Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Conservative Pundits React To Foley Scandal By Blaming Democrats From The 1970s, 1980s and 1990s (Except Matt Drudge, Who Faulted The Pages)

Last night's edition of MSNBC's Countdown provided a roughly one-minute video montage that would have made the folks at The Daily Show proud.

Guest anchor Amy Robach explains: "And a sign of just how damaging the (Rep. Mark) Foley scandal has become is just how aggressively the Republican Party is fighting back. Politicians and pundits, working off a GOP list of talking points, came out in force to point the finger of blame at everyone but themselves."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: ... that there are things that will offend liberals, or are there? Because I continue to ask, are they really offended by this? How many of them wish they were in on the action?

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: Had they overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would also have been accused of gay-bashing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They fearful of acting, because they would be seen as homophobic or gay-bashing.

MATT DRUDGE: You‘re not going to tell me these are innocent babies. The kids are egging the congressman on.

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There have been other scandals, as you know, that have been more than simply naughty e-mails.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republicans have been caught red-handed. They step down and resign, while Democrats, almost, in some ways, use it as a badge of courage and move forward.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fact of the matter is, Democrats have scandals of their own.

HUME: Inappropriate behavior towards subordinates didn‘t cause Gerry Studds (NOTE: Studds' transgression occurred in 1973) his (INAUDIBLE) his Democratic seat in Massachusetts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How about Gerry Studds?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... Gerry Studds...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... Gerry Studds...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gerry Studds admitted having sex relations with a male page.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Gerry Studds was caught with an underage male page.

LIMBAUGH: That‘s what I am saying. Gerry Studds‘ person was 17 years old.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You talking about Gerry Studds...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... of Massachusetts? OK. (NOTE: The various conservative pundits failed to mention Rep. Dan Crane (R-IL), who had an affair with a female page in 1980. Neither Studds nor Crane resigned their seats.)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Barney Frank had a prostitute in his house (NOTE: In 1989).

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC: We can talk about Barney Frank...

HUME: ... Barney Frank...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... Barney Frank...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... Barney Frank...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... Barney Franks...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... Barney Franks, who ran a prostitution ring out of his home.

LIMBAUGH: Barney Frank, Stephen Gobey was running a little male prostitution ring out of Barney‘s basement Barney didn‘t know about.

BILL O‘REILLY, FOX NEWS: I haven‘t seen anything else, I mean, the Clinton stuff, I guess, the real far right is throwing around.

HANNITY: I don‘t want to bring Clinton into it. You‘re going to say, Well, Monica was 19. (NOTE: Lewinsky was 22) But hang on a second. Monica was a teenager, and she was an intern.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president of the United States...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about President Clinton?

HUME: ... Bill Clinton...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... who took advantage of an intern in the Oval Office.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... people like Bill Clinton...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... President Clinton...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... Bill Clinton...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... Bill Clinton...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... who took advantage of an intern in the White House.

HANNITY: Bill Clinton...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would just hope that people don‘t try to turn this into something political.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

42 Comments:

Anonymous Dave G. said...

Most of that stuff is par for the course - Gerry Stubbs and Barney Frank (again, Dan Crane continues to go unmentioned). Clinton, of course, is out of bounds on this one b/c Monica was 22, and not underage.

But Drudge's reaction is really the best one. "You‘re not going to tell me these are innocent babies. The kids are egging the congressman on."

Good lord, Matt. These kids are 16. You dumbass.

12:48 PM  
Anonymous MellowMan said...

Dave Gump, here's some different Democrats -

Daniel Inouye (D) Senator from HI, accused by several women of sexual molestation and harassmenti n the 1990s.

Gus Savage (D) Rep from IL, fondled a Peace Corp volunteer in Africa in 1989.

Brock Adams (D) Senator from WA who was accused of numerous drugging, assault and rape crimes, starting in 1988.

Fred Richmond (D) Rep from NY was arrested for soliciting sex from a 16 year old in 1978, Didnt leave office till 1982 when he pleaded guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

John Young (D) Rep from TX increased salary of staffer after she gave into his unwelcome advances.

Wayne Hays (D) Rep from Ohio hired an unqualified secretary for sexual acts.

Mel Reynolds (D)Rep from IL was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault on a 16 year old.President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

Teddy Kennedy (D) Sen from MA testified in defense of his nephew, Michael Smith, accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.

See. there are more Democrat politicians who engaged in criminal sexual activities that can be numbered without naming those already dealt with.

2:22 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

It's funny that two different posters put up the same list of Democrats -- just off the top of their heads. What a coincidence.

Could it be that this list was prepared by someone trying to come up with right-wing talking points? Could it be that, as a result, those talking points are woefully partisan?

And does any of this change the fact that the GOP knew about Foley's problems for years and did nothing about it?

So many questions, and the right is so unwilling to address any of them.

2:47 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

See. there are more Democrat politicians who engaged in criminal sexual activities that can be numbered without naming those already dealt with.

Which means...what Foley did was ok?

Which addresses my point about Matt Drudge how?

Or do you just lack comprehension enough to follow comments with points of your own that advance a debate instead of just amounting to a rant?

I mean, honestly, if we're going to play this game, I could do...

Dick Armey - accused by The Dallas Observer of sexually harassing female students.

Robert Bauman, Republican congressman and anti-gay activist, was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Bob Packwood, Senator (R-Ore.), resigned in 1995 under a threat of public senate hearings related to 10 female ex-staffers accusing him of sexual harassment.

John Peterson, Congressman (R-Pa), accused of sexual harassment and creation of a hostile work environment by six women.

Jack Ryan, 2004 Republican nominee for US Senate from Illinois, pressured his wive, actress Jeri Ryan, to have sex with other men.

Strom Thurmond raped and impregnanted a 15-year old African American maid.

Dan Crane, Republican Congressman, married, father of six. Had sex with a minor working as a congressional page.


So are we all good that there's sex scandals on both sides? Lemme know if you have an actual point to make, or you just wanna post jibberish.

3:37 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

YellowMan - you seem more intent on protecting the Repuglican's power than you are in protecting the offended teenagers.

Why not give us your opinions on the subject rather than a criminal history of past Congressman.

Knowing that a 150,000,000 Republicans and a 150,000,000 Democrats are criminals is not enough to justify the continuation of abuse of power by Congressman and the continued blame game of "the devil made me do it", "Clinton made me do it", "Abuse in my childhood made me do it", "Alcohol made me do it", "It was someone else's fault that I did it", "It was drugs that made me do it", "Democrats make Republicans behave badly", "My GOD made me do it","My frustration made me do it", etc ,etc.

9:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is really getting silly. Whether it was done in the 70's, 80's, 90's or now it is wrong. Doesnt matter if it was a Democrat or a Republican. It is downright wrong. We are all losing the focus on that.

The other fact remains that when Republicans are caught they resign and go away. When Democrats are caught they literally turn their back on the House, tell everyone it was a personal matter and get re-elected. That cannot be disputed. No matter how hard you try to spin it.

8:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So robbie
A list of facts is right wing talking points? Facts are facts no matter what the political side you are on. Please explain your thinking. I look forward to your stupidity.

9:36 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

The other fact remains that when Republicans are caught they resign and go away. When Democrats are caught they literally turn their back on the House, tell everyone it was a personal matter and get re-elected. That cannot be disputed. No matter how hard you try to spin it.

Oh for heaven's sake. For a second there you sounded like a sane human being. GOP Rep. Dan Crane was involved in a similar thing in 1983, and he didn't resign.

No matter how hard you try to link this to a 23-year-old scandal -- and you'll notice, nobody here is defending that guy, Stubbs -- what you cannot spin is that this is happening NOW, and the GOP leadership handled it terribly, as they had information way back in 2003, and then again later, and did next-to-nothing in terms of ferreting it out. (You can't tell someone who stalks 16-year-olds to "Hey, cut it out," as if they've been caught smoking in a restaurant.) Instead, they try to duck responsibility by blaming George Soros, the media and rambling on about a scandal from 23 years ago that, again, nobody is defending. So yes, we can't spin that one, but why are you trying to spin this one? Huh??

9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave
The difference is Crane wasnt re-elected. The voters saw he was morally corrupt. Studds kept on getting elected right up until his retirement.

Your party seems to think its ok for a man to have sex with a 17 year old boy, because they kept on rewarding him by electing him. Funny how you seem to neglect that.

10:27 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Your party seems to think its ok for a man to have sex with a 17 year old boy, because they kept on rewarding him by electing him. Funny how you seem to neglect that.
And you continue to neglect the facts of this case by bringing up old cases, which in essence means you're defending Foley. The idea that one party has a monopoly on values is just nonsense -- particularly in light of how the House leadership has behaved in this scandal. But no - Republicans are saints. Applause.

10:31 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

You also continue to move the goalposts. "Yes, but what about Stubbs." And then someone brings up Crane. "Yes but Crane wasn't re-elected." And then we could bring up Bob Packwood, who had all those allegations against him, and yet still ran for re-election before being forced to resign a few years later. And so on and so forth.

It still puts you in the position of defending the indefensible.

10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not defending anything like this. It stinks on both sides, yet you cant admit that Studds was rewarded, Crane wasnt. I want anyone who harms a child or even thinks about harming a child beaten within an inch of his or her life. I have no patience for that sort of sick lifestyle.

10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The House leadership has nothing to do with this anymore. Foley is the one who committed this, no one else and Foley is gone.

I know you libs wanted the House leadership intercepting his emails, IM's and phone calls I just wish you felt the same about intercepting that stuff from the enemy.

10:40 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

It stinks on both sides, yet you cant admit that Studds was rewarded, Crane wasnt.
I'm not dumb. I can admit he was re-elected. He was. He shouldn't have been. He should have resigned and gone away. He didn't. That's a shame to him.

The House leadership has nothing to do with this anymore.
Baloney. They knew about this ages ago, and were warned several times by several people, and didn't take any proactive measures. This is what I mean by blaming others.

I know you libs wanted the House leadership intercepting his emails, IM's and phone calls I just wish you felt the same about intercepting that stuff from the enemy.
And anonymous, after flirting with about 30 minutes of coherence, slips back comfortably into wingnut land.

10:50 AM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Dave Guernsey,

Nobody's 'defending Foley'.

The posters are merely pointing out the history of hypocrisy on the left side.

10:56 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

The posters are merely pointing out the history of hypocrisy on the left side.

Hypocrisy? There are sex scandals galore on both sides. Too many to count. In previous instances there are Dems who have and have not resigned; Republicans as well. And you're using Foley's resignation that he's some kind of bastion of goodness for having the "decency to resign" when it really doesn't matter because he was messing around with 16-YEAR-OLDS. Which is repugnant no matter who is doing it -- him, Gerry Stubbs, Dan Crane, whatever. By the time it comes down to resigning -- or deciding not to resign for some bizarre reason, they've lost all credibility as moral people. All of them. Resigning is the LEAST they can do - Crane and Stubbs didn't even do that.

But basically you don't wanna deal with the current issue, so it's all you can do to try to change the subject and accuse Dems of hypocrisy. Which is to suggest of course that people should now say, "No worries, it's all good," as if there are any people who really, truly want to defend Stubbs, Foley, or any of them. (Stubbs was censured by the House, by a vote of 420-3...censure of such a thing had never happened before. I don't know other specifics, I wasn't old enough to care back then. Perhaps the climate has changed to the point that in today's world he woulda been tossed out. I'm not sure. He should have been. I'll agree with that.)

You're not defending Foley, true, but you're defending those who didn't do anything about him, or at least, trying to suggest it isn't that important, or some such.

11:04 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Conservatives want to go over Gerry Studds now, because it changes the subject.

They can't deal with current events. It's easier to bring up events from 25 or 30 years ago. The current House is almost 100% different from the House that dealt with Studds, the punditry is almost 100% different, most of us were kids back then (or not even born), but hey, let's cloud the current debate by screaming HYPOCRISY.

Who's a hypocrite? The congressman who wasn't in office in 1973 or 1983, or the bloggers who were in grade school back then?

12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well thank you for admitting a truth Dave. Now how am I blaming others by saying this has nothing to do with the house. I am not blaming the house. But you decided not to quote me as saying Foley is the one who committed this act. Very convenient of you. I believe in personal responsibility and have said on other blogs that if the republicans lose the house because of this then so be it. Maybe then people will act responsible.

Now the house knew about email, not IM’s. Were the emails as bad as the IM’s. I dont know, because I havent seen them and all I heard was he asked for a picture. Now as far as me not being coherent, why should we be intercepting emails and phone calls of a Congressman and not the enemy? Can you answer that without resorting to name calling?

1:12 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

So you haven't seen the e-mails, but you are willing to comment on them?

Nice.

And Democrats have never, NEVER, NEVER said that we shouldn't intercept e-mails and phone calls. The question is legality. Should we do it legally -- in keeping with FISA -- or should we do it illegally, as the Bush Administration has?

The courts back up the law on this one. The spin from the right notwithstanding, the fact is that the administration has agreed to a new law to make their actions LEGAL -- which says that their actions previously were ILLEGAL.

1:47 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

But you decided not to quote me as saying Foley is the one who committed this act.
Do I need to quote you on every fact? Of course he committed this. Yes, he did all this. All of it.

Now the house knew about email, not IM’s. Were the emails as bad as the IM’s.
The emails were not as bad. But the statements from Kirk Fordham, former chief staff for Foley, suggests he told Hastert's staff about Foley somewhere in 2003 about Foley's behavior around and toward the pages. Others apparently knew about the emails - which are "overly friendly," indeed - back in 2005. And not enough was proactively done to see whether this guy was acting inappropriately toward the pages, which is apparently what he was doing. The emails do have him commenting to one page about the physique of another page. That's not cool.

Now as far as me not being coherent, why should we be intercepting emails and phone calls of a Congressman and not the enemy?
Because it's A) not germane and B) founded on a pair of falsehoods, the first being that I'm suggesting you intercept his phone calls and the second that I'm suggesting you don't intercept the enemy's phone calls, when my position or anyone else's position on this isn't clear in the slightest, and also has nothing to do with this discussion.

It's not germane to the topic, and so comes across like you're heading into a usual rant about "libtards" and the like. Which is why it isn't part of the discussion. Because it has nothing to do with anything.

1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not enough was proactively done? Like what? Intercepting his emails? Wiretapping his house? Or maybe just have him resign because at the time of the emails they really didnt have any proof. What should have been done before the IM’s came out?

Now are you homophobic? You mean to tell me that you cant admit it when a guy is good looking or has a good body? Because that is the offense in the emails. Without the IM's there really isnt anything you can hang Foley on.

And once again you danced around my question. Just because it has nothing to do with this topic, why cant you answer it? You wanted something done proactively regarding this because as we all know this is detrimental to our national security, yet we cant act proactively when it comes to gathering intelligence that is going to stop a terror attack? Please explain.

And yes you have to quote accurately on every fact, that is why they call it a fact. I know you libs love to ellipsis a quote but that usually doesnt tell the whole story.

2:17 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Not enough was proactively done? Like what? Intercepting his emails? Wiretapping his house?
This is what I mean by going off the deep end. Do you not understand that there is perhaps a few intermediate moves between "doing next to nothing" and "preemptively assassinating the Congressman, burning his house and salting the land so nothing ever grows there ever again"??

What should have been done before the IM’s came out?
An investigation. Not saying, "Hey, don't do that again, hoss."

Now are you homophobic? You mean to tell me that you cant admit it when a guy is good looking or has a good body?
Are you serious, bro? He's having a conversation with a 16-year-old, asking for pictures of him, talking about another 16-year-old and the shape he's in. It's red-flag behavior, the kind of thing that if Fordham's statements about alerting Hastert's staff 2 years earlier are true, make you want to go talk to the guy. We're still talking about 16-year-olds, man, not a conversation between two guys over the age of 25, 30, or 40, or what-have-you.


Because that is the offense in the emails. Without the IM's there really isnt anything you can hang Foley on.
We're not talking about hanging him. We're talking about the Congressional leadership taking proactive steps to go out and protect the pages who work in Washington, who are 16/17 years old. Not about convicting him in a court of law.

Just because it has nothing to do with this topic, why cant you answer it?
You've answered your own question.

3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh now this is getting good.

http://drudgereport.com/page.htm

All a prank? Heads are going to roll unless of course they are Democrat heads and then nothing will happen and the NY Slimes wont even report on this.

3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So investigate what? An email complementing a physique? Wont hold up in court. But now it looks as though this was all a prank. I still would like an answer to my question you keep ducking. I wonder why you duck the question....HMMMMMM could it be you dont think national security is important. Or could it be you are blinded by your partisanship.

3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

3:13 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Maybe you missed this above:

And Democrats have never, NEVER, NEVER said that we shouldn't intercept e-mails and phone calls. The question is legality. Should we do it legally -- in keeping with FISA -- or should we do it illegally, as the Bush Administration has?

The courts back up the law on this one. The spin from the right notwithstanding, the fact is that the administration has agreed to a new law to make their actions LEGAL -- which says that their actions previously were ILLEGAL.

3:23 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

That Drudge report sounds like bullshit, as so many of his reports are.

If this was a one-time event, maybe it'd have credibility. But there is a shitload of stuff against Foley. A shitload of people on the record. A shitload of Republican leaders in a circular firing squad.

I'm sure the fringe right Levinite cultists who frequent this message board will say, "See," even after the Drudge report is proven false. Anything to protect that bubble.

3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This story would counter the validity of the Drudge story:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15132294/

3:27 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

So investigate what? An email complementing a physique? Wont hold up in court.
No, an internal House investigation to make sure rules aren't being broken, and contacts aren't improper, as they were. Not investigate for a legal case - why aren't you comprehending this? If they'd investigated that, they may have then found the IMs, and been able to contain the Foley matter before it blew up.

On the prank stuff, so you're basically just blaming the 16-year-olds now? I read the Drudge report - what about Foley's statements? Did you read the IMs? It's funny how you're now slamming the kids for not having personal responsibility, but now instead, Foley is a dupe, the poor dear! You're kidding me, right? This is the same thing Drudge has been peddling since the beginning before he had any evidence as it was, that they were "egging him on." What a crock. You may have not been defending Foley before, but you are now, man.

Oh, and I love this rich statement from Drudge -- "This source, an ally of Edmund, also adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual." But there's nothing wrong with being gay, right, fellas?

As for the rest of it, you've gone back to your usual self, rambling about national security, trying to connect Al-Qaeda to a guy stalking teenagers. I can't answer your question because I can't navigate through your mind, man.

3:31 PM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Dave Grandiose, I'm not 'defending Foley'.


And those "innocent 16 year olds' are now admitting it was all a prank.

Jordon Edmund has engaged Timothy McVeigh's lawyer. Why?

4:04 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

And those "innocent 16 year olds' are now admitting it was all a prank.

Actually, none of them have said that. It's Drudge's most recent rumor, and he sources "friends of Edmund" who say it was a prank, not Edmund himself, who hasn't spoken publicly. Tyson Vivyan also has some IM exchanges out there if you read the article above. If its a prank, why did Foley resign? Why is the House leadership going nuts? I mean, you're really not that dumb, are you? Hell, Drudge's stupid article undercuts his whole premise with this line: "The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others."

Oh, jeez! It only applies to one of them! Wow. So would you care to revise your bullshit story, sir?

4:28 PM  
Anonymous Angelina's Evil Twin said...

DESPERATELY ... CLINGING TO ... ANYTHING ... THAT WILL SAVE MY BUBBLE ...

MUST CONTINUE ATTACKING ... EVIDENCE MOUNTING ... I CONTINUE TO IGNORE ... BUT FOR HOW LONG?

REPUBLICAN LEADERS SWEATING ... MUST REMAIN OPTIMISTIC ... BRING UP ClINTON ... MUST ATTACK SOROS ... PLEASE HELP, MARK LEVIN ... I WORSHIP YOUR EVERY WORD ...

HAVE NO MIND OF MY OWN ... CANNOT ACCEPT EVIDENCE ... MUST PROTECT BUBBLE ...

I think that sums up the fringe Republicans pretty well ...

4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave, the FBI investigated the first EMAIL and found nothing wrong. So an investigation was done to satisfy you. The next thing to do would have been it intercept his IM's. Is that what you wanted done?

Fact: Studds had actual sex with a 17 year old male. Foley didnt.

Fact: Studds got multiple standing ovations for his refusal to step down and got re-elected many times. Foley resigned in disgrace and will never be in Congress again.

I am not blaming 16 year olds. I am saying some of the stuff that is being reported is not true. You know, not factual. Do facts mean anything to you?

You cant answer my question because you dont want to and you know I am right.

5:47 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

The next thing to do would have been it intercept his IM's. Is that what you wanted done?
FBI? When? The first email? Where? Gimme a source, bro. The FBI was given the emails in July. Regardless, we're talking about warnings the House leadership received years before that, and you want to ignore that. The House leaders did not, despite repeated warnings, try to find a way to make Foley stop contacting pages, or conduct an investigation into it where they could have found, not intercepted, found the IMs by talking to the pages, which is how ABC found them. Period. Full stop. That's what was not done. So stop obscuring the issue by talking about Stubbs, who nobody here is defending, when the House leadership did not do enough in this situation.

6:11 PM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Hmmm. Drudge writes 'stupid articles', meaning. I suppose, Drudge lies.

How do you rate the New York Times and the Washington Post? Hmmm?

6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, the FBI investigated and found nothing wrong with the EMAILS in July. Please show me the warning Hasset was given. Funny how this page some are talking about was 18 whihc would be a year older that than Studds boy toy who he actually penetrated. So we have the dems coming down on a gay man. Dont the gays have any rights?

8:15 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

This discussion has reached the point of pointlessness, as the right-wing will do and say anything to try to convince people that somehow, Foley is not to blame. Nice show of personal responsibility. Idiots.

Wingnuts: Gerry Stubbs!

Me: Yes, Gerry Stubbs should have resigned. He's a piece of crap. But Dan Crane was fingered back then too.

Wingnuts: But Crane didn't get re-elected! Democrats are perverts!

Me: Yes, Stubbs was re-elected,and he probably should not have been because he's a piece of crap. What matters now is that ample warning seemed to have been given to the GOP leaders in the House and they did little, if anything to root it out.

Wingnuts: But one of them was 18 when they IM'd! That means liberals hate gay people!

Me: His attorney says it wasn't a prank. Former page Jordan Edmund's attorney, Steven Jones, on the Drudge Report's story: “There is not any aspect of this matter that is a practical joke nor should anyone treat it that way.”
http://www.newsok.com/article/2951710

Wingnuts: Gerry Stubbs!

Me: You're repeating yourself. We said he was scum. So is Foley.

Wingnuts: But Foley resigned! He's an honorable man!

Me: Even though he was stalking 16-year-olds.

Wingnuts: Gerry Stubbs!

Me: What's your point already?

Wingnuts: The emails have different bits of punctuation! It was a prank! A prank!

Me: The problem remains that the House leaders didn't actively look into this, when they're supposed to be protecting these pages.

Wingnuts: They were egging him on!

Me: So it's the 16-year-old's fault? Foley gets a pass? Aren't you the party of responsibility?

Wingnuts: Gerry Stubbs!

Me: (slaps head in frustration)

6:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I call him Stubbs because he likes small stubby ones. You know young 16 year old dick. You cant be much of a stud going after something like that.

Now, the FBI investigated the EMAILS and found nothing wrong with them and yet you want the speaker to do something about IM's he knew nothing about. I didnt realize that in order to be the speaker of the house, you need to be clairvoyant.

As I move back to Stubbs, the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is when Conservatives see something being done that is morally wrong we move on it and get rid of that person. Libs reward with standing ovations and re-elections.

I will say this, Foley is a better man than Clinton. At least Foley stepped down in disgrace. BJ stayed as President after raping women and is now touring the world make a shitload of money to get up in front of people and lie all over again. Its amazing he can sleep at night. But I would try and get to sleep as fast as possible if I had to sleep nest to Hillary Rotten.

10:10 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Now, the FBI investigated the EMAILS and found nothing wrong with them and yet you want the speaker to do something about IM's he knew nothing about. >>

a) your timeline is wrong

Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, Shimkus, etc., knew about the e-mails at least 11 months ago. Fordham says that the leadership knew in 2003 or 2004.

At that point, rather than just simply saying to Foley "stop it," the Republican leadership could have started an internal investigation. For example, it could have had the ethics committee quietly survey former pages -- are there other examples of misbehavior? As Bay Buchanan said, "when there's smoke, you have to look to see if there's fire."

b) The FBI was brought into the investigation much more recently, and now it has begun a full-blown investigation.

At the very least, the Republican leadership dropped the ball by ignoring the smoke. It has now blown up in their faces.

At the very worst, there was a conscience decision to not investigate, to keep this from the one Democrat on the page board, and to ask Foley to run for re-election, because Foley was a cash cow for the party, and because the party realizes it needed as many safe victories as possible to retain control of the house.

In that scenario, the demand to retain power was more important than the potential that Foley did things a lot worse than send "naughty e-mails."

10:31 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Anonymous, thanks for proving my points. Huzzah.

10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy shit you people a stupid. They knew about EMAILS which the FBI investigated and found nothing wrong. How many times do I have to say it? Rob your opinion doesn't make stuff true, no matter how much you spin it.

There is a full investigation now because of IM's and it just might be IM's that were intended to be a prank, in order to get some fag all hot and bothered. Did it work? I dont know I wasnt in the room with him during his deviant behavior.

I love how the MSM is calling this a sex scandal. Can they lie some more? There was no sex involved of than cyber sex and how can cyber sex be sex if oral sex isnt sex?

11:07 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

And again.

11:11 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares