Monday, October 02, 2006

You Can't Make This Stuff Up ...

Now, the conservative spin begins.

White House press secretary Tony Snow, asked about disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) on ABC's Good Morning America, said he considered it unfortunate that "people are thinking, 'OK, can I get political advantage out of this'."

In other words, any Democrat who asks why it was that the Republican leadership knew about Foley's inappropriate actions for months -- or as one page suggested, years -- and didn't do anything about it is taking "advantage" of the situation.

Snow hopes to bully Democrats into saying nothing, so that the issue will go away.

Meanwhile, watch Republican pundits out and about making apples-and-oranges comparisons to openly gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), and making apples-and-oranges comparisons between Foley and the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair.

Because of course, that's not taking "political advantage" of the situation.

33 Comments:

Anonymous Richardo said...

Welcome to the club, Tony

Edited on Mon Oct-02-06 11:09 AM by Richardo
Be sure you tell Max Cleland and John Kerry how it feels.

Jerk.

11:21 AM  
Anonymous yellowcanine said...

Sorry Tony. That dog won't hunt. Suck it up and take your lumps.

11:21 AM  
Anonymous sparosnare said...

That tactic is not going to work Tony.

Might be different if Democrats were making allegations without proof, but this isn't the case. And using the word "naughty" to describe Foley's behavior - THAT was a really bad move Tony.

11:22 AM  
Anonymous Bitwit1234 said...

QUESTION

For one who was sent bonkers with the 24/7 President Clinton coverage during the run up to the so called impeachment, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS SNOWJOB TALKING ABOUT....EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE...OH WAIT I can...one was a democrat and the other a republican. One was adults having sex the other was the abuse of children.

11:22 AM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Hey Dimwit, Clinton raping women and just sliding is just 'adults having sex to you'? Using your interpretation, Foley was just sending friendly Emails to a kid.(Which actually is all he did, to a 16 year old 1000 miles away.)

While the contents of the Emails are unacceptable (though your good friend at LAMBA will disagree) the young man was not physically touched or abused. Clinton, on the other hand, raped and sexually molested several women.

Your good friends at NOW will also disagree with your terms for rape, but you appear to think Clinton was just doing what a good, old boy likes to do. Clinton is a rapist. Get over it.

11:38 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

The rape and sexual molestations charges stem from the Richard Mellon Scaife-fund Arkansas Project. Objective sources investigated the charges, but concluded they were just politically motivated rumors, fueled by conservatives who hated Clinton.

That was about 10 years ago. But it doesn't stop the conservative mythmakers from spreading their venom.

11:55 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Democrats don't support LAMBA.

Conservatives who create fictional liberal straw men support LAMBA. It's a dishonest charge, widget. How's life in that bubble? Nice and cozy, right?

11:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is pretty disgusting if these allegations are true. If a Democrat held on to these emails in order to sway an election and didnt think it was important to protect a child then that person(s) should go to jail. Same can be said if Republicans didnt speak up in order to protect this kid and only wanted to hold on to a congressional seat. What in the hell are our politics turning into? The Boston archdiocese?

All the facts have not come out and I have yet to level blame at anyone. I am saying if it happened, either by a Democrat or a Republican. When it comes to harming a child I dont care what political party you belong to, I just want to be the guy swinging the baseball bat at your ankles, knees, stomach, ribs and then head.

12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It certainly did not take long for the conservative/Republicans here to validate JABBS' prediction of fallacious comparisons to Clinton.
Heavens, if it wasn't for Clinton, these conserv/Repubs would have nothing.

12:57 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"In other words, any Democrat who asks why it was that the Republican leadership knew about Foley's inappropriate actions for months -- or as one page suggested, years -- and didn't do anything about it is taking "advantage" of the situation."


Help me out here, David. I still do not see where what you are alleging has been proven yet. I mean, it could be true, but I still have not been convinced that it is. In any case, I would hope it's not true.

Also, I would just like to point out the obvious, that is, how important accuracy in reporting really is.

The story that you reference from ABC News' "The Blotter" says this:

A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.

Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."


Now compare that characterization of what Loraditch said and how he said it with this online New York Times version of what he said:

"Matthew Loraditch, who worked as a page with Ms. Gallo and Mr. McDonald in 2001 and 2002, said a supervisor had once casually mentioned that Mr. Foley “was odd” and that he later saw sexually explicit text messages that Mr. Foley had sent to two former pages after they left the program.

But Mr. Loraditch said he was never warned by program supervisors to stay away from him. “He was friendly,” said Mr. Loraditch, who maintains a Web site for alumni and attends Towson University in Maryland. “He would talk to us more than some other members would.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/02pages.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Big difference in reporting, wouldn't you say? It makes what you wrote in your blog about the Republican leadership possibly knowing about Foley's improper behavior for "years" look inaccurate. Two articles. Two versions of what Loraditch said. Right?

ABC's version seems more interested in presenting a negative picture of Foley than in sticking to the facts.

1:00 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Democrats are taking "political advantage" of the Foley situation says Snowjob.

Bush declares the Democrats wrongfully leaked the April NIE for "political advantage?"
So his lying about the true state of Iraq to the public while suppressing the contradicting info in the official intelligence report wasn't done for political purposes?

The latest GOP talking point in the face of mounting bad news: "Dems seeking political advantage." Snowjob just knows the MSM's gonna eat it right up!

1:28 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Democrats are taking "political advantage" of the Foley situation says Snowjob."


It's beginning to look like that might very well be the case, twot. I'll go a step further. It would not be all that shocking to me if someone on the Democrat side sat on these IMs until after the Republican primary was done, so that it would be impossible for Republicans to remove Foley's name from the ballad?

Denny Hastert has sent a letter to the AG in which he asked the Justice Department to investigate "anyone who had specific knowledge of the content of any sexually explicit communications between Mr. Foley and any former or current House pages and what actions such individuals took, if any, to provide them to law enforcement."

Hastert has vehemently denied having any knowledge of the sexually explicit IMs until the story broke. Someone else obviously did though. I mean, who keeps their IMs for years and years? This is beginning to smell really, really bad.

4:33 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"Meanwhile, watch Republican pundits out and about making apples-and-oranges comparisons to openly gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), and making apples-and-oranges comparisons between Foley and the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair.

Because of course, that's not taking "political advantage" of the situation."


I agree, David. We should be comparing apples to apples. I think the case of Rep. Jerry Studds from Massachusetts in 1983 is a much better match to Foley's case.

Of course, it appears that Studds went a little further than Foley, in that he plied a seventeen-year-old male page with vodka and cranberry juice and then actually did have sex with the kid. By today's standards, that would undoubtedly be considered a case of date-rape.

Funny thing though. Well, I mean funny strange, not funny ha ha. Studds didn't voluntarily resign in disgrace as did Foley. Nor did the Democratic-run House Ethics Committee force him to. Instead, they merely censured him, and as his colleagues in the House were reading their censure of him, he turned his back on them and completely ignored them.

I think the Republicans are handling the Foley case in a much more appropriate and principled manner than the Democrats did the Stubbs case. Agree? Or disagree?

5:17 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Oh, I forgot to mention Mel Reynolds.

January 2001: Just before leaving office, President Clinton (at the urging of Jesse Jackson, among others) commuted the sentence of former Illinois congressman Mel Reynolds, who had spent 30 months in a state prison for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and was serving a five-year sentence in federal prison for lying to obtain loans and illegally diverting campaign money for personal use.

5:22 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

I got that Mel Reynolds info off of Drudge, btw.

5:24 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

So Trinity, you are saying the Republicans are justified in covering up any criminal investigation into Foley's alleged criminal indiscretions with minors, and they should be automatically excused from any culpability because, well golly gee whiz, Beav, Democrats committed even worse sexual offenses in the past. And gosh darnnit, Wally, these Democrats didn't even have to resign.
It would be nice if a Republican could instead simply accept accountability for themselves for a change.

6:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Allegations and FBI investigation turn to Foley having allegedly trolled the Internet for sex with underage boys.
http://tinyurl.com/gax4h
These were just "naughty emails," said Snowjob in excusing actions of a pedophile.
The Repukes fail to acknowledge the added weight in that Foley orchestrated legislation protecting minors from cyperspace pedophiles, like, like, well like himself?

6:43 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Some things I have noticed with the repukes responses to post that David writes:
1. When any repuke can not quote any facts to de-bunk what David or anyone agreeing with David post, they resort to name calling. Everytime they do that, it validates to me what David is saying even more. If you can not provide facts, then blast your opponent. I will admit that Trinity shows more supported differing opinions than anyone opposing David. There is though a very evident bias in the references used by Trinity( Newsmax, Fox News, Matt Drudge, etc ,etc). I never expect Trinity to quote any article from the internet that opposes her view and supports David.
2. Repukes try to explain any unacceptable behavior by a repuke as a "tit-for-tat" that aren't always apples to apples . We get a long list of past sins by some Democrats and thusly they do not address the current situation on its own merits. I am waiting for the comparison of Jefferson having sex with one of his slaves to justify Foley's behavior.
3. They always bring up Clinton. This always increases the validation of what David has said. As I have said before, it was none of our damm business that he had sexual relations( only a BJ) with a consenting adult. That situation was between him, the adult and his immediate family. No one has died due to the affair or his subsequent lie about it( unless some repuke died of a heart attack due to their dangerous rise in their BP). It WAS our business that he lied about it and that de-famed the Presidency, hurt Americans confidence in him as a truthfull person and pissed off all the "sinless" repukes. Plus it gave something else for the repukes to hate other than "communism" and all of the sinners in the U.S.
4. If repukes did not have Clinton to blame for all problems, they would not know what to post on these boards, except maybe Trinity.
5. Repukes wrap themselves around the "religious mantra" to hide their intolerant, sanctimonious, unpatriotic, "chickenhawk" stench that engulfs their entire being.
6. Apparently they have not read the Geneva Convention document concerning the treatment of prisoners if they persist in supporting torture or they totally the reject the document.

6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I thought British politics was full of spin and lies I have now woken up to the real world if USA politics.

Car Breakdown Cover

6:53 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"So Trinity, you are saying the Republicans are justified in covering up any criminal investigation into Foley's alleged criminal indiscretions with minors,


Only a complete idiot would think that was what I was saying, twot.

Oh. lol Look who I'm talking to.

Idiot, the Republicans are CALLING for a complete investigation, not covering one up. Remove your head from your butt.

7:01 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Clarice Feldman sums it up rather nicely on "The American Thinker".

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5907

7:05 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Ooops. That belongs on another thread.

7:06 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

You won't see many Democrats trying to defend Gerry Studds.

But the comparison to Clinton is wrong. Clinton did wrong, no doubt. Then he doubled that wrong by lying about it. But it was a consensual affair with an adult. It wasn't an attempt to rendesvous with a 16-year-old boy.

By the way, the spin that the e-mails were merely "over friendly" is getting on my nerves. A 54-year-old asking one boy for a photograph of himself, and commenting on the "shape" -- the physique -- of a second 16-year-old isn't "over friendly." It's wrong.

7:10 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I was talking about, Trinity, your various posts to soften the seriousness of the allegations and the investigation through making comparisons to alleged worse Democrats.

7:21 PM  
Blogger ihc531yv said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Somehow Abercrombie & Fitch, recognized for its young male models posing shirtless and in underwear, is not appropriate for this post about Foley.

11:13 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"But it was a consensual affair with an adult. It wasn't an attempt to rendesvous with a 16-year-old boy."


True enough, rob. Of course there's still that authority figure/subordinate thing that Clinton had going on there, but yes, Monica was 21, if you think that makes it less offensive. Even though one might argue that she obviously only had the maturity of a teeny bopper. ;)

I would add that despite what Foley may have had in mind for the future, there was no real attempt in any of those e-mails to set a date for a meeting with the 16 year old.

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"By the way, the spin that the e-mails were merely "over friendly" is getting on my nerves. A 54-year-old asking one boy for a photograph of himself, and commenting on the "shape" -- the physique -- of a second 16-year-old isn't "over friendly." It's wrong."


Yes, on that I would agree with you. But it still wasn't overtly sexual, which lent some ambiguity to the whole thing. Then too, to be fair, we are looking at it from a different perspective, since we have the benefit of having read those lecherous IMs.

Here is the text of the e-mails:

"He's such a nice guy, acts much older than his age...and hes in really great shape...i am just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now heading to the gym...whats school like for you this year?"

"I am back in Florida now...its nice here...been raining today...it sounds like you will have some fun over the next few weeks...how old are you now?"

"how are you weathering the hurricane...are you safe...send me an email pic of you as well."

"did you have fun at your conference…what do you want for your birthday coming up…what stuff do you like to do."

12:35 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"I was talking about, Trinity, your various posts to soften the seriousness of the allegations and the investigation through making comparisons to alleged worse Democrats.


I can't help it if you constantly read something into my posts that isn't there, twot. That's a "you" problem. Not a "me" problem.

I have no desire to make excuses for Foley. I said in my very first post on the subject that he had to go. What he has done is inexcusable.

What I was attempting to demonstrate by bringing up Democrats who have disgraced themselves in office is the fact that they don't seem to have any sense of shame. They never seem to have the good grace to resign. That was my only point. It's good riddance to Foley as far as I'm concerned.

12:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trinity said:
"I would add that despite what Foley may have had in mind for the future, there was no real attempt in any of those e-mails to set a date for a meeting with the 16 year old."
I think if you read, Trinity, all the content of the emails or instant messages, whatever, let's not parse words here, you might have a different opinion.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss
(Wait for the news story to flash with Foley's picture, then click link below picture reading "Discretion Advised.")

8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To clarify, I think it makes no difference whether Foley wrote lascivious messages to boys on IM's or emails, except in the context of investigating Hastert and other Republican leaders, who apparantely made no effort to peer deeper into the questionable emails or see whether they accompanied other condemnable activities in cyberspace.

9:33 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Trinity said: Big difference in reporting, wouldn't you say? It makes what you wrote in your blog about the Republican leadership possibly knowing about Foley's improper behavior for "years" look inaccurate. Two articles. Two versions of what Loraditch said. Right?

ABC's version seems more interested in presenting a negative picture of Foley than in sticking to the facts.


I don't agree. Both of those stories include comments/quotes from Loraditch said. Assuming both news outlets have reporters that can competently copy quotes, it seems Loraditch told the two publications two different things. Which suggests he's the one who lacks credibility.

I think the Republicans are handling the Foley case in a much more appropriate and principled manner than the Democrats did the Stubbs case. Agree? Or disagree?

There's also Republican Dan Crane, which came out the same time as Gerry Stubbs, in 1983. He also had sex with a page, was censured, and didn't resign.

The fact is, enough people knew about the inappropriate discussions -- I mean the emails, which, while not sexual, certainly slid over the line into "creepy," and it was enough that a parent raised the questions, without anything being done, over a period of 11 months. Gerry Stubbs should have resigned. So should Dan Crane have. And Foley resigned, which wsa the right thing, but the House leadership has indeed been negligent, in my opinion.

the Republicans are CALLING for a complete investigation, not covering one up.
Now they're calling for a complete investigation, after 11 months of doing nothing. ABC News uncovered the emails, and by INVESTIGATING, then a day later got the IMs. The GOP leadership, after this comes out, is NOW calling for an investigation. A day late and a dollar short. "Responsibility" doesn't mean standing up and calling for hearings when your back is already against the wall.

Of course there's still that authority figure/subordinate thing that Clinton had going on there, but yes, Monica was 21, if you think that makes it less offensive.
Agreed that Clinton was abusing his position as a man in power (just as many politicians have done). Agreed. But to me, yes, she was 21, and that makes it less offensive, compared with 16.

They never seem to have the good grace to resign.
Whoa, wait. We've got a total of THREE people involved in messing around with underage pages in Congress dating back to 1973. Two Republicans (Crane and Foley), one Democrat (Stubbs). One GOPer resigned; the other two did not. So we're not exactly dealing with a lot of data here, are we?

9:33 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity: rob of wilmington, del. said... "But it was a consensual affair with an adult. It wasn't an attempt to rendesvous with a 16-year-old boy."

True enough, rob. Of course there's still that authority figure/subordinate thing that Clinton had going on there, but yes, Monica was 21, if you think that makes it less offensive. Even though one might argue that she obviously only had the maturity of a teeny bopper. ;) >>

It's not up to me to determine if it's less offensive. The law says its less offensive.

Trinity: I would add that despite what Foley may have had in mind for the future, there was no real attempt in any of those e-mails to set a date for a meeting with the 16 year old.

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"By the way, the spin that the e-mails were merely "over friendly" is getting on my nerves. A 54-year-old asking one boy for a photograph of himself, and commenting on the "shape" -- the physique -- of a second 16-year-old isn't "over friendly." It's wrong."

Yes, on that I would agree with you. But it still wasn't overtly sexual, which lent some ambiguity to the whole thing. Then too, to be fair, we are looking at it from a different perspective, since we have the benefit of having read those lecherous IMs.

>>

It may not have been "overtly sexual," but the implication is clear.

10:38 AM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Democrats dont find what Foley did repugnant. Why all the fuss? After all it's only sex.

12:38 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares