While We're All Dwelling On Foley
NSFW
By Erick Posted in 2006 — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here's an interesting bit of transcript. This bit involved the Congressman having an explicit IM conversation with a 16 year old with whom he had sexual relations. "M" is the Congressman. "B" is the minor.
M: What you gonna wear?
B: Well, my peach underwear, like you told me to. I was hoping that we could do something really special but I see that's not gonna happen, I guess.
M: I was definitely gonna stick [. . . .] in you.
B: Really?
M: Right in my office. I was gonna [. . . .] too.
B: Really?
M: I was looking forward to it.
B: Yeah, I been thinking about a lot times we had together. We had some really good times.
M: Uh-huh, that summer when I used to [. . . .] you out south in that Riverdale apartment?
Of course that was Mel Reynolds, not Mark Foley. And Mel got a pardon from Bill Clinton.
Hat tip to Polipundit.
PS - No, this is no excuse for the ****bag Foley. But we sure could use some perspective. Remember, for the Dems it is not that Foley did what he did. It's that he was a hypocrite.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Joe Negron Replaces Foley — Comments (1) »
While We're All Dwelling On Foley 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Remember, for the Dems it is not that Foley did what he did. It's that he was a hypocrite.
That's right. Because Foley didn't vote according to what their official 'gay rights groups' declared are the official positions for gay men to have, he is not an 'authentic' homosexual, and is therefore Fair Game (in the L. Ron Hubbard sense).
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
on the radio talk shows today. They claim that Hastert, based on the "over friendly" e-mails, should have "outed" Foley then, without any knowledge of him being openly gay. These are the same dems who would have screamed at Hastert if he had done so. If these people are interpreting MSM soundbites like this, then we really have a big job ahead of us in the next five weeks.
"Remember, for the Dems it is not that Foley did what he did. It's that he was a hypocrite."
Its that he was a republican. The hypocrite business is meerly incidental.
Erick,
Are you supprised when Congressman Foley hung a big KICK ME sign on himself, and the GOP, that the Left took him up on it?
The question that is a fair one, is what did the Republican leadership do when they figured out the Foley was doing some very wrong, and what did they do about it. I don't know the answer to that question, but I do feel it is up to Republicans to ask for answers, even if it's what the Democrats want us to do.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Oh, I agree completely. The Speaker handled this badly. But, if we accept the press reports at face value, we know two things.
1. The GOP only knew of the one email exchange and the family requested that they just take it up with Foley without a big controversy.
2. The GOP only found out about the really explicit IM's, etc. when the rest of us did.
Erick,
I would not go as far as you about saying the Speaker handled it badly, but it does not look good. It is up to Republicans to call on Speaker Hastert for an accounting in my view.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Interviews like this don't scream innocence or candor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STmDQ915rUI
Add that to some of the "who what when" contradictions between statements from some GOP reps and their staffers as they responded to numerous requests from the press since Friday, and it may only give credence to the "cover-up" meme.
But it doesn't surprise me.
At least Foley resigned, and if he is convicted of something, I hope Bush doesn't sign any pardons.
. . . Although the thought of him going to jail because of the laws he himself wrote is pretty ironic.
The issue is that the Republican leadership did not investigate this in order to keep a safe seat in Republican hands.
They only saw the e-mails, which were just a tiny bit naughty? That's not going to wash, especially when Republican pages apparently were warned about Foley as early as 2001.
But I wouldn't worry about pardons. I'm sure President Bush will have way too many of those to sign for various members of his cabinet and his family to worry about a run-of-the-mill congressman like Foley. Now if this were someone important, like Duke Cunningham, or Ney, or Abramoff, or -- well, the list goes on and on, doesn't it?
You're so programmed in your daily hate, that you can't resist typing Abramoff, who was never a Republican member of Congress, and who is tied to you guys' SENATE LEADER.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
ima
You assert "The issue is that the Republican leadership did not investigate this in order to keep a safe seat in Republican hands."
You assign motive and action to something that has neither been proven or admitted to. I would submit that we all have 20/20 hindsight and you are making conclusions based on this perfect vision after the fact.
Or do you have information the rest of us do not have, if so please supply links so I can see where I have it wrong.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
We police ourselves, which is more than your side is capable of. Gingrich, Livingston, Ney, Cunningham, Foley... all stepped down. But Clinton, Reynolds, Jefferson, Frank and the list goes on doesn't it? Of Democrat scum that retains office while the Dems circle the wagons and the media looks away.
At least we have honor as a party.
that this will be page one in the NYT and WaPo on Tuesday. Yep, that Tuesday right after H*ll freezes over.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
wow, this really does absolve Foley of everything doesn't it? If those self-righteous Democrat bastards can do it, then why can't we?
thanks
"we"??????? Since when did "you" become one of "us" to make "we"?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Yeah, Mel Reynolds was a sleazebag, but before he's used as a 'gotcha' with Democrats, there are a couple of inconvenient things call facts.
Bill Clinton did NOT pardon Reynolds. He commuted Reynolds six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for convictions on a variety of wire and bank fraud charges and lying to the Federal Election Commission.
Reynolds separately served STATE (as in State of Illinois) time for having sex with an underage campaign worker.
And yes, you could look it up.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds
He did 3 of the 5 years he was sentenced for under the state charge.
He did 42 months of a 78 month sentence before Clinton commuted it and he served the remainder in a halfway house
From the link you yourself cite:
"Reynolds served all of his first sentence [the sex charges] and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges [bank fraud]. At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud."
Erick, I don't understand when people keep saying something like, "THE family requested that they just take it up with Foley without a big controversy."
We know of at least TWO families involved in the "overly friendly" emails.
There was the family that you are probably refering to, which is the family of the recipient of these emails. Lets call this "Male Page A" to refer to this page, who thought the communication was "sick, sick, sick"
But there is also the issue of the second page mentioned in the five emails. That page has a name, and that name is "Will." In the second of the five emails, Foley expresses interest in Will, and comment on his being underage and his having a great body.
Now, I am not aware of any effort to contact Will or his family and to protect him, or to inquire about Will's family's opinion concerning whether they want this matter pursued any further.
There is also the point as to whether any reader of these emails would think that they raise concerns about Mr. Foley. I think that you'd have to be pretty naive to believe that the request for the photo of Male Page A and the comment about Will's great body would be more than sufficient.
I think this is a losing argument for Republicans.
Foley is a poor example of a human being and should be sent to jail where lots of big fat men. Instead, the big fat men will be doing things to him that he used to do to little boys.
Let's dwell on something else, PLEASE.
My question is what the
What's up with that?
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/02/frist-says-us-cant-win-should-brin...
All true republicans and conservatives will join together and condemn Foley for his sins against the laws of man and God. And they will condemn and turn their backs on the so-called Republican house leadership. Those free spenders were bad enough when they were running up obscene debts, but now that they are obviously as morally bankrupt as the Democrats, then it is time rebuke and chastise them.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Another reason to abandon this nonconservative Republican party!
> "Remember, for the Dems it is not that Foley did what he did. It's that he was a hypocrite."
Um, yeah, I'm pretty sure that some of us are actually concerned that he's a pedophile in congress, too...
Once I see the Princess Bride, I can use that 'inconceivable' quote with much satisfaction.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
"I'm pretty sure that some of us are actually concerned that he's a pedophile in congress, too ..."
You mean some of you are actually concerned that he was a republican pedophile in congress. You lot could give a flying toot about corruption amongst your own. Just ask americablog and dkos. And don't bother with the "they don't speak for blah blah". They do now. If you don't like it, take it up with the MSM who keep putting them on TV as your spokespeople.
Sorry, I forgot you know completely how the other half of America thinks. My bad. You're right, none of us give a damn that he was a pedo in a position of power...
(eye roll)
Just remember that he WAS a Republican, before you start throwing stones.
Imagine that! A liberal suddenly doesn't think you can characterize half of America with a broad negative brush!
And anyway, pesto, don't you mean three quarters of America? Or 7/8 or something? After all, that half estimate was put out by diebold and halliburton to steal elections.
As I've mentioned before in responses to you, I think many of the things for which you criticize liberals apply equally to both sides. So whereas many liberals do make sweeping assumptions about cons without actually talking to any of them, many cons do the same thing.
Your own sweeping generalizations of libs as a single, evil entity are evidence of that.
to talk about ethics.
President Clinton's first nominee to the United States Supreme Court supported lowering the age of sexual consent to age 14. Her name was (is) Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Why don't we talk about the issues that values voters care about? It's not like the Democrats have credibility on these issues beyond calling Foley a hypocrite for emailing a 16 year old without also endorsing the Ginsberg legislative idea and making his behavior legal.
Let me ask you a question.
When you catch your kid with his hand in the cookie jar, and he starts talking about how his brother and sister do the same or worse, what do you think.?
Yea it's a bad analogy, but the American people don't want to hear no...Yea but the Donks are worse crud. The Donks are not known as a party of morality, the Republicans are, so deal with the perception and problem as a party that believes in morality.
I've heard very few of the talking heads trying that line of reason by the way, as it just rings real hollow right now. Take the high ground for the longer term, it's a better place to be.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Telling people about Ruth Bader Ginsberg's support of lowering the age of consent to age 14 wouldn't make the Republicans look better. But it would place things in perspective. How many Americans know how radical the Democrat "values agenda" is?"
Will Republicans be criticized for Rep. Mark Foley's behavior? Sure. The only remaining question is whether Republicans will allow the Democrats to suddenly become "values Democrats" who are "outraged" at the misdeeds of Republicans.
If it's phoney outrage, why not show that?
As I type this somewhere the Democrats are working on a plan to be known as the "Value Democrats", they are forming a team.
Value Democrat for family values Barny Frank
Value Democrat for political corruption "Dollar Bill" Bill Jefferson
Value Democrat for racial equality Maxine Waters
I don't think there's much to worry about when it comes to Values.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/oct/02/democrats_would_let_f...
but don't send e-mails
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Drudge is reporting now (10:34 PM EST)
WASHINGTON TIMES ON TUESDAY WILL CALL FOR SPEAKER HASTERT'S RESIGNATION, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... DEVELOPING... Editorial titled: 'Resign, Mr. Speaker': 'House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once... Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance'... -- Washington Times, October 3, 2006..
We have to throw someone under the bus to stop this scandal from spreading. I wonder if Reynolds will be next?
Did not know where to post this but "while you're dwelling on foley' looked like a good start. Why is Frist bringing in the Taliban to the Afghani Govt? I'm very concerned.
Find somewhere else to moby. Or complain on how we're on our way down as a country in so many ways.
Blam.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I'd forgotten about Mel, and I work right next to his old district. Sic transit gloria!
should go to jail in my humble opinion.