<p>“why didn’t Hastern, Reynolds, Alexander turn them over to the FBI and do something more…wow, it is truly amazing where some are trying to place the blame…not on the House leadership who did nothing, but on CREW who actually DID do something”</p>
<p>CGM, the republican leadership had the ambiguous emails, but they got the hideous IMs from the press after they were leaked. How do you propose that they bring to the FBI something they simply didn’t have?</p>
<p>“Even more so on Foley’s part to cast himself as a victim somehow.”</p>
<p>Foley’s lawyer’s press conference would have been so much better if he had called Foley a “gay American” instead of a “gay man.”</p>
<p>“Oh yeah, the Democrats knew something about this guy that the Republician leadership didn’t? Who’s running the House of Representatives, anyway?”</p>
<p>The democrats probably had the IMs and we know that the republicans didn’t. Which is not to say that they shouldn’t have had, but if a Soros-backed group had them, it’s not a stretch to think that some (I don’t know who) among the democratic house leadership (or party leadership) had knowledge.</p>
<p>Frankly, I’m disappointed that our unconstitutional illegal wiretapping program didn’t pick up on these IMs. Bush can’t even operate a proper totalitarian police state.</p>
<p>And we have a winner!</p>
<p>Driver, I was wondering how long it would take for this to be blamed on the President!</p>
<p>These pages are in danger the moment they set foot in DC! Isn’t it obvious that party affiliation has no bearing on sexual deviance? As long as there are men in positions of power there will be sexual escapades going on behind the scenes. (or under the desk, in the cloakroom, in the townhouse, in the car, etc. ad nauseum.)</p>
<p>I loved Foley’s lawyer’s comments about Foley’s molestation by a clergyman, his gayness, his mental illness, and his alcoholism. Did I leave anything out? Oh, but Foley isn’t blaming his pedophilic predatory behaviors on any of the above. Just wanted us to know!</p>
<p>BBM–I don’t generally use smiley faces. That was complete sarcasm on my part. I think you and I are on the same page. (bad pun, I know)
Sometimes I forget that I’m now an old-timer here, and newer posters don’t automatically know where I’m coming from.
:)</p>
<p>“Frankly, I’m disappointed that our unconstitutional illegal wiretapping program didn’t pick up on these IMs. Bush can’t even operate a proper totalitarian police state.”</p>
<p>That was a cool way to poke fun at both sides. (At least that’s how I took it.)</p>
<p>Too bad, driver. Just when I thought I could incite a riot you take the wind out of my sails! Here’s my smiley face :)</p>
<p>Just for fun…
I still think it sounds like a Republican conspiracy…oh wait, is this supposed to be a Democrat conspiracy. Or is it the liberal or conservative media? The Catholic church? The gays? NAMBLA? the Administration? Alcohol? </p>
<p>Oh, now I remember. The man on his knees in front of his computer. Foley!</p>
<p>No conspiracies. Just business as usual. Same business since 2001.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Parallel to Foley Follies, I am anxious to get a hold of Bob Woodard’s “State of Denial.” People were told but no action was taken. Things that the 911 commission were not told. etc</p>
<p>Okay, this is a political thread, which I’m sworn off of, but let me just say that seeing driver be accused of being fanatically anti-Bush made my day. 
:)</p>
<p>“Then the Party of Family Values was revealed to have protected a sexual predator in its midst…”</p>
<p>Based on the evidence, that is a ridiculous statement, and yet someone with the “stature” of Garrison Keillor is not even ashamed to write such a thing.</p>
<p>Every day I lose more and respect for the intolerant and close-minded liberals among us. Someone once described them to me as having an “entrenched irrationality.” (Failing to remember that gays constitute around 2% of the population when reading molestation statistics is a perfect example.) I believe it is a very apt description. ;)</p>
<p>ITM, why would you want to read the Woodward book? He has as much as admitted that it is a print version of a Michael Moore movie - intended to sway an election. His claims fail to live up to logical scrutiny and those who he quotes say that the quotes were used to construct a conclusion that was never intended - a typical Michael Moore trick.</p>
<p>driver, you, you LIBERAL!</p>
<p>Interesting point in Mikey Klaus’s blog on Slate this morning. He warns that Anti-GOPer’s have released so many October surprises that they run the risk of pushing each other off the front pages, just too many nuclear war heads launched at the same target have a habit of destroying each other.</p>
<p>That prompted Glenn Reynold to note that the press might get so nervous about appearing partisan over the avalanche, that they’d have to start looking for Democratic scandals to look balanced.</p>
<p>That’s something to consider. A key point to this scandal, just like the attempt to paint the Republicans with the “culture of corruption” brush or the charges of excess pork in the budget, is that this kind of thing is an equal opportunity offense. All you need is someone finding the equivalent of some money in the freezer or an expose on how much pork Murtha lards his district with to offset this. Isn’t that the most logical way for the Republicans to fight back? Not moral, ethical, or responable, but perfectly correct politically?</p>
<p>I’m afraid the end result of this could be an escalating series of scandals on both sides. If I were a Democrat with a secret to hide (don’t doubt they exist), I’d be as nervous as a cat in a room full of rockers right about now.</p>
<p>Yup. I bet that’s true. But there’s a lot of ground to make up: Foley, Ney, Cunningham, George Allen, Abramoff (and that one hasn’t even really broken yet.) Yes, I know: the Republican prosecutor is holding off more of the Abramoff indictments for an October surprise…</p>
<p>There’s little doubt in my mind that the party of the clueless would have tried to silence word about a Foley in their midst the same way the party of family values did. As the PFV did in 2001, they would have informed pages (probably all of them, not just the Democratic ones) to watch out for the perv, they’d pass info. to the Speaker’s staff, the Speaker would hope it would go away, the perv would make a big contribution to the party coffers. Business as usual. </p>
<p>So the PFV is getting beat up about it. They should. But had it happened on the PC’s watch, they would be beaten up similarly. And they should.</p>
<p>Octboer Suprise? Love how this is blamed on the bringer of the news…too bad Foley didn’t quit when FIRST approached about this months and months ago, and too bad the FBI did nothing when told, and too bad the House leadership brushed it under the rug</p>
<p>money in a freezer, bad</p>
<p>trying to illicit sex from a minor child, super bad</p>
<p>knowing about the emails, and telling Foley to just stop it, and not checking any further, and trusting a person that would cross that line, disgusting</p>
<p>Strick, Zoos: I’m sorry, but these two posts demonstrate an absolutely loony, over-the-top, I’ll-believe-anything-Rush-tells-me fanaticism that goes beyond anything I’m used to seeing even from the most tunnel-visioned righties here on CC:
and
Let’s address some confirmed facts: In July CREW got the same e-mails the GOP “leaders” had already seen. The GOP “leaders” did essentially nothing. CREW turned them over to the FBI within 24 hours. That’s a confirmed fact. There’s no evidence that CREW or anyone other than the Republican ex-pages had seen the IM’s until September. It’s also a fact that some guy started a blog called “stopsexualpredators” in July, which had a variety of posts about people involved with highly publicised cases such as Mary LeTourneau, Gary Condit and Chandra Levy, Congessmen Studds, Frank, Crane al. There was a link to a newspaper article about the college-age interns coming to Washington and dressing in a manner some thought was “inappropriate.” Lots of random alarm about issues surrounding sex, politics, etc. and soliciting feedback and input. Early in September a few e-mails came in from former pages about Foley. No smoking guns, but a lot of talk. They were posted on the blog. Then more came in. Then ABC stepped in with the e-mails and IM’s, which Republican ex-pages have reportedly been talking about (and saving and showing each other) for years. And then it all blew up.</p>
<p>Your no doubt entirely sincere belief that it must have been a “liberal plot” and your ability to accept the goofy conspiracy theory which lets you manage to blame this on anyone on the left can only be attributed to sheer delusional political fanaticsm.</p>
<p>Kluge, do you ever stop calling names? Do you ever respond politely and courteously? Really, it’s quite tiresome. I’ve worked as a legal recruiter for more than 20 years and the vast majority of lawyers I have worked with are magnificent human beings and I’ve never understood the stereotype that gives rise to lawyer jokes. But your bullying, twisting and downright viciousness make me understand.</p>
<p>
Ditto. :)</p>
<p>The one thing that puzzles me about the liberals’ effort to paint this appalling matter as a GOP failure, is the assumption that it will make a difference in the coming election. Do any of you really think that the Foley scandal will persuade conservative to vote for Democrats?</p>