« God Be With The Amish, And Grant Them Solace | Main | Wizbang Podcast #40 is up »

Will There Be Foley Backlash?

There was a lot of talk over the weekend about who in the Republican party knew what about the Foley emails and when they knew it. It was learned that Dennis Hastert and others in the leadership knew about the Foley emails for many months and many, quite rightly, asked what was done when the information became known and wondered why Foley continued in his position. That concern was largely a result of initial confusion between the emails and the instant messages (IMs). Just to clear up any confusion, which I had when the story first broke, the emails were odd, but not explicitly sexual in nature. The "me so horny" IMs were quite another story.

From what I now understand, Dennis Hastert says that no one in the Republican leadership knew about the IMs, but only the emails. He is asking for help from the public and the media, in identifying anyone who had knowledge of the IMs, but did not report them to anyone.

If someone knew about the IMs, but did not report them, and rather decided to hold the information for whatever reason (can't imagaine what that could be), that person put pages on Capitol Hill in danger. Hastert has asked the Attorney General for an investigation into Mark Foley's actions and also to address the question of who had knowledge of those IMs.

I hope there is a full investigation into Foley's actions, as well as one into who knew what when. Anyone guilty of wrongdoing should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those wanting to expose the truth should be commended and joined, but those seeking only to make political hay out of this might just end up getting bitten if it is discovered that anyone on their side had knowledge of those instant messages. If it is learned that a Democrat has been holding those IMs for any period of time for political purposes, the backlash could be as nasty as those disgusting messages.

Update: Be sure to check out Gateway Pundit on the group that has been out to get Foley for quite some time. I scanned the post and saw some surprising information that I had not seen elsewhere, but need to go back and read more carefully later when the house is quiet. Other posts following in detail are Sister Toldjah and Flopping Aces.

Must read from Macsmind:

What we know so far is that several principals, such as CREW, and ABC knowingly withheld information about Rep. Foley and had done so for many months, if not years before this story came to light. In light of that the FBI will be investigating. While the left wants us to believe that there was some sort of conspiracy involved, where GOP leadership hid the dirty truth about Foley, that simply isn't feasible at this point.

According to sources involved in the investigation investigators will also be looking at who had copies of the IMs and emails and purposely held them for all this time. As obtaining evidence and witholding it is a federal offense, the focus of the investigation will be to the outside.

There has been a lot of Clinton comparison in this matter. One of the liberal commenters here at Wizbang threw it out there over the weekend and many, including me, responded. I am not going to defend Foley if he did the things that have been reported. The whole things creeps me out more than I care to get into, but if someone (of either party) was sitting on this info for political reasons then that should be exposed as well.

As for those saying those on the right are trying to compare whatever Foley did to Clinton/Lewinsky, or that anyone wanting to find out who had the IMs is doing the same as those who defended Clinton during impeachment, I say they have it all wrong. First, the Lewinsky comparison is not necessarily the right one concerning the offense itself. While the intern aspect is similar, the unwanted nature of the correspondence is closer to the cases of Kathleen Willey or Juanita Broaderick -- except that those two women actually had hands laid on them. How many on the left thought those women's claims even deserved a hearing?

But the truly huge difference is this -- no one on the right is defending what Foley is accused of doing. Those on the left had a word for what Clinton did with Lewinsky when it was first revealed. The word was "reprehensible." I heard that word more times in those months than in my entire lifetime up to that point. They said that over and over, but they did not want Clinton to face any punishment. They wanted to give him a good tongue lashing, but that was it. They thought he was still fit for office, in spite of his horrible judgment, and they did not want him to face any real punishment. All those Democrats who couldn't wait to rush to the cameras to talk about how "reprehensible" Clinton's "affair" with Monica was are now calling it a relationship between two consenting adults.

No one I have heard has suggested that Foley should not have resigned. No one is suggesting that he should not be investigated and held to the strictest punishment the law will allow if he commited any crimes. Many of us just want to make sure the whole story is told.

Update II: See Kim's post about the Washington Times calling for Hastert's resignation. (Oh, and everything Kim says in that post, I second.)

Allah and I are of the same mind on the topic of holding all involved accountable and the accusations of some claiming that is equivalent to making excuses.

Update III: I just read the Washington Times editorial and I can't help but wonder if they don't know more than has been reported, and more than they are saying, because it seems to me that a resignation of the Speaker of the House would only inject more politics into the investigation than is already there. Unless they know something that is not being reported, then I think the call for resignation is counterproductive to the desired result, which is to take this from the political realm and into the justice system.

Update IV: Dafydd notes some intentional "confusion" and some suspicious reporting of the emails and instant messages.

Lucianne posted the following:

I just did a quick hit on the Paula Zahn show at the CNN headquaters studio here in New York and everyone from the interns to John Roberts, the temp host, were bats with joy about this story. They could hardly contain themselves with joy. That should tell you something.

Update V: Allah wrote that I was disgusted with the Washington Times. Just to be clear, my disgust is with the Washington Times for joining in the chorus of those wanting to blow Foley's disgusting behavior into some huge GOP sex scandal led by the Speaker, all the while ignoring those on the left who, evidence suggests, had some knowledge not only of the non-sexual emails, but of the nasty IMs, and planned to use them not to warn pages, but rather for political advantage.

Outside the Beltway writes, "Lorie Byrd also thinks the email/IM thing enough for Hastert to keep his job" referring to my distinction between the emails, which contained no sexual content, and the IMs, which did. My opinion that Hastert should not be run out of the leadership based on the emails is based on what I have seen of the emails thusfar. If there is some other information that I have either not seen or that has not been reported, that shows Hastert had knowledge beyond the non-sexual emails, then obviously that changes things significantly. To compare knowledge of those emails to knowledge in the Catholic church of priests molesting little boys (as I have seen a few people doing over the past 24 hours) only serves to further confuse voters about the facts of the matter. If more was known by Hastert, I will holler as loud as anyone for his head, but based on those emails alone, I am not ready to join that chorus. As for Democrats making the argument, give me a break. Studds didn't even resign and he actually had sexual contact with his underage victim. Furthermore, they didn't even think Juanita Broaderick or Kathleen Willey or Paula Jones deserved to be heard.

Update VI: I have been out most all day, so I have not seen any blog coverage yet, but did hear Hastert's interview on Rush Limbaugh. If he is telling the truth about what he knew, I do not believe he did anything wrong. Hindsight is 20/20, and looking back now it is easy to say he should have done more, but considering what he was told about the emails, if he is telling the whole story, I think he did what most in his position would have done.

John Hawkins is on the same page I am about the Washington Times editorial, and provides great commentary. He also makes a great point about the page program: "Isn't it time to kill the page program? This is the second sex scandal related to these pages. Moreover, do we really want 16 year olds 'learning about the real world,' from the likes of Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Tom Foley, Robert Byrd, and William Jefferson? "

Update VII: Carol Platt Liebau is asking Republicans to remain calm and points out that Democrats are doing with Foley what they did with Iraq.


Previous posts:

Foley Reaction
Rep. Mark Foley Resigns


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will There Be Foley Backlash?:

» Ex-Donkey Blog linked with The Chips Are On The Table

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with FBI looking into Foley e-mail scandal

» Webloggin linked with The Story Behind the Mark Foley Story

» Flopping Aces linked with Foleygate Has Begun

» ReidBlog linked with What FoleyGate means

» rightlinx.com linked with GOP Leadership in Damage Control

» Mike's Noise linked with The Mark Foley dog and pony show

» Outside The Beltway | OTB linked with Should Hastert and Frist Go?

» La Shawn Barber's Corner linked with Message from a ‘Values Voter’

» AGITPROP: Version 3.0, Featuring Blogenfreude linked with Wednesday Wingnut Roundup

Comments (71)

As I understand this debacl... (Below threshold)
Burt:

As I understand this debacle, the email exchange preceded the IMs. I am particularly troubled by the email requesting the picture. Did Foley not know what the page in question looked like? hmm. Who initiated the email exchange?

Yeah, I know...Blame the victim. I would be happy to, if I could ascertain who the "victim" is.

They never learn do they? D... (Below threshold)
comeonsense:

They never learn do they? Dirty Republicans get bounced from leadership like they should and Democrats get burned at the polls for their hypocritical way of handling their own dirty laundry.

The emails told the Republi... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The emails told the Republican leadership all they needed to know - that further investigation was needed. If they investigated, found out more, and hid it, yes - they may be criminally liable. If they didn't investigate they are, at a minimum, accessories - and are in my mind guilty of aiding and abetting the commision of a crime.

The bottom line - they knew something was wrong from the emails - and they either (1) covered it up and ignored it, or (2) intentionally looked the other way and did nothing, in order to duck the political fallout.

THIS is the leadership of a party that has failed America in so many ways over the last 6 years. Needless lives were (and are being) lost in Iraq - and yet the Republicans do nothing.... but that's not enough. They choose to let the sickest of their bunch continue to vicmize innocent American children - alll because they want to get their sorry selves re-elected.

Why would someone hold the ... (Below threshold)
One Armed Man:

Why would someone hold the information about the IMs? One reason would be that winning an election is more important than doing the right thing, therefore, sit on the information until after the election.

At the end of the day, endemic in the Republican party is the need to retain power over being truthful and forthright. Iraq war: only rosy pictures, innappropriate page contacts: hide it from the light of day.

I pray people aren't lazy on voting day.

Why would someone hold the ... (Below threshold)
One Armed Man:

Why would someone hold the information about the IMs? One reason would be that winning an election is more important than doing the right thing, therefore, sit on the information until after the election.

At the end of the day, endemic in the Republican party is the need to retain power over being truthful and forthright. Iraq war: only rosy pictures, innappropriate page contacts: hide it from the light of day.

I pray people aren't lazy on voting day.

Foley was trolling for hot ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Foley was trolling for hot man on boy sex for five years or more. Does anyone believe that he did not get lucky at least once?

This whole thing has been s... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

This whole thing has been settled...
During his show today..Rush L. established it was all the result of the "Clinton War Room"...
"This was clearly a set-up..."
"The Dems..probably paid this person to set-up up Foley.."
"The Republicans don't use, never have used smear tactics"

"It's not like Foley ever had sex with this kid."

........................................
It was no big deal..if it would have been a big deal the Dem and the other Republican who oversee those kids would have been informed..the fact that the other Republican says she wasn't informed just shows this is all mirror and no smoke...
If it would have been a big deal...when the FBI was informed on July 21st with the same email the Communist/Islamofasicst organization CREW gave last week to ABC the FBI would have found something wrong by now...
When will Clinton quit destroying our democracy?


A "salacious email exchange... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

A "salacious email exchange"?

That's it?

This doesn't make Republicans proud, but geez, Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds did more than that. Studds got re-elected and Clinton pardoned Reynolds.

Bush ought to pardon Folay right now.

So let me get this straight... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So let me get this straight, we know that the GOP staff warned pages as far back as 2001 about Foley's behavior (oh, only those who reported to Republicans, that is), we know that the GOP leadership knew about the emails in 2005, we know that they kept Foley as head of the children's caucus, we know that Reynolds and the NRCC continued to support Foley's re-election, and we know that Democrats, even those on the page board, were kept in the dark about all of this, and the first thing Lorie thinks to do is find some way for this to reflect badly on Democrats. And how does she do this? Through idle speculation with absolutely no basis whatsoever, that's how.

If it is learned that a Democrat has been holding those IMs for any period of time for political purposes, the backlash could be as nasty as those disgusting messages.

While it would be disgusting and abhorrent if anyone, Democrat or not, withheld this evidence, what reason could you possibly have to believe a Democrat might have done so? So far all we know is the instant messages were given to ABC News. Is it not possible, even probable, that ABC got the transcripts of those messages from one of the pages? Well, let's look at what ABC says:

Other pages told ABC News they were hesitant to report Foley because of his power in Congress.

This all came to a head in the last 24 hours. Yesterday, we asked the congressman about some much tamer e-mails from one page, and he said he was just being overly friendly. After we posted that story online, we began to hear from a number of other pages who sent these much more explicit, instant messages. When the congressman realized we had them, he resigned.

Oh, they heard about the story and came forward, as is so common in sexual harrassment cases. Keep holding out hope though Lorie, you may still find some way to blame this on the Democrats. Jedi mind tricks, maybe?

Are those things Rus... (Below threshold)
suhnami:


Are those things Rush really said or is that a joke?

I won't give the creep any ... (Below threshold)
eddiebear:

I won't give the creep any more hits, but at msnbc.com, Joe Scarborough is once again attacking Hastert. He's claiming this is another reason for the "sit this one out crowd (of which he is now that he works at MSNBC)" to really sock it to the GOP.

What a jerk.

Don't forget, the initial e... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Don't forget, the initial emails not only contained the request for his picture, but also: "I just emailed will [another page]...hes such a nice guy....acts much older than his age...and hes in really great shape...."

If the picture request didn't set off enough alarms, this passage certainly should have.

The other Republican on the page board says:

"I don't think it would pass the sniff test," she said. "Even asking those questions -- that is not normal between a 52-year-old adult and a 16-year-old. It's not like they're family friends or anything. I think it would raise some serious questions. But I wasn't given that opportunity."

Here's a quote from Rush's ... (Below threshold)
Mighty Dwight:

Here's a quote from Rush's website:

____________
And we still to this day do not know what Foley actually did, if he ever met any of these pages, if he ever touched one of them, it's merely an instant message and e-mail scandal.
____________

That's not a very smart way for Rush to frame the story. If what is said to be in the IM's is really there...then they are a true evil happening. Maybe not equal to touching, but evil nonetheless.

hhhhmmmm...where was all th... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

hhhhmmmm...where was all this moral righteousness from the Democratic party when President Clinton was getting oral sex in his office from a young intern?

Monica was 24, 8 years olde... (Below threshold)
Desi:

Monica was 24, 8 years older than this kid and well above the age of consent.

Bill still shouldn't have done it. But getting a hummer from Lewinsky is a hell of a lot different than soliciting a 16 Y/O.

Ordinarily I would agree wi... (Below threshold)

Ordinarily I would agree with you Lorrie. But, after reading Foleygate: What Stunk Like a Rat, Was a Democ-Rat! at Gateway Pundit, my opinion has changed. This is obv iously a militant gay group who targeted Foley because he didn't support them the way they thought he should as a gay man.

Here are the threats and plans to destroy Mark Foley printed at a Leftist-haters blog back in March of 2005:

Birds of a Feather
Two haters, one picture:
Gay-bashing straight man John Ashcroft and Gay-bashing gay man Mark Foley

This is United States Congressman Mark Foley
He voted this week for a law to allow hate groups to fire gay and lesbian people at will
The law he is supporting will overrule ANY local laws on the matter.
MARK FOLEY IS GAY
MARK FOLEY WILL BE EXPOSED FOR THE HYPOCRITE HE IS THROUGH A MAIL AND INTERNET CAMPAIGN THAT WILL REACH INTO EVERY HOME IN HIS DISTRICT.

THIS MAN IS A DANGER

TO GAY MEN AND LESBIANS

DO NOT SLEEP WITH THIS MAN
IF HE CRUISES YOU IN THE BATHROOMS OF CONGRESS,IGNORE HIM!
IF HE HITS ON YOU AT THE NEXT REPUBLICAN CONVENTIONIGNORE HIM!

THE NATION MUST BE WARNED ABOUT THIS
ABOMINATION IN THE GAY COMMUNITY

Please to support our educational and advertising campaign against this right wing hypocrite, click here and join the battle for true lesbian and gay liberation.

**COMING MONDAY ON BLOGACTIVE:** The entire Mark Foley story...Read about my recorded discussions with staff members and former staff members of Rep. Mark Foley...Read about how Mark Foley hit on men less than half his age at the Republican convention...Read about how Mark Foley voted to remove protections from those same young gay men and lesbians and anyone else violating a local discrimination law!!!

And back in 2004 there were open threats in the Washington Blade by Rogers targeting Foley:

20 offices said targeted
Not likely, say Mike Rogers and John Aravosis, the two men loosely heading an ongoing outing campaign on the Hill. As the date nears for a Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban gay marriages in the Constitution, Rogers said the outings have picked up steam -- from 13 documented offices to nearly 20 currently on a target list provided by Rogers to the Blade.

In addition to Tolman, Rogers and Aravosis, working in tandem but not together, claimed in the last week to have outed via the Web Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Republican Congressman Mark Foley of Florida.

While Tolman confirmed he is gay, the Mikulski's office refused to comment on speculation she is a lesbian, something Aravosis implied last week on his site.

A spokesperson for Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.) also declined to comment after Aravosis specifically asserted that Foley is gay on his Web site last week.

Both members of Congress have long been the subject of rumors about their sexual orientation.

Hey, when are going to talk... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Hey, when are going to talk about Cut and Run Frist (see ace of spades or hotair)?

Foley is a victim?... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Foley is a victim?

Republicans have reached a new low...

Since this was kept from th... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

Since this was kept from the only Dem. on the pages program committee it sure sounds like it's all a dirty Dem. trick to me. Next we'll hear that Foley only did this because he was drunk - booze can make straight men gay, you know - oh wait...

Lee, Can we agree ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
Can we agree about the dishonesty of the Dem again? Clinton pardoned a Reynold for having sex with an underaged campaign worker. Are you guys ready to double your outrage meter at this outrageous behavior of the Dem and Clinton?


http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp

"Republicans have reached a... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

"Republicans have reached a new low..."

Lee: Perhaps, but with a good pair of binoculars they can see you and your ilk far below them.

Rush is totally downplaying... (Below threshold)
suhnami:

Rush is totally downplaying it, as if sexual advances on a 16 year old boy through IM isn't a big deal. Tony Snow called it "simply naughty emails." I can't believe what I'm hearing.

What the hell does Clinton have to do with a sexual predator on an underage boy? Personally, I think Clinton should have been impeached because the man LIED UNDER OATH. He somehow wiggled his way out of it, which, in my opinion, just opened the door for more people to excercise more double speak and technicalities to be exonerated.

But back to the year 2006 where an old man asks a young boy to measure himself through IM. I'm glad to see some people on this thread look past brand loyalty and admit that this dude should be punished, as well as anyone else who knew about and didn't come forward. I have a horrible recollection to the Catholic church hiding their little sicko priests by planting them into another town and not informing the public of their horrible deeds. I pray we don't set this trend in politics. Let these bastards pay the price. I'm wondering if this is going to open the flood gates to other political figures that have done the same things. Pages are less likely to be afraid and who knows what could happen. Thank goodness this guy was stupid enough to send these messages electronically. Makes the evidence difficult to deny.

Lee save your phony self-ri... (Below threshold)

Lee save your phony self-righteous indignation for someone who believes it is real. There was nothing in the original emails that was either illegal or even odd. The IMs were between someone, perhaps Foley, that isn't even for sure, and a former page who was long past the age of consent. In addition, these are words on paper, not any overt act. Now, there is always the Stubbs formula:

Stubbs did not apologize and never has, and his liberal base re-elected him time and again - a closeted gay man who solicited sex AND HAD SEX, with an underage male page. He retired 23 years later.

Hi Lorie,This is V... (Below threshold)
Victoria:

Hi Lorie,

This is Victoria from NowPublic.com.

NowPublic is a non-commercial, public news service that uses stories and footage from non news sources.

I've been reading your comments on Foley and wanted to see if you'd like to comment on a story I posted on our site.

http://www.nowpublic.com/call_it_foleygate_what_did_they_know_when_did_they_know_it

Many thanks,

Victoria
Manager, Contributor Relations
NowPublic.com
vrevay@nowpublic.com

I advocate hanging Foley to... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I advocate hanging Foley to the nearest tree. Now it looks like the tree will look like a fruit tree in full bloom. An answer to 'who' and 'how many' had the instant messages and were involved in holding them until this time will reveal how many democrats join Foley in the tree. Foley is guilty as hell but so are a lot of other people and they aren't in the leadership in the republican party. Foley is a sick man (as are all homosexual child abusers) but the democrats used it as a political tool. Now who is really the sickest of the lot? Someone with a real sickness, or someone that uses another persons sickness as a political tool without regard for the young men (letting it go on for months so you can release it at the most politically effective time) they now are so concerned with. The entire core of the democratic part is sick.

sexual advances on a 16 ... (Below threshold)

sexual advances on a 16 year old boy through IM

The IMs were NOT with a 16 year old. They were between a college student and someone, supposedly Foley. And any reading shows that the IMer was enjoying and encouraging the conversation. Why? Who knows. Perhaps he is gay himself. Or perhaps it was all a big joke and he and his buddies were mocking a gay man. But, disabuse yourself that he was 16.

I just want to know whether... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I just want to know whether the liberals approve of Clinton 's pardon of Reynold, who had sex with an underage campaign worker. If they don't, what have they done about it?

Foley has brought new meani... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Foley has brought new meaning to the Republican use of the term "traditional values".

Here's a hypocrite who advocates tough laws against people who violate those values, then turns right around and practices what he preaches... against.

Just another Republican lie...

Lee, If you are hon... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
If you are honest enough to admit that the Dems don't care about "traditional values" and willing/happy to live in the sewage (with the ACLU, NAMBLA, Reynold, Clinton etc...), then I can give some weight to your hypocrisy charge.

Fair enough?

There will be those "family... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

There will be those "family values" Republicans who will be repulsed because of the homosexual aspect. They will be attempts to link all gay men to pedo activities...

Foley's failure was not being a homosexual...his failure was being in a position of power and using that against young people in his attempts to satisfy his sexual desires.

...and as for our President..He is the leader of the Republican Party..this crap that Tony Snow laid out today http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061002-11.html about it being a "House issue" is Bullshit..
The Republican President cannot seperate himself from his Party.

I am waiting for the next time he goes out to a private fundraiser for a Republican Candidate and preach about the importance of "The Party"

Nogo postal, ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:


Nogo postal,
So what do you think about Clinton 's pardon of Reynold for having sex with an underaged campaign worker and a whole lot more? Are you willing to admit that he Dems don't care about "traditional values" and willing/happy to live in the sewage (with the ACLU, NAMBLA, Reynold, Clinton etc...), then I can give some weight to your hypocrisy charge.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp

Of Course Clinton did the s... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Of Course Clinton did the same thing...
But ask any parent of a teenage kid..in the year 2006 which do they see as a bigger threat to their children..
Clinton or on-line predators?

Lee, if ABC News had these ... (Below threshold)

Lee, if ABC News had these IM's for months and are NOW releasing them, don't try to tell me this wasn't planned. Bob Woodward admitted his book was timed as well.

Can't defend Foley at all, though he didn't have sex with these pages he emailed, but this is the start of the donkey Gotcha! season. They did it in 2000 with the Bush cocaine story on the eve of the election and everyone remembers CBS and their fake memo story in 2004.

They have nothing to offer this country, so their willing accomplices in the media are drumming up as much muck as they can to distract people. As much as Foley should be gone, I don't think this story swings the House and Senate to the donkeys.

nogo, You missed th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

nogo,
You missed the point. Clinton not only did the same thing. He pardoned a Dem representative who had sex with an underaged campaign worker (Reynold was sentenced to 6 years in prison) and other lurid conversation. I don't remember the Dem outrage.

If Lee and you are intellectually honest to enough to admit that the Dem are in the sewage wrt this issue (ie Dems simply don't care much about these predators in their midst as evidenced by their embrace of the ACLU, NAMBLA, Clinton, Frank, Reynold), then i can give some weight to your "faked" outrage (that the Rep claim to care about "values" yet get their knees deep in the sewage). That 's why you don't see people on the right to defend Foley, to lie for him, to justify his actions, or to conduct personal attacks against the victims as the Dems have done.

Steve -- If a news agency h... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Steve -- If a news agency had this information and put it out immediately there would be calls of Rush to Judgement! -- Rush to Judgement!

The reaction of the right does speak volumes as to the hypocrisy of the Republican party. To frame Foley as a victim is absolutely horrendous, and the more noise the conservatives make along those lines the more it'll hurt Republican chances in the election. All you're doing is pushing more Republicans away from the party...

but don't let my words stop you guys - have at it, and I'm cheering you on! Yeah!

Foley -- Republicans -- American Values. What a joke.

Foley -- Republicans -- Ame... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Foley -- Republicans -- American Values. What a joke.
------------------------------------------------
Compared to the Dems: we embrace our predators as heroes!

Lee, are you intellectually honest to enough to admit that the Dem are in the sewage wrt this issue (ie Dems simply don't care much about these predators in their midst as evidenced by their embrace of the ACLU, NAMBLA, Clinton, Frank, Reynold), then i can give some weight to your "faked" outrage (that the Rep claim to care about "values" yet get their knees deep in the sewage). That 's why you don't see people on the right to defend Foley, to lie for him, to justify his actions, or to conduct personal attacks against the victims as the Dems have done.

All this proves what I have... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

All this proves what I have been writing. All politicians, both Republican and Democrat are worthless pieces of trash. There are no statesmen left, just egotistical, self righteous, greedy, slease bags, that are sucking at the public tit.

There's no doubt in my mind... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

There's no doubt in my mind that dems are behind this, despite my feeling that Foley is a disgrace (and a dem in republican drag). But his emails don't hold a candle to the lies and deceptions of William Jefferson Clinton. What is more dispicable is the assumption that Foley did these things without truly embracing his more flamboyant side publicly. I have no qualms with trying on an apricot colored froc and my blessed purple eyeliner and swaying and sauntering down the main street of my cosy little small town USA. Sometimes I'll ask neighbors to run up to me, grab my buttocks and do a happy jig in honor of our great President. Sometimes I'll opt for yellow eyeliner.

[Lorie notes: This comment was made by an imposter, not the commenter known here as Scrapiron. Just a reminder -- if you impersonate another commenter, we reserve the right to take away your commenting privileges here.]

This is a phony post (below... (Below threshold)
Scrairon:

This is a phony post (below) by some idiot democrat, and not by me. Will the Whizbang staff please trackback and give me the email and address of this slime ball and i'll take care of him/her myself (distance is not a problem, i'm retired and can travel freely) and i'll assure you they won't like the outcome.

"Scrapiron at October 2, 2006 07:46 PM

There's no doubt in my mind that dems are behind this, despite my feeling that Foley is a disgrace (and a dem in republican drag). But his emails don't hold a candle to the lies and deceptions of William Jefferson Clinton. What is more dispicable is the assumption that Foley did these things without truly embracing his more flamboyant side publicly. I have no qualms with trying on an apricot colored froc and my blessed purple eyeliner and swaying and sauntering down the main street of my cosy little small town USA. Sometimes I'll ask neighbors to run up to me, grab my buttocks and do a happy jig in honor of our great President. Sometimes I'll opt for yellow eyeliner."

Lorie, Foley had to ... (Below threshold)
Soupy2c2:

Lorie,
Foley had to go, he should have. Republicans resign. Democrats don't. This was sat on by someone to hurt the Republican Party.. . to make those of us that are religious sit this vote out... That means Democrats sat on it without regard to the underage children...
The choice is clear. We should not stay home and I think that most of us simply get this "deal" and we won't stay home.

Now for the real post I cam... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Now for the real post I came to make.

Everyone should go to Gatewaypundit.blogspot.com for the identy of the slime that held the information on the page's until they thought they could do the most damage.
Also there is information around the web that a lot of it is made up lies as is the habit of democrats. Some of the page's are disputing what has been put out about them. A little more investigation, hopefully by the FBI who can bring criminal charges against these slime balls, will most likely show that a majority ,if not all, of the reported IM's are as phony as Peloshi and Reid.
Put Foley in the center of the gallows and flank him with a dozen of so democrats. Hang them all with one drop of the door.

LoveAmerica Immigrant: Than... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

LoveAmerica Immigrant: Thanks for the search for the truth. I had completely forgotten about the 'round robin' end run by Clinton and Reynolds who ended up working for a 'religious' organization. Kind of makes a joke of Je$$ie's blackmail, con running religion doesn't it?

Hey, Scrapiron, you should ... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Hey, Scrapiron, you should have let the fake post stand. It made you look more intelligent.

I get the distinct impression that many of you gave no more than about 10 seconds thought to this scandal before you started devoting all of your energies to blaming this on the Democrats. Yeah, the Republicans are really the party of accountability.

You know what? The whole Clinton thing has been discussed before, even on some blogs (really, I've read them.)That can't be your answer to everything. If you found out a 52 year old man was e-mailing your son, asking for his picture, would you start thinking of a million excuses for him? I don't think so. But that's what Hastert did. As the other Republican member of the Page Board said, "it doesn't pass the sniff test." And by the way, the age of consent in Louisiana is 17, so I would hardly call a 17-year old "well past the age of consent." Jesus, can't any of you get your facts straight?

If Hastert had done the right thing, all of your wingnut theories would still be slumbering soundly in neverland, or wherever the hell they come floating in from.

I really should post this a... (Below threshold)

I really should post this anonymously, since I can predict what kind of backlash I will take for this, but here goes ...

Perspective. Please.

The age of consent in DC is 16. The page in question from the IMs was well over that - just back from a college interview, he said. Ergo, no crime was committed. Further, pages are carefully selected based in part on their maturity for their age. This was not some clueless pre-teen overrun with hormones. Dare I say it ... it almost seems as if he was enjoying himself.

However ... for a Congressman to behave in such a manner with a page, which could be considered a subordinate, is highly inappropriate. But on the inappropriate scale, it doesn't even approach the Clinton/Lewinsky affair - which did involve physical sexual contact. Whether 18 or 24, it is the same as far as the law sees it.

C'mon, admit it ... much of the outrage at Foley from the right has more to do with the Ick Factor in considering that it was homosexual in nature.

Step back, deep breath ... perspective.

And then, consider ... this really could be another *gasp* Rovian Plot™ to divert attention from illegal invasions and torture and murder and no-bid sweetheart contracts and the drowning of a Great American City and whatnot. Really! (that's not parody, folks ... he's dead serious, but he's a nice guy anyway despite that whole leftie thing)

I would be extremely disapp... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

I would be extremely disappointed if the Democrats don't exploit this for political gain.

--|PW|--

Quit apologizing for pedoph... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Quit apologizing for pedophiles, LissaKay. American citizens entrusted their under-age children to Congress, and Congressman Foley abused that privilege, greatly. Nothing could be more despicable - not even attempts such as yours to spin it in a different, Republican-favoring, direction.

The only thing worse than Foley's actions, which have now been put to a halt, are the people like you who voted for him and are now defending him. You "enable" creeps like Foley, instead of protecting our children from the criminal, heinous acts of such people.

You truly aren't totally disgusted by this? I find that amazing.

Chris. You just show your i... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Chris. You just show your ignorance when you assume something. I have read thousands of different post and news articles in the past two day on Foley, and I still think he should be hanged for the potential damage he could have inflicted on the young 'men'. The truth seems to get a rise out of the lefties real easy.

I'll just refer you to 'Gatewaypundit.blogspot.com' where you can see who the slime balls really are regardless of they're sexual habits. I just hope the FBI fries the lot of these guys. I could care less what you do in private. Just don't try to rub it off on me. The word 'Gay' sure is a mis-nomer from everything I've read lately. There sure are a lot of paranoid unhappy people out there on the left.

The age of consent in DC... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The age of consent in DC is 16.

Was 16. Until Foley helped pass federal legislation that raised it to 18 nationally. How's that for irony?

BarneyG2000: subj. Senator... (Below threshold)
FireRescue16:

BarneyG2000: subj. Senator Frist----It now looks like someone took the word of a 'news reporter' again and we know for a fact they never lie or make a mistake. Senator Frist has corrected whatever 'news reporter' misquoted him, but a left wing reporter will never correct his mistake, so there you have it. There sure seems to be a rash of mis-quotes, photoshopped pictures, and total lies in the antique MSM lately. Is there an election just around the corner or did they hire members of AQ as reporters, again?

The IMs were between som... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The IMs were between someone, perhaps Foley, that isn't even for sure

Are you freakin' kidding?

Lee ... you are quite possi... (Below threshold)

Lee ... you are quite possibly the most foolish of the trolls to ever troll a blog I have ever seen. And that post may well be your nadir.

I was NOT apologizing for Foley. I did not vote for him. I am not excusing what he did. I am putting it into perspective.

Your hero, Clinton, did worse with Monica. That involved actual sexual contact. Where is YOUR outrage on that? All I get from you is apologies for his outrageous behavior AND the lies that followed.

Democrats have repeatedly covered for and turned a blind eye to the miscreants in their midst. What do Republicans do in the same situation? Resign, censure and investigate. IOW, take responsibility for their own.

NO ONE, least of all me, is exusing Foley for what he is being accused of. It is highly inappropriate, as I clearly stated. What I am calling for is perspective. Do you have a clue what that is? Do you have a clue, period?

The page was of the age of consent. No crime was committed. Calls for Foley's head on a platter are a bit over the top. Resignation and an investigation are in line with the nature of the offense. And that is a lot more than what Democrats do when one of theirs strays out of line, eh?

Brian:<a href="htt... (Below threshold)
Those state laws might stil... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Those state laws might still be on the books, but federal law is 18.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-house-leadership-and-mark-foley.html

Your hero, Clinton, did ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Your hero, Clinton, did worse with Monica. That involved actual sexual contact.

Sexual contact with an adult is worse than sexual overtures towards a minor? To reuse a quote, do you have a clue what perspective is?

The page was of the age of consent. No crime was committed. Calls for Foley's head on a platter are a bit over the top. Resignation and an investigation are in line with the nature of the offense.

If that's all you think is warranted here, then certainly Clinton warranted far less, correct? After all, Monica was not just "the age of consent", but was an adult. No crime was committed. Calls for Clinton's head on a platter were a bit over the top, then. Right?

What do Republicans do in the same situation? Resign, censure and investigate. IOW, take responsibility for their own.

How many times will this canard be repeated? DeLay, Cunningham, Ney, Burns... none of them quickly resigned, nor took responsibility, except perhaps as part of a guilty plea. To this day DeLay still whines his troubles are a Democrat conspiracy.

Was 16. Until Foley help... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Was 16. Until Foley helped pass federal legislation that raised it to 18 nationally. How's that for irony?

Well, no, that's incorrect. I don't know about DC, but age-of-consent laws are a state issue, not federal. The a-o-c in my state, according to my quick research is still 16.

And, let's be more precise in our terms. Pedophillia is the sexual contact with a pre-pubescent (before puberty) child. This page was (at best) 17 during the IM fracas. And, at best, it could be sexual proposition of a minor (depending on said age-of-consent.)

The "ick" factor comes from the abuse of power, and if the page were a 17 year old woman, the "ick" factor would remain.

Do I defend Foley? Absolulely not, anymore than Mr Clinton's abuse of authority in the seduction of one of his employees. But, as LissaKay stated...perspective please.

Now, the Walsh Act, to which Brian is referring to. This Act seems to be regarding current convicted sex-offenders, and disposition and tracking thereof, as well as record-keeping for the purposes of adult films (the so-called 2257, so named for the 18 USC 2257 code.

http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=12352

This has nothing to do with defining age-of-consent in the states.


Nice try, Brian, but I read the entire document you linked to. (Took about an hour to do so.)

Sorry, I meant, a half-hour... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Sorry, I meant, a half-hour.

Glenn Greenwald??? *spit* P... (Below threshold)

Glenn Greenwald??? *spit* Please!

Whatever. I am not excusing or downplaying Foley's actions. Perspective and reason are called for here. I said the same thing when it was Clinton's ass on the line as well. Then he lied and all bets were off.

Then of course, there was Mel Reynolds.

The Dem moral superiority is bunk.

Oh, and from your own link ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Oh, and from your own link to the Sockpuppet:

Via Lexis, in D.C. Code § 22-3001 -- defining crimes of sexual acts against children -- section (3) provides: "'Child' means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years." D.C. Code § 46-403 (2006) provides: "The following marriages in said District shall be illegal, and shall be void from the time when their nullity shall be declared by decree, namely: . . . (4) When either of the parties is under the age of consent, which is hereby declared to be 16 years of age."

And GG is just as misinformed about Walsh Act as you are.

If that's all you think ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

If that's all you think is warranted here, then certainly Clinton warranted far less, correct? After all, Monica was not just "the age of consent", but was an adult. No crime was committed. Calls for Clinton's head on a platter were a bit over the top, then. Right?

Well, discounting Sexual Harrasment Laws (which I wouldn't put pass the DC crowd to excempt themselves from, as Federal Employers/Employees), the sex itself wasn't a crime. But what brought Clinton to impeachment was his lying to a FEDERAL GRAND JURY, which IS a crime, due to the Paula Jones case. Like Nixon, it was the cover-up more than the crime that got him in hot water. (Nixon didn't bug the Watergate, but he tried to cover up CRP's activities)

Here is a blog post from "E... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Here is a blog post from "Eric's Blog" dated May 2003, Wrestling Alligators:

If Congressman Mark Foley is going to come out of the closet; it seems that he's not going to do it willingly, or gracefully. After a recent report in the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, the Washington Blade picked up the story (guaranteeing that Capitol Queers like me would pick up on it). Suspicious that the Sun-Sentinel would report on the story; Foley decided to head off mainstream media coverage by... calling a press conference!

... FOLEY: "I'm declaring today that I have a right to privacy, like anyone else in this country. The fact that I'm not married has led many people to speculate, but I'm not going to be dragged into the gutter by these rumormongers" (Smith, St. Petersburg Times, 5/23).

Of course this can't prove or disprove the veracity of the various emails and IM's that Foley is alleged to have sent, but it does again illustrate that Foley has been a target for "outing" for some time.

Foley seems to have done some dispicable things, but there is no doubt in my mind that the present dog and pony show being trotted about by Democrats is the result of a very elaborate plan.

"The page was of the age... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"The page was of the age of consent."

Careful of your backwash, LissaKay.

- Was the page was of the age of consent in his home state? That's what matters -- or do Republicans think when a parent ships their young son off to Washington it it becomes property of The Party?

Don't make me use the "H" word...

the sex itself wasn't a ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

the sex itself wasn't a crime. But what brought Clinton to impeachment was his lying to a FEDERAL GRAND JURY, which IS a crime, due to the Paula Jones case.

I don't deny that. But the LissaKay comment I was responding to said that Clinton's sex was worse than what Foley did. That is an indefensible position.

Well, no, that's incorre... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Well, no, that's incorrect. I don't know about DC, but age-of-consent laws are a state issue, not federal.

I'm not a lawyer. I suspect there are both state and federal interests here. Perhaps I overstated that federal law "supersedes" this state law. But at the very least the federal law still applies, even if the state law doesn't.

Via Lexis, in D.C. Code § 22-3001 -- defining crimes of sexual acts against children -- section (3) provides: "'Child' means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years."

You're quoting DC law, not the Walsh Act.

And GG is just as misinformed about Walsh Act as you are.

Not as much as you are. I'll see your half-hour and raise you a 2-minute search of the Walsh Act:

111.14: MINOR.--The term ''minor'' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.

That is an indefensible pos... (Below threshold)

That is an indefensible position.

No it isn't. Clinton was doing the dirty with Monica in the Oval Office while conducting government business, in fact, important busines on the phone. In other words, during business hours and in the people's house with a subordinate under his direct supervision. He used her, abused her emotionally, lied to her, and then turned around and turned his goons on Linda Tripp, the only adult in the WH who gave a damn about Monica and what the scumbag was doing to her. Then with that superior smirk he uses when he lies, he looked us all in the eye, shook his finger in our faces, and lied. Then he went into court and committed perjury all the while the Clinton machine of Berger, Albright, Hillary, et al were busy trashing every woman Bill had sexually attacked or abused over the years.

Brian, I don't think that l... (Below threshold)

Brian, I don't think that law is retroactive and those IMs go back to 2003, the email 2005. The law was just passed this year, wasn't it?

Consensual adult sex during... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Consensual adult sex during business hours, followed by perjury! *gasp* Sexual predation on a minor is like jay-walking by comparison!

Sexual predation on a minor... (Below threshold)

Sexual predation on a minor? Huh? Are we talking about the same things? Nothing criminal in the emails so says the FBI, and surely you aren't going to try to convince me of the innocence or unwillingness to particpate by the IMer. That is just laughable. Whoever it was seemed entirely comfortable in the conversation and in no hurry to end it.

Nothing criminal in the ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Nothing criminal in the emails so says the FBI

Please cite your source for that statement.

Whoever it was seemed entirely comfortable in the conversation and in no hurry to end it.

Here's what the teen said:

Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here...im not sure what I would be comfortable with...well see

That sounds "entirely comfortable" to you? He explicitly says he's not comfortable! Or are you claiming he was just playing hard to get? To me, it sounds like someone who is uncomfortable, but trying not to blatently offend someone in a position to hinder his political career (as all of the pages who have come forward so far have stated as their reason for keeping quiet).

In contrast, surely you aren't going to try to convince me of the innocence or unwillingness to particpate by Monica!

Brian, I don't think tha... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, I don't think that law is retroactive and those IMs go back to 2003, the email 2005.

Good point. Guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.

Repulsive and disgusting! T... (Below threshold)
justice58:

Repulsive and disgusting! That's what I think of Mark Foley and all who knew about his perverted acts. DH and others who knew need to resign right now for the good of the country. Don't even give me any lame brain excuses for these jerks!

The Democrats are going to take control in the upcoming November elections. The Republicans are hypocrites who talked bad about President Clinton. At least his affair was with a woman of legal age and it was consenting. A fifty something year old man with a teenage boy is just sick and so disgusting. Mark Foley needs to go to jail!

Justice58,I agree ... (Below threshold)

Justice58,

I agree about Foley. Wholeheartedly, in fact. There will be no calling Foley "reprehensible" when polls are down, then saying it was only a consentual affair between adults when the polls swing.

As for Clinton, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaderick and Paula Jones were not consenting, but they were just trailer trash, right? They must have been asking for it. Put a little ice on that lip, it will make everything better. The worst thing Clinton did with Monica was not letting her do what she did with her mouth and his private parts or even with the cigar, it was his attempt to sell the media the story that she was a lying, crazed stalker when he knew she was telling the truth. How on earth can you condone that? Ignoring it and pretending it didn't happen is the same as condoning. Dems have no problem whatsoever with that. Great feminist champions. As long as he keeps abortions legal what is a few gropes and some trying to destroy women telling the truth about you?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy