when are explicit IM’s and emails illegal? Is there a law that deals with this?
yep. hypocrisy at its highest.
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 9:22 AM
One key element is missing from this. Law enforcement. When did law enforcement get the information? No where am I seeing where anyone went to the police. And can someone explain this part of the Hills article?
Is that saying that because the names were blotted out, the info can never be found? Or is it saying trust us and please stop poking around?
We have the messages that CREW had and they were dated May of 2006, the same week that we learned of the Jefferson scandal and the FBI raided his office.
Pam on October 5, 2006 at 9:27 AM
RWS,
It was with an 18 year old according to FEC filings and ABC
EricPWJohnson on October 5, 2006 at 9:40 AM
Excellent advice and analysis, Georgej.
We definitely need to get back on offense. It is clear that this was simply an effort to keep the conservative base at home, and conservatives should respond that if Dems really care about the Congressional pages (doubtful), why would the MSM hold the story for a year?
Now that it is shown that the page was 18 years old and of legal age, bring the story back to Clinton’s immorality. After all, what really is the ethical difference between what Clinton did with a 22-year-old and Foley did with an 18-year-old? Clinton was far more powerful than Foley. Both were with young people of legal age, and both were unethical, immoral actions.
So why should the MSM only focus on Republicans? Also, I definitely agree with Georgej: Let’s stop the talk of Hastert resigning.
januarius on October 5, 2006 at 9:57 AM
Hey, AllahPundit, want to give me a hand? I’m asking sites that have been covering the issue to keep an eye out for IP addresses within a certain range that include one I believe is tied to “Stop Sex Predators,” the site that originally posted the emails.
I posted the information I found last night under the name “new_tommy” on LGF.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22839#c0024
tommy1 on October 5, 2006 at 10:02 AM
I don’t know it could be any other way, when every news report leads with “republican sex scandal” and “Hastert in trouble for possible coverup”
casual news watchers know nothing more about the scandal than that.
moflicky on October 5, 2006 at 10:13 AM
It looks like the page has hired an attorney
Pam on October 5, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Judas priest!! Talk about who’s on first.
I fervently hope the Rs adopt the georgej doomsday strategy is followed to the letter. You may want to get out that old sheet music of Happy Days Are Here Again.
I hope the Ds are careful not to repeat the mistakes the Rs made with Monicagate–over-reaching. Clinton’s repugnant actions turned off most voters, yet he remained strong in the polls up thru impeachment and thru the end of his term. Why? Because if it came down to Clinton or Starr, most Americans held their noses and went with Slick Willy. What’s worse than a President with the sexual control of a 15 year old? A wildly partisan special prosecutor with the pinched soul and oily demeanor of Cotton Mather.
Alas, I do not hold out much hope for either scenario.
honora on October 5, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Great advice georgej.
Unfortunatly, too many on our side panicked and joined the chorus with the Republican Pre-Emptive Surrender Caucus, as if forcing Foley to resign and putting him under criminal investigation wasn’t enough.
When it comes to political warfare, our side has behaved like the French in this matter, much to the delight of soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi and soon-to-be Majority Leader Reid.
thirteen28 on October 5, 2006 at 10:41 AM
Honora, you are making georgej’s point. The reason some folks had a negative impression of Starr was precisely because the MSM and the Clintonistas went on the offensive. Very aggressively I might add.
Any attack on them was met with a furious barrage of specious statements like “homophobe”, “partisan”, “vast right wing conspiracy”, “not looking out for the children”, and the classic “move on”.
I tend to agree with georgej that the best defense is a good offense.
BacaDog on October 5, 2006 at 10:51 AM
True, except that the Clinton counter-offensive (IMHO) would not have had resonance with the public has Starr et al not over-reached. (Homophobe??? Re Monicagate?? My memory is not what it used to be, help me out with this).
honora on October 5, 2006 at 10:56 AM
What you said, thirteen28.
Lady Heather on October 5, 2006 at 11:09 AM
If Hassert resigns, it would not be intended for the Republican base. NPR quoted a pole taken in the last 24 hours that the vast majority of Republicans were not going to change their vote based on the Foley scandal.
I see a resignation as a move to court the independent and undecided vote. It shows good faith that the Republican party is above being loyal to the leadership in the face of a scandal.
Without more substantial facts proving Hassart’s innocence in the very near future, he may decide to take the bullet for the party if polls show garnering votes from the independents and undecideds.
Hassart is a team player even if it means his own demise.
natesnake on October 5, 2006 at 11:09 AM
Ugh. I just read the IM string in FoleyGate on MM. Sorry if this sounds like gay-bashing, but what a sick son-of-a-bitch.
Cheers to MM for moral clarity on this, despite any other thoughts I may have on the sickening Dem hypocrites, who all deserve to be slapped, hard.
Jaibones on October 5, 2006 at 11:18 AM
And here comes natesnake to prove my point about the Republican Pre-Emptive Surrender Caucus. Thanks … sort of.
thirteen28 on October 5, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Tend to agree with you on that one. I think Starr went out of bounds in his zeal to get him. The fact is, he had enough to sink Bill and Hill if he had played his hand correctly. But, it’s also a fact the Dem machine really didn’t dispute the facts of the case, they personnaly smeared Starr to the point he looked like a slimeball. Starr was foolish for taking the bait.
Like then, the GOP is taking the bait again now. Rather than focusing on the facts of the Foley disaster, they are in retreat defending Hastert at any cost. Also like before in other instances, the “GOP not looking out for the children” mantra is taking its toll.
As I said before, georgej has a good point. Being on the offensive is much more desirable than attempting to defend the indefensable.
BacaDog on October 5, 2006 at 11:22 AM
BacaDog–what makes this a particularly sticky problem for the Rs is that this is likely to turn off their base voters (values/religiously motivated). In order to counter that there are actions that are indicated; the danger is not to go so far as to get into being or being perceived as gay-bashers–something that will turn off the more moderate vote.
Seems to me that the other thing would be to resist the urge to draw comparisons to D behavior. Somehow saying
“our team has individual members whose behavior we will not tolerate” is a much stronger statement than saying “our team has members whose behavior is bad but the other side is worse”, which sounds like so much whining and an oily attempt to shift responsibility.
What that old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. Enuf already!! ;^)
honora on October 5, 2006 at 11:32 AM
thirteen28 I endured your senseless barbs yesterday while trying to have an intelligent conversation about Republican strategies going into the November Primary. Today I’m not going to be as diplomatic.
You are a drone without any capacity for critical thought. At this point I imagine you no different than a certified Koolaid drinking Koskid. The only thing that differentiates you is party affiliation.
Hassert himself stated that he would resign if it helped the Republican Party. In the next few days, there will be a bevy of polls conducted to indicate the benefits (if any) of Denny’s resignation.
It is not defeatist or spineless for Hassert to resign if there are signs that it helps the whole party in the November election. It means losing the battle in order to win the war.
I personally do not want Hassert to resign. He is one of the best leaders the party has. But if his demise requires gains for the GOP, then so be it.
natesnake on October 5, 2006 at 11:34 AM
That’s not true, Honora. Clinton was strong in the polls (60% or so) because he had the liberal MSM cheerleading for him every night on network TV. Also, he did not do anything controversial (hence our payback for years of his doing nothing controversial-9/11). Finally, he could not govern as a liberal after 1994, making him more popular.
januarius on October 5, 2006 at 11:38 AM
So you’re basically saying people are stupid? Can be swayed by the MSM? Except wise people like, well, like you? How do explain Dubya’s victory in 00 and 04? MSM on sabbatical? Mass epiphany?
Please.
honora on October 5, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Like hell it’s not defeatist or spineless. Hastert’s resignation will not appease anyone on the left, it will only lead to calls for more republican heads to roll … and it will give credence to their narrative that he was negligent when the evidence out there does not support such a charge. Those of you calling for his head now are falling right into their trap but you are too blind to see it.
On what grounds can you justify forcing Hastert out? The emails he saw were also seen by two seperate newspapers that chose not to run stories on them because they didn’t think there was enough there and felt it would be an unwarranted invasion of his privacy. Furthermore, the FBI checked them out and found nothing worht pursuing. And Hastert nevertheless DID tell Foley to cease contact with the recipient of the emails. Based on what he knew at the time, he did all that could be reasonably expected. Those are the facts and that is a point where we should be drawing the line and fighting back.
All your logic for ousting Hastert is based on polls and showing the electorate how serious we take the matter, as if forcing Foley to resign when the incriminating IM’s came to light and starting a criminal investigation weren’t enough. This is the choice you would make instead of standing and fighting on the based on the facts of the matter regarding what Hastert knew previous to revealing the IM’s. In short, you would rather surrender to polls even though the facts are on our side. Thus, I completely stand by my characterization of your position.
Again, enjoy Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid, because you and others in the Republican Pre-Emptive Surrender Caucus are making it happen.
thirteen28 on October 5, 2006 at 11:49 AM
Hey wanna have some fun?
Create an AIM account and add screename Maf54 as your ‘Buddy’. I’ve read on the tech sites that Maf54 has been seen logging on occasionally. It’s kinda like a cyber version of whack-a-mole. (No pun intended)
realVerse on October 5, 2006 at 11:51 AM
1) I thought the circular firing squad was the Dems’ thing?
2) What’s so repulsive about this whole deal (well one of the things) is how every man for himself this is. It’s pretty astonishing. The ultimate victory of the Me, Me, Me culture.
honora on October 5, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Well, basically, yes. And I’m not the only one saying it. Don’t you recall the Newsweek reporter who accidentally broke the secret that the MSM is worth about 15% in favor of Dems?
Also, exercise some common sense about the liberal MSM, Honora. Why else are they so liberal if not to sway public opinion? There are a lot of people that solely get their news from the networks and AP and Reuters stories.
januarius on October 5, 2006 at 11:52 AM
First, if you think the MSM was a cheerleader for Clinton during Monicagate, you are really beyond the pale. Second, I applaud your honesty. Most zealots don’t have the balls to admit they believe the masses are stupid. And I thought liberals were elitists…..
honora on October 5, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Oh no, that’s our thing. You guys might use it sometimes, but we invented it and perfected it, as is amply on display in the present situation.
thirteen28 on October 5, 2006 at 12:00 PM
Whhooooo Boy (lil texas talk there boys and girls)
Ya’ll need to slow down a bit, take a breath.
What evidence do you have that any of these allegations against Foley are true? He resigned??? Why did he resign?
Foley is charged with appearing at the page dorm drunk; do you have a date and time? Was it before or after his meeting with party leadership? Why was there a meeting with party leadership? What was discussed at that meeting? Did Foley’s behavior change after that meeting?
Something that appears to be copies of instant messages have been published. Do you have a date a time? Do you have an ip address? Do you have copies of the server log? On what server did this ‘chat’ take place? Who provided these supposed copies of these alleged instant messages? And how did they get them?
You have seen a young man claiming what??? That these IMs came from someone purporting to be M. Foley? How do you know it was Foley and not someone else?
I have seen many comments on many blogs that roughly translate to “its true, its true, its true, its true, why can’t you believe it”. Ask me about global warming, or GOD!
(Need help?? How do you prove the existence of GOD?)
What you have going on here is classic rumor and innuendo. It is a classic politic smear job. All of you wanna be journalist need to consult with legal to make sure you understand the legal meaning of slander, libel, hearsay, allegation, alleged, purported, accusation, evidence, proof, and on… and on. . .oh yes, don’t forget speculation, conjecture.
Still need help? My next door neighbor’s second cousin’s third husband claimed he saw little green men from Mars trying to steal his Ford Pick up. They backed it out of his driveway at 3 am Saturday morning, and crashed it into the tree in his front yard, then fled the scene. The county sheriff reported that “there was a Ford Pick up which had struck the tree in the front yard, and lots of people witnessed the event” That is enough PROOF for the news media to report the story.
Back to Foley, WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT ANY OF THIS STORY IS TRUE, AND NOT FAKED?
Again, what you have is this, the news media, and bloggers are repeating, that some one said . . . . , and someone said . . . . ., and someone confirmed that . . . . .and that the news reporters said “we have learned that. . . . .”
And again, and again, and again, what is PROOF???
What are the odds this is an organized conspiracy, by Democrat activists, to smear a political opponent?
Rumor and innuendo. Sen. Joe McCarthy would be green with envy.
rockhauler on October 5, 2006 at 12:07 PM
The fact that Foley so quickly resigned and has done nothing to dispute the general charge against him indicates that there is something to the charges. This is all the more reason why I DON’T think Hastert should resign in light of the present facts, as his doing so would also be interpreted as confirming that he didn’t do enough when the facts say he acted reasonably on the information he had at the time.
thirteen28 on October 5, 2006 at 12:23 PM
The MSM was a cheerleader for their liberal buddy, Clinton, during Monicagate. They wanted the American people to believe it was just about sex, his private life. (Can you imagine that line with Foley?)
You have about 20% of Americans who are the moonbats. They are the ones running the network newscasts and the NEA. They also are the ones the Democrat party now caters to. If they were running the country instead of Republicans we would be in deep trouble: no missile defense, a stagnant economy because of tax hikes (instead of the fastest growing economy among the advanced nations), a legal approach to terrorism instead of a military one, more moonbat judges, mass amnesty for illegal aliens, you name it.
The MSM media attempts to trick people into voting for Democratic candidates. Liberals are the ones who believe it is best to keep the masses “stupid.” They know if provided with a one-sided liberal viewpoint (hence hysterics at a moderate Fox news competing with the left-wing monopoly on TV news) and school choice (instead of the hyper-left-wing NEA controlling the public school content), the people will not vote Democratic. Liberals are obscurants.
januarius on October 5, 2006 at 12:25 PM
Sorry it should read:
They know unless provided with a one-sided liberal viewpoint (hence hysterics at a moderate Fox news competing with the left-wing monopoly on TV news) and school choice (instead of the hyper-left-wing NEA controlling the public school content), the people will not vote Democratic. Liberals are obscurants.
januarius on October 5, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Bear in mind that people love the under dog.
Januarius is correct about the MSM inre to Clinton. The MSM painted Clinton as a good man that made a mistake, and the republicans as being unhinged crusaders on a witch hunt. With that type of reporting it is no wonder that so many people backed Clinton. He was the common every day man being attacked by a powerful enemy. He was the chubby school kid single handedly fighting off the republican bullies, fighting a lonely battle for hi dignity.
At least thats how the media twisted it.
Now they are twisting the folley scandal differently. It is the story of a man drunk with power who abused young innocent 5 year olds as they tried to learn about the working of our government. A man whose predations were so vile even the marquis Desade is going “WTF???” It is also a story of the mans political Cronies, who have protected this vile pedophile, while hiding their own predilection towards cooking and eating children before they too molest them.
The MSM is running into a small problem though. Their are alternate ways to get the truth out. people are able to break free the stranglehold the MSM had on informaiton and learn for themselves whats going on. More importantly people are able to decide for themselves how they should feel and which way to vote. They do not need the MSM to tell them.
People know what the Dems and the repubicans stand for. Most people are going to vote based on the war on terror/Iraq.
Wyrd on October 5, 2006 at 12:33 PM
Got it: the media twists things and liberals win; the media twists things and RW win. Because…..
I love the RW–you have the exec branch, you have the leg branch, you have had 6 years to load the jud branch, and you still whine about how put upon you are.
You can bitch and moan all you like about Foley. The Reps will lose because people are fed up with the massive fuck up that is Iraq and with the erosion of the middle class. This is just icing on the cake. Oh yeah, and voters are stupid (well, at least when they vote for Dems. When they vote for Reps they’re smart as hell. Nothing bizarre about that argument. LOL)
honora on October 5, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Hastert is going to resign. I’m placing bets. Any takers?
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 1:05 PM
Honora- You are awfully grumpy right now. Could it be over the fact that George Allen has a double digit lead in today’s poll? Dems keep dreaming over a “purple” Virginia, but it never happens.
januarius on October 5, 2006 at 1:08 PM
Honora, who is bitching and moaning about Foley? We are upset with the typical, hypocritical behavior of the Democrats. I, for one, am sick to death with the Massive F-up of the Democratic party. They have no ideas; they are the bitchers and moaners.
I am proud to support President Bush on the war on Iraq. I celebrate the great economy. The standard of living at my house has never been better. At my house, we work our tails off and it pays off. If I want a free ride I will join the Democrats; but I like working and doing for myself.
bopbottle on October 5, 2006 at 1:17 PM
Hastert should step down as speaker next term if the GOP keeps the House and make it clear that it is not because of this garbage. He shuold emphasize that Republicans plan to return to the Contract With America which calls for the Speaker to step aside after four terms. Fat chance.
Valiant on October 5, 2006 at 1:24 PM
honora, you never fail to reduce the collective iq of any thread…
Jaibones on October 5, 2006 at 1:24 PM
Don’t count your chickens. I’m grumpy because I’m in the middle of “State of Denial” and an employee and dear friend’s son is being sent to Iraq and the admin walks around free men.
(And, I’m an old broad–being grumpy is what we do!!! ;^) )
honora on October 5, 2006 at 1:26 PM
PM
By resign you mean step down from the Speakership and promise not to pursue it after the election if the Reps win? Don’t think I’ll take that bet. Could be wrong.
honora on October 5, 2006 at 1:28 PM
I won’t go that far, but I’m pretty confident that come January, he will no longer be speaker even if republicans miraculously keep the house.
thirteen28 on October 5, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Does all that patting yourself on the back cause your sciatica to act up?
honora on October 5, 2006 at 1:31 PM
People are basically busy. Typical day – 1/3 work, 1/3 sleep.
Then there’s commuting, eating, errands, kids, down time, etc.
Most folks really, honestly, truly don’t have time.
Broad strokes. Six o’clock news. Top of the hour news on the radio while commuting.
A lot of people are plain repulsed by politicians and mass media but can’t set aside time to pore over dozens of blogs. FoxNews is something of an alternative but that “giant” gets 1.5mil viewers.
Headlines rule folks, ala georgej’s
3. Aggressively schedule regular press conferences
Stephen M on October 5, 2006 at 1:35 PM
Is it just me, or did CNN pick the hottest picture of Hastert to run? I mean, are there no other pictures of the man? He’s no Prince Charming, but still, this is terrible.
Of course, in the name of the picture is “newt1,” for reasons that I could only speculate on, and poorly at that. Seems out of place, but then again, I am just a drunk.
Wineaholic on October 5, 2006 at 2:20 PM
The man isn’t photogenic, which is the most tactful way to put it. Salut!!!
honora on October 5, 2006 at 2:28 PM
Check out Drudge. IMs an out of hand prank.
bopbottle on October 5, 2006 at 2:50 PM
Have you seen these links from CREW? Who is Will? And what is it in these memos that show anything awful. I see someone baiting this kid, almost like a set-up..maybe it’s just me.
Pam on October 5, 2006 at 2:50 PM
Now we know why the former page got a lawyer. He is going to be in some hot water for perpetrating this horrible prank, and then for failing to protect the data from exposure. Privacy laws and all that….
BelchSpeak on October 5, 2006 at 3:00 PM
WTF is going on out there????!
Can we flush all the morons and their staffers in D.C. down the toilet where they belong????
A PRANK??
Redhead Infidel on October 5, 2006 at 3:01 PM
Ooo, if this is a “prank” gone bad the Dems just lost.
But I doubt its a complete prank, ’cause why would Foley resign?
Iblis on October 5, 2006 at 3:01 PM
Next on “Punk’d!” Nancy Pelosi reacts to her botox being replaced by common mayonaisse!
BelchSpeak on October 5, 2006 at 3:01 PM
Breaking news. . . just in
This reporter has learned, that it was, in fact, a Jeep Cherokee that the little green men from mars were trying to steal over the week end. . .
rockhauler on October 5, 2006 at 3:10 PM
i’ll eat crow.
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 3:15 PM
This still does not excuse Foley’s behavior. He may have been goaded into as a prank, but if true, it should show the page initiated the contact. How sad for everyone, if true.
bopbottle on October 5, 2006 at 3:15 PM
don’t apply to Dem Operatives!
Let the fun begin! Damn, if Foley was a dem you would be reading front page headlines in the MSM
Foley emerges from closet to win reelection!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on October 5, 2006 at 3:16 PM
Simply because his side of it was not a prank. They made him show his cards as a predator. It will however level the field if the “prank” plays out. The Dems will really take a beating for toying with people in this manner.
Psycotte on October 5, 2006 at 3:17 PM
something really fishy is going on around here. a prank????? I don’t buy it. someone’s definitely in CYA mode…
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 3:17 PM
How would you like your crow?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on October 5, 2006 at 3:17 PM
There may be some truth to Foley’s behavior and predilections, which is why Foley resigned. Good riddance.
Still, if Drudge is right (and he’s been wrong before) and the Dems just got pwned hard, then they deserve it for not using their head. You’d think they’d have learned from Rather’s hammering.
CT on October 5, 2006 at 3:19 PM
I said this in another post regarding the saving of IM’s;
If the current Drudge report is true, then it just means that the Dems have (almost) learned from Dan Rather’s mistakes.
Fake but accurate, indeed.
BlueStateBlues on October 5, 2006 at 3:31 PM
If it’s a prank, it explains the timing.
(Summer 2003)
Dem Operative: Oooh Oooh I’ve got something good!!
Dem Overlord: But its a prank
(Oct 2006) Dem Overlord: Hey spunky, ya still got that little prank?
HerrMorgenholz on October 5, 2006 at 3:33 PM
I guess I should have just said “ditto”, CT.
BlueStateBlues on October 5, 2006 at 3:34 PM
From of all places the LA Times,
Jonah Goldberg: Foley Flap Highlights Dems’ Hypocrisy
This could make life very interesting for the democrats, in a Chinese sort of way. (Ancient Chinese curse, may you have an interesting life).
GoingThere on October 5, 2006 at 3:35 PM
Allah,
Still proving that each party has its sleezy scumbuckets
One party prosecutes them
the other promotes them
EricPWJohnson on October 5, 2006 at 3:36 PM
cooked in a crock pot, smothered with onions and gravy. nice and tender…
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 3:36 PM
None of the MSM are reporting this yet. I looked at ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN. Guess they want to get their facts straight before the guana hits the fan.
BacaDog on October 5, 2006 at 3:37 PM
that way, it’ll go really well with the sole of my shoe.
And of course, a nice chianti.
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 3:37 PM
Ok, all of you who were calling for Hastert’s resignation … if it does turn out that this was a prank, do you still think he should walk the plank?
(am I poetic or what?)
thirteen28 on October 5, 2006 at 3:43 PM
Well, if the prank is as it is being reported, then Foley didn’t know he was being pranked.
I mean even if this turns out to be a prank, Foley still engaged in inappropriate behavior with a former page and didn’t know the teen wasn’t interested. The only thing that has changed is the page’s interest in the IMs as a joke and not “gratification”.
Esthier on October 5, 2006 at 3:46 PM
ya’ll need to pop on over to newsbusters.org and read about the MSM and democratic hypocrisy.
It’s really interesting to see what Charlie Gibson had to say about the Stubbs thingy way back in 1983.
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 3:51 PM
I sure do buy that it was a prank – and like I’ve said before, the old perv fell for it. Foley’s already fried. But it sure as hell says a lot about the elaborate set-up of the faux blog StopSexPredators, and the dKos posts. It was a very well-planned, extravagent, and convoluted scheme – and certainly meant to DECEIVE. The Dems are looking pretty dirty at this point.
AND it proves that Hastert et al are telling the truth – and the calls for resignation need to stop already. Why did Hastert not know? Because the whole thing was a g-ddamned juvenile prank – that’s why.
Redhead Infidel on October 5, 2006 at 3:58 PM
Foley should be gone for the simple fact that he has a sexually predatory disposition, and his actions show that. Knowing that also, at least IMO, established probably cause for investigating him further to see what else he might of done.
But if this prank story turns out to be true, then this is all a far cry from the Republican-scandal-they-swept-under-the-rug-to-maintain-political-power narrative that the dems/MSM were pushing that was causing so many in the Pre-Emptive Surrender Caucus to call for heads to roll starting with Hastert’s. It would also reaffirm that there really was a dem/media hit job as many of us suggested in the beginning, only to be told we were making excuses for Foley.
thirteen28 on October 5, 2006 at 4:02 PM
BTW Esthier, the 2nd paragraph of my post was not a response to yours, but to some of the others I have been arguing with over this matter.
thirteen28 on October 5, 2006 at 4:03 PM
Betsy Newmark called this one days ago. Man, that woman has got a sixth sense:
Redhead Infidel on October 5, 2006 at 4:10 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »