representative in florida resigning; Merged

[Dr Grump]

the upshot of which convicts said party of a depraved indifference to the safety of children, in favor of the advancement of its own cynical political ends...such pap...such fluff...nothing there to grab on to at all.

Foley made his bed, he can lie in it. Trying to fob it off onto the Dems is just spin. Keep it up MM, you're gonna get dizzy real soon...

 

[musicman]

Foley made his bed, he can lie in it. Trying to fob it off onto the Dems is just spin. Keep it up MM, you're gonna get dizzy real soon...

No spin is required here, Dr Grump - the Dems have done this to themselves. Hide and watch.

 

[Avatar4321]

Foley made his bed, he can lie in it. Trying to fob it off onto the Dems is just spin. Keep it up MM, you're gonna get dizzy real soon...

Why is looking at the situation as it really is spin? Because you dont want to believe it.

The fact is Foley has been accused of Pedophilia. But there doesnt appear to have been any sex, and if there wasnt it wasn't with children.

That doesnt make what Foley did correct, I am glad he resigned and he is getting help. I just want you guys to stop spinning to smear him more than he deserves.

What we know from the facts so far is that he is a gay man who had explicit conversations with a young adult who was in the page program. Abuse of power to be sure, but unless some damning evidence comes forth shortly, which it could, it looks like Bill Clinton was guilty of more than Foley. Which if true will create fall back against the Democrats because they are the ones being inconsistant in their position.

Republicans requested Bill Clinton resign. Democrats defended him completely. And with the current evidence its clear Clinton did far worse.

Republicas requested Foley resign. He did. We havent defended his actions at all. Yet Democrats are acting all self righteous as though they actually care and arent just calling for Foley's resignation, which already occured, but resignation for other Republicans based on absolutely no evidence.

Now which party is more consistant, the one who consistantly says those who do wrong should resign, or the one who defends someone who did worse because you are in the same party and demanding resignations for a less serious problem in the other party you basically demands everyone resign. Its hypocrisy pure and simple. And if you think the American people arent smart enough to see that then you are are seriously underestimating the people.

If the Democrats keep this up, then they are going to run into a serious backlash. You cant overplay your hard too much. But i think this is going to depend on whether we stay on this story or Democrats go with their next October Suprise.

 

[dilloduck]

Why is looking at the situation as it really is spin? Because you dont want to believe it.

The fact is Foley has been accused of Pedophilia. But there doesnt appear to have been any sex, and if there wasnt it wasn't with children.

That doesnt make what Foley did correct, I am glad he resigned and he is getting help. I just want you guys to stop spinning to smear him more than he deserves.

What we know from the facts so far is that he is a gay man who had explicit conversations with a young adult who was in the page program. Abuse of power to be sure, but unless some damning evidence comes forth shortly, which it could, it looks like Bill Clinton was guilty of more than Foley. Which if true will create fall back against the Democrats because they are the ones being inconsistant in their position.

Republicans requested Bill Clinton resign. Democrats defended him completely. And with the current evidence its clear Clinton did far worse.

Republicas requested Foley resign. He did. We havent defended his actions at all. Yet Democrats are acting all self righteous as though they actually care and arent just calling for Foley's resignation, which already occured, but resignation for other Republicans based on absolutely no evidence.

Now which party is more consistant, the one who consistantly says those who do wrong should resign, or the one who defends someone who did worse because you are in the same party and demanding resignations for a less serious problem in the other party you basically demands everyone resign. Its hypocrisy pure and simple. And if you think the American people arent smart enough to see that then you are are seriously underestimating the people.

If the Democrats keep this up, then they are going to run into a serious backlash. You cant overplay your hard too much. But i think this is going to depend on whether we stay on this story or Democrats go with their next October Suprise.

Hopefully an investigation will list EVERYONE who had prior knowledge to this incident and did nothing to stop it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hopefully an investigation will list EVERYONE who had prior knowledge to this incident and did nothing to stop it.

I agree. and I highly doubt its going to include Hassert.

I think the major problem with people claiming there was a cover up is that there really is no motive. Foley sits in a strong Republican district. If he was doing something wrong he could have resigned and the Republicans could likely still retain the seat. (Honestly I cant say whether that will happen because its so close to the election now but i havent seen any polls either). There is no reason to cover something like this up.

And of course there is Hasserts personal life. The man has spent most of his life working with kids and helping them out. Does anyone honestly believe that a man who has spent his life helping children and teenagers is going to put them in danger to protect a Congressman in a seat that wouldnt have been seriously threatened if he resigned? It just doesnt make any sense.

 

[musicman]

Oh, I think there's a cover-up all right. An investigation will expose a craven, cynical concealment of information - a loathsome agenda that put politics ahead of simple human decency. That's why I believe the smart Democrats are pissing their pants, and wishing all this would just go away.

Kind of reminds me of Iran-Contra; the slingers are going to wind up wearing most of the mud.

 

[Annie]

Oh, I think there's a cover-up all right. An investigation will expose a craven, cynical concealment of information - a loathsome agenda that put politics ahead of simple human decency. That's why I believe the smart Democrats are pissing their pants, and wishing all this would just go away.

Kind of reminds me of Iran-Contra; the slingers are going to wind up wearing most of the mud.

Lots and lots of links:

http://instapundit.com/archives/033042.php

October 06, 2006

THE INEVITABLE FOLEYGATE CONTRARIANISM IS STARTING TO APPEAR:

This Florida ex-congressman Mark Foley stuff is totally lame ass crap manufactured and distilled way out of proportion to be some sort of scandal, when it is really little more than some idiot douchebag's personal embarassment. What crime was committed? So far as I can tell as of this typing, none. What potential crime was averted through the breaking of this information in the national news media? None. What happened? Okay: some idiot wrote supposedly creepy and salacious instant messages to some teenager a couple of years ago, maybe apparently at the teen's goading, maybe not. But, anyway, who cares?

Nothing happened to nobody. . . . Will any of these right wing commentators arguing that something bad and evil happened please explain what, exactly, was bad and evil? And, no, I wouldn't want some douchebag creep writing my sons similarly, and I hope to raise them right enough to not even need to find themselves remotely close to the position of receiving such communication, but beyond the fact that one nitwit wrote highly embarassing instant messages to someone he shouldn't have, and resigned as a result, where, exactly, is the source of outrage fueling all this?​

Andrew Sullivan has a similar, if more restrained, take:

The most infuriating aspect of the Mark Foley fiasco is that we're still unclear on what exactly it is we're infuriated about. This was not pedophilia: The pages involved were all above the legal age of consent in Washington, D.C. It wasn't exactly pederasty either, given that we have no evidence (at least not yet) of any actual sexual contact between two live human beings. Sexual harassment? It doesn't appear that, at the time of the now-infamous instant messages, the pages were in Foley's employ. The best phrase I have been able to come up with for Foley's transgression is "virtual pederasty," with a large dose of extremely creepy and abusive behavior toward younger, vulnerable people whose trust he clearly betrayed.​

Something's happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear.

But as a preemptive move, Roger Simon has outed himself, the better to stay ahead of the McCornthyites.

UPDATE: More on "The List" and witch-hunts from Gay Patriot.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Bob Owens continues to ask what Brian Ross knew, when he knew it, and who he knew it from. And A.J. Strata is asking questions, too.
posted at 02:55 PM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Foley made his bed, he can lie in it. Trying to fob it off onto the Dems is just spin. Keep it up MM, you're gonna get dizzy real soon...

Well, I can't speak for anyone else except myself, but I'll do it anyways, 'cause you're kind of special to me.

The Democrats did not make Foley send lewd messages to any page, m'kay? But they did seize an opportunity and run to their cohorts in the MSM and try to score political points in a crassly opportunistic way. STOP!

Processing....it was a problem about ONE Republican, used by MANY Democrats against ALL Republicans. Who fobbed what and for what reason?

There's a difference between "spin" and outright deception. The aim of spin is simply to put the best face on any given situation. Deception, see ABC News or SEEBS.

 

[Annie]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else except myself, but I'll do it anyways, 'cause you're kind of special to me.

The Democrats did not make Foley send lewd messages to any page, m'kay? But they did seize an opportunity and run to their cohorts in the MSM and try to score political points in a crassly opportunistic way. STOP!

Processing....it was a problem about ONE Republican, used by MANY Democrats against ALL Republicans. Who fobbed what and for what reason?

There's a difference between "spin" and outright deception. The aim of spin is simply to put the best face on any given situation. Deception, see ABC News or SEEBS.

Maybe, maybe not. Link at site:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009056

A Gay Prankster?
Believe it or not, the Mark Foley scandal has gotten even weirder. From the Drudge Report:

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives. . . .

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, said he goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.

The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the investigation.
​

This doesn't exonerate Foley--after all, when men are arrested for soliciting minors on the Internet, their purportedly underage interlocutors are usually FBI agents playing a similar "prank"--but it does cast the whole exchange in a different light. If Drudge's account is accurate, Edmund isn't an innocent victim but a predator in his own right, preying on a lonely and disturbed man.

The reference to "political operatives favorable to Democrats," along with a curiously prescient March 2005 blog post by left-wing gay activist Michael Rogers, suggests that there might be some political predation going on here too (hat tip: Steve Gilbert):

blogACTIVE.com has confirmed with three separate sources that, in fact, US Rep. Mark Foley is a gay man. Foley has voted to support discrimination against gay men and lesbians on more than one occasion.

In addition to the hypocrisy of Foley's vote for the Defense of Marriage Act, Foley also refuses to acknowledge the role his being in the closet played in his lack of support for his run for the US Senate. Equating being gay with some disgusting secret, Foley said it was "repulsive" to talk about sexual oritentation [sic].

A source has confirmed with blogACTIVE.com that Foley lives a practically an [sic] out life at his Florida residence, often seen entertaining gay men, some of whom the source described as "close to underage." . . .

I've thought hard about what kind of TAKE ACTION would work, but there is really is none right now. Everyone already knows Foley's a self hating closet case. When we get closer to the mid-term elections, I am sure more will surface.
​

Imagine if Republican activists had gotten wind of Jim McGreevey's homosexuality before he announced it, and had threatened to "out" him in order to hurt Democrats. One suspects the likes of Rogers would have viewed such Republicans as antigay bigots, or at least as panderers to bigotry. But how is what Rogers was proposing to do--expose a gay member of the opposite party in order to hurt that party--any different? (There is nothing in Rogers's blog entry to suggest he was aware of Foley's penchant for congressional pages or anyone who actually was underage.)

Rogers would presumably say that Foley was fair game because he supported policies Rogers thinks are antigay, such as the Defense of Marriage Act. In other words, antigay means are acceptable in the pursuit of pro-gay ends. This is a paradox of identity politics: Politics very often ends up trumping identity.

 

[Annie]

Yep, getting weirder:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015473.php

October 06, 2006
Did Democrats Cover Up Foley Misdeeds?

Various Democrats are accusing Republicans of covering up Congressman Mark Foley's boy problem, a charge for which there is no evidence. One wonders, though, whether that is exactly what the Democratic Party did.

How did the email and instant messages that triggered the scandal come to light? It has been reported that at least one set of IMs became public after they were sent to "political operatives favorable to Democrats." But when did that happen? The messages themselves are three years old. When did the Democrats find out about them? Did they sit on them for a while, so they could use them as an "October surprise" for maximum political benefit?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but they are important and need to be answered. If the Democrats have known for some time about Foley's transgressions but failed to act until now, they endangered more boys--and why? Solely to advance their partisan political interests.

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.​

I found the reference to Democratic "political operatives" interesting. One would hope that the Ethics Committee will subpoena the reporters who broke the Foley story to find out where they got their information, and when. The question to be answered is, What did the Democrats know, and when did they know it?

Is it possible that the Democrats deliberately delayed disclosure of Foley's transgressions, thereby endangering the security of current Congressional pages and other teenage boys, solely to advance their own political interests? One would certainly hope not. But it is obviously a question that needs to be investigated and answered.
Posted by John at 11:47 AM

 

[Gunny]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else except myself, but I'll do it anyways, 'cause you're kind of special to me.

The Democrats did not make Foley send lewd messages to any page, m'kay? But they did seize an opportunity and run to their cohorts in the MSM and try to score political points in a crassly opportunistic way. STOP!

Processing....it was a problem about ONE Republican, used by MANY Democrats against ALL Republicans. Who fobbed what and for what reason?

There's a difference between "spin" and outright deception. The aim of spin is simply to put the best face on any given situation. Deception, see ABC News or SEEBS.

One thing I'm curious about ..... how did the Dems have access to the contents of Foley's e-mails and IMs? These would be the same Dems that have been calling for the President's head for wanting to eavesdrop on terrorists?

 

[Annie]

One thing I'm curious about ..... how did the Dems have access to the contents of Foley's e-mails and IMs? These would be the same Dems that have been calling for the President's head for wanting to eavesdrop on terrorists?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=486816&highlight=CREW+soros#post486816

 

[Annie]

Here's some more Gunny, posted today. There are links:

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6300

Curious Timing

Another Soros project (CAP) suddenly refers readers to a sister project (CREW) just as CREW puts up the pdf emails of the page. CAP had made many references to CREW’s site before but never before to CREW’s blog which had been around for a while. Two blogs help us see this. From The loop:

I’m following up on some links review for stories quoting CREW and I came across a link via Google to a mobile version of the Center for American Progress’s “Progress Report”. The date is 09/28/2006. In that mobile report the editors blurb that CREW “launches a blog”. These are the headlines for the posts at the CREW blog for 09/28/2006. 8:41AM – 485: Number of documented White House/Abramoff team interactions 9:25AM – The Rove-Abramoff connection: much closer than previously revealed 11:11AM – CREW asks House Ethics Committee to investigate Rep. Mark Foley At 6:39PM that same day, the editors post that the server is responding slowly due to an “extremely heavy load”. After that, the editors go all Foley all the time. Is it strange that that the CREW blog timeline begins 09/06/2006? Not really. Is it strange that the the Progess Report doesn’t even notice the blog of an organization they have linked to repeatedly over the past year until 09/28/2006? Not really. Is it strange that on the morning the Foley story breaks, prior to airing, the Progress Report highlights the CREW blog with the misleading headline indicating it just launched? I can’t conclude much beyond the presence of curious timing. And that’s the way it appears, for now. The Center for American Progress’ (CAP)tip off to the CREW blog might explain how folks were tuned into CREW and the ABC broadcast.​

And who is CAP? From Discover The Networks:

Robert Dreyfuss reports in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: “The idea for the Center began with discussions in 2002 between [Morton] Halperin and George Soros, the billionaire investor. Halperin, who heads the office of Soros’ Open Society Institute, brought [former Clinton chief of staff John] Podesta into the discussion, and beginning in late 2002 Halperin and Podesta circulated a series of papers to funders.” Soros and Halperin recruited Harold Ickes—chief fundraiser and former deputy chief of staff for the Clinton White House—to help organize the Center. It was launched on July 7, 2003 as the American Majority Institute. The name was changed to Center for American Progress (CAP) on September 1, 2003. The official purpose of the Center was to provide the left with something it supposedly lacked—a think tank of its own. Regarding the new think tank proposed by Soros and Halperin, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, “We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party’s values.” She later told The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss, “We’ve had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The Center is a welcome effort to fill that void.” Persistent press leaks confirm that Hillary Clinton, and not Podesta, is ultimately in charge of CAP. “It’s the official Hillary Clinton think tank,” an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International.
​

Clarice Feldman 10 06 06

 

[Gunny]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=486816&highlight=CREW+soros#post486816

Unless I'm reading this wrong, there are no actual e-mails, just allegations. There are no witnesses on record, just allegations from un-named "victims."

Obviously, based on Foley's actions, there has to be some truth in there somewhere. Equally obvious, there has to be something recent that triggered the incident (besides and upcoming election) to put it on top now.

I'm just trying to imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Dems that would have resulted had Hastert & Co demanded Foley's resignation based on unsupported accusations from unknown people.

Seems to me the situation was handled properly at the time and wouldn't be an issue had Foley done as he was ordered to do. Or if teh left would lose their penchant for regurgitating old news and presentign it as if it happened yesterday.

 

[Annie]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, there are no actual e-mails, just allegations. There are no witnesses on record, just allegations from un-named "victims."

Obviously, based on Foley's actions, there has to be some truth in there somewhere. Equally obvious, there has to be something recent that triggered the incident (besides and upcoming election) to put it on top now.

I'm just trying to imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Dems that would have resulted had Hastert & Co demanded Foley's resignation based on unsupported accusations from unknown people.

Seems to me the situation was handled properly at the time and wouldn't be an issue had Foley done as he was ordered to do. Or if teh left would lose their penchant for regurgitating old news and presentign it as if it happened yesterday.

My understanding is that the emails became known last year or earlier. Foley did stop, though he failed to inform anyone of the im's. According to drudge, the im's were basically the result of some egging on by the pages, which in no way exonerates Foley. The content of the im's became known the day Foley was forced to resign.

 

[Gunny]

My understanding is that the emails became known last year or earlier. Foley did stop, though he failed to inform anyone of the im's. According to drudge, the im's were basically the result of some egging on by the pages, which in no way exonerates Foley. The content of the im's became known the day Foley was forced to resign.

By "egging on " you mean entrapment?

I'm in no way excusing Foley's behavior. This seems to be turning into a three ring circus that keeps getting scrambled by a few.

1. You have Foley's behavior. Inexcusable. My absolute loathing of pedophiles aside, he was in a position of power and he attempted to abuse it.

2. Republican leadership and what they did and did not know and when, and what they did about it. From everything I have seen this far, they acted in a manner appropriate to the situation.

3. The Dems regurgitating and fanning the flames of a story right before the election in a desparate attempt to sway votes since they can't do it by legitimate means. Y'know ... like having a poltical position that equates to more than "We're for everything the Republicans are against."

 

[musicman]

3. The Dems regurgitating and fanning the flames of a story right before the election in a desparate attempt to sway votes since they can't do it by legitimate means. Y'know ... like having a poltical position that equates to more than "We're for everything the Republicans are against."

It's even more sinister than that, Gunny. Republican leadership is in the clear as far as the IMs go, and the IMs are where the real sleaze took place. In other words, just as you say, they acted appropriately and effectively on the information they had.

It is the IMs that are going to present a problem for Democrats (which is superb irony, since the purpose of their disclosure was to inflict damage on Republicans). Knowledge of these IMs - and concealment of that knowledge for any length of time - can only add up to one thing: some person or persons deemed the political value of these IMs - and the TIMING of their release - more important than the safety of minor children. The Democrats are going to bleed over this one; it's now just a question of depth and degree.

 

[musicman]

Superb irony #2:

Democrats now have to hope that the weapons they've stupidly turned on themselves - the IMs - can somehow be made to look a little less heinous. The worse the IMs turn out to be, the more pathetically sociopathic the Dems appear for having covered them up. It's a remarkable little plot twist, wouldn't you say?

 

[glockmail]

Superb irony #2:

Democrats now have to hope that the weapons they've stupidly turned on themselves - the IMs - can somehow be made to look a little less heinous. The worse the IMs turn out to be, the more pathetically sociopathic the Dems appear for having covered them up. It's a remarkable little plot twist, wouldn't you say?

I have not been following this very closely, since I saw from the outset the the whole issue was bull, but soon things will be getting more interesting!

 

[dilloduck]

I have not been following this very closely, since I saw from the outset the the whole issue was bull, but soon things will be getting more interesting!

Both parties may drop this one as it might make both sides look stupid.