Very well said.

Holy cow Jay. I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with anything you've said. But I think you have it exactly right in all aspects. But now watch how this piece descends into Clinton was the baddest. No Foley is the baddest. The inanity of the political accusations will start shortly. Too bad. What is lost, of course, is the larger issue of the protection of children. Haven't heard poop about that in the past few days.

"As the old saying goes, it's not the crime that gets you, it's the coverup,"

That's not an old saying, that's an invention of the 70s. Before that, people were only convicted of real crimes. Since then, covering up charges has reached heights of true absurdity with Scooter Libby

If the GOP leadership in the House had a reasonable suspicion something like this was going on, they should have asked for an investigation. I'd support asking for their resignations.

That goes for any member of the House. As far as I'm concerned, they'd all have the responsibility to do something about this kind of behavior, just as doctors or teachers would in the real world.

That goes double for any Democrat who knew and sat on the information until just before the election. They had a responsibility to those pages, too, and to put them at continued risk just to gain political advantage would make anything the leaders of the GOP did look tame by comparison.

Couldn't agree with you more. with one exception:
Point #3, I don't find the inner party squabblings "entertaining or dull".

I find them childish, a waste of time, & a waste of tax payers' money. I resent it when my congressmen are elected based on certain stated beliefs and goals....and when they get to Washington they put their party first, instead of America or the actual representation of their district constitutents (i.e., Evan Bayh).

This morning CNN had, at the bottom of th screen, the title "Foley's lurid emails."

This is carrying water for the DNC.

THe DNC talking points said to combine the Foley emails and IM's.

Hastert had the emails, which were not actionable, not the IM's.

Foley should be treated in the same manner as any Democrat, like Studds, Frank, Clinton or Mel Reynolds.

Clinton, Studds and Reynolds abused interns, Studds and and Reynolds had sexual relations with underage interns.

As a Republican, Foley resigned.

Foley touched no one.

Were Foley a Democrat, he'd be looking at re-election.

Why are Republicans not enititled to equal protection under the law?

Why are Republicans not treated in the same manner as Democrats?

Republicans are stupid. Were I in charge, I'd be making a commercial reminding viewers how badly democrats abuse interns and what happened to those who do that.

Hmmm. Suppose Hastert had pressed for Foley to be investigated / censured / kicked out for the original "overly friendly" emails (which were all the leadership knew "when they knew it"); what do you suppose the headline in the NY Times would have been?

"GOP Leadership Acts Firmly To Remove Threat To Minors"?

Nah. Somehow that doesn't sound right. Let's try:

"Homophobic McCarthyism Seizes Republican Leadership"

Bingo!

SS

As much of a pathetic man Foley is, the donkeys are and will overplay this. They will run commercials featuring Foley and try to entangle every GOP member running for a seat and honestly, I don't think most people will care or will make the connection for some creepy dude from Florida and the entire GOP.

That's essentially how the left views everyone...they're too dumb for their own good to understand such things. They're grasping for anything since their BIG ploy of using gas prices as an attack device when up in smoke.

Damn Jay, how do you really feel about this issue? :)

Absolutely agree with you.

From what has been seen so far, Hastert only had knowledge of the emails, not the IMs. The emails were worded so that they were inappropriate, but not to the point of being eligible for an ethics investigation.

The IMs are key, and there are some elements of this story that should alarm everyone:

1. Why didn't those who were in possession of the IMs, and I'm speaking of the MSM or the person(s) who gave them to the MSM, immediately refer these to the police, or to the Ethics Committee at the very least? This was a potentially criminal matter.

2. Why was this story held back for so long? If those who broke the story, or have known about Foley's IMs were really concerned about the pages, why didn't they bring their concerns then?

3. Who got possession of these IMs, and how were they captured? If a third party is able to view and copy IMs between members of Congress, then there is a real security problem here.

Jay tea:
"IF all the Republican leadership had to go on was some rather odd e-mails, then they really had nothing they could do. Those who say that Foley's e-mails were grounds for further investigation are engaging in exactly the kind of gay-bashing they denounce when the issue is gay Scout leaders, gay teachers, gay coaches, any time gay people might be put in a position of overseeing younger people. "
Um, not so fast. They could have - and should have - launched a thorough investigation as soon as they found out about the emails. How is this gay bashing exactly? If they were investigating him becuase he was gay, then I see your point. But they had suspicious emails. In any right-thinking person's mind that JUSTIFIES investigating a gay (or straight) person without any hint of prejudice. And anyway are you trying to tell me congessional Republicans are so sensitive to charges of homophobia that this would stop them from investigating a potential crime? Something like, oh I don't know, the 'defence of marriage' bill tells me the Republicans aren't that concerned about offending homosexuals. What's more they could have done it queitly and thus not exposed Foley to undue calumny unless he really was guilty of some wrong-doing. But lets face it, in this case, all they would have had to do was scratch the surface here and they'd have hit pay dirt.
As for this idea that it's all a dirty trick, if the house leadership had imediately initiated an investigation - as they should have done - when they found out about the emails, there wouldn't have been any chance of anyone turing this issue into an 'october surprise.' However they chose not to do that. Interestingly, one of the first people alerted about the emails was Rep. Reynolds, head of the NRCC, a politcal enity concerned with getting Republicans elected and keeping them in congress, primarily by doling out campaign cash. (even now the NRCC still has no qualms about trying to get it's hand on Foley's well stock war chest) Now, that action begs an uncomfortable question about balancing the safety of young people and potential political fall-out. To me, that question is far more compelling than the possibility that this was a hit by some shaddowy, all-knowing democratic consipricy.

Personally, I believe Foley is the worst kind of person. Blaming your queerness on some childhood event (which he may have instigated) is lame.

The way I see it is the Dems knew he was queer AND weak plus you have those gay activists.

I think the Dems put some pages up to the job of baiting him then recording his sick instant messages.

They need to do this to all the queer/non queer, but perverted congressmen and clean it out for good.

What a cesspool, our house and Senate.

/spit

Pretty much agree with Jay on this down the line. This is going to end up being a powder keg of potential disaster for either side. If the Dems try to push the "all Repubs are pedophillic hypocrites and it turns out they sat on info for political gain it will blow up in their face. If they appear to put political power over the safety of children, combined with the general lack of faith in national security--they could possibly lose more seats rather than gain any.

If the Repubs are found to have known and sat on it they could have it blow up in their face and lose their majority in both houses.

As for those declaring "well he was 16 and it wasn't a crime" as a Republican defense--stop it. It isn't working. As a parent of a recently turned 17 year old boy I would view ANYONE doing what Foley did as a pedophile. Period. In my rather small sample set of co-workers discussing this at the water cooler (of which the political spectrum ranges from far left to far right) I haven't met any who was a a parent who felt any different. That defense will NOT play well in most homes--in fact, it makes it worse.

Hugh, you couldn't just leave it at a nodding agreement, could you? You couldn't resist slinging out the accusation that there would be accusations.

The "larger issue of protecting children" is at the very core of what has happened and has been addressed over and over even by those you hold such contempt for like Hannity, Boortz, Limbaugh, many many right wing bloggers, et al. Let us also not forget the issue of simple abuse of power. Using it to exploit not only children, but those who are not long out of the age of consent and are still susceptible to such exploitation. I would only ask what's the difference between age 16 and age 17, except that law (in most states) denotes that's where the line is drawn regardless of emotional or psychological maturity? If that young man had been 17 rather than 16, I'd be just as angry.

We have all been betrayed by this man and others before him. All of us. You could have just left it at that.

Latest rumor in Florida is that the rehab center Foley went to is at Scientology Headquarters in Clearwater.

Jay,

The "get Hastert" people: Unless you have solid evidence that they knew about the Instant Messages, shut your pieholes, you partisan hacks.

Heh. I guess that makes me a republican partisan hack.

I could certainly be wrong about the extent of the evidence that was held before the investigation...but as kapow said, even with the suspiscious emails, something should have been looked at. Had that happened, more evidence would have been uncovered, Foley would have resigned, and Hastert would have done his job.

He didn't. And now I think it's right that he give up his post to someone who will do the job, who will see red flags of deviant behavior.

Jay, I agree with you right down the line on this one. Good for Foley for resigning. Now he should shut his piehole and keep his head down. The GOP needs to find out who knew what and when, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, if applicable. And if anyone knew about this and saved it for an October surprise - jail time. Hard time. Bash-their-heads-against-the-wall-till-their-ears-bleed time.

See, Lee? See, muriego? This is how we deal with sleazebags. You might want to copy us sometime.

And, on a side note, I see Foley has come out with the Jim McGreevey "I am a gay man" defense now. Problem is, he isn't a gay man. He's a Republican. He can try the a-priest-molested-me-i'm-a-gay-man-i'm-an-alcoholic card all he wants, but the Oprah tour only works when you're a Democrat.

Great summary of the situation, Jay. I agree completely with every point you made.

Well Oyester, the posts speak for themselves don't they. And, by the way, I was speaking about both the left and the right.

As far as being charged with being "an accessory before and after the fact" for sitting on the facts,
there is at least one source reporting that The St. Petersburg Times, The Miami Herald and Fox News were leaked the memos last year.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/03/america/NA_GEN_US_Congressman_Resigns.php

So far on this issue, I have heard just about everyone blammed except those responsible. It's about time to go and look in the mirror America. As long as we keep sending "sleasebags" to Washington, these events will keep happening.

The only possible way to bring back the statesmen, is to have firm and short term limits. Politicians currently are making a career out of something that should be a service to the country, which leads to the obligation of loyalty to the party, rather than loyalty to their constituents.

The "catch 22" is that no politician is going to vote him/herself out of office. It will have to be a national referendum.

"They could have - and should have - launched a thorough investigation as soon as they found out about the emails. How is this gay bashing exactly?"

It isn't gay bashing. The IMs prove that investigating was exactly the correct step. The whole gay-bashing argument is just the conservatives' way to spin ithis against liberals -- to make it the "liberals" fault.

The investigation would have been done quietly - that's not gay-bashing. Noticing that the gay man has a penchant for underage boys, and then doing your (Hastert's) duty and investigating further is not bashing, it's responsible action.

Ask yourself this -- if Hastert had those very same emails and evidence - and they came form the oval office of Bill Clinton instead of Foley -- would Hastert have insisted on a thorough investigation?

Of course he would have.

Instead he made sure the only Democrat on the page oversight committee didn't hear about the emails -- furhter proof of Hastert's politically motivations rising above his duty and honor. The jackass should resign.

Wow Diane, my thoughts EXACTLY! I was thinking about that yesterday and how the party seems to matter above everything else. We need another "throw the bums out" campaign.

I disagree with point 4. This is not about gay or straight. It is about appropriate behavior. If you found out that your 16-year old daughter received an email from a 52-year old man saying that she was hot, and if she could send him a picture, would you dismiss it as "some rather odd e-mails"?

I did laugh at point 2.

If he skirted right up to the edge of them but never quite went across them, then he deserves to spend the rest of his life under intense scrutiny to make sure he never gets that close again without being observed.

Yeah. "You are now under 24 hour surveillance for almost breaking the law."

Unless that's what you really want, I'd suggest moving the line.

The House Republican leadership(sic) should be censured for political incompetence. It doesn't take a political genius to know that the Dems would attempt to spring an October Surprise, and if they even had a HINT that this might have been it, they should have taken steps to short-circuit it before it hit the papers. The Reps do this every even year - total lack of foresight, total lack of preparation, no pre-emptive, proactive response BEFORE the Dems can strike.
Worse yet, if the Foley mess ISN'T the real October surprise, what else can they expect and why aren't we seeing any sign of preventive or protective activity?
And finally, H. Dean et al have been predicting an October Surprise from the Reps - is there any hope that he might be right, or is he just basing his predictions on the way he would act?

URR

I was scanning this thread, looking at all the largely responsible and reasonable posts.

And just as I was thinking, "something's missing . . ," I see Lee showed up!

It was like a little ray of sunshine brightening up the day!!

The sour puss.

The investigation would have been done quietly - that's not gay-bashing.

...and when that investigation WAS done - by the Federal Bureau of Investigation - it came up as "can't find anything else right now." Months ago.

It wasn't until the IMs were released that anything else could have been done. And it was, very quickly.

cirby,

It wasn't until the IMs were released that anything else could have been done. And it was, very quickly.

I'm still pretty uncertain as to why the IMs were released, what, last friday? Weren't they from 2003?

Now you know old "pucker puss" (lee lee) has to get his .0000000000000000002 cents worth in.

Today I got a call from some automated system indicating the entire Republican party is in on this and should all be taken down. I lose more and more respect for the Democratic party as each day passes.

jhow66,

You're being too generous as to the value of his contributions.

I agree somewhat with you Jay, but Lee's point is a better one. This wouldn't be about gay-bashing any more than investigating emails to female pages would be about hetero-male bashing. There is a page board in place that was set up to deal with these matters, and instead of informing them or taking a further look into what was obviously innapropriate conduct Haster put his head in the sand. You have to ask yourself that if the emails were such a trivial matter, why were all of these Congressman involved. If Reynolds and Boehner and the S-representative (sorry I'm lazy this morning) all thought enough of this to pass on the information, then some reasonable due diligence should have taken place. I think that you are giving him and the leadership WAY too much benifit of the doubt.

"SHEIK"--sorry about that my calculator only figures that many points. (LOL)