October 5, 2006

"I've been warning my people to stay away from this story because you just don't know what will come back to bite you."

Some Democrats are rightly worried about getting too enthusiastic about using the disgrace of Mark Foley to make political progress.

70 comments:

DCWilly said...

It's very good advice: when your enemy is self-destructing, as the Republicans are at every turn, just get the hell out of the way.

Sloanasaurus said...

This story is bound to take many turns. A paper in Oklahoma reports that Foley's "victim" has now retained a lawyer. (They also name the "victim") However, is this person truly a victim, expecially considering he was 18 at the time of some of the IM conversations.

Further, it turns out that the former Page was working on a Republican campaign and portrayed himself as very heterosexual according to his Myspace.com site. Knowing these facts, why would the former page ever release a series of IM conversations about gay sex with Congressman Foley to the media? How embarrasing. If he didn't realease them to the media, who did and how did they acquire the conversations from the former page's computer?

What happens if the former page denies having the conversation with Foley. Was he set up....? After all, according to his AOL account screen name, it hasn't been used since June of 2003.

Maybe someone should look at the make-up of the pages in the 2001-2002 class. How many of the pages were good looking boys under the age of 18 as of Feb, 2003. If he is the only one, then perhaps it was a set up.

Shanna said...

Good advice. Everybody, Republicans and Democats, should hang back for a week or two and wait for all the facts to come out before they say something stupid. Although I'm afraid it's way too late for that.

Zeb Quinn said...

It cannot be rationally gainsaid that the nature, day, and hour of Foley's political demise was a meticulously planned event. He was shadowed if not stalked for months if not longer, and then when the time was precisely right he was ostentatiously taken out. Part of the plan was to keep everybody's attention initially focused solely on the salaciousness and the apparant irrebuttable wrongfulness of his acts. A next step in the plan was to try to expand the scandal so as to bring in the "party leaders," suggesting some kind knowledge or other connection, so as to do political harm them too. It worked. Few in the media are examining or investigating the obvious political backstory here, and are instead still focusing on those first two elements as planned. Just ask yourself, if this had happened to a Democrat incumbent a few weeks before the election, does anybody believe that the media would be ignoring the backstory of exactly who it was who took him out?

In the week or so before this all broke James Carville and Paul Begala were making the talk show rounds and the were at their absolute jejune best, cracking little inside jokes, giggling and, yes, smirking. They were absolutely giddy. Is there anybody out there still left wondering why the were behaving that way?

Mark Daniels said...

It seems to me wrong to frame the Foley thing as being about homosexuality in any case. It's about the use of power to get sex. Heterosexuals as well as homosexuals are guilty of that. (As well as of using sex to get power, a whole other subject.)

This shouldn't be an occasion for gay-bashing or for outing people. It should be a time for addressing the problem of powerful people manipulating and exploiting those over whom they wield power, especially when their victims are high school kids.

I touched on this the other day on my blog: http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2006/10/exfoleyating-house.html.

Mark

RogerA said...

Although not much inclined to conspiracy theories, this whole thing does look a bit suspicious; that said, the Republicans have done such a lousy job as the majority they really should be thrown out, IMHO--perhaps the Democrats might have learned something in their sojourn in the political wilderness.

I am genuinely disgusted, however, with the priorities the political class and media demonstsrate with their focus on this whole tawdry episode. There is a genocide going on in Darfur that no one seems to be able to stop; the North Koreans are threatening to test nuclear weapons; the Palestinian "state" seems to be self destructing--a situation no matter, perhaps, how well deserved, still has ominous regional consequences--and the Foley thing is taking center stage; our political system is genuinely disgusting.

Shanna said...

It cannot be rationally gainsaid that the nature, day, and hour of Foley's political demise was a meticulously planned event.
Although it does not negate the scandal, to me the timing is suspect on anything that comes out in October. And if you have a bunch of people yelling about the poor "children"...and then you find out they knew about it and let these "children" get harassed for months while you sat on the story waiting for the perfect timing...well, you aren't going to come out smelling like a rose.

Especially when one of your main talking points is that the Republican's sat on the knowledge this was happening and let other's suffer. But we probably still don't know all the facts. Foley's out, I'd be happy if Hastert is out, albeit for different reasons. For the rest I'm content to wait.

Ricardo said...

"It seems to me wrong to frame the Foley thing as being about homosexuality in any case. It's about the use of power to get sex."

Maybe on one level. But in the more macro sense, it's yet another example of the total lack of "governing" in Washington, and how BOTH political parties spend most of their time justifying (before) and damage controlling (after) conduct that would land the average citizen in jail. The guests on Bill Moyers' special on Capitol Crimes last night were correct in saying that until the American people DEMAND good government (and not just talk about it ad nauseam), we're going to be stuck with the sleeze we currently have.

Badger said...

So who are the Democrats that are worried? This link does not name any.

Sloanasaurus said...

BOTH political parties spend most of their time justifying (before) and damage controlling (after) conduct that would land the average citizen in jail

This is such BS. So what conduct do you know about Congress that would put the average citizen in jail... is it Denny Hastert not knowing about Foley IMing a page who was 18? Do you think a manager at Conoco should go to jail if one of their 21 year old employees was IMing a former 17 year old employee at home?

Lets get real. You and many others make these ridiculous assertions to paint everyone in Congress as corrupt, when the assertions are completely baseless. At this point you are just harping BS for your own self rightuous ears.

There are a lot of good people in Congress on both sides that work hard. Unfortunately, they are constantly attacked by the media and operatives who have different agendas all together.

Telecomedian said...

re: what Sloan said...

While I in no way whatsoever think Foley is the victim here, I do believe that due to the frank nature of the IMs, the e-mails, and the wide-spread, not-so-secret knowledge that Foley liked young boys, I do believe that these teenagers used that info against him.

I was a teenager not-that-long ago, and I wouldn't discuss ANY of those subjects with my best friends, let alone an aging poof Congressman. Those kids knew Foley enjoyed lurid chat details, and would be using the logs for personal gain, either in college admissions, law schools, jobs on the Hill, or for the current expose'

However, it's important to note that Foley has been dodging rumors about his sexuality for years. He's always denied being gay, even though many folks knew he was. Male pages have been warned for years about him - this is not a one-time thing.

gj said...

Ann, you're really putting a lot of chips on this line about Democratic scandals coming out in the next couple of weeks. Be careful. If it happens, Zeb is likely to put you in the same category as Carville and Begalla who "obviously" knew that this was coming.

But really, I'm with DCWilly: one of the things that is most notable about this scandal is the degree to which it consists of GOP fratricide. Each of the GOPers is trying to save his own skin by tossing his buddies under the train. (I use the pronoun "his" advisedly. I haven't seen any women members or aides involved. Notable?) This more than anything shows the degree to which the Republican party is off course --- they don't have an agenda to hold them together, and so a scandal like this has fractured them.

In this situation, silence would be the better part of wisdom, even without any Dem skeletons in the closet.

Ricardo said...

Sloan:

While you're probably a very good legal combatant, you have absolutely no concept of morality. Your first instinct is always to destroy the opposition, even before you engage your brain.

MadisonMan said...

Do you think a manager at Conoco should go to jail if one of their 21 year old employees was IMing a former 17 year old employee at home?

Does the manager know about it? Is the IMing from work? If yes to both, it seems clear to me that if he or she doesn't do anything about it, the manager is setting up Conoco for a sexual harassment lawsuit -- depending on the content of the IMs. I would expect more of my managers than willful neglect.

It's unclear to me why you mention jail however. No one that I know of has broken any law, except perhaps Foley, who was foolish enough to pass laws making his very own behavior illegal.

Joe said...

Drudge is reporting that the former page who was IM'ed was 18 at the time. Has anyone independently verified this?

exhelodrvr said...

I have a hard time believing that House Democrats weren't aware of this too, if (supposedly) itell-known to the House Republicans.

Sloanasaurus said...

While you're probably a very good legal combatant, you have absolutely no concept of morality. Your first instinct is always to destroy the opposition, even before you engage your brain.

Thats false. You are in fact trying to prevent a search for the truth by saying the situation is too immoral to look into. I am merely trying to look through the moral cloud to find the truth. People are quick to get a gut feeling about things, but gut feelings are sometimes misleading. Foley may be a bad actor, but that doesn't mean his counterparty is therefore innocent. We should find out. What if Democrats set up Foley? Is that okay because Foley was bad anyway and needed to be caught. But, what if what Foley fell for is not illegal, but merely immoral. Does that make the set-up any different?

Fenrisulven said...

Madisonman: Does the manager know about it? Is the IMing from work?

Careful, I think the IMs were after the page had left the intern program. Not that it makes a difference to me, I still think its sexual harassment, but I'm sure the Left would use that as a disqualifer if the tables were turned ;)

Joe: Drudge is reporting that the former page who was IM'ed was 18 at the time. Has anyone independently verified this?

My understanding is that IMs started when the page was 17, and that Drudge is looking at ones that came after the page turned 18. Not sure, since the facts really aren't out on this. The media has kinda run away with the story.

Sloanasaurus said...

the manager is setting up Conoco for a sexual harassment lawsuit -- depending on the content of the IMs.

How can that be. The former employee no longer works at Conoco and the IMing is not per se illegal unless the older employee is using the IM to solicit the teen.

Fenrisulven said...

One thing that hasn't been touched on - I think these outings by radical lefty homosexuals is really going to hurt homosexual issues. People are going to be turned off and less inclined to be sympathetic.

MadisonMan said...

Oops -- I thought that former referred to a former 17-yo, not a former employee! As in an 18-yo employee.

I thought you were making a sage jab at the age of the page!

Joe Baby said...

Fenrisulven has a point.

Go to Davidcorn.com and read the entries upward from the one entitled:

"The List" (of Gay GOP Aides on the Hill);

For starters, you'll notice that Corn does not condemn the idea of a list outing politicians/aides so long as Republicans are hurt.

And if you follow the link to the Blogactive site (in his most recent post), you'll see a coordinated campaign to out gay politicians and aides, with comments on how to do so with maximum political advantage.

Corn can't really bring himself to condemn any of this, but rather, seems "concerned" over a backlash w/in the GOP against gays.

Sick, sick, sick.

MadisonMan said...

I think these outings by radical lefty homosexuals is really going to hurt homosexual issues.

Total agreement. First the Republicans have a circular firing squad, then the gays. Can Democrats be far behind?

I will note, however, that the outings haven't happened.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone here give the hobgoblin scadenfreude a rest long enough to spare a moment's thought for the four Amish girls murdered by a self-confessed paedophile, who were buried a few hours ago?

Just a thought - but I guess there's no poll points to be wrung out of that horror, so let's just move on.

Doyle said...

Craig -

Ugh.

Yes the murder of those girls was a tragedy.

However, it's not as politically salient as the Foley case and coverup, or the thousands of people being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and shouldn't get the same level of coverage.

MadisonMan said...

Yes, there are many things that should be considered besides Hastert's Leadership. For example, deaths in Iraq of American Soldiers are up to 2736. Four soldiers were killed yesterday. Did or did not George Tenet explicitly warn Condi Rice about AQ -- if he did, can she still be electable?

It's unfortunate the Hastert's myopic leadership, and the resultant brouhaha that wells forth from it, is distracting people from things that really do matter in the long run.

Fenrisulven said...

Corn can't really bring himself to condemn any of this, but rather, seems "concerned" over a backlash w/in the GOP against gays.

And he uses his concern to give TheList a wider audience. Sick.

charlotte said...

Sloan, Zeb, Shanna, Exhelo and Fen have it right.

As for me, I'm just waiting for Foley to join Val and Joe in their fantastical forced outing suit against the GOP. It doesn't have to make sense because it never does.

Goesh said...

- we tend to see our victims as smaller, more diminished, clinging to parental hands - the smaller the more angst is generated. I note a general lack of sympathy for the victims - no calls to rush them to therapy, no hand wringing over their suffering and pain. That is noteworthy and perhaps reflects a deeper, somewhat sinister attitude of, 'well, that's just what homos do' and puts Foely in the category of a perv lusting after stout boys and much less a reflection on the GOP, since I have no doubt some Dems had knowledge of his corrupt and immoral conduct yet did not act.

Doyle said...

Not sure, since the facts really aren't out on this.

Yeah maybe there wasn't a sexual predator whose "sick" emails were looked into last year and required intervention but not investigation because the paren- Bwahahaha!!

I'm sorry I thought I could get through that but I couldn't.

Doyle said...

I note a general lack of sympathy for the victims

Certainly not from Instaputz, who helped to out one of them.

Doyle said...

Last post I promise:

Ann why don't you attribute this garbage?

This is from "The Prowler" at the American Spectator, who suffers from the credibility-crushing addiction to the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective.

It's incredibly thinly sourced that there's any real worry on the part of Democrats that they are "overplaying their hand."

For bonus evidence of right-wing dementia, see the last paragraph about Democratic operatives having a long history of leaking damaging news at the most opportune time.

Problem is, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that any Democrat had a hand in this story coming to light.

But there's an electoral disaster to be avoided, so people like the Prowler and Ann are just going to raise all the hell they can.

Those Democrat bastards!

SteveR said...

Corn, oops I mean McCarthy, never published his list, but he sure didn't mind telling you he had one.

Badger said...

Certainly not from Instaputz, who helped to out one of them.

Which, unfortunately you can still access directly with 3 clicks from the front page of this blog

Ann Althouse said...

Doyle: I haven't been letting the Republicans off the hook on this. I dislike social conservatives, and it pains me to see the Democrats themselves blindly crossing over into social conservative territory, because they see a temporary advantage.

Doyle said...

Ann -

You don't need to go within 100 yards of Social Conservative territory to be outraged that Republican leadership knew that Foley made advances on pages and didn't do anything about it.

The notion that in order to condemn Foley and those who kept his predilections secret, you have to "gay bash" is incredibly offensive.

I don't pretend that Democrats are inherently less prone to this sort of thing, but in this particular case, it was a Republican who was harassing the pages and the Republican leadership who knew about it.

They deserve to be pilloried for it, and frankly the Dems haven't said all that much, because their midterm strategy is apparently rank cowardice.

Sloanasaurus said...

Drudge is now reporting that the whole IM exchange was a prank which fell into the hands of "enemy political operatives." Which means 1) either the political operatives knew the IMs were a prank, or 2) They were holding on to the IM exchange for a lot longer than previously thought.

Doyle said...

Why wouldn't Foley have just said as much, rather than blaming it (or, not blaming it) on the booze and the childhood molestation?

Seems a little farfetched.

Also, my liberal media tells me Freeh is no longer the guy, per Pelosi.

Sloanasaurus said...

Foley was guilty. He was goaded into making the comments by the Pages. The Pages then kept the IM exchange and giggled about it. Foley is as guilty (in a moral sense) as any one buying drugs from a cop.

Somehow the IM exchange fell into the hands of Democrats. But if Democrats had the IM's and knew Foley was a predator, then why did they hold on to the exchange for three years. In the end it was the democrats that really knew how dangerous Foley was and not Hastert.

The great thing about all this, is that it would have never been discovered but for bloggers, who were able to take an advantage of ABC's mistakes. This is all a la Memogate. Now its Democratic Operative-gate... out to frame and set up a homosexual member of Congress for political purposes.

Doyle said...

I think Drudge is a little overfond of the entrapment angle. Calling them "little beasts" and such? Weird.

As I've said, if there's evidence that Dems knew and kept quiet, it's bad for them and whoever they work for.

But I wouldn't hold your breath for "Democratic Operative-gate" graphics anywhere but Fox.

Of course, Fox seems to think Foley was a D-FL, so who knows?

Revenant said...

You don't need to go within 100 yards of Social Conservative territory to be outraged that Republican leadership knew that Foley made advances on pages and didn't do anything about it.

Of course you do. You just don't have to go near social conservative territory to *feign* outrage over it.

Come on, Doyle. Nobody here seriously believes you're outraged at the behavior of the Republican leadership. You're just sticking to the script, that's all.

Sloanasaurus said...

If democratic operatives have known about the IMs, what elected democrats have known. That is now the question....

Doyle said...

Rev -

Homosexuality: OK
Foley's activities: Not OK

Get it?

MadisonMan said...

Sloan, I think a better question is: what proof is there that Democratic Operatives or Lawmakers knew anything at all. Other than Whisper-down-the-alley type stuff. Hastert offers no proof for any of the Democrats Knew allegations. Is he just waiting 'til we're closer to Election Day?

I was comforted to know, however, that he takes responsibility for what happened.

dklittl said...

This speculation is just crazy. Not a single Democrat has been implicated, yet people are spending all day wondering what if's and what might have happened's. I swear that your more incensed about the possibilities than you are by the actual facts. Fact is that a number of Republican Congressman were aware of the allegations and did nothing. That is a fact. We can debate on how much should have been done, but at this point spending time making up conspiracys with ZERO proof just demonstrates how unhinged many of you have become.

mjc said...

"Coming back to bite you . . . "

Like your self-righteous, partisan attack of Jessica Valenti, Ann? Beating up on Jessica to get at Clinton?

Now that somebody on your side of the aisle has proven himself guilty of far worse, you're strangely bereft of moral opprobrium. LOL, hypocrite!

Sloanasaurus said...

Sloan, I think a better question is: what proof is there that Democratic Operatives or Lawmakers knew anything at all.

I think we are going to find out soon. I speculate that the Page and his Page buddies goaded Foley into these IM conversations by expressing interest in Foley or something similar. We haven't hear Foley's side of the story yet, but we will. Then these Pages passed around the IM conversations to each other laughing their asses off (I would too as a 18 year old). However, somehow the conversations fell out of their circle and into Democratic hands. Either one of the Pages sent it to democrats, or it was found somewhere. Either way ABC News has been burned. I suspect that ABC news never bothered to check out the Page to see if the Page side of the story checked out, they only confronted Foley with the IMs and as soon as Foley admitted they were true, they ran with the story assuming that Foley's admission verified the Pages side. This is a colossal mistake by ABC News. Unless the source to ABC was anonymous, I imagine that ABC will have no problem revealing their source now that the IMs have been revealed to be a partial hoax.

Doyle said...

I suspect that ABC news never bothered to check out the Page

No, they left that to Foley.

BLAM!

Badger said...

"Foley resigns in disgrace over hoax IMs, claims clergy abuse, and alcoholism"

This sounds like an Onion Headline

MadisonMan said...

Your theory is plausible to a point -- but I'm not sure it explains the total volume of IMs and emails that Foley is known to have sent to different pages. And I'll repeat that your theory is totally unproven. Nor does it alter the basic fact: Foley was paying unwanted attention to underage Pages. The Leadership knew about it and did squat.

Do you think Foley will be out of rehab in time for election day?

Old Dad said...

The Drudge angle might make sense, but we'll know soon enough.

Let me perfunctorily stipulate that Foley is a perv, and I'm glad that he resigned. It remains to be seen if he is a criminal.

He probably set off the gaydar in the page boy ranks a long time ago. My guess is that he had the reputation of creepy but harmless. It might be significant that he seemed very interested in birthdays.

A wise guy ex page approaching his 18th birthday figures he'll punk the poor old perv. Or maybe he got some help or some dough. Who knows? Or maybe he just wanted to torture the guy for a few laughs.

Regardless, this sorry story doesn't cover anyone in glory. My guess is Foley isn't the last one to go down in flames. Pricey lawyers play very very hard.

Doyle said...

House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster, FOX News has learned.

"The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker," a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. "And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss."

From the elephant's mouth.

This is a clean winner for the Dems, Ann. Sorry.

Shanna said...

Nor does it alter the basic fact: Foley was paying unwanted attention to underage Pages. The Leadership knew about it and did squat.

Foley is in the wrong, absolutely. The leadership knew something, but whether that was enough to justify censure is debateable.

I think it's fair to ask if Democrats were sitting on this information for months/years. As I said earlier, the "october surprise" is so convenient I would be shocked if it wasn't planned.

But the facts will out. We're getting more tidbits everyday. Foley is gone and Hastert is likely to go down and I'm fine with both. But it could be damaging to Democrats as well. That's yet to be seen. I'll be vastly amused if this all turns out to have been an elaborate joke.

Doyle said...

But it could be damaging to Democrats as well.

It's zero-sum. What is bad for Republicans is good for Democrats, so it literally can't cut both ways.

Revenant said...

Homosexuality: OK
Foley's activities: Not OK


Get it?

I get that it's in your political interests to pretend you think that, sure.

But like I said, who do you think you're fooling?

Doyle said...

Forget about me for a minute. Do you see how it's logically possible to hold those two thoughts simultaneously?

Shanna said...

It's zero-sum. What is bad for Republicans is good for Democrats, so it literally can't cut both ways.

Actually, it could be bad for individuals in both parties and worse for the Democrats overall. Now, I'm not of course saying that it will be. As I said there is alot of information floating around.

But it could be that Foley resigns and Hastert steps down from leadership without hurting Republicans overall. It could also happen that if a number of things turn out to be true of the democrats, it could hurt them more as a whole.

So it could very easily hurt both parties.

Revenant said...

Forget about me for a minute. Do you see how it's logically possible to hold those two thoughts simultaneously?

Sure, but it's got nothing to do with your earlier claim. What you said was:

You don't need to go within 100 yards of Social Conservative territory to be outraged that Republican leadership knew that Foley made advances on pages and didn't do anything about it.

Saying "Homosexuality: OK" doesn't automatically place a person outside of the realm of social conservatives. Foley himself, to name one example, is both socially conservative and ok with homosexuality. You DO need to be close to social conservative territory to honestly think that consentual sex chat between an adult and a teenager above the age of consent is something that the Speaker of the House of Representatives needs to worry about.

Now, lots of people, like yourself, are trying to pretend that they think what Foley did was awful and therefore the Republican leadership must be punished for not trying to stop him. But the problem with that, of course, is that countless people -- the press, bloggers, Democratic insiders, et al -- knew the same things the Republican leadership did and ALSO did nothing. None of you give a shit that none of those people did anything, because those people aren't your political enemies. And that's what puts the lie to your mock outrage -- if what Foley did was so wrong, everyone who knew about it had an OBLIGATION to do something to stop it.

Sure, attempts have been made to weasel out of that fact by saying "well, it wasn't their job to do anything". But that line didn't work for the Kitty Genovese witnesses, and it doesn't work for you either.

Revenant said...

It's zero-sum. What is bad for Republicans is good for Democrats, so it literally can't cut both ways.

It is not zero sum. "It", meaning Congressional politics, is the aggregation of many contests, most of which are zero sum -- but it is perfectly possible for an issue which benefits one party in one zero-sum contest to hurt them in many others.

Stirring up a frenzy of public concern over sexual immorality might help the Democrats win in 2006, sure. But many of the issues Democrats ostensibly care about -- abortion, gay rights, birth control, sex education, the entertainment industry -- get *hurt* when the public starts worrying about sexual immorality.

Republicans learned this lesson with the "southern strategy" of cozying up to racist ex-Democrats in the late 60s and early 70s. It helped Nixon get elected (oh joy), but three decades later the reflexive black support for Democrats is still costing the Republicans elections.

So sure, go ahead. Don't think past 2006. Push for the Congressional Leadership to be the government Sex Police and see what happens.

chuck b. said...

Paige is one of my favorite female names.

Fenrisulven said...

Doyle: Bwahahaha!!

LOL Doyle. I am surprised you've already popped the champagne. Rather/Mapes, Election 04, Truthout, etc? Your side has been burned so many times from early celebrations. Just remember to come back down to a safe height before November, so that if you do fall again... ;)

The Exalted said...

the comments here are fairly hilarious -- a setup? are you serious?

it never fails -- when a GOP scandal is revealed, blame -- the victims! the exposers! the opposition!

but never blame the GOP!!

The Exalted said...

not to mention, ann has been chomping at the bit for democratic escapades to come out, literally chomping at the bit

rather unseemly

Fenrisulven said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fenrisulven said...

The Exalted: it never fails -- when a GOP scandal is revealed, blame -- the victims! the exposers! the opposition! but never blame the GOP!!

No, what never fails is that some Lefty wanders in who either can't comprehend basic english or is distorting the issue. I'll go slow for you:

1) We blame Foley for most of this.

2) We blame the GOP House Leadership for the rest of this.

3) We do NOT blame the Left or anyone else for any of this.

4) We suspect the Democrat House Leadership had advance knowledge of the scandal and withheld it until last Friday for political exploitation.

You want to distort the issue so you can ignore the fourth point.

downtownlad said...

We suspect the Democrat House Leadership had advance knowledge of the scandal and withheld it until last Friday for political exploitation.

You mean "we HOPE the Democrat House"....

And it's Democratic, not Democrat.

Doyle said...

Agreed. We're free to ignore the fourth point until there's some reason to believe it's true.

And there's absolutely no need to distort anything here. It's perfect as it is.

Fenris:

I'm not superstitious. It's a done deal. House by a comfy margin. 51 Senate seats (50 if Lieberman wins).

Revenant said...

literally chomping at the bit

Yes, she has a little metal bar in her mouth that she's chewing on. It is literally true!

This sarcastic post has been brought to you by the Society for the Preservation of the Distinction Between the Literal and the Figurative.

Paco Wové said...

Certainly not from Instaputz, who helped to out one of them.

He did? Where? I looked at his site, and didn't see anything that looked like 'outing'. Can you clarify?

Fenrisulven said...

Doyle: We're free to ignore the fourth point until there's some reason to believe it's true.

Good luck with that ;)

/via Powerline:

"Yesterday, eleven Republican Congressmen sent letters to Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Rahnm Emanuel, asking them to cooperate with the House Ethics Committee's investigation by appearing before the Committee and giving testimony under oath. The letters say, in part:

We fully agree that anyone with knowledge of Foley's activities, who then attempted to conceal such activities, should be held accountable. Today, the bipartisan Ethics Committee announced that they will be conducting a complete investigation of the facts surrounding the case.

We support this decision and also believe that the seriousness of this goes beyond partisan politics and hope that you will join us in demonstrating full cooperation from your Members and and political operatives as this investigation continues to unfold.

Just as it must be determined whether any Republican Members or political operatives were aware of and attempted to conceal Mr. Foley's activities, it must also be determined whether any Democrat Members or political operatives were aware of, and attempted to conceal these same activities.

Therefore, we respectfully ask that you appear, under oath, before the House Ethics Committee.

/emph mine