Gay Patriot Header Image

HRC Fires Staffer Who Orchestrated Foley ScandalStatement Raises More Questions About HRC’s Involvement

**UPDATED THURSDAY MORNING**
(see below)

Welcome to readers from Instapundit, Corner, Wizbang, Polipundit and The Anchoress.

This is a stunning development in efforts to peel back the onion of the Mark Foley scandal and expose who knew what and when they knew it.

I have been flying back to Charlotte for most of the day, so I have been unable to “elevate” the comment by Brad Luna of the Human Rights Campaign to a full posting.  I emailed Brad last evening asking the HRC to respond to Dan’s posting challenging Joe Solmonese to respond to the accusations that the entire Foley affairs orginated at the Human Rights Campaign.

“The email exchanges in question between former Congressman Mark Foley and a House page have been in the possession of bloggers and media outlets for some time now. Yesterday, it came to our attention that an HRC employee, hired just last month to work for us in Michigan, was responsible for initially posting these emails on his blog. We investigated the matter, determined that HRC resources had been inappropriately used, and let him go. No one at the Human Rights Campaign, other than this individual, had any knowledge of his activities,” said Brad Luna, Spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign.

Luna’s statement was also emailed to the blogger of “Stop October Surprises” who is the first to connect the dots linking the Human Rights Campaign to the bogus blog “Stop Sex Predators”.  SSP, you will recall, was the blog set up to leak out the details of the Foley connected the dots.  We now know that a former employee at HRC was behind the entire affair. 

I have repeatedly highlighted the HRC’s involvement in the Foley affair from the start.  Many of you dismissed it.  But the HRC has finally admitted it.

So my questions now are the following:

  • What is the name of the fired HRC employee? 
  • When did the HRC employee come into possession of the Mark Foley emails?
  • Why did he hold them until October, instead of going to the proper authorities immediately if he truly wanted to expose a potential sex predator?
  • What did the officials at HRC know about the Foley matter before today?
  • What connections might the fired HRC employee have with the two-year old “outing” campaign targeting gay Congressional staff?
  • Were other HRC employees involved in this conspiracy?
  • Does this former HRC employee have any connections to Democrat Party officials?

Finally, it is worth noting that one of the central figures in the Foley affair is also a Board of Directors member of the Human Rights CampaignJeff Trandahl, the former Clerk of the House.

I think the HRC needs to come clean and fully explain to those of you who give them money exactly what the hell they are up to.  This entire matter has put every gay American into a bad light by equating child predators with being gay.  The HRC has a responsibility to tell us what they know and when they knew it.  They are now directly responsible for the anti-gay atmosphere that has emerged from the scandal that one of their own employees helped launch.

**UPDATE** — The New York Times has picked up the story.

A liberal gay rights group said Wednesday that one of its employees, acting anonymously, had created the Web site that first published copies of unusually solicitous e-mail messages to teenagers from former Representative Mark Foley, which led to his resignation.

A spokesman for the group, the Human Rights Campaign, said it first learned of its employee’s role this week and immediately fired him for misusing the group’s resources. The scandal surrounding Mr. Foley, a Florida Republican, has been a burdensome distraction for members of his party in the month before the midterm elections, and some Republicans have speculated that the e-mail messages were planted by a Democrat.

The rights campaign’s spokesman, David Smith, said the employee, whose name he declined to disclose, was a junior staff member hired last month to help mobilize the organization’s members in Michigan. “The minute we learned about it we took decisive action,” Mr. Smith said.

The Miami Herald and other news organizations have acknowledged obtaining copies of the same e-mail messages months ago but declining to publish them because of their potentially ambiguous contents.

Ummm.. I thought the Hypocrite Rights Campaign was “bi-partisan”?  (LMAO).  And, thank goodness for the bloggers who alerted the HRC this week about their rogue employee doing all of these things mysteriously with no knowledge of the HRC hierarchy, according to them.  (Yours truly was one of the bloggers who put the HRC’s feet to the fire, thanks to Dan’s post.)

Finally, wthere is smoke there is fire…. keep watching the truth come out over at StopOctoberSurprises!  That’s where this HRC bottom-feeding was uncovered.

This is the HRC’s version of Rathergate.  Let’s see how the largest gay rights group in America handles their worst scandal.   Many deep pockets will be watching.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

175 Comments

  1. …accusations that the entire Foley affairs orginated at the Human Rights Campaign

    Was the entire incident a fabrication of the HRC? That’s the literal meaning I get from that.

    This entire matter has put every gay American into a bad light by equating child predators with being gay.

    Do you think that the Foley incident (assuming the answer to my first question is that it’s not a fabrication of the HRC) should have remained under wraps for these reasons?

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 25, 2006 @ 6:24 pm - October 25, 2006

  2. Are you implying that the HRC is responsible in any way for putting very “gay American into a bad light by equating child predators with being gay”.

    Comment by Jay — October 25, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - October 25, 2006

  3. very = “every”. above

    Comment by Jay — October 25, 2006 @ 6:32 pm - October 25, 2006

  4. We now know that a former employee at HRC was behind the entire affair.

    This is an asinine thing to say.

    FOLEY and those who covered for him were behing the whole ‘Foley affair.’ It doesn’t matter who took action to bring it to light – hell, they were doing all of us a favor by revealing the truth.

    The insistance on the Right of finding the messenger – in order to shoot him – is absolutely stunning.

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 25, 2006 @ 6:33 pm - October 25, 2006

  5. Let’s face it: the dems don’t care about teenage boys’ safety. If they were, this would have been given to the authorities years ago. Instead, they used a phony scandal to corrupt an election. Instead of Human Right Campaign, the should be called Human Waste Creeps.

    Comment by Karen — October 25, 2006 @ 6:39 pm - October 25, 2006

  6. […] I stopped him right there and said, “Well, I’m one of those so you probably don’t want to talk to me.” He looked at me strangely and just backed off my steps, no doubt thinking I would assault him or something. Well, today I learn that the hyped up Mark Foley affair was orchestrated by this guy’s allies in the Human Rights Campaign. Charlotte blogger The Gay Patriot says it all: So my questions now are the following: […]

    Pingback by Right Angles » Blog Archive » The HRC at my door — October 25, 2006 @ 6:43 pm - October 25, 2006

  7. So now, it’s a ‘phony’ scandal?

    In what way?

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 25, 2006 @ 6:45 pm - October 25, 2006

  8. It’s phony because it’s presented as a member of congress haveing sex with underage pages.

    In truth, it’s a member of congress not having sex with people who are not underage and not pages.

    Comment by Svolich — October 25, 2006 @ 6:52 pm - October 25, 2006

  9. There’s an “anti-gay atmosphere” out there? Where? I thought everything was peaches and cream.

    Comment by jimmy — October 25, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - October 25, 2006

  10. #5. Willie Horton. Stay The Course.

    Comment by jimmy — October 25, 2006 @ 6:54 pm - October 25, 2006

  11. So the Republicans who knew at the very least about the emails for years bear no blame for allowing Foley to continue violating a federal law he helped write; the bloggers who knew about them for a few months are “responsible for the anti-gay atmosphere that has emerged from the scandal”?
    The dodgy question about “when did the Democrats know” is the distraction the GOP came up with avoid the scandal that Foley helped create. The anti-gay atmosphere is a direct result of the anti-gay right wing (and I don’t mean all of the right wing; just the AFA-types) attempting to avoid responsibility for a Republican error by making it a gay issue. Nothing about the timing of the scandal’s breaking has any relevance to the anti-gay atmosphere of which you speak, which by the way existed long before Foley got caught.
    Repat after me: Foley is the scandal. Foley’s actions are the scandal. Foley’s page chasing game is the scandal.
    The worst that you can guess about the bloggers who broke the story is that they waited a few months to make sure it did the most damage possible. Assuming this hypothesis to be true, if that “trick” is played against the party that brought us the Swiftboat Veterans, how can they possibly complain?

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 6:55 pm - October 25, 2006

  12. Phony in that the Democrat party took an exact opposite line on Gerry Studds, who had actual sex with an under 18 page. The outrage by the Dems, and especially Pelosi, who tried to promote Studds is what makes it phony.

    Comment by moptop — October 25, 2006 @ 6:57 pm - October 25, 2006

  13. 7; “presented as a member of congress haveing sex with underage pages.” Um, no, it was presented as a Congressman sending sexual IMs and creepy emails to pages, helping to violate a law he himself wrote. Of course it’s a “sexual” scandal: Are you contending that questions on penis length were asked by Foley merely as part of a scientific survey? That there wasn’t a sexual component to it?

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - October 25, 2006

  14. 11: Studds’ actions were legal. A violation of the power principle, absolutely, in that no one in a position of power should sexually pursue a subordinate (e.g., Clinton), but it wasn’t illegal, he wasn’t married, and the page said he completely supported Studds after the affair. Also, it was brought to light how many years after the fact?
    Foley wrote a law outlawing exactly what he did and then did it anyway. And having sex with a 17 year old, of legal age in DC, is a hell of a lot different than chasing a 15 year old and asking how long their penis is.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 7:03 pm - October 25, 2006

  15. The scandal isn’t what people are calling phony; the so-called Dem outrage is what is complete crap.

    Comment by Stikmata — October 25, 2006 @ 7:05 pm - October 25, 2006

  16. Lay Down Your Sword…

    Again, as I posited yesterday, this comes as no huge surprise — but I’m frankly astonished to see HRC confirm the fact.

    Next question, though: what do we do with this info?…

    Trackback by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - October 25, 2006

  17. If Republican members of Congress had merely addressed this problem when it first arose, it could never have become an “October Surprise.” The blame lies with them, in more ways than one.

    Comment by Jim Rice — October 25, 2006 @ 7:12 pm - October 25, 2006

  18. It’s not crap to call someone on their hypocrisy. The GOP claims that it’s so family-friendly, that it is the party of family values, that Clinton was beyond the pale for having an affair: yet when a Congressman chases teenage boys and the GOP lets it run for years, it’s someone how the Dems fault for bringing it up. Sorry; stikmata: the GOP deserves to get called on its hypocrisy.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 7:13 pm - October 25, 2006

  19. ND30: Do with what info? The info that some liberals shamelessly brought a page scandal to light? That they brazenly told the public about a Congressman chasing 15 year olds? That they, horror of horrors, did so in a way to help bolster the political chances of one political party by highlighting the hypocrisy of another?

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - October 25, 2006

  20. The worst that you can guess about the bloggers who broke the story is that they waited a few months to make sure it did the most damage possible. Assuming this hypothesis to be true, if that “trick” is played against the party that brought us the Swiftboat Veterans, how can they possibly complain?

    Because the primary argument the Dems are advancing is that failure to act on the emails immediately endangered children.

    If that’s the case, wouldn’t the fact that they failed to act on the emails immediately make them look hypocritical?

    What Foley did was unquestionably wrong.

    What the Dems are doing, though, is trying to claim that Republicans endangered children by not acting immediately, even though this makes fairly obvious that THEY didn’t act immediately either.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 7:18 pm - October 25, 2006

  21. #15. Swords? Do the Borgs play with swords?

    What to do with the info? Do what you usually do: attack the organizations working on behalf of gay people. Inflict as much damage as possible on the credibility and work of these organizations. Cut off noses to spite faces.

    Comment by jimmy — October 25, 2006 @ 7:22 pm - October 25, 2006

  22. 7, 11, 14-

    The problem for the Republicans of course isn’t Nancy Pelosi or ‘Democrat outrage.’ It is Republican voters who will be punishing the Republicans on this one.

    You guys are so incredibly toasted on this issue… there is ample evidence that the problem was known about within the Republican party for years, that concerns were raised, and that exactly nothing was done.

    Firing Fordham was the dumbest thing that the Republicans have done, to date. If they had held on to him, perhaps they could have colluded to keep their mouths shut. Now, Hastert and his office are in serious trouble.

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 25, 2006 @ 7:22 pm - October 25, 2006

  23. 19 – with the glaringly huge difference that:

    on one hand, you have a bunch of bloggers with some allegations.

    And on the other, you have the House leadership, who had a hell of a lot more warning than just a few emails.

    Which group do you think was in a better position to conduct an investigation into the incident, hmm?

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 25, 2006 @ 7:24 pm - October 25, 2006

  24. Well, here we are. Let’s not forget that these Leftists outing gays are the very same people who support denying the Boy Scouts of America their long-standing charter because the Boy Scouts rule out gay scout masters (and, really, I weep for Mr. Foley, who has been strung up by the worst of the Left in this case, and may have had his life ruined. I weep, too, for his parents). I long ago grew weary of charges of hypocrisy–it’s the most sophomoric of charges, levelled against the most universal of sins. It’s intellectually lazy to charge anyone with hypocrisy–there is none innocent, no, not one–and it costs the charger nothing whatever. As a libertarian, I support most gay rights claims. I have been deeply saddened by some anti-gay actions because they’ve harmed some gay friends whom I dearly love. But still, I think it is intellectually dishonest to brand Republicans as having an anti-gay agenda, when the Left is really far more likely to use the gay BRAND against people than the Right is. The Republicans don’t “out” people for political reasons. How is it that people don’t see this?

    Comment by betsybounds — October 25, 2006 @ 7:43 pm - October 25, 2006

  25. Do what you usually do: attack the organizations working on behalf of gay people. Inflict as much damage as possible on the credibility and work of these organizations. Cut off noses to spite faces.

    I do so laugh.

    You see, jimmy, you made this clear yesterday:

    This guys is not “gay”. Yes, he might be a homosexual, but he is certainly not a member of the tribe.

    Of course, now that it becomes obvious that I can affect matters rather decisively, you start appealing to my sense of gay unity, claiming that nailing HRC to the wall on this, damaging their credibility, and pointing out their stupid partisanship is somehow cutting off my nose to spite my face.

    My answer: you didn’t want my solidarity before, and you’re sure as hell not going to get it now.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - October 25, 2006

  26. The SSP blog went up in July. Yet HRC says they hired the guy just last month.
    What could that mean?

    Comment by MayBee — October 25, 2006 @ 7:51 pm - October 25, 2006

  27. torrentprime

    “Foley wrote a law outlawing exactly what he did and then did it anyway. And having sex with a 17 year old, of legal age in DC, is a hell of a lot different than chasing a 15 year old and asking how long their penis is.”

    False, on every count.

    Foley did NOT write a law outlawing what he did and then do it anway. The IM’s date back several years, long before the law in question.

    He did NOT chase any fifteen year old, nor ask one about the length of his penis.

    Any other lies you want to throw out here while you are on a roll?

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 7:55 pm - October 25, 2006

  28. Which group do you think was in a better position to conduct an investigation into the incident, hmm?

    Better question: why didn’t the bloggers just go to the media immediately, like they did in October after waiting a few months?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 7:58 pm - October 25, 2006

  29. Cyclops

    “on one hand, you have a bunch of bloggers with some allegations.”

    Actually, the bloggers and HRC people had all the evidence, which Congress did not. And rather than present it to Congress years ago, they waited until a few weeks before an election.

    “there is ample evidence that the problem was known about within the Republican party for years, that concerns were raised, and that exactly nothing was done.”

    There is exactly zero evidence that “the problem”, whatever that means, was known to anyone in the House leadership.

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:01 pm - October 25, 2006

  30. “THEY didn’t act immediately either.”

    Great slogan. The Democrats: They’re just as bad as us!

    “The Republicans don’t ‘out’ people for political reasons.”

    No– they keep them in the closet for political reasons. So much better.

    “Foley did NOT write a law outlawing what he did and then do it anway. The IM’s date back several years, long before the law in question.”

    Yeah: he did some morally dubious things, but was upstanding enough to do them before he made them illegal. He’s got respect for the law, at least– if not, perhaps, for the psychological well-being of subordinates.

    The mental gymnastics in this thread are exhausting.

    Comment by Jim Rice — October 25, 2006 @ 8:02 pm - October 25, 2006

  31. torrentprime

    “It’s not crap to call someone on their hypocrisy. ”

    Then you won’t object when I call you and the Democratic party on your hypocrisy in outing gays for political gain.

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - October 25, 2006

  32. Let’s see — Democrats and Gay Democrats go around ruining the lives of their fellow gays by outing them whether they want to make their private sex lives public or not, but somehow the Republicans are at fault. These dem operatives aren’t outing these gays because they are gay, they are outing them because they are Republican. Stinks! Anyone involved in these outings is a royal scumbag.

    Comment by Sara (Squiggler) — October 25, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - October 25, 2006

  33. betsybounds: I applaud your committment to gay rights. I also, however, must call you on your statements about the views of gays on the left versus the right. I ask you to do me one favor, take 5 minutes to do this for me. Please view the below links and scan a few of the posts and their comments. Just a few. Pay close attention to the “pillow-biters”, “faggot”, and “sodomites” labels. Note also the references to “perverts”, “deviants”, “sick”, “twisted” “brain-damaged” and other words of tolerance and support that the right wing has for gay people. Note also the fact that stories about child molesters are tagged as “gay” stories, as they believe that all gay people seek a day when we can molest children legally. If all this leaves you any doubt whatsoever about how millions of members of the right wing view gay people, then you and I will have to agree to disagree. And I will have to continue to fight for my rights, since other people seem to assume that the fight is over.

    Free Republic Keyword: Homosexual Agenda

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - October 25, 2006

  34. Well, I see the smear merchants from Mike Rogers’ Blog have found Gay Patriot! Welcome girls, and Karen of Kalifornia. For those that have never visited Mikes’ Smear Blog you are in for a little treat. These folks will try and twist the truth better than Hillary and Billy. It has been reported on many blogs that Mr. Mike Roger’s stated on his blog (now removed?) his connection to “Stop Sex Predators”(now we learn there is a HRC connection?). And we all know that C.R.E.W which is funded by Soros was in the middle of this staged and orchestrated campaign. It is just a matter of days before we will know whom in the Democratic Party and those members of House which are Democrats kept this information in waiting for the right time. Which happened to be October 2006.

    A word to our Mike Roger’s Smear Merchants, unlike what Julian Miller (aka Mike) who will allow anything to be said about anyone, Gay Patriot will allow only civility. If this is something that is too strange for you to understand, I am sure Julian (Mike) will let you vent to your hearts content so go back home. Just remember Defamation of Character is NOT protected by the Constitution as Free Speech and you can be sued for Libel.

    Comment by Jon — October 25, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - October 25, 2006

  35. So, Jim Rice, what exactly do you think Foley did that was so wrong? And how do you distinguish it from what Studds did?

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:06 pm - October 25, 2006

  36. Robbin: Sorry to confuse your broad brushstroking, but I oppose outing, especially Rogers’ actions. I understand the emotions and feelings behind it, but I don’t support it, endorse it, or recommend it. I think it’s wrong to out anyone.
    Glad I could dispose of your hypocrisy charge so easily.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - October 25, 2006

  37. #10 – #19 –

    I am glad to see a leftie finally admit that the Swift Boat Vets’ charges were true.

    (Foley’s e-mails and IMs and predatory, if sexless, behavior toward the pages are all true; what troubles us in the Foley matter is the timing, as NDT points out – the insistence on holding the information until the height of a political campaign, thus disregarding the pages’ safety. torrentprime in #10 has just equated all that to the Swift Boat Vet charges of the 2004 campaign, which, folks, were also true and backed by very good evidence, if potentially questionable in timing.)

    Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:09 pm - October 25, 2006

  38. Thats great, torrentprime.

    Now go back to post 26 and explain the several lies you told.

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:12 pm - October 25, 2006

  39. another torrentprime lie.

    “So the Republicans who knew at the very least about the emails for years bear no blame for allowing Foley to continue violating a federal law he helped write”

    Are you capable of telling the truth, even if you want to?

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:15 pm - October 25, 2006

  40. calarato: nice try at rephrasing, but I didn’t say that the Swifties were right; I said that their being sprung at election time was an analogue to the contention that the Foley story was held for political advantage.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:17 pm - October 25, 2006

  41. There was nothing questionable about the Swift Boaters since they only came forward once the coward Kerry “reported for duty.” If he had not insulted millions of veterans with that moment in time, the Swifties would never have spoken up. There is a major difference.

    Comment by Sara (Squiggler) — October 25, 2006 @ 8:18 pm - October 25, 2006

  42. Another torretprime lie;

    “I didn’t say that the Swifties were right; I said that their being sprung at election time ..”

    The Swifties were not “sprung at election time”. They were making their accusations against Kerry several months before the election.

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - October 25, 2006

  43. Of course, the Swift Boat charges came out starting in July.

    October surprises, they weren’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - October 25, 2006

  44. #39 – I know what you said, tp. The fact remains: you implicitly equated their charges with Foleygate. That, small as it may seem, is a step forward for any lefties stuck in denial about what an empty, terrible person Kerry was/is.

    Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - October 25, 2006

  45. Robbin; If I was wrong and he wrote a law outlawing his IMs after he did it instead of before, then I apologize. I thought he actions started before the law was passed and continued through it. Mea culpa: he did it before it was illegal. Just creepy and an abuse of power and wrong, but apparently not illegal.
    But the absolute latest that the leadership learned of it was this spring, and that’s after you parse the stories, retracted stories, and corrected stories about who knew what when. This story places some of the GOP in the know as early as 2000. Is this not correct?

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - October 25, 2006

  46. Calarato: I was never in denial as to what an empty, terrible person Kerry was. I voted for Bush in 2004, for god’s sake, and I wouldn’t have voted for Kerry no matter what. My only real choice was whether to vote for Bush or for no one.
    I realize that you have pre-built assumptions on what all people in opposition to this post and its conclusions are like, but don’t let it run away with you.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:28 pm - October 25, 2006

  47. #42 – Actually the first Swift Boat press conference was in April, NDT. But I know what you mean.

    The Swifties really were against Kerry the person; their main spokesman was a lifelong military Democrat. They couldn’t believe Kerry had won, and (in April) wanted to give the Democrats a chance to dump him. But the press / the Democrats just didn’t choose to listen.

    Not until August, when Regnery published their book on Kerry.

    Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - October 25, 2006

  48. […] Update: The GayPatriot blog adds a couple of details to the story. […]

    Pingback by Bachmann vs. Wetterling » Blog Archive » Was the Human Rights Campaign involved in creating the Foley scandal? — October 25, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - October 25, 2006

  49. Robbin, according to calarato, the issue with the Foley story is that they came at “the height of the election campaign.” So the similarity between the swifties and the foley story, by those on the receiving end of the hit, is that the story was broken to influence an election. Get it now?

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:32 pm - October 25, 2006

  50. It looks like the voters in Foley’s district may not be as stupid as the Democrat’s hoped.

    Early voting has begun in the district, and local media reports suggest there hasn’t been much confusion. “Many people leaving the [polling place] said they understood that Foley’s name was still on the ballot because of Florida’s election laws, but that a vote for Foley counted toward Republican replacement candidate Joe Negron,” the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported yesterday after a visit to a precinct in Port Charlotte. “It’s been all over the news,” one resident told the paper. “We heard plenty about it.”

    Comment by V the K — October 25, 2006 @ 8:33 pm - October 25, 2006

  51. torrentprime

    “But the absolute latest that the leadership learned of it was this spring”

    Good old “it”. What a hand word “it” is. It allows you to say things without actually saying them

    What “it” are you referring to here? Unless you can show that the House leadership knew of the IMs in the spring, then you have nothing.

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:35 pm - October 25, 2006

  52. #47 – Oh and while we’re on the subject of timed partisan (or partisan-seeming) hits: let’s not forget those fake hits on Bush’s early service record, based on FORGED DOCUMENTS even, that were carefully co-ordinated between CBS, the Kerry campaign and the DNC even closer to the 2004 election: that September.

    Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:36 pm - October 25, 2006

  53. Notice the phraseology in that story, torrentprime.

    The Democrats’ nifty trick in this has been conflating the emails sent with the instant messages.

    The reason is simple; the instant messages are the damning evidence of Foley’s behavior, but there is no indication that any Republicans had them in advance of their release by ABC.

    The emails they did have well in advance, but they by themselves do not constitute sufficient evidence. They’re unusual, but hardly on the level that suggests the instant messages.

    Now look at the story.

    Starting with the title (“Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages in 2000”), it gets more and more obvious that they’re trying to confuse the issue. Take this paragraph:

    A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship.

    It would have been far simpler to say “showed the congressman e-mail messages…..”; however, they chose the clunky “Internet messages” and then had to throw in an unusual “e-mail” at the end.

    Why? Because “Internet message” is easily read as “instant message” or abbreviated to “IM”. Conflation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 8:37 pm - October 25, 2006

  54. #45 – Glad to hear it, tp. And kindly note that I didn’t say (or intend to say) you specifically were a leftie in denial about Kerry. I wondered, but I left it open in case you wanted to clear it up.

    Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:39 pm - October 25, 2006

  55. Robbin: riiiiight. So if you knew that, say, a teacher was emailing in that fashion to his students, and you were the principal, you would not investigate, nor take any action? You’d let it go? Are you saying you wouldn’t do anything without actually explicit communication? No action whatsoever? And since bloggers/evil Democrats apparently were able to find the IMs after an investigation, isn’t that exactly what the leadership should have done? Maybe, I dunno, investigate?

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - October 25, 2006

  56. #52 – Reading back – In #36 I may have slightly over-assumed on your ideological identity, tp. Small apology proffered.

    Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:42 pm - October 25, 2006

  57. ND30; my last post applies to you as well. The issue is not whether the GOP leadership knew about the IMs: if they did, it would be instant guilt, game over. And I freely admit no one has proved or even, I don’t think, alleged, that the leadership knew about the IMs. The issue is whether they did anything with the knowledge that they did have: Those emails were at least enough to investigate on.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:42 pm - October 25, 2006

  58. Polls are showing most people by now have caught onto the difference by now. Mark Foley, Republican, sent lecherous IM’s and emails but never touched anyone… Gone and under criminal investigation!

    Gerry Studds, Democrat, molested an underage intern, re-elected six times. Defended by every leftist on this board.

    Mel Reynolds, Democrat, molested an underage staffer and tried to arrange a three-way with 16 year old and a 15 year old (“I just won the lottery.”) Convicted of 12 counts of lewd sexual acts and conspiring to cover it up. Pardoned by Bill Clinton. (Predators gotta look out for each other.)

    Voters have seen that the Foley problem was a Foley problem and not a Republican problem. The GOP may well still lose the House, but not because of Mark Foley.

    Comment by V the K — October 25, 2006 @ 8:43 pm - October 25, 2006

  59. thanks calarato. Appreciated, both for accuracy and the tone of the debate.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:43 pm - October 25, 2006

  60. Torrentprime

    Do you read your own links?

    “A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship.”

    Assuming this story is credible (not much in the Wapo is), all it says is that Kolbe had heard that a former page had received “intenet messages” from Foley which made him “uncomfortable”.

    Presumably, you are quite outraged at Kolbe over this. {roll eyes} But I don’t see how you tie it into the party as a whole. Kolbe, as you know, has resigned also.

    So, unless I see you slamming Kolbe in your next post, that hypocrisy charge is still apt.

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:44 pm - October 25, 2006

  61. So, V the K, just to clarify, when you say “Gerry Studds, Democrat, molested an underage intern”, you mean, “Gerry Studds, Democrat, had a consenting sexual relationship with an of-age intern”, yes?

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - October 25, 2006

  62. Robbin, let me ask you this: If your son or daughter had a teacher, and you found out that years earlier, some other children had gone for help to other teachers over “uncomfortable emails”, and those people didn’t do anything about it, what would you feel? And if the defense offered was, “Well, no one brought us salacious IMs or anything! What were we supposed to do–investigate?” Would you feel that the duty of protection and safety to your kid had been met?

    Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:48 pm - October 25, 2006

  63. I honestly don’t care who revealed that Mark Foley was preying on underage male pages. (Hint: it was ABC News- the source was a Republican. Oh, and if it matters to you at all, only Republicans DID IT.) I’m just glad it came out. Now if my son ever wants to go to Washington, I’ll know one of the things I’ll have to talk about with him.

    How dare you tell me my concern for my son’s well-being, and for the well-being of other boys, is fabricated. Are you a parent? Get a clue.

    It continues to amaze me how brazen you Republicans are, considering how profoundly wrong you’ve been about so many things, resulting in the death of so many innocent people, over the last six years. I’d think most reasonable people, if they saw how disastrous the policies they supported turned out to be, might take stock, be a little less cocksure, a little more circumspect. Not you.

    If past performance is any guide, if you’re (still) a Republican, chances are you’re 100% wrong about whatever it is you’re thinking right now. Stop inflicting your violence and mistakes and hypocrisy on the rest of us- we can’t take any more.

    Comment by therightisalwayswrong — October 25, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - October 25, 2006

  64. “Gerry Studds, Democrat, molested an underage intern, re-elected six times. Defended by every leftist on this board.”

    Acccording to Wikipedia (can’t vouch for accuracy):

    “The relationship [between Studds and the intern] was consensual (which made it legal [b/c the intern was 17, of legal age], in accordance with state law), although very unprofessional of a politician, presenting ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.”

    I don’t care to defend Studds or this relationship, but to call it molestation seems a wild stretch of that term.

    Robbin: do you honestly not see anything wrong with Foley’s behavior?

    Comment by Jim Rice — October 25, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - October 25, 2006

  65. And to further clarify #59 Gerry Studds persued said relationship in 1973. When it came to light a decade later Congress immediately and overwhelmingly censured Studds rather than obfuscated the details pointing fingers along party lines. The page also acknowledged that it was a consensual relationship rather than one of an unwelcome predatory nature.

    How does it in any way relate to Foley’s predatory behavior?

    Comment by Just A Question — October 25, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - October 25, 2006

  66. torrentprime

    “And since bloggers/evil Democrats apparently were able to find the IMs after an investigation”

    I know you are not this stupid. The “bloggers/evil Democrats” knew about the IM’s from the beginning, no “investigation” neccessary.

    “So if you knew that, say, a teacher was emailing in that fashion to his students”

    Emailing in WHAT fashion? This is the kind of sleazy and dishonest behavior that pisses people off with you Democrats. The reason you never actually quote anything from the emails is that there is a great big pile of nothing there. If there were any “that fashion” statements you’d be quoting them repeatedly. Instead you simply insinuate all sorts of bad things to them.

    All sorts of newspapers had these emails for a year, and did not consider them newsworthy. The FBI looked at them after CREW sent them, and found nothing there. The emails had nothing in them, but dishonest people like yourself constantly insinuate otherwise.

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - October 25, 2006

  67. Jim Rice

    Studds had a consensual sexual relationship with a 17 year old page.

    Foley had consensual IM exchanges with a few pages.

    Explain to me how you see nothing wrong with the first, and a great big problem with the second.

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - October 25, 2006

  68. Just A Question

    “How does it in any way relate to Foley’s predatory behavior?”

    There was no “predatory behavior”, you pathetic moron. If there was Foley would be in jail. He engaged in no predatory behavior at all, and no number of idiotic lefties repeating “predator” make sit any more true.

    He talked dirty with some consenting pages via IM. That’s it, that all he did.

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 9:03 pm - October 25, 2006

  69. Seventeen is still considered a minor in almost all states. It is never appropriate for a middle-aged man to be chasing after, let alone having sex with, an underage minor. Even if he can get away with it under the law. Gerry Studds was a slimebag until the day he died.

    But it is fascinating how many gay men will stick up for Gerry Studds, but would denounce James Dobson if he said something like, “Gay men think it’s perfectly all right to seduce teenage boys.”

    Comment by Nobody — October 25, 2006 @ 9:07 pm - October 25, 2006

  70. By the way, a Congressional censure doesn’t mean squat. It carries no penalty whatsoever. Foley, on the other hand, resigned in disgrace, as well he should have. Too bad Gerry Studds lacked the moral character to do the honorable thing.

    Comment by Nobody — October 25, 2006 @ 9:09 pm - October 25, 2006

  71. #66 – Have to disagree with you a bit there, Robbin.

    Apparently, Foley played Mr. Friendly with 16-year-olds, in hopes of seriously propositioning them once they turned 18. That’s a little beyond creepy. The next word to come to mind is “predatory”.

    The fact that Foley’s behavior was legal is no excuse.

    Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 9:11 pm - October 25, 2006

  72. Calarato

    “Apparently, Foley played Mr. Friendly with 16-year-olds, in hopes of seriously propositioning them once they turned 18. That’s a little beyond creepy. The next word to come to mind is “predatory”.”

    Being friendly with somebody, even if its because you hope to score with them later, is not “predatory”.

    A “predator”, by convention if not by legal definition, is somebody who “preys” on the innocent, and is a criminal. Foley does not fit the bill, which is why the FBI passed on this.

    “The fact that Foley’s behavior was legal is no excuse.”

    I can imagine people saying the same thing abour all sorts of behavior. Homosexual intercourse, for example. Do you really want to go there?

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 9:22 pm - October 25, 2006

  73. […] Now we know, and a major charity is taking action against the culprit:  Yesterday, it came to our attention that an HRC employee, hired just last month to work for us in Michigan, was responsible for initially posting these emails on his blog. We investigated the matter, determined that HRC resources had been inappropriately used, and let him go. No one at the Human Rights Campaign, other than this individual, had any knowledge of his activities,” said Brad Luna, Spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. […]

    Pingback by Ngopedia.net » Blog Archive » Breaking news — October 25, 2006 @ 9:24 pm - October 25, 2006

  74. Foley was the scandal. Then he resigned, taking responsibility, so that aspect of the scandal is resolved. Hastert isn’t a school principal and Foley doesn’t answer to Hastert – only to the people of his district. The emails were not evidence of a crime – whether or not the IM’s were, the young man’s parents did not want it pursued, and so what exactly was Hastert supposed to do?

    Guilty knowledge of those explicit IM’s, however, was a different matter, and maintaining that knowledge for months, in order to maximize the electoral effect, with Foley free during that time to turn more pages; that does sound culpable.

    How many pages must be misused for the Dems to regain their majority? How many of Clinton’s bimbos needed to be sacrificed for a similar purpose?

    Comment by Jeremy Abrams — October 25, 2006 @ 9:32 pm - October 25, 2006

  75. #70 – Robbin, why is this hard to graspt? FAKE friendliness is not real friendliness, and shouldn’t be given the status or moral privilege of real friendliness.

    FAKE friendliness, i.e. with someone impressionable and underaged and WAY out of your peer group, granted just (or primarily) because you have an ephebophilic lust and hope you can satiate it on them later, is creepy. And PREDATORY.

    And the fact that Foley’s behavior was legal, is no excuse. Indeed, I want to go there.

    Kindly permit me to explain a couple things about moral judgment and freedom.

    My judgement of Foley is what it is. He (and you) can take it or leave it. I don’t get to put anybody in jail over it. (Remember, our premise here is behavior that is technically legal.) But neither does Foley (nor you) get to change it. Only I get to change my opinions / moral judgements.

    You say, “I can imagine people saying the same thing about… homosexual intercourse.” So what? Big… Deal. Starting with the fact that we’re talking about behavior between adult peers, there, I **know** there is nothing wrong with adult homosexual intercourse in the isolated abstract.

    Some idiot can disagree with me if he likes. I don’t care. His judgment matters only to the extent that it’s right objectively. Which, (drumroll), it isn’t in that example.

    My judgment of Foley is what it is. Either Foley knows in his heart that I’m right, or he knows I’m wrong and he’s right. If it’s the latter, my judgement shouldn’t matter to Foley – but I have every right to keep on with my judgement, and I will. That’s freedom.

    In this case, Foley does know in his heart that I’m right – because he has been offering multiple excuses for his creepy, predatory behavior, plus his instant resignation from Congress. He ought to feel terrible about himself. I hope he does.

    Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 9:46 pm - October 25, 2006

  76. Of course, outing people is only harmful to them because of the vicious, hateful atmosphere created by Republicans and their allies on the “Christian” right. So if you don’t want people to be harmed by being outed, you’re only going to solve the problem by telling James Dobson et al to go to hell. When that happens, I’ll take you seriously about how bad it is to out people. (Personally, I’m opposed to it for most people, but if you’re going to work for a party that relies on homophobia for its success, it seems fair to point out your hypocrisy and dishonesty, since those are politically relevant characteristics for individuals: you’re not bad for being gay, you’re bad for being hypocritical and dishonest).

    Comment by Ted — October 25, 2006 @ 9:51 pm - October 25, 2006

  77. Calarato

    ” I **know** there is nothing wrong with adult homosexual intercourse in the isolated abstract.”

    You appear to be setting yourself up as the moral judge of everyone and everything. How do you **know** that there is nothing wrong with adult homosexual intercourse? And how do you **know** that being friendly to a young person is morally wrong? How do you know that Foleys friendship was “FAKE”?

    “In this case, Foley does know in his heart that I’m right – because he has been offering multiple excuses for his creepy, predatory behavior, plus his instant resignation from Congress.”

    Everyone with an IQ higher than that of a potted plant knows that, in these exact same circumstances, a congressman with a “D” after his name would (a) not have been outed (b) would not have resigned if he had been outed by the GOP (c) would have been widely seen as an unfortunate victim of those privacy-invading theocons. Everybody knows that because we have actually seen it happen, in cases where the Congresspersons behavior was rather more out of line than was Foleys.

    It’s one thing to lie to other people, Calarato, but now you are lying to yourself.

    Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - October 25, 2006

  78. #8: In truth, it’s a member of congress not having sex with people who are not underage and not pages.

    I don’t think that’s accurate, given the evidence at hand. Foley didn’t have sex with anyone, but he hit on guys who were pages and underage. But, if you’re right, then he shouldn’t have resigned and he should have defended his good name.

    All of this pales in comparison to the other issues swirling all around us.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 25, 2006 @ 10:38 pm - October 25, 2006

  79. How do you **know** that there is nothing wrong with adult homosexual intercourse?

    I want to answer this.

    I am interpreting this as “adult homosexual intercourse” as distinguished from “adult heterosexual intercourse.” In other words, if circumstances existed that would make straight sex wrong, they’d also make gay sex wrong.

    But, absent that, of course there’s nothing wrong with adult gay intercourse. Speaking for myself, it causes me pleasure and enhances my life, and does not in any way harm anyone else. Thus, it is a positive value.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 25, 2006 @ 10:41 pm - October 25, 2006

  80. The IMs were damning until the former page turned 18, then they were just icky. And in D.C. the age of consent was 16 at the time of both the emails and IMs. The emails that some have characterized as unusual but not illegal are a snapshot of only one side of a conversation. What did the former page say that precipitated Foley’s questions? Were they innocuous remarks that generated the questions? We don’t know. Why don’t we know? Probably because in context most people would decide the emails aren’t at all unusual. Always question what isn’t that should be, rather than what is, that shouldn’t be.

    Comment by Sara (Squiggler) — October 25, 2006 @ 10:46 pm - October 25, 2006

  81. “FAKE friendliness, i.e. with someone impressionable and underaged and WAY out of your peer group, granted just (or primarily) because you have an ephebophilic lust and hope you can satiate it on them later, is creepy. And PREDATORY.”

    Kind of like Bill Clinton, eh? Someone way out of your peer group? Of course Juanita Broddrick had a different view of Bill Clinton … but it was only about sex even though he lied before a federal judge and a grand jury to the eventual tune of a 90K fine and loss of law license. Personally, I wouldn’t have cared if Billy Bob had lied about stealing a tricycle, HE LIED IN COURT!

    And I’m getting tired of the left glossing over the distinctions between the salacious Instant Messages (Internet Messages … that’s pathetic that the lamestream media would resort to such obfuscations) and the more benign emails, some of which Speaker Hastert had seen. But can you imagine the glee with which the DemDonks would have crucified Republicans and Hastert if they had moved against gay Congressman Mark Foley on the basis of the flimsy evidence of those ambiguous emails? And just how do you quantify “feeling uncomfortable around Mr. Foley?” And we still don’t know if those three pages were yanking Foley’s chain. All I know is the man kept is pants zipped up whereas Clinton, Reynolds and Studds didn’t.

    I’m amazed at how the left has become such legalists and moral prudes in their denunciations of Mr. Foley. And didn’t the liberals at the ACLU recently defend the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association (NAMBLA)? Oh, I forgot, that’s all “consensual” sex. I thought the argument was that older employers and older adults exercised such authority over younger underlings that there really can’t be “consensual” sex. So much for defending Gerry Studds activities as “consensual”. Libs love to change definitions and goalposts as the dialogue progresses. I don’t remember a single person arguing for homosexual marriage even twenty years ago but now there is a vast host of liberals and an entire political party that now claim it would be immoral to deny them that “right” … and look where we are today, trying to redefine a six thousand year old beneficient institution which had been the basis of all civil society.

    Comment by Hank — October 25, 2006 @ 10:50 pm - October 25, 2006

  82. #77 – Robbin, “how do you KNOW” is the question at the heart of epistemology, a huge subject… far beyond the scope of this thread.

    Suffice to say that I have an epistemology which permits me to know certain things. And, if you don’t: That is nothing short of tragic.

    “And how do you **know** that being friendly to a young person is morally wrong?”

    LOL! Don’t stuff words in my mouth! How dare you!

    “How do you know that Foleys friendship was “FAKE”?”

    Ummmmmm…… because Foley would later proposition them, or have extremely sexual IM chats with them. Showing what Foley’s real intent was all along.

    You know, like – the basic facts of the case? Remember those?

    “Everyone knows [that Democrats get away with it].”

    Of course. We’ve been saying so all along. That doesn’t make it right.

    “It’s one thing to lie to other people, Calarato, but now you are lying to yourself.”

    ??????? Total non sequitur. WOOOH, incoming from left field…

    Robbin, you are clearly upset about us morally judging Foley. Are you an ephebophile, perchance? Do you identify with Foley? Questions for you to consider on your own.

    Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 10:52 pm - October 25, 2006

  83. #79 – kdogg – I don’t often praise you, but that’s a good answer.

    Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 10:54 pm - October 25, 2006

  84. Oh, I should answer this nonsense from Robbin as well:

    “You appear to be setting yourself up as the moral judge of everyone and everything.”

    Indeed I am. Deal with it. And note that (1) you ought to as well; and (2) you are free to disagree with my judgements – that is called ‘disagreement’, another form of ‘freedom’, with the difference hopefully to be tested and explored (if not resolved) through, you know, ‘logical argument’.

    Judge, and be prepared to be judged. When you don’t do it – someone else gladly does it for you. That’s called ‘loss of freedom’.

    Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - October 25, 2006

  85. This is not news to us dumb old concervative christian rednecks that some thought would cut and run from the republican party. Thanks for the confirmation and I appreciate your views, refreshing after seeing Mike’s.

    Comment by Concerned — October 25, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - October 25, 2006

  86. […] Meanwhile GayPatriot says it’s the HRC doing all this. Whenever I see HRC, I think Hillary. Better to spell it out, I guess! Don’t even think about kissing MY baby! « Obi’s Sister pinged back with Don’t even think about kissing MY baby! « Obi’s SisterCounterpunch: “I Am Spartacus” « Nuke’s news and views pinged back with Counterpunch: “I Am Spartacus” « Nuke’s news and viewsDoug Ross @ Journal tracked back with ‘Dudes, let’s do some polling!’ Posted on: 5 Comments ? […]

    Pingback by The Anchoress » A GOP ad I’d like to see — October 25, 2006 @ 11:41 pm - October 25, 2006

  87. torrentprime: Since you brought up the Swift Boat Vets you may be interested to know they have now filed a lawsuit against Hanoi John (and yes the democrats of the Swift Boats are still involved). They can now put the liar under oath along with all of those that lied to congress in the 70’s (most were not vet’s and the couple that were had never been to Nam). Once Hanoi John tells his lies the others will tell the truth before they will accept a prison sentence for perjury. Maybe it will turn out to be worth the wait to get that slime ball Kerry behind bars. A couple of them learned well from the members of the Slick Willie administration and skipped the country as soon as they found out about the lawsuit and that they would have to repeat their lies under oath. No problem, maybe we can get Dog to bring them back in the trunk of a car or someone else to dump them in the river in whatever country they skipped to. From: A Vietnam Veteran who served his entire 365 days in country, not like the cowardly liar that spent less than 4 months of a 12 month tour before abandoning his troops for the high life of D.C. and his showcase as a traitor. Maybe his prison sentence will be ‘seared’ , seared in his mind.

    Comment by Scrapiron — October 25, 2006 @ 11:47 pm - October 25, 2006

  88. Don’t worry, the KOS seminar posters don’t really care about any of this (where were the Gerry Studds denunciations), they just thought they had a good issue to get publicly outraged about. As Schumer cynically asserted, Foley supposedly takes moral issues off the table. They hope by suppressing conservative turnout, they can get in Congress to enact their Godless, immoral agenda. You can bet that NAMBLA and the pornographers vote Democrat, not Republican. There are a few Democrats who stand for morality, like Joe Lieberman, but you can see how popular he is among Democrats. He now owes his seat to the GOP.

    Comment by amused — October 26, 2006 @ 12:54 am - October 26, 2006

  89. #87. Ummm…..NAMBLA seems to have most recently actually held a GOP Congressional seat for Florida. LOL. And I think that that guy might be going on to write some really cheesy inter-generational porn next.

    What is this “Godless, immoral agenda”? Please enlighten.

    Comment by sean — October 26, 2006 @ 2:01 am - October 26, 2006

  90. #67. “Sick, sick, sick” was how one of Foley’s pages put it. Consensual??!?!

    Comment by sean — October 26, 2006 @ 2:05 am - October 26, 2006

  91. “Of course, now that it becomes obvious that I can affect matters rather decisively, you start appealing to my sense of gay unity, claiming that nailing HRC to the wall on this, damaging their credibility, and pointing out their stupid partisanship is somehow cutting off my nose to spite my face.

    My answer: you didn’t want my solidarity before, and you’re sure as hell not going to get it now. ”

    Ummm….the post was sarcastic. You have no sense of gay unity to which one can appeal–not all homosexuals are, after all, gay. Please keep your solidarity, if you even have a bone in your body that knows what it is or how it is done. And get on with attacking gay people, culture, institutions and organizations–it is what you do best.

    Comment by jimmy — October 26, 2006 @ 2:12 am - October 26, 2006

  92. not all homosexuals are, after all, gay.

    (spits out Samuel Adams Octoberfest onto screen) I’m sorry….What?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 26, 2006 @ 4:22 am - October 26, 2006

  93. I see no outrage here against the HRC from the lib commenters. They had an employee that held potential evidence against a child predator and instead of going to the authorities, he set up a fake blog to reveal the documents as a political stunt.

    Where’s the outrage?

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 26, 2006 @ 7:45 am - October 26, 2006

  94. #91. I get that one. Homosexual just describes an attraction. Gay is a lifestyle choice. Just because one is attracted to people of the same sex doesn’t mean one has to be nelly, or fey, or watch crappy movies just because they have a gay theme. (Sorry, Dan). Face it, a guy who is, for example, conservative, Christian, prefers heavy metal to dance music, likes sports and thinks drag shows are retarded isn’t really acceptably ‘gay’ no matter how much he likes weiner.

    You can’t help who or what you’re attracted to, but you can control how you act on it. And that’s what makes Mark Foley a sleaze and made Gerry Studds a far worse uber-sleaze.

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 7:54 am - October 26, 2006

  95. #92: Your question is based on the proposition that libs really care about teenage boys being molested by dirty old men. They don’t. They just want to make sure they’re only molested by Democrats.

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 7:56 am - October 26, 2006

  96. As a middle age “breeder”, active in a East Bay( SF) suburban community, the “hard branded” lessson of Foley has left on all the soccer moms is what the Soros / DNC / Kos folks expected; to upset the ‘burbs and foment hatred and resentment to gays. Oh didn’t you know that is Soros’s et, al. real plan?

    Most soccer moms have taken Foley to heart and are looking closley at all gay men as potential predators. They do not see the “nuaunce’ of politics, just that a gay congressman wanted sex with younger folks. On the sidelines of social events and soccer/baseball games, the talk is ALL about predators and gays, not Dems and Reps. There is constant talk of getting rid of gay coaches at the end of the season, due to thier potential for predation with the 8- 13 yearold boys. Stupid. I know, but that’s whats happening. The long term fallout and backlash in suburbia is just getting started.
    Mainstream gays are being used and screwed politically by the hard left as just another weapon to remake America, to pit American against American based on race and sex orientation, rather than the old Marxist class struggle crap, into a Socialist/ Soros gulag.
    And its working all to well.

    Comment by Da Bear — October 26, 2006 @ 8:23 am - October 26, 2006

  97. Great Work GP! Don’t let the scumy trolls for hire get you down.

    I feel sorry for Foley. He is obviously a sick man–likely as a result of the exploitation he suffered as a young (13 yoa) adolescent. Still, it is important to remember, that after all these weeks, we can’t find a single crime he has committed. There is not one shred of evidence that he ever touched a single page. He has only been accused of having sex with a man who was well over the age of conscent. As for Jordan Edmund–hardly an innocent. He knew exactly what he was doing, and counld have ended communication with Foley at any time.

    It is very obvious that whoever set up the SSP blog had access to the Edmund et. al IMS as well. And we all know about the connections between the Page Board started by Edmund and Loraditch and the Michigan Democrat machine apparatus that includes Melanie Sloane, and now this “employee” of HRC. We need to shine the light on these Soros financed cockroaches, and inform the American people of how they’ve been “punked” yet again by liars and cheats.

    Keep it up! The NYT’s broke the story (sans the name of the HRC employee) today! The truth will come out whether they like it or not.

    Comment by verner — October 26, 2006 @ 8:55 am - October 26, 2006

  98. #83: Thank you for that! 🙂

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 26, 2006 @ 10:59 am - October 26, 2006

  99. […] Wake up America: Quick Word about SSPStop October SurprisesGay Patriot […]

    Pingback by 186k Per Second - » Stop Sex Predators.com - Uncovered — October 26, 2006 @ 11:24 am - October 26, 2006

  100. It’s like many of you live in some sort of fantasy world, where you can deny important parts of the story that don’t agree with your side.

    There are three different groups of evidence in this case:

    1, emails sent by the kid in Alexanders’ district which supposedly were the first knowledge the House leadership had of the innocent.

    2, Instant Messages; NOONE knew about these, Dem or Republicans, apparently. It wasn’t until ABC broke the story that these began to come out.

    3, allegations – sworn allegations – by Fordham and trandahal that they knew Foley was a problem, based upon multiple events, and spoke to the leadership about it many times. Many times.

    Claims that the Dems were somehow to blame for ‘sitting on’ the evidence are ridiculous. The original set of Emails (not original time-wise, but in the line of the scandal) were creepy and wrong but not enough to accuse a sitting Congressman of wrongdoing without further evidence. There is no evidence that any Dems knew about the IMs or anything else other than these suggestive emails. There is evdience that CREW sent the emails to the Feds when they got them; how is that not ‘reporting to authorities?’

    On the other hand, there are now several people who have given sworn testimony that Hasterts’ office knew about this problem far before the ’emails’ were revealed in public, and did nothing about it. This is where the big problem lies for you guys. Hastert had every opportunity to look into this, and didn’t; even the most cursory investigation would have revealed what was going on, but they weren’t interested in doing that.

    I doubt the shoes are quite done dropping in this one….

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 26, 2006 @ 12:16 pm - October 26, 2006

  101. Back in the day I used to enjoy coming to this blog to read intelligent posts that make solid arguments for why being gay and conservative is not a bad thing. Though I rarely if ever agreed with the arguments, I enjoyed the intellectual discourse. Having taken a hiatus and only recently decided to start reading this blog again, I’m disappointed at the turn it has taken by its writers. Bruce and Dan have become exactly what they hated about liberals. This thread is probably the worst thing I have read from either of you. To even try to blame the HRC for the fact that Foley did something wrong is just asinine. I would have expected more from both of you. But like most people argue, if I don’t like something, I don’t have to read it. Sadly I will be removing this website from my favorites. The intellectual discourse that used to be present here has fallen into just basically become a gay liberals suck. I’ll go read BoiFromTroy or BratBoySchool if I want to read such drivel.

    Comment by Britton — October 26, 2006 @ 12:38 pm - October 26, 2006

  102. O.K., this Studds thing is just too much.

    Isn’t it possible (likely?) that Studds had to flirt with his little friend before finding out if the little friend was interested? Why wouldn’t that flirtation be described as predatory? It did become “consensual”, but it didn’t have to be that way, i.e., the boy could have spurned the advances (if any).

    Comment by mockmook — October 26, 2006 @ 12:47 pm - October 26, 2006

  103. #102 – So, basically, you think it’s all right for middle-aged gay men to hit on teenaged boys. Shall we write Dr. James Dobson and tell him that everything he’s been saying about the predatory inclinations of gay men was right all along?

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - October 26, 2006

  104. To even try to blame the HRC for the fact that Foley did something wrong is just asinine. I would have expected more from both of you.

    What HRC is being blamed for, Britton, is not Foley’s behavior. That’s his problem and responsibility.

    What they are being blamed for, however, is what one of their employees did while using their resources — and frankly, given examples like the one I’ve pointed out in which HRC has already been named as complicit, I find it very hard to believe that they weren’t aware of what this individual was doing.

    Furthermore, what is being pointed out is that the Dem mantra is that Foley was a child rapist and that not acting on and publicizing the emails immediately means Republicans were perpetuating molestation of defenseless children. The fact that HRC and its employees had these emails in their possession months before, but chose to say nothing, torpedoes that theory nicely.

    If HRC had been thinking clearly, they would have realized that their Democratic masters were setting them up as the fall guys in a massive round of tsk-tsk’ing, in which Dems would try to associate a gay man with pedophilia and thus exploit homophobia.

    Prior to this reveal, I was praising HRC for keeping their mouths shut when the scandal first broke because, at the time, I thought their silence was due to a conscious decision not to further confuse the pedophilia charges with Foley’s gayness.

    Based on this, though, I now think HRC kept their mouths shut because the Dems ordered them to do it — and also ordered them to say nothing while Pelosi, Reid, and others started their smear campaigns that Foley (and Kolbe) should have been watched more closely because they were gay.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 26, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - October 26, 2006

  105. #93 I’m with you! Where is all the outrage? Didn’t all you liberals and gay activist claim that you outed Foley to “protect” the children…??

    Comment by concerned — October 26, 2006 @ 1:52 pm - October 26, 2006

  106. # 34 AMEN!! Hey I have noticed those disappearing posts on that site also. Um looks like we may a connection soon..

    Comment by concerned — October 26, 2006 @ 1:59 pm - October 26, 2006

  107. Britton writes: “To even try to blame the HRC for the fact that Foley did something wrong is just asinine.”

    Like others here, Britton, I think you’ve missed the boat on what Dan and Bruce and many commenters here have been saying… to wit, Foley was wrong, if anyone in GOP leadership knew about his behavior regarding Pages then they should be bounced, and the “story-behind-the-story” should be as interesting to people interested in intelligent discourse as the fact that Foley is a creep.

    Remember, Foley’s world has been narrowed to a residential therapy program and fair, impartial investigations are afoot in the House.

    As it should be.

    The story behind the story is important because two radical gay Democrat partisans –MikeRogers and JohnAvarosis– as well as radical Democrat blogs (minus the gay angle) have been deeply involved in outing this story. The story lead to outing of minor GOP staffers and the outing scandal of our own community’s making is a dilemma in its own right.

    So, Britton, why is it that you feel a need —particularly now that the story behind the story implicates a major gay “rights” organization that is deeply in bed with the Democrat Party– to despair and demean this blog? Dirty politics is everwhere and in this election, the Democrats oft’ spoken denouncement of dirty politics makes the back story a real story. Why do you feel a need to move the spotlight?

    I think it’s because a) you are a partisan Democrat, b) you support the HRC, and c) you fail to exercise those intellectual skills needed to be a part of this community… comprehension, native intelligence, analytical skills, thoughtful consideration and the ability to separate the truth from the spin.

    Rather than demean those who write for this blog and comment here, maybe you need to look inside and assess why it is that YOU aren’t angry that a major gay rights group acted in this manner. Why is it that House Democrats didn’t act sooner to protect Pages… maybe because, as some GayLeftBorg commenters here have noted, there’s nothing wrong with a little chickentwink every now and then.

    But first you’d need to put the koolaid down and realize that the HRC’s explanation –although far too convenient– lacks a fundamental aspect:

    C R E D I B I L I T Y

    And I think that’s where your artifical distain falls down, Britton.

    That you frequent BfT or BratBoi tells me more about your ability to discern anything of merit than a slam of this blog, its writers or readers and commenters. You stepped in it, Britton. Way to go.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 26, 2006 @ 2:00 pm - October 26, 2006

  108. Ugh! This whole story’s a mess!

    First, I don’t care if it’s Foley or Studds, Clinton or whoever, Congressmen and elected officials should NOT be hitting on or harassing subordinate employees (which is what Pages are.) End of story.

    Second, Foley’s actions are creepy, deplorable and stupid, but, as far as anyone can tell at the present time, not proven to be illegal. Time will tell if that remains true.

    Third, Hastert was in a no-win situation regardless of what he knew and when he knew it because of the double-standard of some R’s bashing us homos publicly, and supporting us privately as long as we do good work – especially those that mistakenly believe in the safety of the closet.

    Fourth, the timing of this is ENTIRELY political and most likely driven by those on the left who make it their life-long ambition to trash R’s generally, and out gay R’s and conservatives specifically. If we were out on our own accord, the D’s and libs wouldn’t have this power over us.

    Fifth, the fact that some HRC staffer was involved in collecting and sharing IM’s from Foley (how did THAT happen anyway?), then gave them to the media should prove the political intent on the release of the information.

    Lastly, when will both sides in our community learn that trashing each other will only hinder our ability to attain equal treatment under the law? I fear it’s a lesson that will never be learned.

    Comment by GOP Values — October 26, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - October 26, 2006

  109. #107 WELL SAID WELL SAID!!!!

    Comment by concerned — October 26, 2006 @ 2:14 pm - October 26, 2006

  110. It is sort of funny that Instapundit, Corner, Wizbang, Polipundit and The Anchoress only link to this blog when you are bitching about gay people and gay organizations. When Blatt does a post about educating conservatives and the GOP on gay issues, how many links do you get from them? Me thinks something about useful idiots at this point.

    Comment by jimmy — October 26, 2006 @ 2:24 pm - October 26, 2006

  111. #93. The outrage is directed to the same place that parents of pages are directing their outrage: Foley and the people who allowed his behavior to continue.

    And the blog wasn’t “fake”; it had real code and letters and colors and words. It was very much real…as real as yours.

    Comment by jimmy — October 26, 2006 @ 2:27 pm - October 26, 2006

  112. The lefties don’t really think what Foley did was a big deal, and apparently neither did HRC. I mean, if what Gerry Studds did was A-OK in their book, then Foley attempting to do the same and failing shouldn’t be a big deal.

    This makes the HRC and all its defenders hypocritical, dishonest, and immoral. Congratulations, you hit the Trifecta.

    Fortunately, Republicans have better morals than gay lefties. Which is why Foley was bounced out of the House within hours of the information becoming public. Whereas Studds served in the House for six more terms and died an honored Democrat.

    Speaking of which, wouldn’t Foley and McGreevey make a cute couple?

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 3:11 pm - October 26, 2006

  113. Wow. A whole new spin on “kill the messenger.” Whatta shocker.

    Do you Republican apologists really think the American people care whether an HRC employee, working independently, published this stuff on a website? What they care about is (a) the fact that Foley’s behavior occurred at all and (b) that it was protected by the Republican leadership.

    If the revelation occurred at a time politically expedient to Democrats, it can only be because Republicans and sympathetic media kept quiet about it in order to…. avoid political fallout.

    Why don’t you take up a real issue, like Michael Fox faking his Parkinson’s disease or hinting that an Af-Am candidate violates precious white women. (Or claiming the RNC can’t cancel the ad….and then does.) Or help redefine the meaning of “stay the course.” Or send out letters warning Latinos that they willl go to jail if they try to vote. There are SO MANY MORE MESSENGERS TO KILL.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 26, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - October 26, 2006

  114. Well, Johnathan, we all know from previous threads that by your own admission, you don’t care about right or wrong, or truth or honesty. So, whenever you do comment here, everyone knows you’re just spewing the latest spin and talking points from the DNC and the nutroots.

    an HRC employee, working independently

    Spin from the HRC. No reason to believe it.

    Michael Fox faking his Parkinson’s disease

    No one ever accused him of faking his disease. But, by his own admission, Fox adjusts his medication to maximize the appearance of his symptoms for political impact. Note: MJ Fox on Boston legal, no apparent signs of Parkinson’s. MJ Fox on the completely dishonest DNC pro-cloning ad: severe symptoms readily apparent. By creating a faux-controversy on something Limbaugh never said, the MSM is trying to distract people from the MJ Fox tells in the ad.

    Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. There’s just no federal funding for it. Which makes some of us suspect that the research is snake oil. If there was real merit to it, there would be venture capital funding.

    Af-Am candidate violates precious white women

    The DNC playing the race card… once again. Yawn! I guess they got tired of throwing Oreo cookies at Michael Steele.

    And so on through the rest of his spin and BS…

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - October 26, 2006

  115. so you are only angry that the HRC may have used it for political gain. remember, you delusional putz, no one could have used it for political gain if key members of your party had not tried to cover it up.

    According to the New York Times, numerous media outlets, hostile bloggers like John Aravosis, and many more have admitted that they’ve had these emails for months prior to this.

    Furthermore, according to our numerous liberal commentors here, the fact that Foley was a child rapist was known “everywhere” by “everyone on the Hill” since 2001.

    Aren’t they all complicit in the “cover up” as well, then?

    Since Democrats are insisting that not making the emails immediately public endangered children and enabled a child rapist, why are they not directing any of their ire at the media outlets or their paid operatives like Aravosis, who admitted to having the emails no later than July?

    Perhaps the liberal Dems here can explain why they and their operatives like CREW and Aravosis held off on publishing the emails, since a) they were proof positive that Foley was a child rapist and b) delaying any release or publication of the emails put hundreds of children in danger.

    Lesson, Dems: we aren’t your idiot voters.

    If you want to claim that anyone who withheld this information was “covering up” and “endangering children”, then don’t be surprised when we point out that you were, by all appearances, doing both.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 26, 2006 @ 3:55 pm - October 26, 2006

  116. And what was funny about the ad in Tennessee, V the K…..the woman in question is coming on to Ford, not vice versa.

    I simply can’t see why it’s racist to depict a white woman coming on to a black man. If anything, it’s a reversal of the old “blacks will rape white women” saw that Democrats like Robert Byrd were using for years.

    And, as for stem cells, you’re absolutely right; it would have been much more honest for Michael J. to come on and say, “Why should I have to take medication when we can just grow humans for me to harvest for parts?”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 26, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - October 26, 2006

  117. #117: I also understand the nutroots were all up in arms because tympani was used in a Corker ad, and the lefties began shrieking “jungle drums.”

    “Why should I have to take medication when we can just grow humans for me to harvest for parts?”

    Which is exactly what would become legal if the proposition Fox and Claire McCaskill are shilling for beocomes law. But, since the left is quite comfortable with terminating human lives for the sake of convenience, growing children for the purpose of killing them and harvesting their organs is no worse than, say, a Democrat congressman molesting an underage congressional page?

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - October 26, 2006

  118. #116 THANK YOU!! The Republicans AND the DEMOCRATS have some ‘splaining to do. Looks like Dems have fallen off of their “high moral ground” (LOLOLOLOL) too.

    Comment by concerned — October 26, 2006 @ 4:31 pm - October 26, 2006

  119. oops have fallen OFF

    Comment by concerned — October 26, 2006 @ 4:32 pm - October 26, 2006

  120. “Do you think that the Foley incident (assuming the answer to my first question is that it’s not a fabrication of the HRC) should have remained under wraps for these reasons?”

    You’d best ask the “gay activists” who sat on the information and leaked it right before the election.

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 26, 2006 @ 4:41 pm - October 26, 2006

  121. [Comment deleted.  This commenter is banned due to repeated violation of terms at this blog.]

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — October 26, 2006 @ 4:53 pm - October 26, 2006

  122. Oh, right! The HRC is responsible for equating gays with pedophiles.

    Actually, no; that would be the Dems who are trying to make hay of the Foley scandal.

    HRC has merely kept their mouths shut and let Dems proclaim how Foley’s being gay was the reason he was a “child predator”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 26, 2006 @ 4:57 pm - October 26, 2006

  123. Or it is not as if the “family values” crowd — the likes of Dobson, Perkins, and the harpies at Concerned Women for America — have not been demonizing homosexuals as pedophiles.

    I think all the lefties who stuck up for Gerry Studds and said his affair with an underage page was no big deal made Dobson and CWA’s case for them.

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 5:04 pm - October 26, 2006

  124. Does it come as any surprise that someone calling himself ‘Devil’s Advocate’ is shilling for the Democrats?

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - October 26, 2006

  125. It is not the Dems who harbored and protected a pedophile in their midst — for years — and left him in charge (so hypocritical) of the Missing and Endangered Children’s Caucus. It is your very own House leadership that aided and abetted a pervert to keep their political power.

    Interestingly enough, though, regulations on child sex and child endangerment got tighter — so much so, Devil’s Advocate, that the very Democrats for which you advocate started whining about how Republican were overreacting and “imposing religious dogma”. Indeed, if your party were in charge, what Foley did wouldn’t even be considered criminal — and probably would be legal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 26, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - October 26, 2006

  126. Did you know Democrat Senator Charles Schumer voted against censuring Gerry Studds when the latter had an affair with page younger than the page Foley was IMing?

    The Republican base isn’t as stupid as the Demoncrats Advocate thinks. They recognize that Foley was a creep and a pervert, but he’s gone now. And they don’t see why one pervert’s transgressions warrant turning the Congress over to the party of the ACLU and Abortion-on-Demand.

    The problem for the GOP is that among the moderates, who’ve only got the DNC/MSM talking points to go on, there are plenty of people that stupid. Probably enough to flip the vote in close districts.

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 5:40 pm - October 26, 2006

  127. […] Hmm. Needless to say, HRC may have a PR problem on their hands. At the very least they should release the staffer’s name; if these episodes have taught us anything, it’s that such information is going to come out anyway. […]

    Pingback by The Hunt For Blog October at Blog P.I. — October 26, 2006 @ 6:08 pm - October 26, 2006

  128. I’m going to take a stab and disagree with conventional wisdom here… on the problem(s) for GOP carrying key races.

    I don’t think the moderates are even coming to the poll; they routinely show up in Presidential years and in sizable numbers (8-11%) OR when there is a compelling issue motivating them to go to the polls. Hmmm, time for a motivator check-up: Economy great, check. Responsible constructive action by the Administration on Iraq, check. Nuclear threats abroad percolating, check. No Presidential or Cabinet scandal, check. (Most moderate voters can’t name Scooter at this point.)

    Nope, this election is all about voter turnout. The GOP does that far better than the Democrats –which is blessedly saddled with political constituencies that fail to show up on voting day. How about an anti-war wave? Gone –Lieberman and others prove it resoundingly; that dog ain’t hunting except on the MSM waddling heads & pundits.

    Nope, the Senate isn’t going Democrat in 2006; ChuckieSchummer is already talking about how the best the Democrats can hope for is not to lose to the GOP candidates in as great a margin as normal for the Democrats.

    The House will remain GOP-controlled; the Democrats are counting on the GOP losing “safe” seats like Foley’s, like the Michigan 7th, Tom Delay’s and other safe GOP seats –it ain’t happening.

    And in the states, the GOP will likely pick-up 3 governorships from INCUMBENT Democrats and control in at least 4 (maybe 5) state legislative chambers… and not lose control elsewhere.

    But for the Democrats to lose that much of a “sure thing” just weeks ago suggests that the Democrats will go back to the age-old mantra… “We didn’t lose. We were cheated out of securing our mandate. The GOP lied.”

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 26, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - October 26, 2006

  129. Matt-

    I am definitely moving from big time pessimist toward your perspective as each day passes.

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 26, 2006 @ 6:41 pm - October 26, 2006

  130. #113: Speaking of which, wouldn’t Foley and McGreevey make a cute couple?

    I think they’d make a cute couple of corpses.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 26, 2006 @ 7:13 pm - October 26, 2006

  131. You’d best ask the “gay activists” who sat on the information and leaked it right before the election.

    I assure you that I will ask it of them when I get the opportunity, which I probably will. Here, I ask it of those who are criticizing this person for making it public. 🙂

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 26, 2006 @ 7:20 pm - October 26, 2006

  132. #131 – I’m staying pessimistic. That way I won’t be disappointed either way. But I am hoping the GOP pulls it out because when the lefties lost in 2004, they melted down in hysterical fashion… like that hilarious ‘Sorry Losers’ website where all these sad-faced leftie losers whined and sobbed about how sorry they were for Bush winning.

    A 2006 meltdown, after all his build-up, would be so very very sweet.

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 7:38 pm - October 26, 2006

  133. Well, it looks like Webb has found himself in a very interesting position.

    (Go to Drudge for details.)

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 26, 2006 @ 8:58 pm - October 26, 2006

  134. Let’s see…Foley has an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, and he’s gone…resigned and shunned by the Republican Party.

    Gerry Studds has an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate and what did the Democrats do? Nothing. Mel Reynolds has an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate and what did the Democrats do? Nothing. Bill Clinton has an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate and what did the Democrats do? Nothing.

    Hypocrites, the whole disgusting lot of them. And people like “Devil’s Advocate”, people who are nothing but liberal apologetic shills, are the true trash of this country.

    Comment by Todd — October 26, 2006 @ 9:25 pm - October 26, 2006

  135. #135: Ordinarily, that little slice of gay kiddie-pron Webb slipped into one of his novels wouldn’t be a big deal. But since the Democrats have hyped Foleygate to such a ridiculous extreme… it would be hilarious to see something like this come back and bite their obnoxious hypocritical asses.

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 9:31 pm - October 26, 2006

  136. This entire matter has put every gay American into a bad light by equating child predators with being gay.

    Yes, and women who dress sexy are to blame if they get raped.

    It’s no one’s fault except those who equate for themselves child predators and homosexuality.

    Also, that’d be like saying that macho, “straight-acting” gays are responsible for the improvement in how others view gay men….and we know that would just be downright stu—-oh, sorry. Forgot where I was.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — October 26, 2006 @ 9:53 pm - October 26, 2006

  137. So Lane Hudson was behind the outing blog. Anyone know anything about Lane?

    Comment by Robbin — October 26, 2006 @ 11:25 pm - October 26, 2006

  138. Salon Interview: Camille Paglia

    “And in Washington, the age of legal consent is 16.

    Exactly! Therefore if it wasn’t absolutely clear at the start who exactly Foley was flirting with, the Democrats should have been far more cautious about what they said. All that’s been accomplished by this scandal is to call into question one of the central erotic archetypes of gay male tradition — the ephebic beauty of boys at their muscular peak between the ages of 16 and 18. It goes back through Western iconography from Michelangelo’s nudes to Hadrian’s Antinous and beyond that to Greek sculpture. It’s a formula at the heart of Plato’s dialogues, as in the Symposium, which shows Socrates in love with but also declining sex with the handsome young Alcibiades. In ancient Greek culture, an adult man could publicly profess his love for a young man without necessarily having sexual contact with him. “

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/27/paglia/?source=whitelist

    Comment by Brit — October 27, 2006 @ 6:30 am - October 27, 2006

  139. re: Foleygate
    Democratic Senate staffer Lane Hudson is Blogger behind StpSexPredators – Bogus Blog used to orchestrate Foley Scandal
    Blogger behind StpSexPredators—the bogus blog that first posted the Mark Foley e-mails and got the ball rolling on PageGate—is a former Democratic Senate staffer named Lane Hudson.
    http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/foleys-phony-blogger-identified.php
    http://stopoctobersurprises.blogspot.com/

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26foley.html?ei=5090&en=b46d3e28e541ebc9&ex=1319515200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

    The analysis of the stories evolution up to outing Lane Hudson

    http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/8c312c8d-8702-4241-8961-af2439b802b1

    Comment by Brit — October 27, 2006 @ 6:32 am - October 27, 2006

  140. Studds was CENSURED by the Dems…

    Censure is utterly meaningless. It carries no penalty. It ranks somewhere below a cop giving you a warning instead of a ticket on the scale of serious punishment. Also, Senator Chuck Schumer, D-NY, was in the House at the time and voted against even censuring him.

    #140: So, you must also support James Dobson and the others when they say that gay men are all out to seduce teenaged boys.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 8:24 am - October 27, 2006

  141. GOB at # 138 writes: “Yes, and women who dress sexy are to blame if they get raped. It’s no one’s fault except those who equate for themselves child predators and homosexuality.”

    GOB, your comparison is faulty once again. The MSM and story-spinners often consider the intended impact as well as the unintended adverse impact of a story before running with it… in professional political circles we have meetings that are called “CrocBangs” for that very purpose (named after the kiddie-amusement game of banging a toy crocodile on the head with mallet).

    Groups like the HRC and media teams at either the reporting or production level have CrocBangs to do exactly what our proud GayLeftBorg leaders failed to do with the Foley scandal and subsequent outing campaign by MikeRogers and JohnAvarosis and the HRC… and I think if we have the chance to look further, we’ll find DNC operatives were involved too.

    It’s reasonable to presume that if the Foley story was public, it might lead to recriminations about gays in general and raise the age-old problem for our community –our tolerance of youth-oriented sexualization for predatory and lust-satiating purposes. That would be an untoward and adverse effect of the story.

    Sure, it would hurt GOPers. It might hurt the GOP a lot if the story-advocates could whip up anger in the GOP base and turn off social conservative voters (the reason for the outing of minor GOP staffers). And I know that harm to the GOP was more important to our GayLeftBorg leaders than considering where it all might lead.

    But when the groundswell of clucking tongues against the GOP from within its base didn’t happen and the untoward adverse effect raised its ugly head and took over, well… it’s just another example of the radical GayLeft leadership failing us… again.

    CrocBanging, GOB. CrocBanging.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 27, 2006 @ 9:14 am - October 27, 2006

  142. GOB, it’s just another example –but more lmited I hope– of the adverse impact of ActUp in the 1980’s, PrideParades since the 1980’s, our community’s tolerance of sociopathological practices and the radicalization of the gay rights movement that has driven our efforts at equality into a deep, dark resentful hole of voter antipathy to gay marriage.

    Failed leadership by the GayLeftBorg, GOB. CrocBanging ought to be a mandatory practice before these idiots are ever allowed to again say “I speak on behalf of gay Americans….”

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 27, 2006 @ 9:22 am - October 27, 2006

  143. Wow, V. I feel so put in my place. NOT.

    Well, Johnathan, we all know from previous threads that by your own admission, you don’t care about right or wrong, or truth or honesty. So, whenever you do comment here, everyone knows you’re just spewing the latest spin and talking points from the DNC and the nutroots.

    Way to start off with the ad hominem attack, V. Oh yeah, I know. It’s okay because it’s true: I dont’ have any respect for the truth and I’m just spewing talking points — even though you don’t actually refute any of points I made except with opinion. If I disrespect the truth, is it okay for me to call you an idiot?

    an HRC employee, working independently

    Spin from the HRC. No reason to believe it.

    Where’s your evidence? I suppose you’re just as willing to convict the Republican leadership for protecting Foley because there’s no reason to believe the spin here. You’d also convict the Bush administration because there’s no reason to believe there were WMD in Iraq. No reason to believe it for one reason — it doesnt’ suit your politics.

    Michael Fox faking his Parkinson’s disease

    No one ever accused him of faking his disease. But, by his own admission, Fox adjusts his medication to maximize the appearance of his symptoms for political impact. Note: MJ Fox on Boston legal, no apparent signs of Parkinson’s. MJ Fox on the completely dishonest DNC pro-cloning ad: severe symptoms readily apparent. By creating a faux-controversy on something Limbaugh never said, the MSM is trying to distract people from the MJ Fox tells in the ad.

    Uh, have you actually bothered to read about meds and Parkinson’a? If you take the meds, it calms the tremors but often makes speech difficult, especially as the disease advances, as it has in Fox’s case. And by the way Fox made a commercial for Republican Arlen Specter for the indentical reason he did these most recent ones.

    Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. There’s just no federal funding for it. Which makes some of us suspect that the research is snake oil. If there was real merit to it, there would be venture capital funding.

    Oh but there is — in other countries, by American companies. Obviously you know nothing about this at all. I cannot believe you are saying that because the government doesn’t sponsor something, it must be snake oil. Very logical. George Bush has been very clear why he doesn’t support the research and it has nothing to do with its being “snake oil.” Does the term “human-animal hybrids” ring a bell?

    Af-Am candidate violates precious white women

    The DNC playing the race card… once again. Yawn! I guess they got tired of throwing Oreo cookies at Michael Steele.

    Yawn indeed. The race card was played by the candidate. But I guess you think a white woman winking and whispering for the black candidate to give her a call, after attacking his sex life, is just an indicator of the Republicans’ comfort with miscegenation. Well, tell it to Ken Mehlman.

    And so on through the rest of his spin and BS…

    Not a single point refuted with fact.

    Gah, I guess you just don’t care about the truth, V.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 27, 2006 @ 9:22 am - October 27, 2006

  144. [Comment deleted.  This commenter is banned due to repeated violation of terms at this blog.]

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — October 27, 2006 @ 9:34 am - October 27, 2006

  145. 146: Once again, your ‘refutation’ of my assertions is nothing but a long-winded string of words that amounts to nothing more than “is not, is not.” So, take it to the playground, kiddo. Just repeating the lies and spin you’ve already spewed doesn’t make them any more valid.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 10:18 am - October 27, 2006

  146. Hey, Johnathan and Demoncrat Advocate, why don’t you give James Webb a call and help him out writing pedophilia scenes for his next novel.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 10:23 am - October 27, 2006

  147. Michael Steele responds to the dishonest Michael J. Fox Attack Ad.

    STEELE: I’m Michael Steele, and I approve this message.

    TURNER: I’m Dr. Monica Turner.

    Congressman Ben Cardin is attacking Michael Steele with deceptive, tasteless ads.

    He is using the victim of a terrible disease to frighten people all for his own political gain.

    Mr. Cardin should be ashamed.

    There’s something you should know about Michael Steele.

    He does support stem cell research, and he cares deeply for those who suffer from disease.

    How do I know? I’m Michael Steele’s little sister.

    I have MS, and I know he cares about me.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 12:04 pm - October 27, 2006

  148. VdaK, thanks for the rebuttal to the latest sleaze coming from the Democrats… now that the church-going HaroldFord Playboy ads are finished, maybe the Democrats will pull the innaccurate, misleading StemCell ads running in key states? No?

    Right, I didn’t think so.

    BTW, DebbieDonutsStupidCow has taken another campaign pledge… this one targeted to the Soccer moms she’s losing face with… StupidCow is promising if we vote for her she will drop 150 lbs AFTER the election by becoming a vegan and a proper role model for young people. Debbie now tips the scale at a Shamu-like 317 lbs! Yeow –talk about getting fat off the Federal trough.

    And before the weight challenged PC police here slam me, like the House Speaker, Debbie needs to trim it down by 1-1.5 persons because at their current 3 airline seat size, she and he is endangering natl security every time they fly.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 27, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - October 27, 2006

  149. Gee, when I read the headline, I thought HRC was Hilary Rodham Clinton, and not the Human Rights Campaign. Kind of a misleading headline, and a lot less of a story.

    Comment by me — October 27, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - October 27, 2006

  150. […] Over at the double-wide trailer park, er, blog run by Bruce Carroll, a/k/a the Gay Patriot, Bruce has weighed in on PedoPhilegate. With his usual clueless verve, Bruce has, in one preposterous post, shown that no one in the blogosphere, gay or straight, can outdo Bruce for simple, breath-taking, jaw-dropping, slap-your-forehead, “did he really say that” idiocy. […]

    Pingback by Outside The Tent — October 27, 2006 @ 2:36 pm - October 27, 2006

  151. McCain praised Webb’s book. Of course, the book is about Vietnam, a topic he and Webb know very well since they both put their lives on the line there, instead of playing cowboy in a dude ranch like draft-dodging George Felix “The Noose” Macaca.

    George Allen was born in 1952, which means he wouldn’t have been eligible to be drafted until 1970 in the first place.

    Furthermore, what Allen did was to take a student deferment — just like a certain individual named “Bill Clinton”.

    Speaking of Clinton, it should be no surprise to anyone that Webb’s views on women are similar.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 27, 2006 @ 2:41 pm - October 27, 2006

  152. Obesity and ugliness are due to bad genes. That reinforces my theory that GOPers are noxious lower forms of life.

    A picture is worth a thousand words:
    http://uglydemocrats.com/pictures/Republican-vs-Democrat-women.jpg

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - October 27, 2006

  153. Not that it’s important, but I think our newest commenter, “Devil’s Advocate” is actually the mean-spirited, bad-mouthed, caustic jerk from Outside-the-Tent –who makes MikeRogers and JohnAvarosis seem civil by comparison– known as Clif.

    Clif’s quite a… well… I’m not sure of the best word to describe his work on his blog. I’ve not read as much bile in so few words since reading the “DailyKos take” on the HRC’s role in the outing/Foley scandals.

    It’s amazing what passes for informed opinion over on the GayLeftBorg. Utterly amazing. No wonder they’ll lose in November.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 27, 2006 @ 3:22 pm - October 27, 2006

  154. It’s amazing what passes for informed opinion over on the GayLeftBorg.

    No less amazing the juvenile name-calling that passes for debate in the GayLeftBorgCube.

    That’s why I could never be a lefty, I think too much and hate too little.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 3:28 pm - October 27, 2006

  155. Oh yes, Studds was censured. He turned his back on the whole proceeding, by the way, and went on to serve 6 more terms. Yeah, the Dems REALLY held him accountable, didn’t they?

    I’ll say it again. Devil’s Advocate is the prime example of a liberal apologetic shill. They are the worst pieces of trash in this country. Quit drinking the KOS kool-aid already and grow a pair. Your revisionist attitudes don’t fly with people who know how to think for themselves.

    Perhaps YOU think what Studds and Reynolds did is okay. But normal people do not.

    So, why don’t you go molest a child you pervert. Seems to be a “liberal” thing to do.

    Comment by Todd — October 27, 2006 @ 4:50 pm - October 27, 2006

  156. Michigan-Matt: I’m not Devil’s Advocate. What I write about GP on my own blog pings back here, so there’s no need for me to comment here under another name. Sorry to disappoint.

    Comment by Clif — October 27, 2006 @ 5:50 pm - October 27, 2006

  157. So, why don’t you go molest a child you pervert. Seems to be a “liberal” thing to do.

    But only if you’re a Democrat. I think that’s the lesson of the contrast between Studds/Reynolds and Foley/Crane. It’s not that the Democrats don’t want pages to be molested, they just want them to only be molested by Democrats.

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 6:46 pm - October 27, 2006

  158. [Comment deleted.  This commenter is banned due to repeated violation of terms at this blog.]

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — October 28, 2006 @ 7:40 am - October 28, 2006

  159. [Comment deleted.  This commenter is banned due to repeated violation of terms at this blog.]

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — October 28, 2006 @ 8:42 am - October 28, 2006

  160. Ha! Ha! I am banned because I am throwing verifiable facts in your face, you Nazi-loving piece of crap!

    You GOPers are all the same. You are a bunch of snivelling little cowards who can dish out lies and smears but you cannot stand it when your lies and smears are being called upon with verifiable FACTS.

    You can dish it out but you cannot take it. How typical of the diaper-shitting right-wing.

    Not to worry, I’ll make sure that I report your cowardice, duplicity, moral depravity, and dishonesty on other blogs, and not just progressive ones. Some of your right-wing colleagues have at least some intellectual honesty. I’ll let them know what a vicious little coackroach you are.

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — October 28, 2006 @ 11:50 am - October 28, 2006

  161. Oh yeah, I’m sure everyone is just shaking in their boots because you’re going to “report” this site.

    You’re nothing but a perverted piece of trash. So why don’t you go find a “progressive” blog where they welcome child-molesting perverts. You’ll fit in just nicely.

    Don’t let the door hit you in your fat-ass on the way out, Dimmocrat Advocate.

    Comment by Todd — October 28, 2006 @ 1:10 pm - October 28, 2006

  162. Oh. no! We’re going to get reported!

    Comment by V the K — October 28, 2006 @ 2:13 pm - October 28, 2006

  163. I hope the principal doesn’t make us stay after school.

    Comment by V the K — October 28, 2006 @ 2:14 pm - October 28, 2006

  164. Gay Patriot does not want anyone to know that the revolting episode described in Webb’s book, namely of a father taking his young son’s penis in his mouth is actually a true story. It is a custom in the Thai countryside, and it is used to demonstrate affection. Many travelers to those parts of the world hyave documented the same. Google it.

    The little perverted Gay Patriot eliminated posts describing how Libby’s filthy fantasies were expressed in his book “The Apprentice”, namely this: he describes at great lengths how a 10-year old girl was locked up in a cage with a bear trained to copulate with humans; the girl was repeatedly raped by the bear, all of that to make sure that she would not take any pleasure out of sexual encounters when she was sent to the brothel. This revolting smut is available on Amazon.

    Lynne Cheney penned a sleazy piece of trash entitled “Sisters” in which she goes at great lengths to describe lesbian sex, brothels, and attempted rapes. That trash is out of print, but the Library of Congress has a copy since anything published in the U.S. is part of the collection of the Library of Congress. Go to any library (you know, these places where they have BOOKS), check out the ISBN number (the Library of Congress index number), get your ass off to Washington and take a lookj at that crap.

    Now, I am sure that the sleazy Gay Patriot will once again ban this post since it contains verifiable information. God forbids that his readership should be tempted to actually think and verify for a change.

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — October 28, 2006 @ 3:40 pm - October 28, 2006

  165. Hey V the K,

    Your little friend Gay Patriot banned the posts that were the most damning for his and your slanted opinions.

    Why are reichwingers afraid of verifiable facts? Are they too afraid that their gullible flock would, for once, exercize some independent behavior, and check out the sources?

    I guess I am going to be banned again. I am revealing the dirty little secrets of the cult leaders.

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — October 28, 2006 @ 3:45 pm - October 28, 2006

  166. By the way, the right-wing blogs to which I sent your pathetic little attempt to snuff out the verifiable facts, have responded positively to me. They do not agree with me on anything, but for one thing: that opposing views are welcome. They’ll try to debunk them, but that is fair game.

    This blog, on the other hand, is run by people who are scared to death that their gullible followers would actually be tempted to verify facts for a change.

    As I said before, you chickenhawk right-wingers, are diaper-shitters.

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — October 28, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - October 28, 2006

  167. By the way, Gay Patriot, how courageous and fair-game of you to eliminate posts that could cause your readers to actually do a little research, but leave only the one that describes how I am reporting your weasely behavior to right-wing blogs that have some kind of intellectual integrity.

    You hated it, did you not, when I compared your cowardly behavior to the Jewish guards in Nazi concentration camps who beat, tortured, and killed their own? That is what homosexuals who drink the GOP Kool Aid do: betray their own and participate in the bashing and demonization of their own.

    No wonder you are banning my posts. You are a self-loathing, cowardly, piece of trash.

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — October 28, 2006 @ 4:00 pm - October 28, 2006

  168. Todd,

    Why don’t you go molest little cihldren , you asswipe? After all, that is what GOPers do. Foley, Kolbe, the asshole from DHS who was trying to entice little girls over the Internet, the other DHS asshole who was caught masturbating in front of a minor …

    What is it with you GOPers that you cannot have healthy relationships, and that you have to go after young boys and girls? Or, like Gibbons, why is it that you have to try to rape women?

    Your wives don’t satisfy you? Maybe that is because you are perverts who cannot get it up unless some sleaze is involved? The bible-thumping perverts cannot get it up if some kinky sex is not available?

    How about the homosexual GOPers? Do you need little boys to satisfy your fantasies?

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — October 28, 2006 @ 4:51 pm - October 28, 2006

  169. Hey Dimmocrats Advocate, can you name exactly who it was that Foley molested? Didn’t think so you dumbshit. We’ll leave the ACTUAL molesting to Studds and Reynolds, you know, the people you most identify with. And let’s throw in Barney Frank as well. Hell, what’s so bad about letting your gay lover run a prostitution ring out of your apartment and then fixing tickets for him. Oh yeah, what did the Dems do about them again? Oh, that’s right. Not a damn thing.

    So, why don’t you crawl back to your cave and emulate your idols…find some innocent child and have your way with them. Hell, maybe the Dems will make you Speaker of the House. After all, you and your little NAMBLA friends are more than welcome in the oh-so-tolerant Democratic party.

    And I’m SURE that you were just welcomed with open arms at all of these right-wing blogs you supposedly cried to. Sheesh, I know liberals can’t help lying out of their asses, but at least make a decent attempt to sound the least bit credible.

    You’d better go run to KOS and get the latest talking points. Obviously, you’re out of your league here.

    Comment by Todd — October 28, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - October 28, 2006

  170. I also love it that when liberals know they’re getting their asses handed to them they resort to the old standby: Hitler and the Nazis. Pathetic.

    You are so tired Dimmwit Advocate. At least come up with something original dipshit.

    Comment by Todd — October 28, 2006 @ 9:01 pm - October 28, 2006

  171. Todd,

    Since the radical right-wingers who have hijacked the Republican party have been behaving like Nazis, they should be called Nazis. If the shoe fits, wear it.

    If radical right-wingers get their kicks from molesting underage kids and attempting to rape women, they are pedophiles and perverts. If you don’t want the label, don’t do the crime. Otherwise, in the eternal words of Cheney-the-waterboarder, “Go fuck yourself”.

    I cannot wait for the real conservatives to reemerge. You know, the ones who favor fiscal restraint, less governmental intrusion in people’s lives, respect the laws of the land, and have REAL moral values, the ones who are not corrupt, the ones who do not harbor sexual perversions…

    At this point, I hope that the U.S. military stages a coup and takes over. That is the only way to clean up the filth, the corruption, the moral degeneracy, the incompetence, and the profligacy of the trash that is currently running this great country into the ground. With the complicity of garbage like you and the rest of the ilk on this repugnant blog. You should all be put against the wall and shot like the traitors to the Republic that you are.

    Comment by Devil's Advocate — October 29, 2006 @ 9:39 am - October 29, 2006

  172. 146: Once again, your ‘refutation’ of my assertions is nothing but a long-winded string of words that amounts to nothing more than “is not, is not.” So, take it to the playground, kiddo. Just repeating the lies and spin you’ve already spewed doesn’t make them any more valid.

    I note you addressed this comment to yourself V. A textbook case of the Freudian slip.

    In fact, it is you who refuses to deal in fact. Otherwise you would have refuted them. But then you are a person who believes that if the federal government doesn’t approve of something, it must be “snake oil.” In other words, you eschew the “reality based community.”

    Comment by JonathanG — October 29, 2006 @ 1:02 pm - October 29, 2006

  173. In fact, it is you who refuses to deal in fact. Otherwise you would have refuted them.

    Which is why you and yours dodged and spun when I did.

    And as for your threat to “report us”, JonathanG, I personally think it would be a great thing for “Devil’s Advocate” to be held up as a fine example of what Democrats consider meaningful dialogue and truthfulness.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 29, 2006 @ 4:06 pm - October 29, 2006

  174. “molesting underage kids and attempting to rape women, they are pedophiles and perverts.”

    I’m glad you brought up Studds, Reynolds and Clinton, Dimmocrat Advocate. About time someone on the left admitted what they truly are. Now, the fact that you support them so strongly, what does that say about you?

    YAWN. You continue with that tired old Nazi tune again. Fine. It just shows how completely ignorant you truly are. If you want to come off as a hate-filled, uneducated lunatic, be my guest. Maybe Ward Churchill has a spot on the short bus for you.

    “With the complicity of garbage like you and the rest of the ilk on this repugnant blog. You should all be put against the wall and shot like the traitors to the Republic that you are. ”

    And your parents should be shot for burdening the world with your sorry-ass carcass. See. I can spit out assinine, hate-filled rhetoric too.

    Comment by Todd — October 29, 2006 @ 11:12 pm - October 29, 2006

  175. Todd, a little free advice… debating guys like Devils Advocate is a waste of time. They get caught in their own outrageous lies and misstatements, hide for a while, then come back as yet another name to heckle and harass. Best to leave the trash in the curb, you know?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 1, 2006 @ 11:55 am - November 1, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.