Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Foley follies: Friday all-purpose thread; Update: Side-by-side PDF e-mail comparison added!

posted at 12:45 am on October 6, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

On behalf of myself and the Hot Air readership, I open this thread by calling upon Speaker Hastert to resign immediately and spare us from having to devote yet another day of coverage to this clammy, tedious crap.

Do the right thing, Denny.

hast-fri.jpg

Alas, it sounds like he’s dug in. Dan Riehl thinks it’s the right move, but if this is our silver lining, we’re in more trouble than I thought:

If the Majority Watch polls are predictive, the Democrats are on track to win a majority with a margin of between 2 and 4 seats. But what a flimsy majority it would be, one in which at least half their margin of victory comes from seats that can be expected to easily fall back into Republican hands in the next cycle.

Plenty of updates ahead, no doubt. Exit question quotation: “One law enforcement official — speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation — also told The Washington Post the FBI believed that CREW may have received the e-mails as early as April and that the group refused to tell the FBI how they were obtained.”

Update: Weaponized!

Update: I’m not really calling on Hastert to resign. (I think.) I’m calling on anyone capable of granting us a reprieve from this tiresome story to do what’s necessary to make that happen. Just a few days of material that isn’t torn from the pages of NAMBLA Weekly. Is that too much to ask?

Perhaps it is.

Update: Gallup surveys the scene in six close Senate races. At the moment, it’s a bloodbath.

Update: Nancy promises to “drain the swamp” in her first 100 hours as Speaker:

Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.”

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — “I hope with a veto-proof majority,” she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

Update: Remember how David Corn suggested that the list of closeted gay Republicans was being circulated by, um, Republicans? Well, he’s not suggesting that anymore. Surprise.

He also claims that the list has been sent to socially conservative groups for the express purpose of instigating a “GOP civil war.”

Update: A.J. Strata wonders why the PDFs of Foley’s e-mails that were posted by CREW have a printout date at the bottom from October of last year. The fax date at the top suggests CREW received them in May 2006 (two months before they tipped the FBI, please note). For whom were those e-mails originally printed seven months earlier?

Update: Tom Reynolds was cruising towards re-election a few weeks ago. And now?

Update: Kurtz is disgusted with Corn and his list: “Excuse me while I grab some Maalox. Will there also be a list of heterosexuals who violate their family-values rhetoric by fooling around on the side? How far can this craziness go?”

Update: Charles joins my call for a reprieve from Foleygate but resigns himself to suffering. Elsewhere, James Dobson condemns Mark Foley — and the media, for trying suppress the conservative vote. Too late, says CREW: they want a list from the Secret Service of every last prominent Christian to have visited the White House. Meanwhile, Al Kamen of WaPo spots a schism between “hard-line anti-pedophiles” and “moderate anti-pedophiles” like George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Update: Tangential but related — WaPo editor Len Downie says all his reporters want to be bloggers now in part because of the, er, “unlimited newshole.”

Update: ALF says he knows plenty of people in Christian conservative movement, and if the left thinks they’re going to throw outed gay conservatives under the bus, they’re kidding themselves.

Of course, then the left will claim that that was their intention all along — forcing the Christian right to openly embrace the gays in their midst. David Corn, you see, is all about the healing.

Update: NJ GOP Senate candidate Tom Kean Jr. calls on Hastert to resign. Just like he did with Rumsfeld last month.

Update: On the offensive: GOP House members have asked the Ethics Committee to subpoena Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel, too.

Update: The attorney for the page whose identity was revealed by the “conservative outing mob” calls Drudge’s report of two days ago “a piece of fiction.” Quote: “There is not any aspect of this matter that is a practical joke nor should anyone treat it that way.”

Update: It’s 5 p.m. on the east coast. Looks like Hastert held on, for this week at least. The big board reads: 103!

Update: ABC has posted the PDF of an e-mail sent by the original page in all this — the one Foley asked for a picture — to Danielle Savoy, a member of Rodney Alexander’s staff, in August 2005. (The page had worked for Alexander.) Savoy failed to act at the time. Note the printout date at the bottom, though: October 17, 2005. The same date as the printouts of other e-mail exchanges that were posted by CREW. Clearly ABC and CREW are getting these from the source. Who was it? And why did they print all this stuff out last October?

Update: Drudge has a teaser up saying that the lawyer for the outed page isn’t absolutely sure that it wasn’t a prank. He’s “not ruling it in or out.” The lawyer’s supposed to be on CNN sometime soon. I’ll have video, probably.

Update: A.J. Strata’s been doing some document comparison. His post is important but it’s not easy to follow him without seeing the two copies side by side so I made this up in Photoshop for easy reference. Click for full size.

abc-crew2.png

Looking at the first email heading (supposedly from the LA Page to the House Staffer) the redactions are not identical. The “from” line in the ABC News email is clearly there and being redacted by ABC News. But the fact both CREW and ABC News have the same redactions for the rest of the header means those redactions are much earlier and from the common source (either that or ABC News shared its version with CREW, which then added more redactions).

This is interesting because the next email heading we see is the one from Foley to the page. ABC News is trying to blot out the AOL domain name, but both versions use different redactions for the Page’s ‘from’ field. This means both CREW and ABC News knew who the potential victim was! And did they pass that onto to the FBI? Did CREW give the copies to the FBI they have on their site with the Page’s details blacked out? We shall see.

Remember this post? The discrepancies in the e-mails there were between e-mails posted by CREW and StopSexPredators.com. The fact that ABC’s version matches CREW’s exactly would mean that SSP’s are the anomalous ones, no? Which would in turn, as Strata says, mean that SSP’s are fakes.


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

While I sit here in the middle of the night, 4 miles away from an exploding chemical fire in Bhopal aka Apex, NC, watching the winds closely to see if I have to evacuate my family, I was pondering the fascinating possibility of a split House of Representatives. 217 Dems and 217 Republicans plus one independent. Of course, the independent socialist would caucus with the Dems giving them the speakership and committee chairs. It would be fascinating to watch.

Valiant on October 6, 2006 at 1:06 AM

The sad thing is that I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or serious about Hastert resigning, AP.

Now, I wouldn’t have minded seeing him resign after his attempts to block the FBI investigation on ‘FreezerCash Jefferson;” but over this he dang sure needs to stick and fight back… Fight back harder tnan the Repubs have fought in a few years.

LegendHasIt on October 6, 2006 at 1:06 AM

The sad thing is that I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or serious about Hastert resigning, AP.

You know, neither do I.

Allahpundit on October 6, 2006 at 1:07 AM

Don’t know if he’s blowing smoke or if there is any basis in fact, but Drudge is saying that at least part of it was a “prank gone wrong”:

http://www.drudgereport.com/page.htm

Clarice Feldman is on it too:

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6289

LegendHasIt on October 6, 2006 at 1:11 AM

Don’t know if he’s blowing smoke or if there is any basis in fact, but Drudge is saying that at least part of it was a “prank gone wrong”:

I believe it in the first case. The page saved the IMs and hired a criminal defense attorney. But what about the other 3 pages?

Valiant on October 6, 2006 at 1:15 AM

Show me the contract.
The one which quarantees full, total MSM support and endorsement of the GOP until after election day in exchange for Hastert’s pelt. Or at least that they’ll shut up about this stuff.
Show me that and I’m still not onboard.

Hastert’s been a weak sister since day one.
I’d happily receive news of his resignation anytime but now.
It’s Don’t Feed The Trolls 101.
Or your foot to a gator.

Stephen M on October 6, 2006 at 1:15 AM

We’ll eventually get to the point where we are able to have the non-chalant “Oh my gawd. They killed Kenny. You Bastards” attitude about this thing and move on with our lives. It’s how the Democrats deal with jihad.

Editor on October 6, 2006 at 1:16 AM

Regardless of Foley’s behavior, Hastert’s resignation would have been capitulation to yet another Democrat dirty trick. I say Enough! to sacrificing men on our side. Even if (and it’s a huge if, today) Hastert didn’t act like Mother Teresa, we MUST stop demanding pure-as-the-wind-driven-snow standards from our side, while allowing gutter level behavior from the opposition, just so that those on the other side will (oh, how magical it is!) see how moral we are. The more we capitulate to totally false demands that we – not they – live up to perfection, the higher they’ll raise the bar and be able to topple even more of our guys. The GOP base is disgusted by the lack of balls, and if there is any more cowering in the face of Dhimmicrat tricks, I really fear for the party.

Halley on October 6, 2006 at 2:00 AM

Some distinct issues at hand:

- Several Republican congressmen have stated that Hastert was aware of “inappropriate”, “unseemly”, “inadvisable” etc., behavior of Foley towards pages. At least one of these declarations claims to be three years old. Bad for Hastert.

- If it was a ‘D’ next to Foley’s name, the rest of us would be getting told to “Move on!” by now, and leave a politician’s personal life out of the public eye. Either that, or they would simply be defiantly proud and ignore any backlash, with the aid of the Old Media. No measurable impact on Hastert.

- How long was the story known and held waiting for this moment? Ok, this is a valid issue as far as it goes, but I completely isolate it from the mess Republicans have made for themselves. Very mild boost for Hastert at best under the category of rhetoric.

- Since Nancy Pelosi has now commented on the House floor that a man so deeply interested in young men shouldn’t be in a position of power over them, it’s time for her to work to repeal the laws banning the Boy Scouts from government-owned property, given that she and they now agree on this topic. No measurable impact on Hastert since only two kinds of people can stomach Pelosi’s bile; True believe Dems, and folks with the nerve to pay attention to the other side. Neither group is likely to have their attitude changed by her.

- I wonder if any of the “righteously indignant” democrats will now lose support from the GLBT crowd for demonizing behavior they are trying daily to legitamize. No impact on Hastert.

And finally, a cartoon that makes the same argument as today’s Ann Coulter column. If thoughts like this can be made more widespread, it will likely mean little to nothing to the Speaker, but it could help the President’s numbers a tad.

Freelancer on October 6, 2006 at 2:35 AM

You know, I’ve had a hard time getting interested in the upcoming election. My Rep gets over 60% of the vote every time and I like the guy, our ballot measures are ho hum this year, the only new taxes are for the library. But now I’m getting angry with all this crap week after week. I will not only vote but I’m going on a campaign to get everyone I know to do the same. I started tonight, got two young voters committed to getting registered. I don’t want to live in a world where Pelosi launches a new ‘investigation’ every week.

Help me out folks! Let’s get motivated.

theGimp on October 6, 2006 at 2:49 AM

Allah, I think you’re on the right track in wanting to get away from this news story. I don’t know your whole mind on the matter, but I have to figure one reason you want to move to other subjects is that you think they’re more important. And it’s been given to you, utterly, to move on, if that’s what you think is best. If you want to change the subject, then I’d urge you just to do so, “with a great stroke of authority.” Execute.

On the other hand, if you decide to stay with the issue in some way, then consider heaping bitter, funny scorn on it and everyone connected with it. It’s one of the things you do well: to find what should be scorned and scorn it. It’s the reason I’ve been reading your stuff since 2003 or 2004: You often know what to scorn, and you always know how to scorn it. And isn’t hatred a sine qua non of good politics and, indeed, of life itself?

Leave the boss out of it. Let her do the somber-faced “no excuses” routine if she has to; duly edit and post the video. But there’s no reason for you to make a show of your own feminine sexual modesty, unless indeed you have some. I’m all too well acquainted with the yuck factor of having a fat, pasty, hairy man, 30 years my senior, hit on me. I survived and can report that it’s icky, but absolutely nothing over which federal politics should be roiled. I think you already knew that, though, and if so, I think you should just say so. You can’t save the present situation, but you can toughen up your readers and help prepare them for the next occasion, and the next, two, four, six, and eight years from now. For “you can throw Nature out with a pitchfork, but she will keep coming back.”

I don’t mind leading on the point, bluntly, even though I can’t bring the funny: I’d like to beat the sh1t out of Foley for not taking care to separate his vital work from his peculiar passion. I’d like to beat the sh1t out of parents who send their sons and daughters out into the implicitly sexual adult sphere before having prepared them to handle it with adult firmness. I’d like to beat the sh1t out of the guys who set themselves forth as fit to work in federal politics and who yet lack the understanding that the orderly continuity of federal government is more important to the rest of us than their cherry a$$. I’d like to beat the sh1t out of whoever thought of defining biological adults as jailbait and whoever then thought of letting the jailbait wander the Congressional offices. They are all diseased.

Kralizec on October 6, 2006 at 4:14 AM

Not from nambla weakly. .

Juxtapose this quote:
The Republican Party has gone to such lengths to demonize homosexuality that it must pain the leadership to reveal that such a thing as a gay Republican congressman could even exist
Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501548.html

With the Republican party “big tent” convention in 1996,
http://www.signorile.com/articles/outtent.html
and what do you get?

rockhauler on October 6, 2006 at 4:27 AM

How about calling for Mark Foley to come clean? He’s the one that could end this if he’d come out and tell the truth behind these IMs.

TexasRainmaker on October 6, 2006 at 5:35 AM

After some thought. ..

I have suspected for a number of years that the US is divided into roughly three groups; 30% left wing, 30% right wing, and 30% indifferent.

The Republican party can not govern the country when 1/3 of the country actively sabotages, and obstructs our every policy, and another 1/3 doesn’t know or care.

The Democrats are on the road to becoming a fringe party, while the Republican party risks splitting into a conservative faction, and a less conservative faction.

Throwing Mark Foley ‘under the bus’, as Rush would say, is as destructive to the Republican party, as the leftist, gay activist, Democrat tactic of demonizing Mark Foley as a ‘self-hating gay, allied with the evil, repressive Christians’ is for their party. And don’t ignore the ruin brought to Mark Foley, who is caught in the middle.

Personally, I am so conservative as to be practically Neanderthal, and I hold the opinion that homosexual behavior is a pervasion. That’s my opinion, your opinion may differ, learn to live with it, because, in the United States, homosexual behavior is no longer a crime, and don’t try to label my opinion as hate. If you need to label someone a hateful homophobic, look to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. . . where US law doesn’t apply. I also believe that those self righteous, holier than thou, right wing saints need to recognize that the rest of us are mere humans, with human failings; most of us are doing the best we can.

So what does this mean? We conservative republicans, who want to see the United States survive and prosper, who want a strong national defense, prudent state and federal spending policies, non destructive social policies, and legal immigration, need to win elections, with sufficient majorities that the obstructionists, and saboteurs can’t stop the implementation of our policies. If we are going to win, we need to defend our principles, fight for the rule of law, and not cower from every angry accusation thrown at us.

rockhauler on October 6, 2006 at 5:58 AM

“On behalf of myself and the Hot Air readership, I open this thread by calling upon Speaker Hastert to resign immediately” Allahpundit

You don’t speak for me.

“Update: I’m not really calling on Hastert to resign. (I think.)” Allahpundit

I’m glad you clarified your point, if that is what you did.

georgej on October 6, 2006 at 6:03 AM

ABC reports 3 more pages have made claims against Foley. What has ABC done to verify the stories of these 3? We know they did not do much to verify the original IMs. Anyone can log on to ABCs site and claim to have been contacted by Foley. Why is ABC only requesting people approached by Foley contact them, what about pages approached by members of Congress other than Foley? I doubt Mark Foley is the only one.

bopbottle on October 6, 2006 at 6:47 AM

If a Republican Congressman would only murder someone, that would probably knock this out of the headlines…

frankj on October 6, 2006 at 7:25 AM

Enough of this resigning crap. Hastert didn’t do anything. Fight back for God’s sake. Stand up and throw it right back at the sleazy dems .. demand they resign just for being dems. Dammit … quit giving in. NO RESIGNATION.

darwin on October 6, 2006 at 7:36 AM

Aren’t we being told over and over that attacking the terrorists only produces more terrorists? Would the same “logic” not apply to Republicans? The more the democrats attack, the more of us there will be?!!? Do they not follow their own through-lines? Or maybe the democrats are just full of caca (macaca)!

SouthernGent on October 6, 2006 at 8:18 AM

If the MSM would only treat Foley with the same enamoredness that they had with Pamela Rogers, this story would end up in the “Life” section of the news.

toofa on October 6, 2006 at 8:24 AM

If the MSM would only treat Foley with the same enamoredness that they had with Pamela Rogers, this story would end up in the “Life and Entertainment” sections of the news.

toofa on October 6, 2006 at 8:24 AM

If the Republican majority in both houses managed to pass Social Security reform, opened up drilling in ANWR, and didn’t spend like drunken sailors, then I would’ve been more supportive of the Republican leadership.

I guess I’m just a little worn out with having to vote AGAINST the Democrats instead of wanting to vote FOR a party that supports my views and actually “walks the talk.”

No, I don’t want to see Pelosi in the #3 spot. But what about Hastert? He hasn’t exactly shown stellar leadership, either! I feel like I’m being screwed no matter who I vote for.

Dave Shay on October 6, 2006 at 8:32 AM

I’m sick and tired of Republicans caving in to the demands of the left-wing. While I can’t speak for all staunch conservatives, IMHO wimping out whenever we’re confronted by these screeching, finger-pointing libs will do nothing to strengthen the Republican base. It will have the opposite effect. We should take a stand and call them what they are ….. hypocrites of the highest magnitude.

This has everything to do with election year politics, plain and simple. This is the left-leaning core once again prematurely celebrating a “we really got ‘em this time” moment. This is pure BS, same as it was with every other death-of-conservatism “moment” they drummed up and salivated over in the past few years …. no WMDs, Abu Graib, Guitmo, the Plame outing, and on and on, with the likes of Matthews and Olbermann going orgasmic with each breaking story, contemplating the guaranteed pending Democrat takeover. Hasn’t happened in the last two election cycles, has it? Painful as it is to watch the Republican leadership tap-dance around the Foley mess, be patient, it will soon fade away with the other firestorms the left predicted would be our deserved undoing. Foley stands alone, embarrassed and banished; he is not the embodiment of moral character for the entire party.

Sure I wish people like Hastert and Frist had bigger stones, but I’m not about to give up or call for resignations because the opposition wants conservative heads to roll. We don’t take advice from losers, nor did we demand their leadership resign every time one of their little puppetheads went astray. Maybe we should have. Now is the time to stand up to these paper mache bullies.

Ponder this ….. Nancy Pelosi – Speaker of the House.

Now, is Hastert really that bad?

fogw on October 6, 2006 at 8:49 AM

I’m sick and tired of Republicans caving in to the demands of the left-wing.

Exactly.

For the most part, hasn’t it been established that Hastert didn’t know the extent of the perv emails/IMs? Given that, I honestly can’t see how getting rid of Hastert would give Republicans an advantage in the election. If anything, it would be playing right into the hands of the lefty freaks who would obviously like to get any and all Republicans out of office.

Ponder this ….. Nancy Pelosi – Speaker of the House.

Ugh, I’m glad I haven’t had breakfast yet… :/

tiekitwist on October 6, 2006 at 8:56 AM

Hey, I’m all for the Dems and I wish this would go away. Much prefer Iraq and Afghanistan and NK on the front page.

honora on October 6, 2006 at 9:04 AM

Update: Gallup surveys the scene in six close Senate races. At the moment, it’s a bloodbath.

It’s not a Bloodbath. That would be RED. This is a bluebath which is far more chilling…..God help us all.

Psycotte on October 6, 2006 at 9:24 AM

A couple of things here:

1. I have seen the cpoies that CREW had and the dates at the top stamped on by a fax machine appear to be May, so April is something new, but I don’t doubt it.

2. Crew pulled materials from their site on Tuesday. That is important because CREW was being fingered as of Monday. Remember altered e-mails

Pam on October 6, 2006 at 9:26 AM

If anything, it would be playing right into the hands of the lefty freaks who would obviously like to get any and all Republicans out of office.

Which is probably the only reason I even care if Hastert stays. I really know little about the man, but this is getting old.

To me it feels a little like giving terrorists Geneva Conventions rights. Sure it makes us seem like good guys, but we won’t get the same treatment in return.

Esthier on October 6, 2006 at 9:34 AM

Interesting pollas to those familiar with the Foley fury. Nice little 9% sliver there of those that this makes them “more likely” to vote Rebublican.

Same poll “What should Hastert do?”

Keep in mind this was done by KABC in Los Angeles, CA.

SouthernGent on October 6, 2006 at 9:54 AM

Bad link on the first poll

SouthernGent on October 6, 2006 at 9:55 AM

“On behalf of myself and the Hot Air readership,…”

You don’t speak for me.

Writers here should re-read the fogw comment above and try oh so hard to let it sink in just a tad. How about you guys wallow in this after November? Just try it… just to see what it’s like. You know, for kicks.

Cary on October 6, 2006 at 10:03 AM

Allah: On the bright side though, Liebs is now up by 20!

Greg Tinti on October 6, 2006 at 10:12 AM

Hastert has to stay for now, for the above mentioned reasons. As soon as the election is over, buh-bye.

Republicans better start playing by the Chicago way, and damn fast. Because this is only going to happen again, unless the dems are made to pay a heavy price.

Iblis on October 6, 2006 at 10:26 AM

At least Nancy has a plan. She has finally given the unwashed masses something to vote for. What does the GOP plan to offer? They have been entirely in defensive mode since 1998. As I said in the very first post above, the dream scenario would be a nearly-split House where maybe democracy could work for a change. The GOP has turned a deaf ear to too many 80/20 issues.

Valiant on October 6, 2006 at 10:27 AM

“We believe in the marketplace,” Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. “They have only rewarded wealth, not work.”

News Flash Nancy

Wealth is achieved by hard work, long hours, self-motivation, innovation, dedication, ambition, leadership, etc …… traits unfamiliar to spoon-fed liberals who rely on the government to solve or pay for their every problem.

We believe in the marketplace? WTF kind of plan is that? Gobbledy-Gook.

fogw on October 6, 2006 at 10:34 AM

One day I want Hastert to resign, the next day I don’t. However, I do know one thing, this is turning into the “beating a dead horse.” I’m getting sick of hearing “more pages have come forward.” By the time this thing is over, all the pages, since the beginning of time will have received emails or IM’s from Foley. I’m glad Foley is out of there, let law enforcement handle him, but something isn’t adding up with each day more pages coming forward. I’m beginning to think I got some emails from Foley in my spam box too!

I also don’t think most American’s are even listening to Pelosi or Reid. Each time there is a sniff of something in the air, the two of them are like those jack-in-the-boxes and pop up wanting someone to resign. Until this thing with Foley emerged, they were calling for Rumsfeld to resign. I have them on mute and I think most people do.

moonsbreath on October 6, 2006 at 10:43 AM

David Corn is an ass and a moron.

Enoxo on October 6, 2006 at 10:46 AM

And he’s forgotten the lesson of Mary Cheney.
These guys don’t understand Christians at all.

Iblis on October 6, 2006 at 11:29 AM

According to the parents of the page that is involved, but one that we do not know the identity:

The family’s statement calls the e-mails “ambiguous” and expresses support for Alexander.

In the fall of 2005, as soon as Congressman Alexander became aware of the e-mails received by our son, he called us. He explained that his office had been made aware of these e-mails by our son and that while he thought the e-mails were overly friendly, he did not think, nor did we think, that they were offensive enough to warrant an investigation.

Rather, we asked him to see that Congressman Foley stop e-mailing or contacting our son and to otherwise drop the matter in order to avoid a media frenzy. He did so. If we had any other knowledge or evidence of potential impropriety, we would have asked for the matter to be treated differently. For instance, we were not aware of the instant messages that have come to light in the past few days.

So the parents feel that this was handled properly. The e-mails they were aware of jive with the e-mails we saw last Thursday. They had no knowledge, and from what I am seeing, their son was not involved in the filthy ims. So it is quite possible that Hastert did do just what he said he did..and it is quite possible that the ims were a prank gone wrong. It is a fact that Foley should never have engaged in the ims…This leads us back to CREW!

Pam on October 6, 2006 at 11:41 AM

AP- I forgot to blockquote the info from CNN..please forgive me..I am sorry!

Pam on October 6, 2006 at 11:43 AM

To me it feels a little like giving terrorists Geneva Conventions rights. Sure it makes us seem like good guys, but we won’t get the same treatment in return.

Esthier on October 6, 2006 at 9:34 AM

That is a perfect description of how republicans fight political battles with the democrat. We try to be the good guys and they take advantage of it every time, and we wonder why.

Bush came into DC promising to set a new tone, and he tried appeasement with the democrats on issues like the No Child Left Behind Act and steel tarriffs. Did he get their respect or cooperation in return?

They pre-emptively surrendered on Plamegate, saying they were wrong to use those 16 words and allowing a special prosecutor to be appointed. And what did they get in return? Well, it turns out those 16 words were well-founded according to the CIA, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Butler Report – yet in removing them the administration allowed the dem narrative to take root in the public conciousness, allowed a maliciouis prosecutor to run amok for 3 years, and paved the way for an indictment of an administration official for remembering something differently than the reporters he talked to. Yes, a lot of good contrition did there, right?

With regard to the Foley story, the walk was walked when Foley was forced to resign and put under criminal investigation. Once that was done, there was no need for all of the gratuitous contrition and self-flagellation – conservatives should have immediately gone on the counter offensive asking serioius questionis of the democrats about who of them knew about the IM’s and why they were hidden for so long, thereby allowing a potential predator to remain in office. That would have put them on the defensive instead of us. Instead, too many on our side are still wallowing in p-ssitude. Everybody’s hoping the story just goes away, but had we put the dems on the defensive about their role in this, it would have.

thirteen28 on October 6, 2006 at 11:43 AM

I would faint (literally) if the Republicans did this, but I want them to subpoena EVERY House memeber’s computer and have it swept to see what kinds of stuff goes on. CALL THEIR BLUFF AND WATCH THE REAL COVER-UP BEGIN!

SouthernGent on October 6, 2006 at 11:58 AM

Key concept here folks…

Did he send any of this material to Active Pages?

Or was it EX Pages.

If its EX Pages it is NOT in the power of the Congress to even investigate. Congress does NOT have the authority to monitor, or investigate, communitcations from a Congressman to a private citizen. As long as its an EX Page, Hastert had no authority to even get involved… it would be a law enforcement matter.

Now… if allegations come out that he was told about Foley pursuing ACTIVE PAGES, thats a whole nother story…

Romeo13 on October 6, 2006 at 12:12 PM

Key concept here folks…

Did he send any of this material to Active Pages?

Or was it EX Pages.

If its EX Pages it is NOT in the power of the Congress to even investigate. Congress does NOT have the authority to monitor, or investigate, communitcations from a Congressman to a private citizen. As long as its an EX Page, Hastert had no authority to even get involved… it would be a law enforcement matter.

Now… if allegations come out that he was told about Foley pursuing ACTIVE PAGES, thats a whole nother story…

Romeo13 on October 6, 2006 at 12:12 PM

Honestly Romeo, I don’t think Foley is even the story at all here anymore, at least in the political perspective. The fact is, whatever he did or didn’t do, we know his predisposition and he is now gone from congress. He is also under criminal investigation. The Republican house delegation has done everything that could morally and legally be expected up to this point.

The story now is whether or not everything was done that could to bring his behavior to light. From what we know at present, Hastert and the Republicans did this, while on the other side of the aisle, apparently there were dem operatives and MSM (pardon the redundancy) that sat on more incriminating information about Foley’s behavior until they could release it at a politically opportune moment. That is a scandal and that’s what we should be focusing on.

thirteen28 on October 6, 2006 at 12:22 PM

I would faint (literally) if the Republicans did this, but I want them to subpoena EVERY House memeber’s computer and have it swept to see what kinds of stuff goes on. CALL THEIR BLUFF AND WATCH THE REAL COVER-UP BEGIN!

SouthernGent on October 6, 2006 at 11:58 AM

I would absolutely love this. But the pre-emptive surrender caucus would get weak-kneed about it before the call could even be made – which is way we have allowed a completely morally and intellectually bankrupt party like the Democrats (who should be mentioned in the same context as the Whig party nowadays) to live on to fight another day.

thirteen28 on October 6, 2006 at 12:24 PM

Rolling on the floor…

Hilarious…. and I haven’t finished reading Ann Coulter’s piece on Foley….

“not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of … “

ar_basin on October 6, 2006 at 1:25 PM

Resign Hastert.

tommy1 on October 6, 2006 at 1:41 PM

If the Dems win fairly big, “comprehensive immigration reform,” will be on its way. Only a slim majority of Republicans in the House are keeping the Third World tidal wave back.

tommy1 on October 6, 2006 at 1:43 PM

If the Dems win fairly big, “comprehensive immigration reform,” will be on its way. Only a slim majority of Republicans in the House are keeping the Third World tidal wave back.

tommy1 on October 6, 2006 at 1:43 PM

They are?? Oh you must mean the 700 mile fence that has no funding. Yeah, these guys are a regular “Profile in Courage”

honora on October 6, 2006 at 2:05 PM

Heaven help us all! GULP!

SouthernGent on October 6, 2006 at 2:49 PM

Kurtz is mostly right. However he gets one thing wrong:

But let’s not buy into the notion that gays, closeted or not, are somehow more likely to be pedophiles. That’s factually inaccurate as well as outrageous. So what is the point of this possible witch hunt? Wouldn’t this have the potential to trigger a huge backlash?

According to the figures I’ve seen, homosexuals make up about 3-5% of the general population (probably on the lower end of that estimate). By contrast, around one-third of child molestation cases involve a victim and child of the same sex. You do the math.

Most homosexuals are not child molesters, of course. Relatively few are. But it is factually incorrect, even if politically correct, to say that homosexuals don’t have a greater proclivity toward child molestion than heterosexuals do.

tommy1 on October 6, 2006 at 3:04 PM

Update: On the offensive: GOP House members have asked the Ethics Committee to subpoena Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel, too.

YEAH BABY!!! Now THAT’S what I’m talkin’ about!!

thirteen28 on October 6, 2006 at 3:36 PM

Allah,

If you want him to resign, then call for it over the lousy job that he has done. Don’t call for it due to this stuff. Hell, there isn’t even a prosecutable offense here.

Rustyw on October 6, 2006 at 3:37 PM

This explains a lot. . . at least it was something I was missing. . .

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzJmMDM5NTRkNmVjZTA0YzdiMjk5ZTdlZTAyMzc2MTI=

So what is the best way to ‘protect our children’?
Set up a law enforcement institution that crucifies every adult male friendly with children not his own?

How about education? Teach your children the dangers of the real world, and how to deal with them! Guns, dogs, bankruptcy, abusive men, pornography, pedophiles; pick your phobia, and learn how to deal with it.

Ah well, mothers are like that, they fear for the lives of their children, but fathers seem to deal with that fear differently. Another reason why children need both a mother and a father.

rockhauler on October 6, 2006 at 4:04 PM

honora,

They are?? Oh you must mean the 700 mile fence that has no funding. Yeah, these guys are a regular “Profile in Courage”

No, I don’t mean that 700 mile fence that has no funding. I’m certainly pissed off about that but that fence would only be a start in the most optimistic scenarios anyway.

I’m talking the revival of the Hagel-Martinez amnesty/guest worker program that will allow around 100+ million people into our country over the course a few decades. I’m talking about a bill that threatens to ensure that the United States ends up another Third World country by the time my great-grandchildren are around.

tommy1 on October 6, 2006 at 4:20 PM

WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

enjoy

ar_basin on October 6, 2006 at 4:35 PM

The Democrats are becoming De-Foley-ated.

pjcomix on October 6, 2006 at 5:01 PM

Even Sully gets it;

MARK FOLEY AND THE GOP.
Closet Cases
by Andrew Sullivan
Post date 10.05.06 | Issue date 10.16.06
The most infuriating aspect of the Mark Foley fiasco is that we’re still unclear on what exactly it is we’re infuriated about. This was not pedophilia: The pages involved were all above the legal age of consent in Washington, D.C. It wasn’t exactly pederasty either, given that we have no evidence (at least not yet) of any actual sexual contact between two live human beings. Sexual harassment? It doesn’t appear that, at the time of the now-infamous instant messages, the pages were in Foley’s employ. The best phrase I have been able to come up with for Foley’s transgression is “virtual pederasty,” with a large dose of extremely creepy and abusive behavior toward younger, vulnerable people whose trust he clearly betrayed….

Rustyw on October 6, 2006 at 5:24 PM

Drudge is defending his story and linking to Hot Air:

CNN: PAGE LAWYER DOES NOT RULE ‘IN OR OUT’ PRANK CLAIM… DEVELOPING… Former congressional page Jordan Edmund’s lawyer Stephen Jones… BLITZER: He will join us live in the next hour. What are you hearing, Brian, about some of these Internet suggestions, some Republicans suggesting this whole thing is a prank, a hoax and there is no there, there.

CNN REPORTER: “We asked him about that item in the DRUDGE REPORT. He said very clearly he cannot rule that in, he cannot rule that out. He says he is not saying it was not a prank but later in the interview, CNN pressed him on that. He said that he — he does not read the DRUDGE REPORT, not part of his regular reading and, quote, it sounds like a piece of fiction…

BLITZER: He says the DRUDGE REPORT item sounds like a piece of fiction?

CNN REPORTER: He did say that, but important to note he says he is not ruling it in or out.


Video…

[Inexplicably, except for the deluge of viewers headed your way?, Hot Air has turned off comments on that post! Since this is the 'Foley follies', here it is]

Christoph on October 6, 2006 at 5:48 PM

Either the page is lying about it being a prank, or he’s lying about his orientation. If he’s straight as he claims to be, then the prank explanation is the only one that fits, because reading those IM’s it’s clear that he was trying to elicit the response he got from Foley.

thirteen28 on October 6, 2006 at 6:04 PM

I am kinda taking that attorney statement with a grain of salt…keep in mind that this guy is being paid to minimize the damage done to this kid and with the way our laws are written, I can just see the kid being the only one with charges brought against him…Wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants?

Pam on October 6, 2006 at 6:15 PM

thirteen28- who cares if the kid is gay? That has nothing to do with anything. Had I been in the dorm with these kids and they were pranking, I will admit that I would be the first to be typing to the sick pervert! They are 16,17 or 18 year old kids. The 50 year old adult had no business soliciting them!

Pam on October 6, 2006 at 6:19 PM

18 is old enough to join the army and face chemical weopans, nuclear weopans, machine gun fire, barbed wire, shouting drill sergeants, roadside bombs, conquer a foreign country and change history, etc.

I must respectfully disagree with you, Pam. 18 is definitely old enough to decide whom you want to be intimate with.

Or Mary was a ho (I’m not arguing this, I’m pointing out the flaw in your thinking), because even if the immalculate conception was completely true, she began her natural married life soon thereafter and she was only 15.

Moving on…

Washington Post reports

Law-enforcement officials insist CREW refused to provide unedited versions

“… unidentified Justice and FBI officials told reporters that the e-mails provided by CREW were heavily redacted and that the group refused to provide unedited versions to the FBI.”

Christoph on October 6, 2006 at 6:30 PM

thirteen28- who cares if the kid is gay? That has nothing to do with anything. Had I been in the dorm with these kids and they were pranking, I will admit that I would be the first to be typing to the sick pervert! They are 16,17 or 18 year old kids. The 50 year old adult had no business soliciting them!

Pam on October 6, 2006 at 6:19 PM

It doesn’t matter, per se, if the kid is gay or not. I personally don’t believe he is – which leads to the question of why he was trying to elicit comments from Foley in the first place. The prank explanation is the only one that fits.

Again, just to appease others who are part of the gratuitous contrition orgy, I’m not condoning Foley’s inexcusable behavior in this mess. But if this was a prank, it was a pretty sick one, somewhat like offering a known alcoholic a glass of whiskey – you don’t excuse the acloholic’s behavior, but neither is it excusable to offer him a drink when you know his weakness.

thirteen28 on October 6, 2006 at 6:34 PM

The best article yet written on why Dennis Hastert is the man for the job, particularly if the alternative is Nancy Peolosi:

Desperately Ignoring Foley

“The glaring differences between the current House Speaker and the person who wants his job should make it easy for voters across the country to determine which candidate better represents their core beliefs regardless of what Foley has done.”

by Noel Sheppard of AmericanThinker.com

Christoph on October 6, 2006 at 6:36 PM

I am getting the feeling it’s the democrats who have been punk’d. :-)

Did anyone catch Bill Cristol tonight on FoxNews? He flatly said he’s seen polls where none of this is mattering. Kondracke said “every Republican” he’s talked to says it’s over. I’m not so sure, Mort.

SouthernGent on October 6, 2006 at 7:10 PM

thirteen28- no it was not a sick prank in any way, shape or form. That is insulting to all the alcoholics out there that have taken responsibility for their actions.

As for this:

which leads to the question of why he was trying to elicit comments from Foley in the first place.

It was Foley that made the advances to the kids and not visa versus! Those kids reacted to a grown man that made advances he shouldn’t have. It was only when Foley got caught that he was sorry for what he had done…The questions that we have moved onto is who kew what and when did they know it and who had the info that was turned over to CREW and eventually the FBI

Pam on October 6, 2006 at 7:13 PM

thirteen28- no it was not a sick prank in any way, shape or form. That is insulting to all the alcoholics out there that have taken responsibility for their actions.

You don’t think it’s sick to goad a known perv into a sexual IM exchange? Or to willingly engage in one?

Ok, we’ll agree to disagree on that issue

thirteen28 on October 6, 2006 at 7:24 PM

The “kids” in question were 16-18. Old enough throughout most of human history, including today, to marry.

Christoph on October 6, 2006 at 7:26 PM

I guess Mary was too young to consent to God, one presumes.

Christoph on October 6, 2006 at 7:27 PM

thirteen28- No I don’t. He got what he had coming. I read that he checked into an alcohol rehab, not a sex clinic.

Christoph- Do you mean the Virgin Mary, Mother of God? :)

Pam on October 6, 2006 at 7:43 PM

Pam, I had always thought (assumed, really) that Mary was taught to be a virgin before Jesus’s birth, but went on to have a normal marital relationship including sexual with Joseph after.

Since you questioned me, I’ve learned that this is the opposite of most theologians’, including early Christians’, interpretations.

I guess I just assumed because to my way of thinking, sex among married people is good and, in marriage, virginity is not (ideal).

My feelings, however, do not determine the truth of the situation. So I may have been in error. Certainly I was not there and know nothing about her virginity or not.

My point, inaccurate though my chosen example may have been, is that sex even among people who are quite young can be moral and approved of by our Creator (who gave us the ability to father and bear children young one must remember) in certain circumstances, notably marriage.

Or our grandparents who got married at 16, sometimes with someone quite a bit older than themselves, and followed this by building beautiful lives in fidelity for decades did something wrong somehow.

I refuse to believe this.

Christoph on October 7, 2006 at 3:11 AM

Think it’s worth noting in this age subject: back in the time of Christ, the average life expectency was about half what it is now. Therefore procreation at an earlier stage in life was necessary to ensure survival of the species. What’s “normal” in terms of sexuality varies quite a bit by culture and time. As late as the 19th century, marrying one’s first cousin was fine; if you take the Bible literally, who was Cain or Abel’s bride?

honora on October 7, 2006 at 10:43 AM

Christop- I was just giving you a hard time…but your grandparents would have been the better example.

Pam on October 7, 2006 at 11:22 AM

ON THE SAME PAGE: Congressional menage a trois.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 7, 2006 at 11:39 AM

Christoph,

Your point is taken, but I have to question your source for Mary’s age being 15 at the time of Christ’s conception. It isn’t Biblical.

However, the rest of your supposition is valid, that Joseph did indeed father other children by her after Jesus was born.

Freelancer on October 7, 2006 at 1:42 PM

On the news this AM, ex-page claims sexual congress (he-he) with Foley, but post page and at age 21. So it’s largely irrelevant, but nonetheless. I would think this thing will burn itself out. Maybe hope is the word I’m looking for.

Matters not to me if Hastert resigns, but I do question the leadership in the sense of not maintaining any semblance of party discipline. Can’t see Gingrich or DeLay letting this happen. (Two Speakers who stepped down themselves under clouds of suspicion. Trend???)

;^)

honora on October 8, 2006 at 11:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.