Scandal insufficiently scandalous

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am

The San Francisco Chronicle’s Carolyn Lochhead on Republican e-perv Mark Foley:

Five weeks before a midterm election, when Republicans are already on the ropes, the last thing the GOP needed was a homosexual pedophilia scandal.

Unless you’re the Homosexual Pedophilia Scandal Party, there’s probably never a good time for a homosexual pedophilia scandal. Foley fallout has already seen mid-term GOP hopes collapse. It’s an instant message midterm meltdown! But Reason’s Kerry Howley points out:

The Mark Foley pedophilia sex scandal lacks two things: pedophilia and sex.

It doesn’t lack grotesque hypocrisy, however, which Howley notes.

UPDATE. Tim Dunlop:

The emails are stomach-turning: you can see them here … This, obviously, has the ability to completely destroy the Republican Party.

Hmm. Might be overstating things a little.

UPDATE II. Fox News incorrectly labels Foley a Democrat.

UPDATE III. Maybe Fox had Foley mixed up with Gerry Studds, the unfortunately-named former Democrat Congressman whose congress with a teenage page is the subject of urgent re-writing at Daily Kos.

Posted by Tim B. on 10/03/2006 at 10:20 PM
    1. Homosexual Pedophilia Scandal Party


      Oh, you must mean the Democrats.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 03 at 11:08 PM • permalink


    1. If Foley had been shown the door by the GOP leadership prior to his self resignation, the cries of gay bashing from the likes of the SF Chronicle could have been heard in Australia.

      Foley sent highly inappropriate emails and IMs to young men serving as congressional pages.  He has no business being in congress.  Hence, he is not in congress.  If he has committed a crime, that will be pursued as well, but not by congress.  And yes, if he was a Democrat, this would just be his personal life and there would be no media swarm.

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 10 03 at 11:13 PM • permalink


    1. Give Foley credit – he’s already played both the “I’m an alcoholic and going into rehab” and “I was molested by a priest” cards. A responsibility-dodging twofer!

      Look for the “struggling closeted gay male” play soon. Poor dear.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 10 03 at 11:19 PM • permalink


    1. He’s quit. As he should. It’s not as if it’s something trivial like leaving the kid to drown in the back seat of a Lincoln.

      Posted by slatts on 2006 10 03 at 11:22 PM • permalink


    1. The Studds (what a great name for a homosexual, pedophile congresscritter) issue is why this “scandal” has no legs.  It’s just too easy for the pubbies to point out the differences between the two parties-Foley forced to resign in disgrace, Studds arrogantly turning his back on Congress while his censure is read and then repeatedly being reelected in his lib district.

      Expect for this issue to go away within a week.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 03 at 11:26 PM • permalink


    1. Values-type conservative groups are calling for Dennis Hastert’s resignation. They’re pretty pissed about this grotesque violation of basic decency. Kinda like when feminist groups rallied to the defense of Bill Clinton’s alleged victims and called him to account.

      Uh, wait a minute…

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 10 03 at 11:26 PM • permalink


    1. Look for the “struggling closeted gay male” play soon.
      What about the ‘anally probed by aliens’ play?

      Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 10 03 at 11:31 PM • permalink


    1. I agree with Howley. As I understand it, Foley never touched the kid, he just exchanged ribald and tasteless e-mails. If he was a Democrat we’d hear nothing but Freedom of Speech.
      I’m glad Foley is gone; he needs to be honest with himself before he can represent the people. But let’s not make a big deal out of it.

      Posted by Merlin on 2006 10 03 at 11:35 PM • permalink


    1. Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.)
      Freshman Reynolds was indicted on Aug. 19, 1994, on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker and then pressuring her to lie about it. Reynolds, who is black, denied the charges and said the investigation was racially motivated. The GOP belatedly put up a write-in candidate for November, but Reynolds dispatched him in the overwhelmingly Democratic district with little effort. Reynolds was convicted on Aug. 22, 1995 of 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography, was sentenced to five years in prison, and resigned his seat on October 1.

      Received a Clinton Presidential pardon, now works with and for Jesse Jackson.

      Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
      In response to a story in the Aug. 25, 1989, Washington Times, Frank confirmed that he hired Steve Gobie, a male prostitute, in 1985 to live with and work for him in his D.C. apartment. But Frank, who is gay, said he fired Gobie in 1987 when he learned he was using the apartment to run a prostitution service. The Boston Globe, among others, called on Frank to resign, but he refused. On July 19, 1990, the ethics committee recommended Frank be reprimanded because he “reflected discredit upon the House” by using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie’s parking tickets. Attempts to expel or censure Frank failed; instead the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him. The fury in Washington was not shared in Frank’s district, where he won reelection in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.

      Frank is still in the U.S. House of Representatives.

      Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.)
      The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages – Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane’s conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds’s more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.

      Crane as it states, got booted. Studds, even after retirement, steadfastly refuses (if he is still alive) to apologize.

      Yes, in this LINK there are members of both parties. Republicans, seem shamed and get canned and rightfully so. Democrats believe it is an honor bestowed. From this, Clinton notched his belt, and proudly. Doesn’t mention his impeachment, much does he? Well to Clinton, it is a Badge of Honor.

      To this point this…

      The Mark Foley pedophilia sex scandal lacks two things: pedophilia and sex.

      …is still true. We shall see.None of these men, deserve to sit in their personal houses, forget positions of power. They need to be sitting in prisons.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 10 03 at 11:40 PM • permalink


    1. And via Right Wing News, look at what’s been deleted from a Kos entry about Studds:

      “On July 20, 1983, Gerry was censured for having an affair 10 years earlier with a male page. He…turned his back] as the charges against him were read. The anti-gay crew had worked hard to demonize him (as they would [[Barney Frank]] several years later over allegations of a male prostitute having clients in Frank’s apartment). Gerry held a press conference with the page and admitted to a relationship. They each firmly stated that what had gone on in their bedroom was their business, and absolutely no one else’s.”

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 04 at 12:11 AM • permalink


    1. The MSM in Australia are struggling for a way to handle this.  Firstly, they realize they risk exposing their audience to head-exploding cognitive dissonance by acknowledging the mere existence of a gay Republican senator. (What next? Black Republicans?) Then they wonder how to use this to bash the Republicans without seeming to be too hard on something (man-boy text-love) which they would heartily condone in any other context.

      Last night’s substantial piece on SBS (topping and tailing a US broadcast) made only a single reference to the gender of Foley’s prey (boys).  Everywhere else, it was just ‘page’ or ‘pages’.  Since the Page program has been co-ed since the 1970s, this is disingenous to say the least.  And of course, they take every opportunity to call it a ‘Republican sex scandal’, as if they were some kind of third gender.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 10 04 at 01:30 AM • permalink


    1. …and I can’t recall anyone ever referring to the Monica Lewinsky affair as as ‘Democrat sex scandal’.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 10 04 at 02:03 AM • permalink


    1. 91B30

      Expect for this issue to go away within a week.

      I tend to agree. This whole episode will likely die a quick death, as soon as the drum-beat takes on an appearance of not just Republican Bashing, but one of Gay Bashing.

      We should remember, to always take for granted, the modern libreral’s ability to self-destruct.

      Posted by Thomas on 2006 10 04 at 02:13 AM • permalink


    1. #1- I thought they were the Beastiality and Zombie Necrophillia Party.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 10 04 at 02:24 AM • permalink


    1. #9 El Cid,

      You forgot to mention Donald ‘Buz’ Lukens(R-OH). Lukens dug his own grave by arranging a tryst with a 16 year old girl on hidden camera and yet he is now penniless and dying of cancer after prison while Mel Reynolds collects a paycheck from the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

      The Democrats take care of their sexual deviants while the Republicans cut theirs loose. Fucking judgemental bastards!

      Posted by JDB on 2006 10 04 at 02:39 AM • permalink


    1. I wouldn’t worry, the voters can smell hypocrisy like a dead skunk.  The Democrats protected and covered sex scandals including sex with underage pages (Garry Studds), sexual exploitation of interns (Bill Clinton) and a Congressman allowing his gay prostitute lover to run a sex-for-pay ring out of the Congressman’s aprtment (Barney Frank).

      It’s just like when the Dems “discovered” Bush’s 20 year old DUI while letting the booze soaked Ted Kennedy, who only KILLED someone with his drunk driving, to sit as an elder statement.  Meanwhile, Whiskey Ted’s degenerate nephew, the honourable Congressdrunk from Rhode Island, goes shooting around Washington cocked to the eyeballs on Scotch and tranquilisers.

      Posted by Max on 2006 10 04 at 02:54 AM • permalink


    1. The Republican campaign theme should be “Like America, We’re Held to Higher Standards.”

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 10 04 at 03:28 AM • permalink


    1. Dunlop’s understanding of American politics is hilarious! And while the other sex scandals and the Dems treatment of them will get it’s fair share of play there are two other points which have yet to be hammered on.

      One is that even if you’re wary of the Repubs on this, the Democrats are worse and values voters have already been in the process of abandoning them for a generation now. The Dems have done nothing but call them Christianists in response.

      Two is that a couple months ago Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) was caught on tape by the FBI accepting a $100,000 bribe and later $90,000 of it was found in his freezer at home. He’s still in Congress, he still holds his seat on his committees, and when the Dem leadership even thought about removing him half the party members threw a fit and stopped them.

      Bottom line, Foley’s gone, Jefferson ain’t. Repubs police their own. Dems don’t. Everyone in America knows this. The story broke 35 days before the election. Nobody in the leadership is going to lose their races to Democratic challengers and no one else will be effected. You can’t just vaguely dislike the guy who’s there, you have to like the other guy better.

      But watching Dunlop’s blog on the night of November 7 is going to be funny as hell.

      Posted by The Apologist on 2006 10 04 at 03:46 AM • permalink


    1. I remember reading in GQ magazine back during the william kennedy smith rape trial that senator ted would cruise around in his limo on Capitol Hill trying to pick up senate pages.

      The one quoted in the story, who said she was hit on in this way, was only 17.

      Posted by zefal on 2006 10 04 at 03:50 AM • permalink


    1. #11,
      Politics aside, it’s the power/age difference that is objectionable, not the respective genders.

      Posted by chrisgo on 2006 10 04 at 05:16 AM • permalink


    1. Other scandals that will destroy the Republican Party, the Bush Presidency, or Western Civilization, according to Dunlop:

      — TAG memo

      — Plame affair / Fitzgerald investigation

      — NSA wiretapping

      — Secretary Rumsfeld / Karl Rove / VP Cheney

      — leaked British memo on WMD

      The man deals in hyperbole and wishful thinking.  He’s not a bad guy.  He’s just a bit nutty.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 10 04 at 06:16 AM • permalink


    1. I just read those stomach-churning emails and … sorry, must dash – dinner’s ready.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 10 04 at 06:19 AM • permalink


    1. Maybe Foley was “losing his hair”?

      BTW It wasn’t buggery lets just say he literally had a “shit eating grin”!

      Posted by Rob Read on 2006 10 04 at 06:23 AM • permalink


    1. sexually explicit

      I must be missing something.  If you’re the sort of person who thinks that all males are potential paedophiles then maybe you’d be worried about any communication in which an adult male asks a teenaged boy for his picture or how old he is or when’s his birthday or mentions that some other young fellow is in great shape.  But I just don’t see anything sexually explicit in that sort of messaging.  Are there other emails or instant messages?  Or is sexual explicitness, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder?

      Posted by Janice on 2006 10 04 at 06:28 AM • permalink


    1. Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten has told how the pressure of work and a mid-life crisis prompted him to have an affair with a male prostitute. The married father-of-two said “unhappiness” at work and losing his hair had contributed to the affair.

      Wonders when PACO Industries begins airing late night commercials advertising a hair restoring product made from the fat of plastic turkeys, specially made for 40ish liberals.  Counting down 10, 9, 8 …

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 10 04 at 06:32 AM • permalink


    1. The SF Chronicle reports that the homosexual pedophelia reports have increased Republican voters in San Francisco /s.

      Posted by stats on 2006 10 04 at 07:54 AM • permalink


    1. Hey apologisin 24/7 works for Peter Beattie…

      Posted by crash on 2006 10 04 at 08:01 AM • permalink


    1. The emails are stomach-turning: you can see them here …

      Methinks he doth protest too much…

      Posted by murph on 2006 10 04 at 08:21 AM • permalink


    1. Reads like grooming to me. Beware moral equivalence.

      Posted by Bruno on 2006 10 04 at 08:21 AM • permalink


    1. I find Tim Dunlop more stomach churning than the emails to which he links.

      Posted by Hanyu on 2006 10 04 at 08:32 AM • permalink


    1. o/t SBS site..”Top Stories”..
      The Americas..”Parents kidnap own daughter..”,”U.S. Killer admits sex abuse”,”Lula ahead in Brazilian Polls”,”U.S. Passes Defence Budget”,
      “Top Stories” National..
      “Aboriginal Elders Bypassed”,”A.W.B. Could face terror charges”,”Palm Island fury over officer”(police),”Hicks Spared from Death Penalty -U.S.”,”W.A. will Appeal”(Native Title Fed Court ruling).

      Posted by crash on 2006 10 04 at 08:41 AM • permalink


    1. #31 O forgot on SBS site..
      Mysteriously tabled under “Middle East”.
      “Amish Search For Answers.”.

      Posted by crash on 2006 10 04 at 08:43 AM • permalink


    1. #25: Mr. Paqeau’s Tonsorial Products Division takes great pride in introducing “Jungle Head”, a lab-tested, fool-proof ointment guaranteed to create a luxurious mop of hair so thick, so strong, so wavy that Nicole Kidman will want to run barefoot through it! Just listen to what some of our satisfied test clients have to say:

      “I was a burnt-out, low-level State Department nobody, stuck in a rut of ambassadorships to embarassingly small and unimportant countries, when I discovered Jungle Head. Almost overnight, I became a veritable silver fox, with movie star hair that gave me the confidence I needed to take on the President of the United States and make an utter fool of myself. So, even though I’ve lost my credibility, I still have the best looking head of hair in Washington! – J. Wilson

      I used to worry about my lack of artistic skill, and disguised my ineptitude by drawing cartoons of ducks and people with noses like watermelons that I passed off as evidence of a child-like, almost saintly personality. Jungle Head boosted my self-esteem and enabled me to scrap all that faux fey crap and go straight for the jugular, with hard-hitting political caricatures that have won awards as far away as Tehran. – M. Leunig

      So, does your dome look like a canteloupe? Is your comb collecting dust in a drawer? Do the ladies check their makeup by glancing at their reflections on your head? Then head for the jungle! Jungle Head. Some users may experience side effects, including headaches, diarrhea, woodpecker infestations and, occasionally, death .

      Posted by paco on 2006 10 04 at 09:04 AM • permalink


    1. Must …. resist … temptation … to buy …. Jungle Head.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 10 04 at 09:17 AM • permalink


    1. Just wait: The McGreevey Moment is on its way.

      Posted by SoberHT on 2006 10 04 at 09:22 AM • permalink


    1. This, obviously, has the ability to completely destroy the Republican Party

      Well, if he means the Republican Party as we’ve come to know it over the last couple of years, I can’t say I’d be disappointed. Maybe then the Party will get back on track as the advocate of smaller government and individual initiative. Unfortunately, the Republicans have shown themselves to be extremely lethal own-foot marksmen – not just Foley, but a whole gaggle of congressmen who have turned out to be the worst sort of special-interest pleaders. And let’s not forget the Senate: Frist, for example, with his bizarre comments on the Taliban and his incredibly maladroit handling of the aftermath.

      Which doesn’t mean I’ll be voting Democratic. The prospect of Nance Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House, and Barney Frank (or, for that matter, the execrable Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy) becoming chairman of any committee at all, is more that flesh can bear. As I indicated in a previous thread, I won’t even contemplate voting for a Democrat until they’re more like the late Grover Cleveland (who, come to think of it, had his own sex scandal).

      Posted by paco on 2006 10 04 at 09:38 AM • permalink


    1. It’s “only about sex,” so it doesn’t matter, and isn’t it time to just No doubt the former congressional page is a “stalker,” so we shouldn’t pay attention. Besides, any investigation will just be a Starr chamber.

      Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2006 10 04 at 09:50 AM • permalink


    1. #24 Janice I’m with you.  I don’t get it.  Maybe half the page got stuck in the database or something (I aint no techo, clearly) But surely there are innocent explanations for what is on that link.

      Anyway what do I know?  I’m off to Betty Ford …

      Posted by Big Jim on 2006 10 04 at 10:26 AM • permalink


    1. #24 – Janice, I tend to agree with you. All I could think of was the kind of inane questions youngsters get asked by “persons of a certain age.” It also made me think of the penpal letters I wrote & received as a kid, when my grandmother would give my address to one of her friend’s grandkids in Texas or California. Polite Letter-writing & Smalltalk 101…boy, do I feel old.

      Posted by KC on 2006 10 04 at 10:28 AM • permalink


    1. The Democrats left a message on my answering machine yesterday telling me how the Republicans in Congress, and in particular the Republican leadership, shielded a known pedophile enabling him to continue his “pattern of abuse” among congressional pages for years.

      Mark Foley, whom I’ve always considered creepily off-putting, is neither a pedophile nor a child abuser. He is a gay man who preys on teenage boys (who, as far as I know, were over the age of consent), known in the vernacular as a chickenhawk. This phenomenon is not entirely unknown among gay men. In fact, it was the largest component to the Catholic church’s “troubles”. God forbid we should call this spade a spade.

      Do the vast majority of congressional Republicans deserve to be re-elected? No, they do not for all kinds of reasons having absolutely nothing to do with this. Will we deserve what will happen if they are not re-elected? No, we will not. In fact, it’s a particularily horrifying scenario, but I fear we’re about to live it. And I have enormous scorn for those who would sit by and let it happen because of Chickenhawk Foley.

      It’s said that Denny Hastert has only a couple of days to turn this around or he’s toast.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 10 04 at 10:35 AM • permalink


    1. Hmmm.

      After seeing old men posing as young women online in World of Warcraft and trying to solicit money for virtual lapdances I’m not all that shocked by any silly thing like this.

      Personally what this case makes me want to know is just why the heck does Congress need *pages*?  This isn’t some 1940’s movie or anything.  What these twits in Congress don’t have cellphones?  Blackberries?  Paid aides?  Just what exactly is the point of having pages at all?

      Well aside from trying to either entice into sex (R-Foley) or getting drunk and then raping (D-Stuggs)?

      Posted by memomachine on 2006 10 04 at 10:41 AM • permalink


    1. “Just what exactly is the point of having pages at all?”

      The idea of getting people to work for nothing has always been appealing to certain elements of our society.

      Slavery, military conscription, lackeys for politicians (aka pages).

      Same old, same old.

      Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 10 04 at 11:13 AM • permalink


    1. The GOP hopes collapsing?  I don’t think so!

      On that Tuesday in November, voters will realize they have two unpalatable choices: spending into oblivion by a GOP one-party government, or surrender to Islamism by a Democratic government.  One holds the possibility of correction; the other promises the Dark Ages.  I know what I will do.

      Posted by Patricia on 2006 10 04 at 11:19 AM • permalink


    1. #43, et al, alas, those are the choices I see also.  There have been dirty old men in Congress since Congress was invented, and as we can see, Congress is still there.  I’ll be voting other issues besides whether a dirty old man was chasing fresh meat.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 10 04 at 12:36 PM • permalink


    1. #41 Seize the ass-toucher!
      (Some friends play, Ed, not me.)

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 04 at 12:36 PM • permalink


    1. Hmm. Let’s see.

      Conservative and libertarian bloggers catch CBS’s 60 Minutes Wednesday uttering forged documents trying to influence an election; catch Reuters Photoshopping a warzone photo of bombing; catch all of the wire services promoting set-up photos; catch AP (IIRC) and others pushing photos of a junked ambulance as having been targeted on purpose and destoyed by an Israeli missile (or something) strike; that Air America was stealing money from a charity; and catch far-left bloggers using a Photoshopped photo* to attack Michelle Malkin’s credibility on moral issues (just to name the most prominent conservative ‘gotchas’) but a leftie blogger “catches” Fox in an onscreen typo of “Foley (D-FL)” on an opinion show (as contrasted with a news-show) whose spoken content undoubtedly made clear that Foley was a Republican and that was corrected for the same-day rebroadcast, and they think that they’ve caught Fox in some huge scandal and cover-up that only they were intelligent enough and brave enough to uncover (and the poster himself makes a typo about the date in his original posting).

      Boy, you must be shaking in your boots, Tim, about the power of leftists speaking truth to power.

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 04 at 02:10 PM • permalink


    1. The point is that Foley has made it a mission over the last ten years to enact legislation protecting minors from internet predators. He’s pushed for greater penalties and more rigorous legislation at every twist and turn.

      Indeed, it has been the most central aspect of his Congressional career.

      Posted by bongoman on 2006 10 04 at 06:10 PM • permalink


    1. Fox radio news reports that Dennis Hastert has resigned his position as Speaker. I don’t find confirmation anywhere else. If true, perhaps it’s a result of this: Ex-Foley Aide Claims He Told Hastert of Foley Misconduct in 2003

      A former senior aide to disgraced ex-Congressman Mark Foley claimed Wednesday that he alerted House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s aides three years ago to his boss’s questionable conduct with teenage pages, and asked them there to intervene — the earliest known alert to the GOP leadership.

      Kirk Fordham, who resigned Wednesday as chief of staff to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., told The Associated Press that when he learned of Foley’s inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had “more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene.”

      Fordham also has resigned.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 10 04 at 06:25 PM • permalink


    1. Kyda-nothing on FR, they usually pick up those kinds of stories faster than anyone.


      The point is that Foley has made it a mission over the last ten years to enact legislation protecting minors from internet predators. He’s pushed for greater penalties and more rigorous legislation at every twist and turn.

      Indeed, it has been the most central aspect of his Congressional career.

      Yes and Republicans made him resign when it came to light, arguing over what Hastert knew or when he knew it is a non-starter when the party pointing their fingers seems incapable of holding their own members to any standard regarding any misbehavior.

      Keep thinking that this is something the Democrats can exploit, but when you look at the two parties side by side the pubbies come off looking a whole lot better.  They are far from perfect, but elections aren’t about the perfect.  Elections are a choice and the pubbies are easily the better of the two choices here.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 04 at 06:38 PM • permalink


    1. Kyda-FR does have a thread which shows Fordham contradicting himself about notifying Hastert.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 04 at 06:45 PM • permalink


    1. People, people, people… remember… it’s only a ‘gay crime’ when it’s done TO a gay man, not BY a gay man… try to keep up…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 10 04 at 08:14 PM • permalink


    1. I think I must have heard wrong, Ralph (not unHEARD of). This “news” is nowhere else. Never mind.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 10 04 at 08:44 PM • permalink


    1. Kyda-;-)

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 04 at 09:21 PM • permalink


    1. Now from more reliable sources: Interesting comments thread at Lucianne and lots of other good stuff at Sweetness and LightGateway PunditStrataSphere and Macsmind.

      Curiouser and curiouser.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 10 04 at 09:29 PM • permalink


    1. Just as a bit of perspective, in move and TV terms, “foley” is artificial noise laid down to liven up a dull scene…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 10 04 at 09:33 PM • permalink


    1. I didn’t think dull was something we had to worry about these days.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 10 04 at 10:39 PM • permalink


    1. Richard-you just reminded me of what a Foley is in medicine.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 04 at 10:52 PM • permalink


    1. What happened to Tim Dunlop? I never agreed with his politics, but I thought he was quite entertaining sometimes. Looking over his site today I couldn’t find a single thing worth reading. Was he always that bad? Have I become more discriminating? Or has he gone downhill?

      Posted by Hanyu on 2006 10 05 at 05:20 AM • permalink


    1. “The point is that Foley has made it a mission over the last ten years to enact legislation protecting minors from internet predators. He’s pushed for greater penalties and more rigorous legislation at every twist and turn.

      Indeed, it has been the most central aspect of his Congressional career. “

      Ironic, ain’t it?

      And the ramifications from this are exactly what? Bill Clinton utilized morality as one of his campaign themes in 1996. During his two administrations he also cashiered over 80 officers in the military for violating fraternizing regulations. A wit in the Republican Party noted this, and offered to vote no on impeachment, if any Democrat would co-sponsor a bill restoring their careers. Surprizingly, he had no takers. The irony of that wasn’t lost on me then either. We have to continually deal with abuse of power by persons in positions of power.

      One possible question is: when confronted by allegations, how did each party respond? Did they do the ‘right thing’, something less, conceal information, or actively attack any who dared speak out? Before you start your rebuttal, tell us how loved Joe Lieberman is by most Democrats, particularly after he dared speak against Clinton.

      Posted by Blue Hen on 2006 10 05 at 09:37 AM • permalink


    1. #59 – Blue Hen – EXACTLY! We are all flawed, those we have chosen as our lawmakers are no better than those they represent.  Is it wrong to do the right thing even though I have the character flaws I’m writing legislation to fight? The big question for me is as you state – When confronted, what is the response?

      I went No Contest on a DUI 12 years ago. It’s not something I’m proud of, it causes me shame & pain to this day. When asked, I am truthful, with no denial, no waffling, no excuses, no self-righteous counterattack. I was wrong, I did what I could to make it right, I will not repeat the offense, I accept any consequences there may be, and that is the end of it.

      It would be so lovely if our (unfortunately) Professional Politicians could do the same. I won’t hold my breath. I have more respect for Joe Lieberman than any other serving member of Congress.

      Posted by KC on 2006 10 05 at 10:28 AM • permalink


    1. The Yojimbo is just sitting here all hunkered down waiting for the moral indignation of the left directed at the ABC guy who held onto information which put this page in physical danger, according to them, all for the purpose of hurting the Republician party.  After all, their only purpose is the protection of children.

      Why yes, I was laughing the whole time I was typing that.  Thank you for asking.

      Yo! Dave S.  Game On!  Good job by the Sabres.

      It is strange that supposedly computer saavy reporters suddenly lost the distinction between an e-mail and an IM.  I’m sure there is an explanation for this somewhere.  Read comment on mirth from above.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 10 05 at 01:00 PM • permalink


    1. I’m just surprised that the San Francisco Chronicle finds somethign wrong or even unusual with a gay pedophilia scandal…

      Posted by -keith in mtn. view on 2006 10 05 at 05:42 PM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.