home

Today in Foleyville

By TChris, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 02:59:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Today in Foleyville:

  • This new information, while describing nothing illegal, keeps the Mark Foley story and the Republican cover-up in the news, and may help persuade Republican "values voters" to stay at home in November.
  • Republicans aren't helped by editorials like this one, which characterizes the Republican response to the Foley scandal as being "as chaotic as a clown convention." The editorial provides a small history lesson:

Some House members are rallying around Hastert, a genial fellow who came to power when Robert Livingston, the heir presumptive to ethically-challenged Newt Gingrich, foundered on an extramarital affair. He has spent his term deferring to more ruthless members like Tom DeLay, who's now under indictment in a campaign finance case and under investigation in a lobbying scandal, and also to the White House once George Bush became president.

  • Clarence Page scolds Republicans for dishonoring their rhetoric of personal responsibility.
  • Rep. Patrick McHenry joins other Republicans in making the desperate argument that Democrats should be investigated. Joe Biden answers the charge that Democrats are at fault: "What a dumb thing to say .... Here you've got these pages at risk and the answer is, The Democrats did it? The news media did it?"
  • One of Republican Congressman Steve King's local newspapers, the Daily Nonpareil, chastises King for downplaying the importance of the Foley scandal:

Clearly, King, like Hastert, is more concerned about Republican power than he is about the moral behavior of a fellow Congressman or the filthy and demeaning suffering teenage boys had to endure.

< $13.6M Damages For Wrongful Conviction | Police Poisoned in Iraq >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Today in Foleyville | 13 comments (13 topical)
    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 08:08:08 PM EST
    TC, we're all "values voters", those of us that bother to vote, anyway. the question is: what values are you voting for? i get a little tired of the arrogance displayed by the right wing: that only they have "values". hastert's always struck me as a putz, who stumbled into the job, and continues to stumble through it. i find newt gingrich poseuring about "values" pretty damn funny, given his personal and professional history. in fact, practically the whole republican party is guilty of some kind of ethical and/or moral lapse. this goes as well for their base "evangelical" support, both the "ministers" and their bretheran. scratch the surface of most of them, and you'll find dirt. all of which would be at least tolerable, if they were competent. larceny and incompetence are not a pretty combination.

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 08:08:08 PM EST
    But now the Rovians have turned the timeline completely on its head, and are claiming Hastert demanded Foley's resignation because of something the Speaker himself says he knew nothing about. This may seem a trivial matter, given all the other lies, big and small, that have come rattling down the propaganda assembly line over the past six years. Foley himself is just a sideshow geek compared to the three-ring circus that gave us the war in Iraq. But if there's been a more brazen attempt to rewrite history -- last week's history! -- I can't remember it.

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#3)
    by Lww on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 08:08:08 PM EST
    This is so sordid it makes my skin crawl, yet the sordidness of the homosexual lifestyle is in full view today. Sex is the lifeblood of these people. I don't know if it's because they're in the closet or not but it seems to dominate their psyche to the exclusion of everything else. The AIDS epidemic of the 80s wouldn't have been as bad as it was if gay guys kept their pants on. We're talking about people dying, lotsa people. Truth hurts don't it.

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 08:12:40 PM EST
    I just read on Raw Story that Rep. Kolbe-r. arizona - knew about the emails since 2000. One of the pages he sponsored came to him with emails that made him uncomfortable and Kolbe confronted Foley. But, it did not go further.

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#5)
    by aw on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 10:37:37 PM EST
    Sex is the lifeblood of these people.
    And your lifeblood is, what?

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:07:36 AM EST
    LWW, keep your crawling skin to yourself, ok? ok, once more, for the LWW's of the world: this is about pedophelia and sexual harrassment. rep. foley used the power of his office to sexually harrass an underage page, period. if the page had been an underage female, the issues would be the same. however, and this is the most important aspect of this case: this is just the latest example of a 6 year run of incompetence by the republican leadership, in terms of oversight, of their members and the current president's administration. this is the critical issue that must be focused on, for the nov. mid-terms: do you want the same inept oversight, for the rest of the bush administration, from congress? LWW, have you given any thought to becoming a "Darwin Award" nominee? you seem to fit the profile, and would be doing a great personal service to the world. :)

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:44:32 AM EST
    cpinva - Foley got what he deserved. But if you want to be fair, and I doubt tou can spell that word, you'll mention Studds, Franks and Clinton and lament that the Demo party let them slide.

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:26:18 AM EST
    why is it that rethuglicans can't tell the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex!? pages have been complaining about foley harassing them since 2000 and rrethugs covered it up and continue to lie about it. BTW, 'clinton did it' is not ever a viable defense for so many reasons. 1) 'He did it itoo!' is for playgrounds. 2) clinton had an affair out of marriage with a consenting 22 year old woman. 3) dems held clinton accountable and he was impeached. 4) your sheer desperation in continuing to blame clinton for everything the rethugs have done wrong for 6 years is laughable and the most of the American people have caught on. repugs own this one all on their own, repubs, the party of corruption and incompetence.

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:26 AM EST
    this is about pedophelia...
    No, it certainly is not. These pages were not pre-pubescent children. This statement, however, is true:
    foley used the power of his office to sexually harrass an underage page, period.
    PPJ,
    But if you want to be fair, and I doubt tou can spell that word, you'll mention Studds, Franks and Clinton and lament that the Demo party let them slide.
    Why do you conveniently fail to mention Republican representative Dan Crane when you mention Gerry Studds? He was censured the same year (1983) as Studds for the same conduct. He did not resign either. You are not being fair either.

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#9)
    by TheJusticeClub on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:26 AM EST
    I wonder how the Freepers are spinning the Grand Ol' Pediphile folks now...

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    macromaniac, i beg to differ: the page in question was under age 18, at the time of the events in question. this made him a minor. by definition, he was considered a child. that's what pedophelia is: adult sexual attraction to children. there is no hard and fast rule that the child must be pre-pubescent, for the term to apply. that the child is a minor is sufficient. that requirement is met in the instant case. that foley was more than 30 years older than the page(s), at the time, is also a consideration. in some psychiatric circles, with respect to a finding of pedophilia, a 5 or more year age gap is a defining factor. leave it to jim to bring irrelevancies to the table of actual considered thought. jim, do have proof that you weren't banging monica at the time? will you go under oath? actually, i appreciate jim, he's always good for a laugh. :)

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    Has anyone else heard how Fox News incorrectly labelled Foley a Democrat 12 TIMES in a broadcast last week? The Republican Machine, still going strong.

    Re: Today in Foleyville (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:14:59 PM EST
    cpivna: So, every guy with a trophy wife (or mistress) more than 5 years younger than him is a pedophile? I'm just trying to get this definition straight in my mind. Because, in our town right now, there's a big push to round up underage drinkers. The headlines speak of "kids" of 19 and 20 being arrested. Are they off-limits sexually too?

    Today in Foleyville | 13 comments (13 topical)