Absolutely Despicable Conduct by Foley

[dude1394]

From my favorite partisan Hugh Hewitt. I also believe that the right (including "new media") is getting pretty off the kilter facts wise. Pedophile, hastert knew, etc. Not the blogosphere's best moment imo, sounds more like pretty typical media running without checking.

To be honest I don't know if hastert should resign or not, I haven't taken the time to hear his side of it or wait for some details. But in general I don't believe in tossing folks based on innuendo.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/d4c...6-8d8c068f0d20

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 4:08 PM

From my colleague's Dean's post below:

5) And yet you suggested earlier today that the House leadership should resign. What gives?

Their ethical transgressions remain a matter for investigation. Their political malfeasance does not. They got the word that a gay Member who had a reputation for lusting after young men and being overly chummy with the page program had sent inappropriate emails. How the House leadership could have failed to detect the potential for calamity here is beyond me. Call me a loon, but I think our political leaders should have a finely honed acumen for politics.

"Facts not in evidence" is the phrase that comes to mind, and as the great Dem-MSM scandal machine blows, it is important that center-right pundits keep facts separate from rumors, or at least to footnote the rumors.

I haven't seen any post making these three assertions with on the record (or even off the record) attributions. Dean?

Mark Levin just joined me in an interview in which we both blast the allegedly conservative pundits who are working overtime to toss Republicans under the bus on the basis of zero truthed evidence of GOP leadership complicity other than e-mails which major newspapers, ABC's Brian Ross and evidently the FBI all deemed as insufficiently interesting to publish with dispatch or investigate further.

The pundits/activists calling for hastert's resignation should be asking where those IMs have been for three years and why they are being leaked now? There is an innocent explanation --the Foley target has kept them and has now decided to pass them out, and that would be his right. But there are far from innocent explanations as well, and given the Rathergate example of two years ago, pardon me if I am suspicious.

These elections could put Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker's chair --third in line for the presidency--along with John Murtha as Majority Leader, John Conyers at the head of Judiciary and Charles Rangell (and William "The Freezer" Jefferson) at the top of Ways and Means. Given the stakes for this country's safety and security not to mention its economy, I think the center-right would be well served by a lot less posturing and a lot more digging from its new media members.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

From my favorite partisan Hugh Hewitt. I also believe that the right (including "new media") is getting pretty off the kilter facts wise. Pedophile, hastert knew, etc. Not the blogosphere's best moment imo, sounds more like pretty typical media running without checking.

To be honest I don't know if hastert should resign or not, I haven't taken the time to hear his side of it or wait for some details. But in general I don't believe in tossing folks based on innuendo.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/d4c...6-8d8c068f0d20

so what you are saying is hey, they may be slimey, but at least they are republican?

this situation should have been addressed a year ago. it speaks volumes about the leadership's priorities that nothing was done.

[dude1394]

No mavie I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the facts should come out before he's crucified in the press.

I would think a liberal would sorta support that.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No mavie I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the facts should come out before he's crucified in the press.

I would think a liberal would sorta support that.

Dude, surely you understand that's not how the press works--liberal or conservative. All the less so in an election season.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Dude, surely you understand that's not how the press works--liberal or conservative. All the less so in an election season.

I believe that was my point as well as Hughs. For all of the bitching that bloggers do about the media, I would expect them to check facts before making judgements that will not be able to be taken back.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I believe that was my point as well as Hughs. For all of the bitching that bloggers do about the media, I would expect them to check facts before making judgements that will not be able to be taken back.

I think that's fair. Check the facts. But Hastert has given more than one story already, and he is being contradicted by Reynolds.

Somebody's not telling the truth, and the whole situation doesn't seem to pass the "smell" test.

At best, it looks to me like Hastert was negligent in investigating the emails and what was going on with Foley and the page.

I agree with you and with Hewitt that this is a crucial election, but that doesn't mean that the Republicans should start acting like the Democrats and circle the wagons.

[Mavdog]

just what do you dispute about the facts?

it is substantiated that the leadership was informed about the questionable communications a year ago. it is also validated that the leadership did not act, and kept the rest of the page committee in the dark.

you appear to be in denial.

edit: you're right kg, the republican base shouldn't take this as a reason to sit on their hands on election day. however, it seems that disillusionment will prevail and the party will be the one who bears the affects of foley's poor judgement\personal failure.

[purplefrog]

Rep. Boehner says he told the Speaker and Hastert said it was taken care of. Rep. Reynolds says he took it to the Speaker. Maybe it was his staffers that heard these things. If so, then Hastert should ask for their resignation. This case is at the least akin to sexual harassment. In harassment cases not asking the relevant questions is not a reason for exoneration. Hastert's people did not ask the relevant questions. Reynolds definitely did not ask the relevant questions. The Republican Leadership will try to make their case to the independent and moderate voters that the Democrats lack a moral compass. It will be a harder case to make that the Republicans are any better if they sit back and do nothing or put this on the slow track until after election day. I think heads have to roll.

[MavKikiNYC]

Rep Boehner.

How ironic.

[dude1394]

Republicans hardly ever let this stuff lie. (See trent lott)

Number 1 they aren't allowed to by the left-leaning media.
Two their base won't stand for it.

I don't expect them to either try to wash it away to be honest. I don't expect the dems to be fair about it, they are incapable..Nor do I expect the media to wait for facts. But I do hope the bloggers will, they haven't so far.

As I posted, I haven't delved into the facts. But I read Blakley calling for hastert to resign this morning, dean barrett as hugh noted quoting unproven items. Foley being called a pedophile for political reasons, etc.

I'll keep my powder dry I believe.

[chumdawg]

The Republicans have progressively over the last ten years made it harder and harder for me to give them my support. Candidly, I don't trust them anymore. And the bad part about that is that it means I ultimately trust them a lot less than I do the Democrats. At least I know what to expect from Democrats. These days I have no clue about what to expect from the GOP.

It's a sad state of affairs. And I'm afraid it's going to result in a wholesale sweeping of Republicans from office, every chance the voting public gets, in these elections. The pendulum has swung, for the time being.

And I think the most damaging thing is that the Republicans have lost a big weapon in the battle it will take to win the swing back. They used to always be able to say, no matter what else is going on: We're the party of all that is good and holy. This week they are the party of gay men who solicit underage boys--and party leaders who condone it.

You can decide for yourself whether that is shameful or not. But make no mistake that it's political suicide.

[u2sarajevo]

That's a nice story chum... but I had you pegged for a Democrat anyway. You take every chance you can to knock the GOP.

As a believer in the Conservative cause I will tell you that it is absolutely shameful what occurred. But I won't let one bastards actions allow me to sell my soul to a party that is full of individuals that don't believe in anything i believe in. So forgive me if I don't sway along to your song and dance.

[chumdawg]

You had me pegged for a Democrat? "Anyway?" C'mon.

I knock the GOP for the same reasons I knock the Mavericks from time to time. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. Never voted Democrat once in my life.

So sorry, you are way off there.

Now, about this "Conservative cause"...it just hasn't manifested itself in many ways the last several years. What was once a "conservative cause" (without the capital letter) has now become a "Religious cause" (with the capital letter), and it's all the Republicans have. The party of Reagan is long, long gone. They have squandered the gains they spent two decades making. These days they aren't any better than the folks on the other side of the aisle. They pander to the "Religious Right"--nay, they stake their very viability on it--just as the Democrats pander to minority groups.

My sense says that the Republicans are about to get a comeuppance. A comeuppance that is richly deserved. They have entirely squandered the rich gains their predecessors earned.

[u2sarajevo]

For a "dyed-in-the-wool Republican" you sure sound like you are licking your chops waiting for the demise of the party come November.

I am expecting it also, by the way. But I'm sure not going to throw a party when it happens and rub salt in the wounds.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Republicans hardly ever let this stuff lie. (See trent lott)

Number 1 they aren't allowed to by the left-leaning media.
Two their base won't stand for it.

I don't expect them to either try to wash it away to be honest. I don't expect the dems to be fair about it, they are incapable..Nor do I expect the media to wait for facts. But I do hope the bloggers will, they haven't so far.

As I posted, I haven't delved into the facts. But I read Blakley calling for hastert to resign this morning, dean barrett as hugh noted quoting unproven items. Foley being called a pedophile for political reasons, etc.

I'll keep my powder dry I believe.

you "haven't delved into the facts"??? from the above comments it seems you have turned a blind eye on the episode. congrats, apparently you and hasert have much in common.

it's not a "vast left wing conspiracy" going on here, it is revelations that there was questionable conduct by a representitive, attempts to address that conduct by other members, and a leadership that decided to not act on the other member's concerns but rather to brush them off.

the evidence has been provided by both democrats and republicans. the info has been broadcast by the left and the right. it seems that most everybody is united in their disappointment in the republican leadership and their failure to do more about foley until they were forced (by the media mind you) to do something.

yeah, those mean ole dems who won't be"be fair about it". if only they saw the wisdom of turning a blind eye to foley's transgressions like hasert apparently decided to do...

foley is not being called a pedophile for political reasons, he's being called a pedophile because he apparently enjoys sexual exchanges with young boys. as was mentioned above that very well may be an incorrect usage of the word pedophile, yet the connotation is correct. foley preyed on young pages for his own pleasure. to characterize this as based on political reasons is ridiculous.

it's based on moral reasons. I'm surprised you don't see that.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you "haven't delved into the facts"??? from the above comments it seems you have turned a blind eye on the episode. congrats, apparently you and hasert have much in common.

hey, it's not like he pardoned the guy (to quote powerlineblog.com)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21585

Also, let's remember Gerry Studds who was reelected several times after being censured for having sex with a page.

When the page sex scandals occurred in '83, was the leadership sacked as a result?

[Mavdog]

what is outrageous is schlussel's apparent correlation of clinton's daliance with a 23 year old woman and foley's virtual episodes with 16 year old boys. anybody who attempts to classify clinton and lewinski as "harrassment" loses their credibility in my book.

from her piece it seems she is asking for this to all be understood because hey! others have been treated nicely after their transgressions were revealed.

but wait, her main target, reynolds, was tried and convicted.

and a reference to marc rich just for the impact. what rich has to do with the issue is beyond me. this is a very bitter partisan. too bitter imho.

her attack on hillary is the most disingenious.

does hasert need to resign? that is up to the folks who put him in his position. apparently schlussel wants to give him an award....

[purplefrog]

Actually Mavdog, the Clinton and Lewinski fiasco had the potential to be harrassment according to the courts. Present court rulings on this issue are becoming more and more open-ended in what constitutes harrassment. For example, if a third party is witness to a consensual relationship between two people in an office setting where a power relationship exists between the individuals, and they believe that the subordinate is getting advantages in the workplace, the third party can in fact file sexual harrassment charges. To my knowledge noone pursued this angle during Clinton/Lewinski, but Clinton was opening himself up (no pun intended) to this type of legal action by engaging in the relationship, especially because some of it occurred in the White House.

That being said, it doesn't really matter what Clinton did right now. The Republican Leadership on Capitol Hill have a hard road ahead and their actions and lack of actions on the Foley matter will likely influence the elections in November.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what is outrageous is schlussel's apparent correlation of clinton's daliance with a 23 year old woman and foley's virtual episodes with 16 year old boys. anybody who attempts to classify clinton and lewinski as "harrassment" loses their credibility in my book.

What this kind of alludes to is the 800-lb gorilla in the room.

Clinton/Lewinsky was certainly inappropriate from the superior/subordinate perspective, but not necessarily "harrassment" given Mo-Lew's all-too-apparent willingness.

By the same token, some of the more salacious IM exchanges between Foley and at least one of the pages also suggest that the page was at worst ambivalent, and likely receptive to Foley's attentions. Doesn't excuse Foley's conduct, or absolve him of responsibility, but it does add a degree of nuance to the situation that I've not seen anyone address so far.

What seems likely to me is that the 16-year old page from Louisana whose parents ultimately objected to the e-mail contacts from Foley likely had SOME knowledge about Foley's reputation as having any affinity for underage males. And when the page started receiving e-mails from Foley that hinted at what the page had heard elsewhere, well....he (and his parents) rightly took steps to stop the contacts.

This is significant, IMO, because the content of the e-mails to the page in Louisiana, in and of themselves, are somewhat ambiguous. If those e-mails are the extent of what Hastert et al were aware of, then their (lack of) action isn't so egregious. One can say that they SHOULD have been aware of Foley's reputation, and thus, SHOULD have taken more actions, but this puts them at a different level of responsibility, IMO. Protecting pages from leches isn't really the primary fucntion of an elected official, let alone the primary responsibility of a party leader like Hastert.

I'm not sure, frankly, to what degree I would hold Hastert and other party leaders culpable of inaction. I think it is certainly a legitimate position for them to say that based on what they knew, based solely on the concrete e-mail evidence they'd seen, they didn't feel like: a) sacrificing the personal reputaton and political career of a Republican representative; and b) sacrificing a valuable House seat.

What will make or break Hastert et al is how voters perceive the relative weightings of those motives. What bodes poorly for them in this regard is that the Republican party's recent attitude toward and treatment of gay and lesbians makes people believe it was more weighted toward B than toward A.

[mcsluggo]

I'm basically gonna follow dude's advice and wait a bit for the swirling to stop, and the facts to solidify be fore I jump into this specific debate. But...

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I agree with you and with Hewitt that this is a crucial election, but that doesn't mean that the Republicans should start acting like the Democrats and circle the wagons.

KG, you are kidding here, right?

The party of W, where loyalty is EVERYTHING, has been so above reproach (before this week) that you can say the above quote?

c'mon now. Seriously?

Does the tenure of Tom "the hammer" Delay and "circle the wagons" ring any word-association chimes (both DURING Delay's scandal, but also before, when he EARNED "the hammer" moniker)

c'mon now. Really?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

but wait, her main target, reynolds, was tried and convicted.

her point was that Clinton gave him a pardon.

her attack on hillary is the most disingenious.

that was new to me. I've only done a bit of reading on it. Did Hillary really argue to define sexual exploitation in such a way that it would legalize prostitution of 10 year old girls?

does hasert need to resign? that is up to the folks who put him in his position. apparently schlussel wants to give him an award....

Yes. That's the point. Sexually perverse/unethical behaviors by republicans get them thrown out of office. The same can't be said for Democrats.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

her point was that Clinton gave him a pardon.

and the point being what exactly? that presidents have given pardons to people that we most likely find to be slime?

the fact that he was tried is sufficient evidence that dems don't escape justice or are condoned for their acts, with the reminder that reynolds paid dearly for his crime.

is it more objectionable that clinton gave a pardon to reynolds than say george hw bush gave a pardon to armand hammer (huge amounts of campaign donations to republicans), casper weinberger. ed cox (huge amounts of campaign contributions to repubs) or aslam adam for trafficking in cocaine?

that was new to me. I've only done a bit of reading on it. Did Hillary really argue to define sexual exploitation in such a way that it would legalize prostitution of 10 year old girls?

not that I am aware of, in fact what I've read is just the opposite.

Yes. That's the point. Sexually perverse/unethical behaviors by republicans get them thrown out of office. The same can't be said for Democrats.

hmm, then why isn't mel reynolds, a dem who was found guilty of "sexually perverse/unethical behavior", still a congressman?

he isn't.

there is equal opportunity for either party's slimeballs to get run outa town.

[Usually Lurkin]

Gerry Studds was reelected multiple times after admitting to sex with a Page-and claiming there was nothing wrong with it.
Now he gets a building named after him:
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/08/outreach.html

is it more objectionable that clinton gave a pardon to reynolds than say george hw bush

if your point is that democrats are soft on sexual offenders and republicans are soft on big business, I guess I won't argue. That's also in agreement with the article I linked above.

[mcsluggo]

Studds affair was outed by a commision put together by Democratic congressional leadership (along with minority Republican support) to investigate, and out, ethics breaches.

The commission uncovered Studds afair (rather than hidin it from the press), censured him, and then his constituency saw fit to re-elect him ("yikes!")

I draw a different "point" than the one you tried to put forward, in fact perhaps you should go back to kindergarten and get "re-certified" in dot-to-dot theory, you are clearly rusty

When the House Could Clean Itself
By Joseph A. Califano Jr.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100301109.html


The most troubling aspect of the Mark Foley scandal is not his conduct, disgusting as it was, but what the response of the leadership reveals about the rancid state of partisanship and the consequent decline of the House of Representatives. Speaker Dennis Hastert presides over a legislative body so infested with mistrust that it doesn't even have a functioning ethics committee. Since the House is incapable of washing its own dirty laundry and policing itself, the speaker has to turn over that responsibility to the attorney general and the executive branch of government.

Compare the current situation with the way Speaker Tip O'Neill and the House handled the last scandal involving sexual misconduct with pages, in the summer of 1982.

On "The CBS Evening News With Dan Rather" that June, two former pages, their teenage faces silhouetted to hide their identity, claimed they were victims of sexual abuse by members of Congress. One described homosexual advances by members; the other shocked the nation when he said he had engaged in homosexual relations with three members and procured prostitutes for others. The CBS broadcast sparked a wildfire of reports and rumors about sexual abuse of pages and drug use by members and pages.

Within a week the House had authorized its ethics committee to conduct a full investigation of allegations of "sexual misconduct, illicit drug distribution and use, and offers of preferential treatment in exchange for sexual favors or drugs by Members, officers or employees of the House." House Speaker O'Neill and Minority Leader Robert Michel asked me to be special counsel to the ethics committee, co-chaired by Ohio Democrat Lou Stokes and South Carolina Republican Floyd Spence. I was allowed to select my own staff and given a commitment that I could follow the evidence wherever it led, because, as O'Neill and Michel said, "The integrity of the House is at stake."

Assistant Deputy Attorney General Rudolph Giuliani was the point man for the Justice Department and its grand jury investigation of the charges. We agreed to exchange all relevant information and that there would be no leaks. Allegations of sexual misconduct and drug use were raw meat for a voracious, scandal-hungry Washington press corps, and Giuliani and I came across rumors and fragments of information about many members of Congress. We shared them all with each other, and there were no leaks from him or me.

The big surprise came when the two pages whom CBS had put on its evening news show recanted. They testified under oath that they had lied and that CBS reporter John Ferrugia had put words in their mouths. But uncovering the lies of the pages and the reckless reporting of CBS didn't end our investigation. We had received a host of allegations of sexual misconduct and drug use and sale by other pages and House members. We interviewed, under oath, some 2,000 past and present pages, adults who had supervised and taught them, congressional staffers, and House members. We issued scores of subpoenas.

We found no evidence of widespread sexual misconduct. We did find that Rep. Daniel Crane (R-Ill.) had had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female page and that Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page and had made advances to other teenage male pages.

When I reported our findings to O'Neill and Michel, the dishonor that these members had brought on the House infuriated the two leaders. "Get it out," they said, "and let the committee recommend disciplinary action," which its four Democratic and four Republican members did, unanimously, in July 1983. Crane and Studds were censured by the House. Crane resigned his seat. Studds chose to stay on and was retained in office by his constituents for 13 more years.

But the ethics committee had done its job well, we believed. Our investigation found other misdeeds: House members -- two Democrats and a Republican -- had used drugs. And between 1978 and 1982 a number of House and Senate employees were involved in illicit use and distribution of drugs. All were named (Barry Goldwater Jr., who retired from the House; Fred Richmond, who admitted buying and using drugs and later pleaded guilty to tax evasion; and John Burton, who entered rehab and became a recovering addict with a productive career in the California state legislature). The employees were fired and prosecuted. The House adopted all the changes we recommended to provide far more attentive supervision of pages.

The course the House took in that scandal, and its reaction to the current one, show the difference between a leadership that saw a threat to the integrity of the House of Representatives and one that sees a threat to its continuing control of the institution. It's useful today to remember that there was a time when partisanship took second place to trust and the House leadership had the strength to wash its own dirty laundry.

[Usually Lurkin]

right. After seducing pages, Republicans get run out. Democrats get reelected.
Personally, I think it has more to do with party values than leadership.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

if your point is that democrats are soft on sexual offenders and republicans are soft on big business, I guess I won't argue. That's also in agreement with the article I linked above.

well, that's an interesting (albeit falacious) suggestion but not at all what the point was.

the point is that recent presidents have provided pardons/clemency to a wide variety of offenders for reasons we can only assume about. an attempt to lay some sort of label on clinton as "soft on sexual offenders" when there is ONE example of him pardoning an offender is ludicrous.

does bush giving a pardon to a convicted drug dealer make bush "soft" on drug peddlers? sheesh...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

does bush giving a pardon to a convicted drug dealer make bush "soft" on drug peddlers? sheesh...

no. but if there were a pattern of drug peddling in the party, then I'd start to think that it was a drug peddling party. I certainly wouldn't defend the offenders. If it turns out that GW is doing drugs while in office, for instance, I wouldn't defend him.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I'm basically gonna follow dude's advice and wait a bit for the swirling to stop, and the facts to solidify be fore I jump into this specific debate. But...



KG, you are kidding here, right?

The party of W, where loyalty is EVERYTHING, has been so above reproach (before this week) that you can say the above quote?

c'mon now. Seriously?

Does the tenure of Tom "the hammer" Delay and "circle the wagons" ring any word-association chimes (both DURING Delay's scandal, but also before, when he EARNED "the hammer" moniker)

c'mon now. Really?

It seems to me that it was DeLay who was clinging to power even when many in the party wanted him to step down.

In this instance, it looks like Republican leadership turned their heads and looked the other way when they should have investigated further. Also, once the scandal broke, the Republicans have gone on the defensive, IMO, rather than being completely forthright about who knew what when. Nonetheless, Dude's advice is probably the best, so I guess I'll just reserve further judgment until all the facts come out.

It certainly is convenient that this information would come out now, as opposed to say, closer in time to when this stuff actually happened. If Democratic leadership was aware of it and did nothing, then they are just as bad as any Republicans who may have concealed information.

[kg_veteran]

FWIW, here is Dick Morris' take on things...


***

Foley scandal is the nail in the GOP coffin

link

In a curious way, the former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) scandal will be to the Republican congressional leadership what the Monica Lewinsky imbroglio was to the Clinton presidency.

After all the boring scandals — Whitewater, Hillary’s investments, Paula Jones, Travelgate, the FBI files, the Rose Law Firm’s billing records — the Lewinsky scandal seared into everyone’s consciousness. Those who failed to read the many volumes of Whitewater documents published by The Wall Street Journal or who despaired of following the paper trail that led to the Travel Office firings could easily grasp the simple facts of Clinton’s dalliance with Monica. Nothing complicated. Nothing subtle. Easy to understand. And so the Clintonian penchant for scandal became universally known and has been an enduring part of his legacy.

Now, after the lobbyist travel scandal and the Abramoff favors for legislators and the growth of earmarking and the financial scandals that have faced Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.), Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and a host of others, there is finally a simple sex scandal for everyone to focus upon. Nothing complicated about this one either.

It is not that the voters believe that all congressmen are child molesters, nor is it the details of what Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) knew, and when he knew it, that makes this scandal so important. Its centrality stems from the sheer arrogance and hypocrisy it demonstrates both on the part of Foley himself and his colleagues who hushed up the affair until it burst onto the public stage.

One more pious member of the Moral Majority, one more legislator who makes a career out of fighting for “values” and crusading to protect children turns out to be a hypocrite and an abuser himself!

One more congressman, a sponsor of legislation to help children, a member of the caucus on abused and exploited children, has abused and exploited them himself. The gap between what Foley professes and what Foley did is so huge that you can sink the entire Republican majority in both houses into the gap.

And once again, the arrogant leaders of the Congress circled the wagons and looked the other way to avoid investigating or even recognizing the child abuser in their midst.

The details don’t matter much. Who really cares if Hastert only knew that Foley had asked a kid for his photograph or if he knew more about the e-mails that were flying around. And who cares if the Democrats had their own part in the scandal by taking no action and protecting a colleague until right before the election?

None of that really matters.

What is important is that all of the venality and hypocrisy, so evident when congressmen hire their wives or freeload on trips paid for by lobbyists or cram the budget with unjustified earmarks or encourage their sons and daughters to become highly paid lobbyists cashing in on their special access — all of those misdeeds, have suddenly acquired a poster boy: Rep. Foley!

Rep.Tom Delay’s (R-Texas) misdeeds are far too boring, in the same way that Whitewater was boring. The paper trail is hard to follow and the accusations murky.

But there is nothing murky about what Foley did and the voters will find the story interesting and easy to follow. Despite this, however, it is not Foley who is sinking his party. Its own misdeeds have already sunk it.

Bill and Monica. Foley and the pages. What we are watching now is the vindication of Karl Marx’ comment that history repeats itself — the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.”

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

FWIW, here is Dick Morris' take on things...


***

Foley scandal is the nail in the GOP coffin

It's bad, but I still lay my money on gas prices. If they are universally under $2 on election day, it will be hard for anyone to pull off a change of leadership.

[dude1394]

you "haven't delved into the facts"??? from the above comments it seems you have turned a blind eye on the episode. congrats, apparently you and hasert have much in common.

No I haven't stepped up to the slop-trough and delved into the facts, read the sexual ims, pondered what hastert did/did not know, spent time reading about an old man attracted to a 16 year old.

And since you think that hastert is some sort of pimp for foley and that I have much in common with him, you can kiss my candy ass.

[dude1394]

This is another reason I don't want to get into this crap. Way too much hypocricy going on for my tastes.

If Gay Activists & Democrats Knew of Foley, Why Were They Silent?

Radical gay activists made it their mission to out closeted members of the gay community - Today, it's their turn to be outed.

Radical Gay Rights Activists held on to information about Representative Foley for months and years. These "Rights Activists" knew that representative Foley had relationships with "young men less than half his age." They did their own investigation on Foley. They even flew in their sources in to be interviewed about the Representative. They shared this information with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They held on to the information for over a year. They wrote about how they would break the story at midterm elections.

But, the radical gay activists and democrats never thought about the safety of the teens who were at risk!

John Aravosis, ("He deserves to be publicly excoriated."- 7-2004) along with fellow radical gay activist Mike Rogers, worked in tandem but not together, to out members of Congress. Mike Rogers wrote about Foley's get togethers with young men less than half his age but held on to the information until recently like he said he would do back in March of 2005. (Blade)

[purplefrog]

Dude, I agree if the Democrats and gay rights groups withheld this information and then released it for political gain it is a disgrace. Still, I expect more from the Republican leadership and am disappointed that they did not make a greater effort to figure this out a year ago. Someone needs to be held accountable. We can wait for more facts but in the end someone in the party will have to take the fall (other than Foley). Maybe low level staffers never laid the information out for Hastert. If so, he should hold his own people accountable. I am pretty hard core on issues like this and hate to see responsibility shirked. Just once I would like to see one of our political leaders say, "You know what, I screwed up and for that I apologize".

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This is another reason I don't want to get into this crap. Way too much hypocricy going on for my tastes.

Dude, those reports are meaningless.

Foley could've been dating men half his age the whole time he's been in the House, and it would have been completely legal. Nothing to report. Nothing to investigate. Nothing to out.

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Empty innuendo is empty innuendo.

And come to think of it, inviting someone to kiss your candy ass sounds a little like Foley.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No I haven't stepped up to the slop-trough and delved into the facts, read the sexual ims, pondered what hastert did/did not know, spent time reading about an old man attracted to a 16 year old.

it doesn't take too long to se what the facts are.
foley has admitted to having inappropriate conversations with male pages.
several GOP leaders have discussed when they knew.

personally, reading the emails amd the IMs gives me the creeps.

And since you think that hastert is some sort of pimp for foley and that I have much in common with him, you can kiss my candy ass.

"pimp for foley"??? what gives you the basis to say that?

since you asked, my opinon on hasert is this: it is clear that he failed to understand what he was being told. it is almost impossible that hasert knew the facts on foley and decided to look the other way. foley was a ticking bomb and wasn't going away.

so what hasert could be guilty of is just plain malfeasance at the position he occupies. that might cost him, it seems to me there's a smell of betrayal coming out, all the top dogs are trying to distance themselves from hasert. negative momentum is tough to turn around.

as far as your ass, I'll take your word without question on its color. and decline the opportunity to inspect it closer.

[dude1394]

So if he was 18 does that exonerate hastert? If so why? If not, why not?

ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER

FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

Wed Oct 04 2006 20:32:06 ET

A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.

The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.

ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names."

SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

A network source explains exchanges with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

MORE...

[Mavdog]

first, the oldest a page can be is 16, so if the exchange was with a former page it would be a relationship that began earlier than the 18th bday.

second, there apparently are multiple former pages who have provided their im/email logs that implicate foley.

third, I don't really care who or what sex the congressman is having a cyber affair with, to do so while conducting business on the floor of the house is reprehensible.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

first, the oldest a page can be is 16, so if the exchange was with a former page it would be a relationship that began earlier than the 18th bday.

second, there apparently are multiple former pages who have provided their im/email logs that implicate foley.

third, I don't really care who or what sex the congressman is having a cyber affair with, to do so while conducting business on the floor of the house is reprehensible.

Maybe. But what Hastert had a 'duty' to disclose sure seems to depend on what it was he was disclosing.

If Foley was just having a consensual relationship with an adult, that's a WHOLE different ball of wax.

[kg_veteran]

I greatly respect Michael Barone's opinions. Here's his take on the situation:

***

The Mark Foley Scandal

link

I haven't commented on this blog yet on the Mark Foley scandal but did speak to it yesterday on Special Report With Brit Hume on Fox News Channel. I went through the chronology and concluded that Speaker Dennis Hastert acted as soon as he saw the graphic instant messages and that the E-mails he had been apprised of earlier, which by all accounts were not sexually explicit but were "over friendly," were handled appropriately. I did say that I thought that the Republican chairman of the committee overseeing the pages, John Shimkus, made a mistake when apprised of those E-mails by not bringing in the ranking Democrat on the committee, Dale Kildee. Kildee is not given to partisan cheap shots and is genuinely concerned about the page program. (He appointed my nephew Dylan Wagamon as a page about 12 years ago.) I think Kildee would probably have joined Shimkus in confronting Foley and telling him to quit contacting the former pages.

Here I'd like to make one more point. There seems to be just about universal agreement that Foley should have been expelled from the House. Had Foley not promptly resigned, that's what Hastert said he would have demanded once he saw last Friday the sexual instant messages Foley had sent to former pages.

Yet 23 years ago, in 1983, the House administered a lesser punishment–censure–when Republican Dan Crane and Democrat Gerry Studds admitted to having had sex with two pages, Crane with a 17-year-old girl and Studds with a 17-year-old boy. So the standard seems to be that having sex with a serving page, for whom Congress has custodial responsibility, merits censure. But sending dirty IMs to a former page, for whom Congress no longer has custodial responsibility, merits the much harsher penalty of expulsion.

That's not logical. You could argue that this is a case of distinction without a difference. But in that case, the same penalty should apply to both. Foley, if he had stayed in Congress, should have been censured. Or Crane and Studds should have been expelled. Crane was in effect expelled by the voters: He was defeated in November 1984 by a 52 to 48 percent margin in a downstate Illinois district Ronald Reagan carried 62 to 38 percent. But Studds was re-elected that year by a 56 to 44 percent margin in a Massachusetts district Reagan carried 55 to 45 percent (admit it: You've forgotten that Reagan carried Massachusetts twice). And Studds was re-elected five more times, four of those elections with more than 60 percent of the vote. He did not seek re-election in 1996.

Are we seeing a partisan double standard here? Perhaps. But looking back to 1983, I recall feeling that censure was the right punishment then, and in the case of Foley, my first impulse was to feel that expulsion was the right punishment now.

What do I think accounts for the inconsistency? Partisan attitudes may have something to do with it: A Democratic House 23 years ago may have been more inclined to leniency than a Republican House today. But it's certainly not because of increased intolerance toward homosexuality: The change has been in the other direction. I think the inconsistency is best explained by this. About Crane's and Studds's offenses we didn't have the specifics: We just knew that they had sexual relations. We didn't have (and didn't want) explicit details. In contrast, Mark Foley's instant messages are graphic, with references to body parts and sexual acts that are vivid and, to most people, repulsive. None of us wants the world to know just what we do in the privacy of our sex lives. When we see that sort of thing in print, we recoil–and call for a harsher penalty than when we are faced with an offense stated in more abstract terms.

[dude1394]

Again I'm not talking about foley, I'm talking about hastert. He's the one whom I feel is being all to quickly convicted here.