<p>Dennis Hastert was a teacher, who knows from a suggestive email…</p>
<p>and Foley’s legislation:</p>
<p>– Succeeded in passing a law allowing volunteer youth-serving organizations like the Boy Scouts and Boys and Girls Clubs to have access to FBI fingerprint background checks to protect children.
– Helped write legislation to ban “virtual child pornography.”
– Introduced legislation to ban “child erotica” websites.</p>
<p>and these gems:</p>
<p>“This sort of public persecution over a man’s private life is just beyond the pale,” said Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana). “I can assure you that if the tables were turned and this was a Democrat we were talking about, you wouldn’t see us crying foul in order to score political points. Leave the man alone. It’s the only decent thing to do at this point.”</p>
<p>“I can’t decide which is more repugnant,” said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), “that these vultures are picking him apart because he had sex or because he’s (allegedly) a gay man. I mean, are we living in the twenty first century or not? Are people still hung up about this sort of thing?”</p>
<p>"“This sort of public persecution over a man’s private life is just beyond the pale,” said Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana). “I can assure you that if the tables were turned and this was a Democrat we were talking about, you wouldn’t see us crying foul in order to score political points. Leave the man alone. It’s the only decent thing to do at this point.”</p>
<p>“I can’t decide which is more repugnant,” said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), “that these vultures are picking him apart because he had sex or because he’s (allegedly) a gay man. I mean, are we living in the twenty first century or not? Are people still hung up about this sort of thing?”</p>
<p>This is how the party of family values views sexual predators.</p>
<p>“you wouldn’t see us crying foul in order to score political points.”</p>
<p>Well, that’s too bad, because you should. (I hadn’t heard, before Santorum, that he had had sex.)</p>
<p>Actually, the more specific word is “pederasty” but that is even more politically incorrect (gay sex with post pubescent adolescents). As Camille Paglia says, it is and always has been a huge part of the gay lifestyle. (But–shhh–we are not allowed to say that.) ;)</p>
<p>I’m quite sure that had Republicans jumped on Foley for his emails they would have been perceived as homophobes. The IM’s are another matter.</p>
And thereby lost a huge part of their base? Aren’t they already perceived as anti-gay? I simply can’t accept that anybody thinks that the Republican leadership covered for Foley because they were sensitive to gay sensibilities. These types of comments are simply part of the cover-up and are patently ridiculous. Isn’t it more likely that they covered for him because he has a campaign war chest of $2.7M for a formerly safe seat. Or because of his position on ways and means?</p>
<p>Wel, Kluge must have known that the accepted spelling is also paedophile and that one of two letters had been removed in the more popular spelling. Conveniently–and has a matter of deeply ingrained habitude–he picked the candidate on the left as the most-suited successor. Of course, he was wrong … comme d’habitude. </p>
<p>After all, Paul Anka did have it right when he translated the French “Comme d’habitude” into “My way!”</p>
OK, I gotta leave, so I’ll answer my own question. You found a parody blog somewhere, or somebody sent you something from one, and you and all who joined in the subsequent commentary fell for it. Maybe I’ll see you after dinner.</p>
<p>Hastert is either a liar or an idiot. He says that he can’t remember Reynolds reporting Foley to him because he might have had four or five other items on the agenda at the same meeting? Third in line for the Presidency.</p>
<p>And today’s candidate for the false dichotomy file is:
Ding ding ding!!! we have a winner!</p>
<p>You don’t “jump on” a guy when you stumble across evidence that he may be a pedophile, you investigate. Simple as that. Assign or hire someone to ask some questions. Given the obvious universe of targets for this guy, it would have been painfully easy to suss this one out in 2005, 2001, whenever they had reason for suspicion. It’s got nothing to do with homo- or hetero-sexuality; it’s got everything to do with protecting children who are your responsibility. Hiding it from the Dem. on the page oversight committee, etc., doesn’t fall under the heading of “avoiding homophobia.”</p>
<p>From 2002- you can read the whole transcript at the link</p>
<p>NEAL CONAN: Joining us now from Capitol Hill is Republican Congressman Mark Foley of Florida, co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. Congressman, thanks for joining us this afternoon. </p>
<p>Rep. MARK FOLEY (R. Fla.): Thank you. Good to be with you. </p>
<p>CONAN: You were quoted in The New York Times today as saying the Supreme Court quote, “sided with pedophiles over children.” Why do you think that? </p>
<p>Rep. FOLEY: Well, I think what we’ve done here is allowed people to get away, if you will, whether it’s virtual reality or live children, exploiting them for sexual gratification. I think we’re entering a very, very dangerous period. I’m not a prude. I have no problem with adult pornography. People are entitled to read it, watch it, see it in their homes or in public accommodations. Where I have to draw the line is using children for the excitement of those more mature people who should know the difference and know better. So I was troubled by the court’s rendering. We worked long and hard on that bill to pass it in '96, and we’re prepared to meet with Mr. Ashcroft and other legal scholars to define a bill that hopefully will pass the muster of the Supreme Court when we reintroduce it.</p>