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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
50 comments:
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Drudge is reporting that the former page who was IM'ed was 18 at the time. Has anyone independently verified this?
I have a hard time believing that House Democrats weren't aware of this too, if (supposedly) itell-known to the House Republicans.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
I note a general lack of sympathy for the victims
Certainly not from Instaputz, who helped to out one of them.
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!
Corn, oops I mean McCarthy, never published his list, but he sure didn't mind telling you he had one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
If democratic operatives have known about the IMs, what elected democrats have known. That is now the question....
Rev -
Homosexuality: OK
Foley's activities: Not OK
Get it?
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.
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.
I suspect that ABC news never bothered to check out the Page
No, they left that to Foley.
BLAM!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Forget about me for a minute. Do you see how it's logically possible to hold those two thoughts simultaneously?
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.
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.
Paige is one of my favorite female names.
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!!
not to mention, ann has been chomping at the bit for democratic escapades to come out, literally chomping at the bit
rather unseemly
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.
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).
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.
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?
Post a Comment