Gay Patriot Header Image

Is Mark Foley the Democrats’ Monica?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:36 pm - October 3, 2006.
Filed under: 2006 Elections,Gay Politics,National Politics

Ever since Mark Foley resigned from Congress in disgrace for a series of highly inappropriate Instant Message exchanges with underage House pages, the Democrats — and their allies in the MSM — have jumped on this kerfuffle as a chance to tar the House GOP leadership, given that several knew about the conversations (but not their content) long before the story broke.

In this way, they seem like Republicans in 1998 who thought that the confirmation of then-President Clinton’s relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky would cause the American people to sour on the Democrats. So, in that fall’s campaign, congressional Republicans didn’t come up with any new ideas to campaign on, but merely ran against President Clinton, his party and this scandal.

Yet, the America people did not warm to the GOP’s focus on sexual peccadilloes in 1998, failing to reward them in the fall elections. While I think most Americans remain disgusted by Foley’s behavior, they’re probably little interested in the story now that he has resigned from Congress. Democrat attempts to make political hay out of this may strike American voters as an obsession with one Republican’s sexual misdeeds in order to direct voters’ attention from their own party’s failure to put forward a positive agenda.

As the Washington Post‘s Sebastian Mallaby puts it, “Most Democrats in Congress seem bereft of ideas or the courage to stand up for them. They clearly want power, but they have no principles to guide their use of it.” (Via: Instapundit).

It is clear that the Foley kerfuffle hurts the GOP. But, if the Democrats remain focused on it, it’s going to hurt them as well.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest).

Share

78 Comments

  1. foley’s actions are/were reprehensible. being in a power-position, the victims had little recourse against him. let’s hope he gets what he deserves.

    what is equally reprehensible is the cover-up by gop house leaders. it is just another example of how these filthy people will do anything and everything to win control of congress. let’s not forget it’s the gop that has discrimination in its official platform, and it’s the gop that “won” the 2004 presidential election by casting gays as vile evil-doers to get their base to the polls.

    nothing can be trusted from the gop at this point. that’s why i have rejected the republican party. i suggest everyone else follow suit or be prepared to be cast as an intolerant, moronic idiot who follows the party line.

    Comment by rightiswrong — October 3, 2006 @ 3:00 pm - October 3, 2006

  2. RIW, now there’s a way to attract voters. Wow.

    You keep on that tack and the GOP will sail to victory –maybe another instance where the Democrats shove defeat down the throat of Victory?

    Dan, I don’t see how plugging (no pun) away at Foley and the GOP Leadership on this issue can possibly hurt the Democrats between now and E-Day. Depressing voter turnout among independent voters? I think if the Democrats stay on this issue, they can actually depress the GOP vote even if OBL flies a jet into a populated blue state.

    Remember, all elections are local despite what Democrats might want to try to do by throwing their opponents into bed with GWB and the GOP Leadership. If the local pol says this is scummy and knew nothing, the voters will give him/her a pass. Will it depress GOP behavioral voters? I think so.

    Remember, in most Catholic dioceses in the US, the priest scandal depressed collection plate contributions only for 17 weeks… then it was back to normal in most dioceses. In those dioceses with a strong pedophile storyline, the plate is still light before communion; but even there, the return of donations is an upward trend.

    I think Democrats (and voters) give their people more latitude on these kind of scandals because: a) they’ve had more experience with it and b) don’t have the long history of being a “Party of Family Values”. Another Kennedy in trouble? Clinton on the porch sofa again? To the Left, that’s just normal life in a liberal political family.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 3, 2006 @ 3:16 pm - October 3, 2006

  3. I’m not really seeing how this hurts the democrats. the guy was a republican and the people who are in charge are republicans. other republicans are calling for hastert to step down. and I’m not really looking for ANY “ideas” if the iraq war was an idea. just makes sure the police have what they need and the highways aren’t falling apart.

    Comment by lester — October 3, 2006 @ 3:30 pm - October 3, 2006

  4. I don’t see how the Democratic “leadership” can smear the GOP senior leaders without some of the tar splashing-back on the Democrats….the Halls of Congress are too-clubby for the Democrats to claim the Republicans “had to have known” while simultaneously-disclaiming **insert bad German accent** “…I know nothing, I saw nothing…” This is a crisis of the institutional-leadership, not just of one political party.

    And the spectacle of Democrats engaging in blatant, ignorant homophobia might cost them in the end. Maybe not this election, but if they continue with the tone of rhetoric I heard this morning on the TV, they run the risk of alienating many G/L voters…undoing years of patient coalition-building. While it migt not get some G/L voters to vote GOP, it might make tem more likely to sit-out this election…or possibly 2008’s election if the follow-up investigation and hearings continues the tone I heard last night and today. “Gay men can’t be trusted around teenage boys…” “…Why wasn’t Rep. Foley outed?” “What he did in private is the public’s business…”

    Can the Democratics expect the un-critical support of the G/L community if the Democratics are engage in an open-eneded gay-witchhunt through the Halls of Congress next-term? They may not intend it, but any special investigagtion of-late has had the effect of expanding uncontrollably and sweeping-up other non-intended targets and victims. And who might be “outed”-next by the widespread and public investigation; members of both Houses, staffers, current and ex-pages?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 3, 2006 @ 3:34 pm - October 3, 2006

  5. I recall the intense criticism of Ken Starr for lingering over the prurient details of the interactions of Monica and President Clinton. I wonder what those same people think about the wide publicity of the IMs of Foley engaging in cybersex with teenage boys. It’s as if they want the public to have the pornographic thrill of reading them while condemning it at the same time.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 3, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - October 3, 2006

  6. what does this scandal have to do with democrats??

    why is the word “democrat” even being mentioned?

    You are like muslims who blame everything bad that happens to them on zionists.

    NO

    DEMOCRATS

    IN

    THE

    EQUATION

    Comment by lester — October 3, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - October 3, 2006

  7. lester, lester, lester. You are so far outside the loop I doubt, even with instructions and a GPS, you could make it back into reality.

    The Democrats are all over this! From trying to take advanatge of it via political cheapshots, to trying to swiftboat the GOP leadership, to trying to link it to GWBush, to using it to suggest the entire GOP is duplicitious when it speaks about Family Values while boinking your kid you entrusted to a Pageship in DC.

    The Democrats will try –with help from the MSM– to spin this into an issue which divides the GOP base… smears all GOPers… and portrays the GOP as wolves in charge of the chicken koop.

    The Democrats are all over this lester. You, on the other hand, are clueless again.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 3, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - October 3, 2006

  8. LOL…..lester, perhaps you don’t know what leftist bloggers who are paid by Pelosi and other Democrats are bragging (emphasis mine):

    Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) had a rather creepy email exchange with a young page a while back. I received copies of these emails several months ago, but couldn’t confirm their veracity so I did not report on them.

    That makes it obvious that Democrats directly linked to Pelosi knew about these emails months ago.

    Wonder why, if they thought Foley was such a danger, they didn’t do anything THEN? After all, they insist that Republicans “should have known” based on the emails.

    Before, I was rather dismissive of the conspiracy theories. Now, with Democratic operatives bragging openly that they knew about these emails months ago, this is starting to look more and more like opportunism on the part of Dems — and if such is the case, exposes Nancy Pelosi, who has been shrieking that Republicans “should have done something right away”, as a hypocrite of epic proportions.

    Fortunately, the DOJ can subpoena Pelosi, which is no doubt why she fought so hard NOT to get them involved.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2006 @ 5:15 pm - October 3, 2006

  9. And ND30, from your mouth to God’s ears. I hope the DOJ does get involved and does subpoena everyone – GOP and RAT – to get to the truth of the matter.

    If Pelosi et al are so insistent that the DOJ not get involved, then one can only ask: WHY? What are they afraid the DOJ will find under subpoena?

    Remember – they have nothing to worry about if they are telling the truth.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 5:36 pm - October 3, 2006

  10. Like any investigation will be concluded by E-day. The damage will be done by then. And one difference is that while Clinton may have lied, Monica was a consenting adult to their affair. 16 year old pages being harrassed by a member of Congress is a bit more dirty and scandalous if you ask me. A man having an affair on his wife and lying about it? Well if we investigated every politician for that, we’d not do much else I’d imagine. But investigating a child predator in Congress? That’s not something that can hurt the Democrats too much…especially in what, five week until people get out and vote?

    Spin right wingers…spin spin spin…in the end a Republican did something really fucked up and whether it affects the election or not, if people had a clue it was going on, they should all get shitcanned, regardless of whether they are democratic or republican. In the end, I think the blame will lay squarely with Hastert because he RUNS THE SHOW. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t. Yet, anyway.

    Comment by Britton — October 3, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - October 3, 2006

  11. So, Britton, since it is obvious that Pelosi and other Democrats knew about these emails months ago, but did nothing, would you argue that they should be “shitcanned”?

    Obviously you don’t care that Nancy Pelosi let a child predator stay on the loose without going to the media because she wanted to wait until it would have maximum effect on the election.

    Thank you for making that clear.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2006 @ 5:52 pm - October 3, 2006

  12. Stop your sanctimonious whining and your “poor us” crying. You all know your leadership has let you down, again.

    Its time for all you rightists to take a hard look at yourselves and your Republican leadership. You all have closed your eyes regarding this, just like you close you eyes to the mess in Iraq, the god knows what in Afghanistan, the horrendous budget, and just about every other issue that comes up.

    Comment by keogh — October 3, 2006 @ 5:59 pm - October 3, 2006

  13. I think going back to congress is local, where this may not play out is that most people know that Foley was dirty, but unless you live in his district, do you think yours is? While mine isn’t my ideal congressman, I would hardly vote against him, because Foley can’t control himself.

    I think in the end it mostly fires up the people who weren’t voting GOP anyway-a sort of “one more reason I am not voting for the GOP” kind of thing.

    I do think this election will likely be the year of the apathetic voter, and I don’t think turn out will be high anyway, so maybe the dems are thinking this too, and are hoping it suppresses GOP turnout. We will see.

    Comment by just me — October 3, 2006 @ 6:02 pm - October 3, 2006

  14. Just FYI for you lower-case-loathers: the age of consent in DC is 16. So it could be construed similarly to the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.

    Or does that make you at all concerned that there is a double standard here? Especially given the fact that it was a same-sex situation.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 6:08 pm - October 3, 2006

  15. And Keogh, everyone has made it clear that Democrats are fine with raping minors, as long as Democrats do it.

    After all, Pelosi knew about Foley’s emails and instant messages for months, but never said a word.

    When do you intend to go after her for not acting?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2006 @ 6:35 pm - October 3, 2006

  16. “zionism is everything bad that befalls you” -saddam 91

    “democrats are everything bad that befalls you” -gaypatriot 06

    Comment by lester — October 3, 2006 @ 7:41 pm - October 3, 2006

  17. foley “kerfuffle”? he engaged in explicit sexual banter with underage guys – who knows what he did with underage guys in person? this is worse than Monica Lewinsky. While both are elected officials, at least it was between 2 adults when Clinton did it. This guy was trying to seduce underage teens. give me a friggin break.

    Comment by Kevin — October 3, 2006 @ 8:22 pm - October 3, 2006

  18. You may be right. However, there is one factor in this equation which differs greatly from the Monica scandal: the pages were minors. This is what will resonate far more in people’s minds than anything else. Frankly I also think among many Red States voters the fact that the pages Foley was chasing are male will make some impact as well. The unknown here is that the Dems have done a terrible job of presenting themselves as an alternative to the voters, but this scandal could still have impact by discouraging some GOP voters from bothering to go to the polls. We shall see. However the politics of this is resolved I still am not satisfied with what I’ve seen from the GOP leadership responding to this. I expect the Dems to behave like schmucks. That’s who they are. When the Republicans follow suit I have problems with that.

    Comment by John — October 3, 2006 @ 8:33 pm - October 3, 2006

  19. Kevin writes: “While both are elected officials, at least it was between 2 adults when Clinton did it.”

    BZZT. The point with Clinton, Kevin, is that it was between a married man and his subordinate –a very young and less-than-matured girl who was supposedly learning and serving a public servant. Superior. Trust. Public servant. Impressionable young person. In the Oval Office. With a married man. President playing games.

    Give me a break on the “2 adults” nonsense –it’s just padding the kneelers for Clinton in a disingenious fashion. No one in the Clinton office nor household would have called Monica “an adult”. She was portrayed in the WH-led smearfest as a stalker, a seductress, as a college poof –sort of like the girls that used to hang around all those Kennedy men in politics… and Gary Hart… and, well, you get the point.

    Both Foley and Clinton are perverted, self-interested sociopaths that shouldn’t be coddled. Foley’s resignation was too soft a landing. So is his rehab “stunt” for sanctuary. Allowing Clinton to go unmolested in public ought to be criminal.

    Both men deserved to be flogged. I wish we still had keel-hauling aboard the USS Constitution. http://blindkat.hegewisch.net/pirates/punish.html

    No, that would dishonor the men who have been keelhauled.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 3, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - October 3, 2006

  20. -And the spectacle of Democrats engaging in blatant, ignorant homophobia might cost them in the end.-

    I don’t know how many people are going to see this as homophobia. I can’t see a lot of people in either party feeling any sympathy for Foley.

    For now, the main difference between Monica and Foley is that the Monica scandal dragged on for a year or more, involved an impeachment hearing, it involved those seen as adults, and by the time the midterm elections rolled around in November ’98, people had been hearing about Monica since January ’98 and didn’t want to hear anymore.

    I don’t know how the public will react, but the scandal is still so new, it’s hard to say how people will react. My guess is people will want to move on to new issues, but the controversies within the GOP leadership aren’t going to help.

    Comment by Carl — October 3, 2006 @ 9:02 pm - October 3, 2006

  21. Why are you all falling for this nonsense? Every member of Congress is guilty of high crimes for forcing all manners of evil down our throats and sending us the bill, under penalty of imprisonment if we don’t want to pay. This Mark Foley baloney is a sideshow, pure and simple. You people are paying it far more attention than it deserves, ok?

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 3, 2006 @ 9:29 pm - October 3, 2006

  22. Well so much for this all being a Democratic plot http://tinyurl.com/nzq75 :

    ““I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans”

    Gee, it sounds like some repubs have it in for “The Foley Five”. Maybe there are some good and honest Republicans after all. I won’t get my hopes up though.

    Comment by Ian — October 3, 2006 @ 9:33 pm - October 3, 2006

  23. Dan, I don’t think you can compare the Clinton-Monica scandal with the Foley situation.

    While I thought Clinton was a disgusting sleezeball to have an affair — IN THE WHITE HOUSE — with an intern and to lie to the American people about it, huge numbers of people (Democratic, Independent and Republican) thought House Republicans overreached when they impeached him. By 1998 a lot of voters were tired of hearing about that scandal and the Republicans’ message fell on deaf ears.

    In the Foley scandal we have a congressman preying on teenage male pages, whose parents trusted in congressional supervision. AND a perception — right or wrong — that the House GOP leadership is trying to cover-up their mishandling of the situation.

    The Democrats don’t need to campaign on this. I think the Foley scandal may underscore the arrogance of a congress already unpopular with voters. As the party in power, growing disgust with congress could cost the Republicans dearly on November 7.

    Comment by Ashley Hunter — October 3, 2006 @ 9:35 pm - October 3, 2006

  24. Ashley, you make a good point. The Democrats would be better served not to campaign on this. As the GOP would have been better served back in 1998 not to campaign on Monica.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 3, 2006 @ 9:39 pm - October 3, 2006

  25. the democrats don’t need to push this scandal, as it’s a huge snowball getting bigger by the minute and nothing will stop it save for the spring thaw.

    hastert will be out of his leadership role by the weekend. boehner won’t be far behind.

    as far as the midterms, this is just another in a long laundry list of republican nightmares…from the immoral war in iraq, which is costing $2billion a week and ever-escalating number of dead us soldiers, to the sleazy bob ney/jack abramoff fraud, to george bush’s 39% approval rating. the gop is dead-in-the-water in this election cycle.

    i’m looking forward to the next 2 years when this charlatan administration is investigated for all its crimes. hopefully there’s no gerald ford on the horizon to pardon all these filthy criminals.

    Comment by rightiswrong — October 3, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - October 3, 2006

  26. I agree, as a Democrat, that the Democrats should just shut up about it at this point. Let the investigation proceed and see what happens. The ire of every gay person — left, right and center –should be directed squarely at Mr. Foley. These emails are over the top, he is clearly jerking off during some of the latest to surface — and ABC now has 54 separate exchanges! When caught he is claiming and playing every victim card he can think of — through an attorney no less. Tomorrow he’s probably going to claim his mother dressed him like Shirley Temple and that’s why he’s gay. He has single handedly re-conjured up for the whole country the image of the gay pervert lurking, scheming and lying in wait for any innocent boy that comes along and strikes his fancy. He is an absolute disgrace. A selfish, narcissistic psychopath who has made life a little more difficult for us all. The Democrats will try and make a little Monica pay-back hay, the Republicans will defend and fight back as best thay can, and both parties are going to gay-bash a little more. All of us are the losers.

    Comment by Donny — October 3, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - October 3, 2006

  27. #25 – “hastert will be out of his leadership role by the weekend. boehner won’t be far behind.”

    Okay, leftiswrong, just be warned that I am saving my IMs and will compare your ridiculous prognostication with the actual news cycle come Sunday.

    Of course, since you’ve already been so wrong on a lot of items anyway, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Also – saw Ann Coulter on O’Reilley tonight. Her prognostication is the same as mine: the RATS will overreach this issue and it will probably cost them at the polls.

    The GOP will lose a couple seats, but still maintain control of both Houses. You can save this prediction if you want.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 10:47 pm - October 3, 2006

  28. Also, don’t be surprised if the GOP takes the offensive rather than defensive positions in the next few weeks. The RATS will surely snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by November 7.

    I’m surprised that none of the lower-case-losers have postulated that instead of going to alcohol rehab, Foley got sent to that mythical gay concentration camp in the far reaches of Montana….

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 10:50 pm - October 3, 2006

  29. “Also – saw Ann Coulter on O’Reilley tonight. ”

    Just thought it may be worth pointing out that your credibility ended with that sentence.

    Comment by Well? — October 3, 2006 @ 10:58 pm - October 3, 2006

  30. Are you suggesting that he didn’t see Coulter on O’Reilly, Well?

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 3, 2006 @ 11:07 pm - October 3, 2006

  31. Peter –

    If the Republicans are able to convince the electorate that the leadership of the House did not play a significant role in enabling Foley’s behavior, they will have a chance, and the damage will be limited to Foley’s district.

    ANd the news coverage may have the unintended effect of distracting voters from the situation in Iraq, as the war in Lebanon did earlier this summer.

    But if the leadership is shown to be culpable, they can kiss their 12-year rule goodbye.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 3, 2006 @ 11:10 pm - October 3, 2006

  32. On the other hand, the Democrats still have NOTHING to run on other than the Republicans’ screw ups. So there is still hope for the latter.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 3, 2006 @ 11:11 pm - October 3, 2006

  33. -ANd the news coverage may have the unintended effect of distracting voters from the situation in Iraq, as the war in Lebanon did earlier this summer.-

    I didn’t really see any coverage of Iraq even before the Foley scandal.

    Comment by Carl — October 3, 2006 @ 11:48 pm - October 3, 2006

  34. What bothers me most is the libs pretending they give a shit about “children”. Saw a question earlier on that asked if the libs would now support the BSA’s ban on gay Scoutmasters.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 4, 2006 @ 2:28 am - October 4, 2006

  35. 34: Well, here’s one liberal who does give a shit about children. It’s pure sophistry for you to make a ludicrous statement like that. Why do you turn a rights/protection into a political question of conservative/liberal? The harm and expoitation of children isn’t and idea of one of who commits whose factors that are determined by their political affiliation. People who do what Foley did (and much worse) are disturbed people who don’t understand the difference between children and adults; these people see kids as simply small adults, no different than themselves.

    Comment by Kevin — October 4, 2006 @ 6:43 am - October 4, 2006

  36. TGC, right on the Scouts or would the liberals allow computer logs at local public libraries to be routinely reviewed for use by internet predators that are smart enough to get around screening software? Boy, the ACLU and ALA would have screamin’ fits about that… hmmm, both of those groups are LIBERAL.

    Kevin, protecting the kids is a liberal v conservative issue. It’s why conservatives would rather tolerate censorship of cop-killing rap music, internet porn sites, TV content during the SuperBowl, etc —the point is that liberals would hazard our children to the excesses of Hollywood and Madison Ave and Burbank if liberals had an unfettered playing field.

    Look at the sleazy controversy over A&F catalogs. The sexualization and exploitation of our kids is damaging their development. We’ve had commentors here say “Kids will have sex; let’s make sure they do it right” and not batted an eye at the license given in that statement. And for gay males to be perceived as preying on kids –like Foley is now– will damage our community’s image in main stream America, too. It’s why it is such a big for the “Party of Family Values”.

    Just what we needed as we try to look serious on repealing DADT, getting same sex civil union rights, etc… along comes ANOTHER sociopathetic, psychologically defective gay high profile sleaze bag to grab the limelight. The only thing that could top that is for another George Michael arrest, another Boy George story and another Michael Jackson “retirement” tour.

    There are days I think, maybe our culture needs to head back to the closet until group therapy is complete… to be associated with pedophile priests, pedophile Congressman, drag queens and musclepups on PridePartyParade floats is really enough.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 4, 2006 @ 7:25 am - October 4, 2006

  37. The harm and expoitation of children isn’t and idea of one of who commits whose factors that are determined by their political affiliation.

    Then why is it an unconscionable horror when a Republican sends dirty emails to a page, but no big deal when Democrats like Gerry Studds (re-elected six times) and Mel Reynolds (pardoned by Clinton) actually do the nasty with underage staffers?

    Did anyone notice how Kevin totally avoided the BSA issue? Unless the left is totally hypocritical (which we know they are), the Democrats must now come out in complete support of the BSA ban on gay scoutmasters.

    Comment by Nobody — October 4, 2006 @ 9:19 am - October 4, 2006

  38. Let us also not forget that the ACLU, a left-liberal organization beloved by Democrats, defended NAMBLA’s right to distribute instructional materials on how to rape and murder children.

    Comment by Nobody — October 4, 2006 @ 9:26 am - October 4, 2006

  39. Or that Congressional pages are usually 16 to 19 and liberals normally clamor for 16 age of consent.

    Comment by notimportant — October 4, 2006 @ 10:23 am - October 4, 2006

  40. Nobody, those are two more examples of why protecting our kids IS a liberals v. conservatives issue.

    And despite all that we try to do to distance our community from gay pedophiles like Foley, the hundreds of Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals, and the societal rejects who help “ink-the-stamp” linking gay to pedophile by repeated public demonstrations… the GayLeft in our midst continues to reinforce that perception in the public’s mind.

    And the Democrats bully leaders help advance it for short term political gain. Lovely. With “friends” like that, does the gay community really need enemies?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 4, 2006 @ 10:23 am - October 4, 2006

  41. Drip. Drip. Drip. Speaker Hastert unfortunately will be the fall guy in this. Hopefully he can hang on, but now the GOP is just letting him twist in the wind.

    To the attorney for ex-Rep. Foley: thanks a heap. With your statement proclaiming that Foley is gay, it’s easier for the phobes to link gays & pedophilia. You’re a guy.

    And as for #36 (Michigan Matt) – the said arrest of George Michael has already happened. He got busted (again) for marijuana possession.

    How this will all play out on Nov. 7 is anyone’s guess. The last time something like this happened so close to an election was in 1980 with the Bauman affair. We all know how that turned out.

    Comment by Jimbo — October 4, 2006 @ 10:50 am - October 4, 2006

  42. #29 – In my opinion, Ann Coulter is a lot more reasonable and factual than the far-left blowhards like Moore, Sheehan, Franken and the entire Air America hindenburg disaster. At least she provides cross-referenced facts and indisputable evidence when confronting libtards.

    Speaking of which, she had a priceless line that I intend to borrow the next time someone asks this question:

    O’REILLY: “Is there ANY democrat you would vote for over a Republican? In any election?”

    COULTER: “Yes…if Zell Miller were running for president against John McCain.”

    Tell it, sister!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 4, 2006 @ 11:26 am - October 4, 2006

  43. “Save the children! Save the children! (but only after the election)”

    -Nancy Pelosi

    Comment by Tom — October 4, 2006 @ 11:39 am - October 4, 2006

  44. RE: “On the other hand, the Democrats still have NOTHING to run on other than the Republicans’ screw ups. So there is still hope for the latter. ”

    Um, well they are in charge, so what else would you run on? The notion of ridding Congress of a party who has, as you put it, screwed up should certainly be an appealing item to win on. Iraq, Foley, lack of any social security reform because it just isn’t a popular subject, no headway on immigration reform (both subjects that were initiated by this administration). Even without control of Congress, Bush has managed to get NOTHING done that Americans see as important. The war is dragging on and people are getting tired of it. It’s becoming more evident that more Americans are beginning to see the war in Iraq as a distraction to fighting the real war on terror and have only made it harder to win this war on terror, that even most Democrats agreed needed to be fought.

    As for Nancy Pelosi knowing anything, if she did, and I haven’t seen where that is true, she should be shit canned as well. I don’t really care much for her to begin with. There are better Democrats who should run the House when they win in November. In the end, however, Hastert runs the House and he should have pushed for an investigation into any such allegations of wrongful behavior on the part of Foley. It’s his house, his party, his power to lose and he decided to not investigate. In the end, if he leaves or stays, the damage is done one way or the other. I think the Democrats should sit back and let the chips fall where they may. There’s at least one dirty crooked Republican out the door (Foley) and that’s okay by me.

    Comment by Britton — October 4, 2006 @ 11:40 am - October 4, 2006

  45. -Saw a question earlier on that asked if the libs would now support the BSA’s ban on gay Scoutmasters.-

    What does that have to do with Foley hitting on pages? I hope you don’t mean that gay men would be Boy Scout leaders because they want to molest the Boy Scouts.

    On all the major cable news channels, they have had right wing pundit after right wing pundit (Tony Perkins, the Buchanans, etc.) trying to link homosexuality to pedophelia. For all the talk of liberal gays and how they bring negative stereotypes with their behavior, it seems like it was a deeply closeted man who has done some real damage to the public image of gays and lesbians.

    Comment by Carl — October 4, 2006 @ 11:46 am - October 4, 2006

  46. “ust FYI for you lower-case-loathers: the age of consent in DC is 16. So it could be construed similarly to the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
    Or does that make you at all concerned that there is a double standard here? Especially given the fact that it was a same-sex situation”

    How is receiving unsolicited sexual emails and IMs a consensual act?

    You’re going to justify Foley’s action on the basis of a legal definition of a minor? Sexual harassment is not legal or ethically acceptable because the object of it is an adult.

    In Clinton’s case, Monica was clearly not a minor, the affair was completely consensual and the president was impeached, effectively for attempting to cover things up — just as Republican leadership did in this case. Hastert’s self contradictions are as tedious as CLinton’s definition of “is” and sex.

    The fact that a few Democrats may have been informed, though unofficial channels, simply isn’t as relevant as the fact that the one Dem on the Page Committee was not informed of the allegations, that the Justice Dept. did not initiate an investigation and that Hastert ignored reports from official channels. In other words, there has been a calculated cover-up.

    But I’ve enjoyed the attempt at spin.

    Yes, it’s just heart-wrenching to see Democrats make political hay with the sexual misconduct of Republicans. They should be quiet, like the Republicans were during Monicagate.

    Comment by jonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 11:54 am - October 4, 2006

  47. Here’s another oddity. One blogger/talk show host may have identified the former page whose IMs on Friday evening caused the sensation. If he is correct, then the conversation happened after the guy left the page program and after he turned 18. Those seem like important facts to know, if true.

    http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 4, 2006 @ 12:33 pm - October 4, 2006

  48. The fact that a few Democrats may have been informed, though unofficial channels, simply isn’t as relevant as the fact that the one Dem on the Page Committee was not informed of the allegations, that the Justice Dept. did not initiate an investigation and that Hastert ignored reports from official channels. In other words, there has been a calculated cover-up.

    Then why didn’t the Dems who knew inform the Dem on the page committee, ask the Justice Department to initiate an investigation, and confront Hastert directly — especially since they are now shrieking that inaction only allowed Foley to prey on more pages?

    Now, there are three ways Dems could try to argue their way out of this.

    One is to claim that the emails and pages’ accounts weren’t serious enough to warrant such action — which would make them look like hypocrites for demanding that Repubs respond in a way that THEY wouldn’t, despite their “we care about children” rhetoric.

    One is to argue that they have no power — which is stupid; they can inform their own party members, they can inform the media, they can confront the Speaker, and they can certainly ask the DOJ to investigate.

    Or they could be brutally honest and admit that they were willing to endanger children rather than release this information because they were saving it up to influence the fall elections — and that their information included the instant-message transcripts, which Republicans did NOT have.

    JonathanG and our other Democrat apologists here would applaud the last; I have no idea why they don’t just do it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2006 @ 12:36 pm - October 4, 2006

  49. -#

    #

    Here’s another oddity. One blogger/talk show host may have identified the former page whose IMs on Friday evening caused the sensation. If he is correct, then the conversation happened after the guy left the page program and after he turned 18. Those seem like important facts to know, if true.-

    That’s true (although supposedly there were other pages, but it’s hard to know the real story), but still, he shouldn’t have been doing this with pages.

    Comment by Carl — October 4, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - October 4, 2006

  50. “Aw-ohhhh, won’t somebody PLEASE think of THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!”
    – Nancy Pelosi, the new Anita Bryant?

    Comment by notimportant — October 4, 2006 @ 1:07 pm - October 4, 2006

  51. I hope I’m not the only one whose noticed Pelosi bashing the Repubs because they DIDN’T do a vicious anti-gay witch hunt.

    Comment by notimportant — October 4, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - October 4, 2006

  52. #52 — I did. I found myself thinking that if Hastert had forced Foley out when the first rumors about “Foley the Fag from Florida*” began circulating , the same people bashing him now for not doing enough would have bashed him then for conducting a homophobic witch-hunt. Does anyone doubt that they would have done just that?

    Also, as far as we know, Foley never laid a hand on anyone underage… unlike Pelosi’s fellow Democrats Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds.

    * The nickname for Foley among House pages.

    Comment by Nobody — October 4, 2006 @ 1:30 pm - October 4, 2006

  53. -#52 — I did. I found myself thinking that if Hastert had forced Foley out when the first rumors about “Foley the Fag from Florida*” began circulating ,-

    That depends on the context, Nobody. Should he have been forced out for being gay? No. Should he have been forced out for this scandal involving pages? Yes. And yes, the same should have happened to Gerry Studds, but I don’t even know if any of the Democratic Leadership was in Congress at the time that happened.

    Comment by Carl — October 4, 2006 @ 2:07 pm - October 4, 2006

  54. I hate to link to Raw Story (they’re a whacko leftist site), but they have an update on the blog story Patrick Rothwell mentioned above this:

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Blogger_outs_boy_in_Foley_scandal_1004.html

    Comment by Carl — October 4, 2006 @ 2:16 pm - October 4, 2006

  55. Gerry Studds served in the House until 1997. Nancy Pelosi has been in the House since 1987. She had at least ten years to comment on the predator in the Democrat Caucus, but never said a word.

    Comment by Nobody — October 4, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - October 4, 2006

  56. #54 – Gerry Studds scandal was in 1983. Jack Murtha was sure as hell in Congress then and he is House Dem #2.

    Comment by notimportant — October 4, 2006 @ 2:25 pm - October 4, 2006

  57. More proof it’s no big deal when a Democrat is a predator, they actually named a Marine Sanctuary after Gerry Studds (in Provincetown MA, of course). And a member of the current Democrat House Caucus presided over the ceremony.

    Link – http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/08/outreach.html

    Comment by Nobody — October 4, 2006 @ 2:30 pm - October 4, 2006

  58. Nobody, unless he was involved in other sex scandals after 1983, then she didn’t have much reason to talk about him.

    As for Murtha, he always seems lost to me.

    Looks like Tom Reynolds’ chief of staff, Kirk Fordham (who used to be Foley’s chief of staff) has resigned.

    Comment by Carl — October 4, 2006 @ 2:31 pm - October 4, 2006

  59. Nobody, unless he was involved in other sex scandals after 1983, then she didn’t have much reason to talk about him.

    So, the rule is, if you’re a Democrat, you’re allowed to have sex with underage pages, stay in the party, and keep all your congressional privileges. But if you’re a Republican and you send dirty emails to a page but never touch them, you’re through. Is that the rule?

    Seems to suggest the two parties exist on two completely different moral planes… and the Democrats are on the lower one.

    Comment by Nobody — October 4, 2006 @ 2:57 pm - October 4, 2006

  60. #60 Seems to suggest the two parties exist on two completely different moral planes… and the Democrats are on the lower one.

    nobody nailed the differences in the parties pretty well eh?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 4, 2006 @ 3:38 pm - October 4, 2006

  61. Nice going, boys. Woiuldn’t it be just awful if nobody conflated pedophilia (ephebophilia, whatever) and homosexuality, and you had to actually focus on the ethics issue here instead of this straw man.

    Republicans came to power promising to restore ethics and “character” to the White House and Congress. Instead, we’ve gotten just the opposite — an admininstration and legislature as hypocritical as they have charged Democrats with being. It was only a matter of time before Republicans became victims of their own “reaction formation” (http://tinyurl.com/bz4ck).

    Remember how you all squealed that Clinton’s impeachment wasn’t about sex — that it was about lying and cover-up? Well, it’s your turn AGAIN. Where is Tom Delay when you need him?? Where is Trent Lott? Where is Scooter Libby?

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 4:19 pm - October 4, 2006

  62. Where’s Gerry Studds? Where’s Mel Reynolds? Where’s William Jefferson? Where’s Allan Mollohan? Maybe Ted Kennedy can channel the ghost of Mary Jo Kopechne to lecture Republicans on the importance of ethics. Or, maybe Robert Byrd could break out some of his old sheets and pretend to be the ghost of Mary Jo Kopechne.

    Comment by Nobody — October 4, 2006 @ 4:42 pm - October 4, 2006

  63. I hate to link to Raw Story (they’re a whacko leftist site), but they have an update on the blog story Patrick Rothwell mentioned above this:

    Interestingly enough, they also mention that they can confirm that the person identified was NOT the page from which the emails or messages were sent — which means that they know who the originals are.

    Given that RawStory is also directly linked to Mike Rogers, it becomes more obvious that Democrats and their operatives not only knew, but covered up.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2006 @ 5:12 pm - October 4, 2006

  64. Awwww, nice try, “Nobody.” Implicit in the post to which you are responding is agreement that the Republican administration was preceded by a Democrat one with ethical problems (though nothing on the scale of this one). That, I’m afraid, is not the point. The ethical lapses of the Democrats do not excuse the absurdist narrative now unfolding in the U.S. Congress.

    And it would be completely stupid for Democrats not to milk this as thoroughly as your party milked Mr. Clinton’s errant pennis.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 5:15 pm - October 4, 2006

  65. Interestingly enough, they also mention that they can confirm that the person identified was NOT the page from which the emails or messages were sent — which means that they know who the originals are.

    Which of course means the Dems are to blame. *eyeroll*

    At some point, NDT, it’s wise just to admit wrongdoing instead of trying to out-write Kafka.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - October 4, 2006

  66. Answer me one simple question, JohnathonG. If the Democrats never had a problem with Gerry Studds… who actually had sex with an underage page… where do they come off lecturing Republicans about Foley, who as far as we know never touched anybody?

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2006 @ 5:48 pm - October 4, 2006

  67. Ummmmmmmmmm. Politics, V?

    Welcome to your world.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - October 4, 2006

  68. In other words, it’s okay for Democrats to tolerate sexual predators like Gerry Studds, Mel Reynolds, and Bill Clinton, but it’s wrong for Republicans to kick them out before they harm anyone.

    I’d call that your world.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - October 4, 2006

  69. It’s a small point, a technicality, Michigan Matt in 41, but if Foley preyed only on teenage boys he’s not a pedophile. I can’t remember the term for adults attracted to teenagers but I’m sure the legal definition of pedophilia involves children age 12 and under.

    I guess “sleeze bag” pretty accurately describes Foley.

    Comment by Ashley Hunter — October 4, 2006 @ 7:09 pm - October 4, 2006

  70. 71: The term you mean is ephebophile. (Wouldn’t you love to see lester try and spell that?) Although ‘predator’ ‘scumbag’ ‘sleazewad’ ‘lecher’ and ‘kennedy’ work just as well.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - October 4, 2006

  71. ‘Pederast’ is also probably applicable.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2006 @ 7:42 pm - October 4, 2006

  72. In other words, it’s okay for Democrats to tolerate sexual predators like Gerry Studds, Mel Reynolds, and Bill Clinton, but it’s wrong for Republicans to kick them out before they harm anyone.

    I’d call that your world.

    Obviously it’s both worlds, V. [Removed by Editor]

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 10:03 pm - October 4, 2006

  73. As bad as Foley’s behavior was, that of Gerry Studds was clearly ***clearly*** worse. As V the K put it in #67 at least Foley didn’t touch anyone underage — and in the employ of the House.

    Please don’t misread this comment. I’m not excusing Mr. Foley, just noting the greater degree of Mr. Studds’ wrong.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 4, 2006 @ 10:44 pm - October 4, 2006

  74. But his timing was better. Too bad.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 10:48 pm - October 4, 2006

  75. An another blog put it:

    REPUBLICANS

    1. Mark Foley RESIGNED
    2. Richard Nixon RESIGNED
    3. Spiro Agnew RESIGNED
    4. Tom DeLay RESIGNED
    5. Trent Lott RESIGNED

    DEMOCRATS

    1. Ted Kennedy DID NOT RESIGN
    2. Bill Clinton DID NOT RESIGN
    3. William Jefferson DID NOT RESIGN
    4. Gerry Studds DID NOT RESIGN
    5. Patrick Kennedy DID NOT RESIGN

    JohnathanG’s claim that both parties are exactly the same simply does not hold water.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2006 @ 5:23 am - October 5, 2006

  76. LOL! V, it doesn’t take a genius to see something besides political difference that differentitates most on those two lists. For example: Why should Clinton have resigned over an investigation that turned up nothing, whereas Nixon resigned to save his ass from certain successful impeachment, followed by the magnanimous pardon issued by Gerald Ford.

    There isn’t a single case in your Republican list in which conviction wasn’t certain.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 5, 2006 @ 8:49 am - October 5, 2006

  77. Yeah, those Democrats on the list are such fine upstanding examples of morality and good character.

    1. Left a campaign worker to die after drunk driving over a bridge
    2. Lied under oath, suborned purjury, rapist
    3. Hid the proceeds from a bribery deal in his House office
    4. Had sex with an underage House page. Re-elect six times. Embraced by current Democrat House leadership.
    5. Got into a car accident while wasted on pills and booze, assaulted a security agent at an airport

    I can see why you’re so proud of your fellow Democrats Johnathon. They get away with so much more than Republicans do.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2006 @ 5:04 pm - October 5, 2006

  78. A truly decent person would want justice to be served, regardless of politics.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2006 @ 5:15 pm - October 5, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.