Posted on 09/30/2006 7:46:52 PM PDT by lauriehelds
Watch the video.
Could well be; otoh. . .he may have limited his 'jolly-time'; that said. . .I am sure the Dems are doing 'due-diligence' on this as we speak. . .
I'm Late to this Story
The Mark Foley story, that is. Truthfully, this is the kind of story I don't take much interest in. The latest headline is that GOP leaders knew of Foley e-mail in '05. Some people I respect, like Captain Ed, have been harshly critical of Speaker Dennis Hastert for knowing of the Foley scandal and 1) not doing enough about it, and 2) allegedly lying about his knowledge of the Foley matter.
Well, maybe. But the starting point is to figure out what Foley did. As far as I can tell from the news stories I've read, there is no claim that Foley did anything with any House page. The claim is that he sent inappropriate emails to one or more pages. These emails were described to Hastert, apparently, as "over friendly," but he was also told that the family of the page in question "didn't want the matter pursued." I've never been Speaker of the House, but I can imagine that such a conversation would not be among the most significant Hastert has had in the last year, and would not necessarily make a deep impression. Foley was, I take it, generally assumed to be gay.
Our younger readers may not be aware that House pages have figured in several scandals over the years. Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA) had an affair with a teenage male page that, I believe, included sex within the precincts of the Capitol Building. Studds refused to admit that he had done anything wrong, and turned his back on the House when it censured him for this misconduct in 1983. The voters in Studds's district didn't seem to mind; they continued to re-elect him until he retired in 1996. He is remembered mainly as a pioneering crusader for gay rights.
Then there is Barney Frank, who was reprimanded by the House for using his Congressional office to intervene on behalf of his boyfriend, a homosexual prostitute, to dispose of at least 33 parking tickets. The boyfriend also ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's house. Today, Frank is one of the most powerful members of the Democrats' House caucus.
So I'm not particularly surprised that Foley wrote some "over-friendly"--I'm sure I would find them creepy--emails to one or more underage pages. He has resigned, which is appropriate. Studds and Franks should have resigned, too. But, in view of the history of far more egregious cases in the House, the idea of pursuing the House leadership on a "when did they find out that Foley sent a creepy email" basis seems ludicrous, and is understandable only in the context of two facts: Foley is a Republican, and there is an election in five weeks.
The hypocrisy is so obvious, isn't it?
(((drip, drip, drip)))
"The socialist/marxist/liberal media is the most destructive, relentless, and ruthless enemy of this Republic."
Truer words were never spoken, bts.
I have the ironclad, irrefutable talking points RIGHT HERE.
1. Clinton lied about sex with an intern, including suborning perjury. "It's just about sex."
2. Senator Chuck Robb (D-VA) was linked to sexual escapades with underaged women, according to this site.
3. Chandra Levy / Gary Condit...? No proof, but not too good a thing to have the affair anyway.
4. Michael Kennedy, as noted on CNN.
5. While we're speaking of Kennedys, howzabout old Teddy and Chappaquiddick?
6. Or for that matter, the waitress sandwich with Christopher Dodd (D-CN)? (Scroll down awhile, it's not the first point made).
7. While we're speaking of Massachusetts, how about Barney Frank's lover running a prostitution ring out of his home? This is according to Wonkette who is no lover of the right.
8. Then there's always Mel Reynolds.
9. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has asked that the age of consent for statutory rape be lowered to 12. (See here, for more details, and possibly letting Ginsburg off the hook a bit, see here.)> 10. Put Ginsburg together with the Lawrence vs. Texas decision, and you're home free-Foley is a champion of the people's values (in the same way that Woody Harrelson portrayed Larry Flynt as such in The People vs. Larry Flynt.)
Do I really have to add that the last one is sarcasm?
No, I'm NOT defending Foley or his actions. It just seems that
a) Washington attracts more than its share of this kind of thing.
b) The conservatives should use the Foley case to run the RINOs and "Big Tent" Republicans out of town on a rail.
Cheers!
bump
Have not connected the dots here; but the direction and this is taking; and the rhetoric being 'tossed'; it seems they well may have; and while there can be no excuses for Foley; is it possible the 'later' and more unseemingly correspondence could have been Demrat encouraged/inspired?
No one wants a pervert; but in truth, Demrat's are as bigger threat to our 'personal safety' as is an e-mailing pervert.
The Repubs need to stick with the bigger threat here and not get pulled literally into this perversion of threats here; Foley is OUT. . .get a good Repub IN do not let the Dems control the dialogue.
(right. . .I know. . .the MSM is their action plan. . .)
All Dems are pervs.
Who fights for abortion, gay rights? are these moral?
I'm sorry, but there is NO way I'd vote for a perv before a dem. In the overall "big picture", of course we want Republicans in office. But not at ANY cost. Leave that for the dems.
I SO wanted to argue with your point. I can't. Our country is in a bad spot.
Well, let me be more clear here. . .
. . .am not suggesting you vote for a perv; nor offering that I would; but going only to the facts as we know them. . .he did 'e-mails'; not up to Barney Frank's standards for sure (albeit Foley had been 'outed' some time ago). . .
Meantime the Party of Barney, Mel and Bill; oh. . .and Chandra's congresscritter boyfriend. . .find themelves SHOCKED/STUNNED/AMAZED over Foley disclosures. . ..
My bottom line was really, my bottom line - as per the following; Foley is OUT. . .get a good Repub IN do not let the Dems control the dialogue.
. . . but my real bottom line is I would not vote for a perv. . .nor would I ever vote for a Demrat.
. . .and as bad as appears; the Dems dirty fingerprints may be showing up under the 'blue light' as to the telling of this wretched story.
see below link (The American Thinker).
It's very possible that the skeletons in their closets will start to rattle, as well. Surely some of their congresscritters have cast a wandering eye on a page every now and then.
It makes me wonder, why do we have this system of teenage help, anyway? All it is, is a payoff to the children of the well-connected, something for them to put on a college application at hopes in getting into a more pricey school.
For sure. . .and worse. . and yes, you would think.
Meantime, the Repubs HAD to know; that the Dems had a plan here, for them; at 'heat' of Election; so you might think they would be ready the desperate and deranged Dems to launch their October Surprise. . .
. . .but no, they seem genuinely stunned.. . .and for 'eyes that can see'; a sharp contrast to the hypocritical feigned version of shock - as these Demrats pretend to be. . .
I started wondering just today when I saw Pelosi talking about this--how is their bashing of Foley and those who supposedly "protected" him going to resonate with their gay vote base? I suppose that Hastert, et al. could have outed Foley, but its an article of faith among gays that each individual gets to choose when and to whom they come out to.
Hmmm, I just got an idea for new troublemaking over there....
Wondered about that too; inasmuch as 'how far can they go with this. . .before they get there'.
Truth is, they historically and habitually; insult all their constituencies;so they probably do not worry about it.
. . .LOL for sure. Can we be surprised that so many of them 'do not get it' - that the word 'values' means just that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.