<< LIST INCOMPLETE ~ MAIN ~ CAR BURNINGS ARE DOWN, HOWEVER >>
“INNOCENT MENTORING”
Ben Shapiro on Republican reaction to the pervy online antics of Mark Foley:
House Republicans were not simply negligent in failing to investigate allegations regarding Foley’s pedophilia—they were downright malfeasant. When a 16-year-old page informed top House Republicans that Foley had e-mailed him and asked for a picture, the Republicans did nothing. When Republican officials confronted Foley over the e-mails, Foley explained that they were innocent mentoring—and Republicans did nothing.
Trusting Foley at his word was inexcusable.
Hard to disagree, although some on the right are now backing away from Foley fallout:
Paul Weyrich, an author of the letter from the Arlington Group, a coalition of 70 socially conservative organizations, called for House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s resignation.
But after speaking with Hastert Wednesday, Weyrich says he changed his mind, and the speaker should not step down.
Republican Rodney Alexander is also putting some distance between himself and the Foley shame. How will this play in November? George F. Will:
After the 1936 election, in which President Franklin Roosevelt shellacked the Republican nominee in all but two states, a humorist wrote: “If the outcome of this election hasn’t taught you Republicans not to meddle in politics, I don’t know what will.” If, after the Foley episode—a maraschino cherry atop the Democrats’ delectable sundae of Republican miseries—the Democrats cannot gain 13 seats, they should go into another line of work.
So should the e-unaware media, writes Stephen Spruiell:
The Mark Foley scandal has revealed something deeply troubling about the state of our news media: In the year 2006, most reporters are still either unable or unwilling to distinguish between e-mails and instant messages. And in this story, that’s a crucial difference. The e-mails Mark Foley sent to a former male page give off a creepy old man vibe, but don’t cross the line into sex-offender territory. The instant messages he sent to former pages, on the other hand, ooze slime from the monitor. (Note to reporters: That’s the thing you’re looking at right now.)
The distinction is important because of the debate that has erupted over Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert’s awareness of Foley’s conduct.
That might be the GOP’s big out in the Foley case. Give this scandal at least one more week to run.
That might be the GOP’s big out in the Foley case. Give this scandal at least one more week to run.
Unfortunately not…
House Ethics Panel Authorizes Foley Investigative Subcommittee
What Foley did was disgusting, no more so then colleagues, or former colleagues, in the House and/or Senate, now.
I’m afraid what Foley has done, is tantamount to giving the Dem’s and some Repub’s a propaganda tool, equal to anything bin Laden or Zawahiri have produced.
Foley is out on his ass and good riddance. I don’t care if Hastert goes either, he’s worthless. But this thing will be trumpeted before the public from now until the elections with the same breathless urgency as if Foley had been raping babies on the House floor. I am already nauseated by the whole circus, and it hasn’t even begun in earnest.
Hmmm.
I’d suggest all of you checking out Drudge.
All of this might be a prank gone horribly wrong. Which might explain why the former pages involved in this have retained **criminal defense** lawyers.
I think we’re going to get a front row seat on backtracking, backstabbing, revamping of positions, dumping certain memes into various memoryholes and the sounds of lawyers mentally adding up their contingency fees for suing the crap out of someone.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 10 05 at 03:00 PM • permalinkSo long as there are Kennedys in Congress, I don’t want to hear about “ethics” from Democrats.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 10 05 at 03:25 PM • permalinkNo matter what negatives the Dems can use to get elected, once there they still won’t have any ideas on a single problem of importance facing this country. The only thing they can manage is to do is throw dirt, and with every handful, they lose ground.
As sick as I am of the way the Republicans have run things, the fact remains that the only serious debates are coming from among them. They Dems are brain dead.
Give this scandal at least one more week to run.
I’m still betting not.
On any ethics issue the Democrats have to tread very carefully. The best they can do is say that the pubbies are “just as bad as us”, but that doesn’t advance their position much.
Foley is gone and Hastert is a non-starter (most Americans have no idea who the speaker is). Democrats in similar ethical troubles have fought tooth and claw to stay in power. Comparison and contrast is easy to do and real hypocrisy is equally easy to spot.
I blame Al Gore for inventing this internet thingy in the first place.
Posted by joe bagadonuts on 2006 10 05 at 04:04 PM • permalinkIs it acceptable to lick your fingers before turning a page?
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 05 at 04:48 PM • permalinkPoll: Hastert Could Devastate GOP
“The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker,” a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. “And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss.”
The above is bad news…Should this come to fruition, an absolute devastating blow, could be, COULD BE handed to the U.S.
Hey, we had the pleasure of watching Democrats and the bloggers who love them publicly gay bashing, finally completely the hat trick with race-baiting and Jew-bashing…please, keep this scandal going.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 10 05 at 06:50 PM • permalinkHmmm.
As usual the MSM types are trying to conflat IM messages with emails and trying to combine them with accusations of “underage” and “pedophilia”.
Frankly what I find truly absurd, and quite curious, is the absolute lack of definitive information. All there is in the MSM are dribs and drabs but very little that’s set out in any sufficient details. An example are the IMs in 2003. What month in 2003? What day in 2003? Any further IMs after 2003 when Hastert told Foley to stop it?
Are there any allegations that Foley continued emails or IMs when rebuffed? Any allegations of Foley engaging in sex acts with anyone underage?
So far the whole thing looks like a set of sexual messages passed back and forth between consenting adults being presented as somehow illegal.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 10 05 at 08:26 PM • permalinkSo far no one is charging that Foley had innapropriate physical contact with anyone. Whatever laws there are about talking dirty in e-mails or IM probably depend on the age of the participants at the time. If Foley broke any of those laws he should be charged. EVEN IF he broke no laws, his behavior was inappropriate and resigning was the right thing to do. (A Democrat had actual sex with a 17 year old page and stayed in office, but Democrats have different rules.)
I think we agree that Foley should be out of office in any case and arrested and charged for specific violations of the law. Right?
So beyond that… it’s clear that Democrats are trying to use this to “motivate” the Republican base. There’s talk of “lists” of gay Republican staffers… lists compiled by “gay friendly” liberals rather than homophobic conservatives. They “know” the homophobic conservatives are there, even if they need a little bit of a push to reveal themselves. So the liberals, the supposedly pro-gay sorts, are going to provide the push by making this as anti-gay as possible.
So *of course* the Republican leadership should have acted agressively to find out if this “gay” congressman was doing more than giving off creepy vibes. He should have been assumed to be a danger to the young men around him. (People are already pointing out the hypocracy of this while the Boy Scouts are demonized for not allowing gay scoutmasters.)
It’s not going to work for them. It won’t work any better than it worked for Kerry and Edwards to slide their oh so friendly remarks about Mary Cheney into the presidential and vice presidential debates.
Most conservatives *aren’t* homophobic, even if many of them don’t think gays should marry, and even those people who *are* homophobic are going to percieve that the attempt is being made to manipulate them.
They aren’t stupid. They aren’t going to respond well to being insulted like that. And even more than that, they aren’t going to chose to vote for Democrats because of being told that Republicans tolerate homosexuality.
Back away. Back away from the scandal now before soemone gets hurt.
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 10 05 at 08:55 PM • permalinkI’ll back away. Don’t lay a finger on Simone.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 10 05 at 09:23 PM • permalinkAdditionally people should remember, the U.S. is not a parliamentary democracy. You vote for the candidate not the party. Party loyalists make up between 30% and 45% of the electorate in any currently Republican district. They aren’t going to vote Dem over something Foley did or Hastert didn’t do. Hastert wins his races with over 70% every time with the exception of his first race more than a decade ago when he won with 64%. He’s not going anywhere unless he actually did something wrong and that has yet to be shown.
AP/Ipsos did polling over the weekend when the scandal broke. The generic matchup (unnamed Democrat vs. unnamed Republican) was 50% D - 41% R. The weekend before it was 51% D - 38% R. That’s a bump in Repub favor if anything, but more likely it shows the scandal has no impact. Pew’s polling over the last two weeks has shown no change as well. So long as they deal with the investigations quickly and openly I don’t see this having any impact at all. Unless some actual evidence of a coverup shows up. And don’t forget Rove’s get out the vote strategy has increased Repub turnout in every election since 2000. They just keep getting better at it and expanding it to more places every election.
Or the Dems could try to run with this and end up grossing people out with their eagerness to lynch this guy at the same time they demonize the Religious Right. The stink of hypocrisy will be overpowering. It’s already getting there. I think they’re going to blow it again. Like I said in a previous thread, Tim Dunlop’s blog is gonna be hilarious on election night. Mark your calenders. It should get started around 6:00 pm on the East Coast on the night of November 7.
Posted by The Apologist on 2006 10 05 at 09:40 PM • permalinkIt’s not going to work for them. It won’t work any better than it worked for Kerry and Edwards to slide their oh so friendly remarks about Mary Cheney into the presidential and vice presidential debates.
That’s a head-slapping moment for me. Just another wave of Democrat gay-bashing—so long as someone doesn’t have the right politics, they’re Fair Game. It’s like the Democrats have been taken over by Scientologists.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 10 05 at 09:58 PM • permalinkFrom El Cid’s link:
The GOP source told FOX News that the internal data had not been widely shared among Republican leaders, but as awareness of it spreads calculations about Hastert’s tenure may change. The source described the pollster who did the survey as “authoritative,” and said once the numbers are presented, it “could change the focus” on whether the speaker remains in power.
FWIW, RNC chair Ken Mehlman claims there is no internal polling data that shows anything like a 20-50 seat loss. And Hastert has been all over the airwaves today saying he has no intention of quitting. All this could change tomorrow. Stay tuned.
And I loved this:
While internal GOP polls show trouble for Republicans, the newest AP/Ipsos poll also showed that half of likely voters say the Foley scandal will be “very or extremely important” when it comes time to vote on Nov. 7. By nearly a 2-1 ratio, voters say Democrats are better at combating corruption.
Ap/Ipsos is polling on Planet Zongo now?
So, wronwright, what exactly is Karl’s plan here, because I admit, I’m not getting it yet.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 10 05 at 10:36 PM • permalinkIn a world where it sometimes seems difficult to get a bearing on your moral compass, Harry Huttonremains the rock which makes these bearings unreliable.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 10 05 at 11:36 PM • permalinkAh, ‘jimbo, that explains it then.
Left Seeks “Conversion Camps” To Change Gays’ Orientation
With the mantra “Hate the sin, love the sinner,” left suggests re-educating Republican gays to embrace “God’s Plan” of passionate fidelity to the gay left and Democratic Party
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 10 06 at 12:40 AM • permalink91B30: Democrats in similar ethical troubles have fought tooth and claw to stay in power.
No, that’s not true.
When Dems have a sex scandal, the odds are off that they have to fight tooth or claw or fight in any damn way whatsoever. (Clinton did “fight”, but with approval ratings ne’er below 60 percent, and he sure as heck wasn’t in any danger of “resigning”.)
Studds, who actually *did* have sex with an underage page, held a press conference with his little lover, telling us that it was none of our damn business, and he went on to get reelected.
Twice!
Name one single Dem who’s ever resigned from a sex scandal. No, the predictability is almost 100 percent—Reps resign or get censured; Dems tell us to mind our own business and the matter is ignored by the legacy media.
Ergo, the situation from Reps standpoint is almost perfectly isomorphic to our maddening tendency to self-flagellate over terrorist “torture”—if we so much as fail to say “please”, then “we have become just as bad as they [the ones who chop off heads with a rusty scimitar] are”.
Meanwhile, Congressman William Jefferson has a bazillion bucks in his freezer, is caught bribing on tape and… oh, yeah—he’s still here. Forgot we forgot about that.
Cynthia McKinney slaps a cop because she’s your garden style racist and… oh, yeah—the voters had to kick her out, not the Congress.
Enough already. What have these endless Rep resignations ever done for us?
Get a grip, Reps; tell the legacy media and the Dems to bugger off. This “we must crucify ourselves like Jesus or we’re not worthy to compare ourselves favorably to the stinking shameless anything-goes Dems” shit is getting really old.
Yeah, pissed. Zeppenwolf out.
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2006 10 06 at 03:34 AM • permalinkAnd there’s this brewing scandal involving a Democratic “trick” that actually represents a violation of the law.
Then there is this…
Did Democrats Cover Up Foley Misdeeds?
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?
The Gay Republican list is out.
Congratulations, gays. You’re officially black. You are now an approved constituency for the Democratic Party to screw over.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 10 07 at 04:31 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I must disagree with Mr Spruiell on this: the old school media drones DO know the difference between emails and instant messages, they are deliberately obscuring it to promote a bogus Democrat talking point:
“The GOP leadership knew all along and tried to cover it up.”