David Corn Has A List Of Names...

David Corn disgraces the left by channeling Joe McCarthy as he explains that the left will only stand up for the privacy rights of their allies:

There's a list going around. Those disseminating it call it "The List." It's a roster of top-level Republican congressional aides who are gay.

...I have a copy. I'm not going to publish it. For one, I don't know for a fact that the men on the list are gay. And generally I don't fancy outing people--though I have not objected when others have outed gay Republicans, who, after all, work for a party that tries to limit the rights of gays and lesbians and that welcomes the support of those who demonize same-sexers.

Mr. Corn's position on outing Republicans is clear enough but he does not explicitly state a position on the merits of outing gay Democrats.  However - if he had any journalistic integrity at all he would have to be opposed to "stealth advocacy".  A black man arguing for "black" issues does not need to separately declare his personal stake in the discussion, nor does a woman discussing "women's issues".

But surely Mr. Corn agrees that it is unseemly to advocate for gay issues under the pretense of having been swayed by force of argument when, in fact, the advocate is touting his own self-interest.  So presumably Mr. Corn, troubled as he is by closeted Republican gays, is equally troubled by closeted Democratic gays.

Or maybe not.  Let's go back to Mr. Corn:

Let's be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay?  Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen?

Let's be clear as mud - the Foley scandal is not about homosexuality but it would not be unreasonable to out gay Republicans in response to it.  Can anyone follow that?  I would suggest the outing of those who are abusing their power but that logic may be too linear for someone from the reality based community.

I also love this evasion of responsibility - "anytime a gay Republican is outed by events".  No, David, it won't be "events" that post that list, it will be activist Democrats trying to win an election.  Hope that helps your understanding.  A likely candidate would be Mike Rogers of BlogActive.com, who has spent years outing gay Republicans and whose current fund raising appeal says this:

Please help me with this effort. We have five weeks to save our nation from these right wing homophobes in the closet -- and there are more in Congress!

As to "What about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay?", well, what about those GOPers who favor lower taxes (and happen to be gay), or who favored a robust national defense in the Reagan era (and happened to be gay), or who favor gun owner's rights (and happen to be gay), or for some other reason don't fit themselves neatly into the special interest group boxes drawn up by earnest Democratic strategists?

Or what about GOPers who were put off by Bill Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" debacle or by Clinton's signing of the "Defense of Marriage Act", or by John Kerry's insistence that his position on gay marriage did not differ from Bush's?  Are they allowed to think that maybe the Dems are more talk than action, and that other issues are more important?  Does David Corn really agree with 100% of the Democratic Party platform?

This is the current state of the left - sexual privacy rights for their political opponents are trumped by a desire for power.

Mark Kleiman and Ted Barlow were quite clear on this issue two years ago.  An excerpt:

The right answer to that question [of sexuality], from anyone except a potential sexual partner, is “None of your f—-ing business.”

I really, really disapprove of gay-baiting, even if the gays being baited hold disgusting political positions. And I thought that attitude was part of the definition of liberalism.

We will see whether any Dems speak out against this now, although with an election to be won I am not optimistic.

MORE:  Ahh, Plan B - Josh Marshall is pretending that it is Republicans who are going to out these gay Republican staffers, and Kevin Drum is playing along.

That is quite a working theory - a group of evangelical Reps, outraged by the gays in their midst, worked up a list of gay Republican staffers ands then leaked it to their natural ally, David Corn.  Mr. Corn then choked back his abhorrence at this sexual McCarthyism and penned a few paragraphs rationalizing their effort.  Uh huh.  Can I guess the rest - some lefty blogger will print it "just to show us what awful tricks those crazy House Republicans are up to".  Please.

Personally, I figure that since there are Dem activists who do this routinely, my money is there.

But we have nothing to fight about since we all agree this is awful.  And since Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum think "The List" will be coming from Republicans, I encourage them to denounce the concept unequivocally and pre-emptively, as I am doing here.

If The List appears, they will be on record as having condemned it, and perhaps other Dems will join them.  And if it is the work of crazed evangelical Republicans, condemning it should be easy, yes?

I just know Dems will hurry to denounce this "List" and stand up for privacy rights for all gays, even Republican ones.

STRANGEST THING I EVER READ:  From Mark Schmitt at TPM Cafe:

But when it comes to Foley, this is a case where it is us liberals who have the absolute moral value: Don’t mess with kids sexually. Adults must not mess with kids, people in positions of authority should not mess with kids. It’s not about the legal line or the age of consent in Florida or DC. It’s morality: Fifty-two year olds must not mess with 16 year olds. Remember that rule and all this complexity falls away. Don’t tolerate people who mess with kids, gay or straight. Not complicated. As Robert George would say, it’s "foundational." If you know that basic rule, and don’t hesitate to take action if people break it, or raise alarms if you suspect them of breaking it (as in, asking for a picture) then guess what?: Life gets a little simpler. Gays can be Scoutmasters because, like any other Scoutmaster, they know that you don’t mess with the kids. Straight men can be high school teachers of girls because they maintain that boundary, they treat it as a moral absolute. And so on.

On what planet?  Under my sun, Democrat Gerry Studds was censured by the House in 1983 for having sex with a seventeen year old page; the voters of Massachusetts sent him back to Congress for years thereafter.

And more recently, Bill Clinton commuted the sentence of Mel Reynolds, who was "serving a seven-year sentence for corruption and having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker."

[That Clinton-Reynolds pardon from USA Today is misleading, apparently - try this:

Reynolds resigned from Congress in 1995 after a state court convicted him of sexual misconduct with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer. He served 2 1/2 years in prison for the crime. Two years later Reynolds was sentenced to a 6 1/2-year prison term on federal corruption charges, including wire fraud and bank fraud.

In November 1999 the former Rhodes scholar wrote a letter to Clinton and asked to be released from prison to a halfway house so that he could earn money for his family.

So Clinton pardoned a sex offender, but not for the sex offense.  Got it.

Snopes has a bit as well.]

Moral absolute.  Absolutely.

UPDATE:  I am guided to evidence of Dems with both a brain and a conscience:

"We're getting into very dangerous territory, and I've warned my colleagues to be careful." That's what a Democrat leadership aide was saying on Wednesday, as word circulated about David Corn's blog posting that revealed that a list of gay Republicans congressional staffers was circulating through emails.

Such a list has been talked about for months, if not years, by more militant homosexual activists, who have threatened to out Republican congressional staffers or even congressmen if they take positions counter to their gay lifestyle.

..."If that list is made public, all of the political gains we've made in the past 96 hours get flushed down the toilet," says the leadership aide.

I apologize - this may not be evidence of a conscience at all. just a recognition that as a pragmatic matter this is dumb idea for Dems.  But one can hope.

And one can wonder - why, if the list is coming from the homophobic right, would it reflect badly on Democrats?

Comments

[DRF]

The drive by media has declared war
against Republicans and conservatives.
The drive by media is going to lose.

[larwyn]

Must add these links to Corn's post - not to be missed.

Mastergate..VanderLeun on David Corn

David Corn:

I have a copy. I'm not going to publish it. For one, I don't know for a fact that the men on the list are gay. And generally I don't fancy outing people--though I have not objected when others have outed gay Republicans, who, after all, work for a party that tries to limit the rights of gays and lesbians and that welcomes the support of those who demonize same-sexers.

You'd be hard pressed to find a statement that more sums up the proposition that "The end justifies the means." Corn's subtext is, of course, 'I'm not going to publish it, because I don't have to. Now that you folks in the media know there's a list, you can go and find it from someone less moral than I am. Please write or call if you'd like a pointer. Strictly on the QT, off-the-record, and very hush-hush.' A morally aware person with a respect for the privacy of a fellow human being's sexuality would not write about such a list at all. Case closed. But I don't look for any real moral awareness to rise from the reactionary spear carrieers of the party of "post-modern moral certitude and relativistic rectitude." It's just another example of the extremes of the Democratic Party going after the blood of the moderates, Democrat or Republican, straight or, in this instance, gay. ....VanderLeun (bolding mine)

I just wish that Gerard would drop by American Digest more often.

Ace gets the interviews w/ Mike Rogers,John Avarosis and even David Corn LOL

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

W A S H I N G T O N -- John Avarosis of AmericaBlog refuses to discuss whether gay Republicanism is a true "mental disorder" or simply an inborn orientation.....

[....]
On Glenn Greenwald:

"Note that he was once a moral degenerate himself," Avarosis says proudly. "And yet now he has embraced morality, and condemns 'hedonism' in language so stridently you'd think he was inspired by the Lord Him(?)self." Avarosis also notes that Glenn Greenwald is only one of "dozens" of ex-Republican-gays who have now embraced a more Godly politics, offering other names of former Republican gays, such as Rick Ellensburg, Thomas Ellers, Ellison, Wilson, and Sam Matthews. Each of them, Avarosis says, can offer a life story precisely identical to Greenwald's.

Hubris author David Corn calls the ex-Gay-Republican movement, sometimes called "XGR," "a good idea whose time has come." "I have no problem with what gay Republicans do in the privacy of their own bedrooms," he says. "But when I see a gay wearing an American flag lapel-pin, or a 'W' sticker on the back of their cars, I can't help but be a little bit nauseated. It's one thing to have these inclinations, it's another thing entirely to parade them around in public."

Savers. RTWT

[clarice feldman]

THANKS YOU, TM--That is a brilliant post.

Could Corn get any sleazier? I can't imagine how.

[vnjagvet]

It is now being reported that the correspondent with Foley was 18 at the time of most, if not all of the offending instant messages and is now 21. He was also an ex page when the exchange of messages took place.

That may put a crimp in the oh-so-earnest "for the children" Dem talking points.

[Rick Ballard]

An excellent piece Tom. My only question concerns what actual evidence might exist that any of those whom you mention have ever acted in an ethical manner. I've seen none and have no such expectations. Every one of them is simply gas given off by the rotting corpse of the Democratic party. As the corpse decays, the stench grows worse.

[Chris Finney, Esq.]

BBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
You righty kooks make me laugh!! Hastert is toast, Reynolds top aid resigned today and threw Big Denny under a truck as he left. Hastert is holding a news conference is Chicago tomorrow and odds are that he is resigning.

You thugs and morons are completely and utterly fucked! Welcome to The October Surprise; this time it's ours, and you are taking up the ass. Enjoy it.

[ghostcat]

Hey, Chrissie. Hope you brought along plenty of K-Y. Yer gonna need it.

[Rick Ballard]

You're a credit to your party Finney. When you wake up Nov 8th wondering what happened - take a look in the mirror.

[BTW]

"My only question concerns what actual evidence might exist that any of those whom you mention have ever acted in an ethical manner."

Look hurry everyone. A republican used the word ethics!

Nooooo not.. you're you're kidding. The same republicans that advocated a preemptive war to preempt nothing? Those republicans?

Yep that's the ones. And they're slamming the media too!

No, you mean their media?

Yep.

Are they eating their young yet?

[BTW]

Well I wouldn't really call it eating.

[Don]

21 Americans have been killed in Iraq since Foley resigned. No one's counting Iraqis.

[Southside]

Why do I get the feeling that if you visited Finney's home town you would see his/her mug on some ad on the side of a bus. "Call this 800 # for the law offices of Howard, Finney and Howard."

[BTW]

WP 10/4/06: "President Bush has begun reassuring audiences that this traumatic period in Iraq will be seen as "just a comma" in the history books."

A comma?

Yeh, He was hoping for a page but Foley wont share.

[BTW]

"21 Americans have been killed in Iraq since Foley resigned. No one's counting Iraqis."

That's because the repugs think that American pain is the only pain that matters. Keep sending the world that message and the world is going to kick our butts (or have they already decided to do so?).

[Don]

Re: comma. Bush is such a douchebag; Pierce put it best:

"The "serial comma," ... is back in vogue with grammarians (as it should be). Here is an example:

'According to the Department of Defense, Aaron Seal, Chase Haag, Justin Peterson, Denise Lannaman, Christopher Consgrove III, Mario Nelson, Joe Narvaez, Michael Oremus, Satieon Greenlee -- comma -- and eight other members of the United States military were killed this week in Iraq.'

Hope that helps.

--Charles P. Pierce

[clarice feldman]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10452

Dems worried their subject to the same claims.

[TexasToast]

Wonder of wonders - I agree with Clarice twice in one day. Excellent post.

Who ever posts "the list" is crossing the nuclear threshold and participating in an amazingly stupid act - and of course both sides will blame the other. Ugh.

Its just wrong. The idea that the party affiliation of gays should make any difference is gross.

What is really sad is both sides have a "motive". The Rs motive is making the whole Foley mess a fight about gays and the ex-GOP gays (per Corn) is the zeal of the converted against the heretic. People who are dead solid certain they are right scare me to death. They don't seem to recognize limits in their pursuit of the pure. No democrat with any brains wants to see any such list see the light of day.

I think we will probably have to agree to disagree about who is desperate enough right now to push the red button, to borrow your metaphor mangler. Their is apparently some real fear floating about.

You are also right about Schmidt's piece. I distrust over simplified moral "absolutes". Things are usually not simple in real life - even thought they are often made to seem that way for political purposes. I have worked out in my own mind that the leadership had and has a duty to protect the pages from either a Foley or a Stubbs, but that can happen without the death penalty, so to speak. In the absense of a crime, I have a problem with a remedy by the House in either case beyond censure of the Congressman. Let the voters do the removing. Any other action disenfranchises them. Apparently the House also had a problem with removing members, as Bob Ney is still serving after pleading guilty to a crime.

[Toby Petzold]

The past several days of Big Media's coverage of this Foley crapola are all the evidence one needs of an anti-trust violation against the average American news consumer. Everything about it has been an abuse: an abuse of terms (e.g., the characterization of a middle-aged man merely hitting on a 17 year-old as "pedophilia"), an abuse of broadcast authority (e.g., the presentation of any newly disclosed fact or action as a "breaking news" item), and an abuse of decorum (e.g., the merciless personal destruction of a gay man by people who are ostensibly the "progressive" element in this society).

This is a return to the kind of partisan orchestration last seen when Dan Rather and Mary Mapes tried to promote the Killian Forgeries ---the difference this time not being "fake but accurate," but "irrelevant but useful."

I don't give a good damn about any of this nonsense. It is very obviously nothing more than a concoction of the Big Media machine trying to influence an election.

[topsecretk9]

---Let's be clear as mud - the Foley scandal is not about homosexuality but it would not be unreasonable to out gay Republicans in response to it. Can anyone follow that?--

Corn deep inside a paper bag of mud.

---But we have nothing to fight about since we all agree this is awful. And since Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum think "The List" will be coming from Republicans, I encourage them to denounce the concept unequivocally and pre-emptively, as I am doing here.--

Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall doing damage control for their soul.

[BTW]

Does anybody here really think that Foley is not
a pedophile? He has been engaging in this immoral behavior for years. Do you really think that another few weeks will pass without more victims coming forward to testify to more grotesque behavior? His victims smell the blood in the water too!

[BTW]

The repugs could throw some of their own off the cliff to please the gods but they wont. They have bought the BushCo mantra that "admitting culpability is for the weak". Instead they're going to incrementally respond to the accusations and evidence coming out daily and therefore chase this mess all the way to the rocky bottom below. Splat!

[J. Peden]

All I see in the Foley situation is the same old same old: everything Faux Liberals get their hands on suffers, no matter whether it's valid issues or people. Make any list you want.

[jason Leopold]

a pedophile?

I called Gerry Studds, and he said he'd have to get back to me on that.

[zener]

I've seen this canard about Clinton and Mel Reynolds a lot lately. Reynolds committed sex offences under the law of Illinois. He received no clemency and served his term. His federal offences were things like wire fraud, and for these Clinton commuted his sentence.

[paul]

Are we back to the emails showing he was creepy, or does the revelation that the IM's were from an 18 year old still qualify as pedophilia?

Does anybody have an excerpt of his im discussion with minors?

Not like abc is going to provide a quality correction, so that I can seperate the disgusting from the illegal.

[BTW]

America does not remember Studds. If it did it still would not care. You could try focusing on the present. Throw Hastert, Boehner et al off the cliff or hold their hands to the bottom. Pick your poison.

[clarice feldman]

zener--so what? Why with his record did he deserve a pardon at all?

[Joe Mealyus]

"Does anybody here really think that Foley is not a pedophile?"

Surely JustOneMinute has some French readers, who would take issue with the idea that a man who has sex with 16 (or 17 or 18) year old persons (or who wants to have to sex with them or who exchanges sexually explicit e-mails with them) is a pedophile. Or at least some liberal readers who take the position that the French are right about everything.

[BTW]

Wow! You know the righties are extremely disoriented when they start looking to the French for answers and accusing others of homophobia!

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Joe that question has been answered at least a dozen times today. Go to the last thread and read through the 800 to 900 comments, I'm sure you find your answer several times over.

The quick answer, the lefties think he is a pedophile. The sane and sensible rest understand the difference between sex with a prepubescent child and cybersex with a consenting adult.

[clarice feldman]

While the story was framed wrongly--as a tale of a sexual pedophilia-- to date we have no evidence of sex or pedophilia, Joe.

[BTW]

"The sane and sensible rest understand the difference between sex with a prepubescent child and cybersex with a consenting adult."

Smoke --> fire

[Topsecretk9]

America does not remember Studds. If it did it still would not care. You could try focusing on the present.

IE Democrats do not care if Democrats sexually prey on youth. Excellent. Thanks for clearing that non existent moral dilemma up.

[zener]

Just a matter of honestly presenting the facts, clarice. As it is put here and elsewhere, it sounds as if Clinton pardoned Reynolds for the sex offense. He didn't; noone did. The federal offences were not sexual. I don't remember the basis for commuting the federal sentence - I believe he served about half his time.

[BTW]

Do you remeber this line?

George W. Bush: "What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."

And whose children do you think spend time as pages on the hill? Bend over BushCo.

[anon]

This is odd.

The Miami Herlad;

..e-mails between Foley and a former House page, which top GOP leaders saw in 2005. Foley was told to cease contact with the page. Hastert noted that the same e-mails were viewed by editors at The St. Petersburg Times, which reviewed them, considered them ''friendly chit chat'' and declined to run a story.

Miami Herald Executive Editor Tom Fiedler said Sunday the newspaper also saw the same e-mails and ``didn't feel there was sufficient clarity in the e-mails to warrant a story.

From The Hill yesterday;

The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

If the media in the form of the Herald and others had the emails last year, what is The Hill talking about in saying that they were turned over to the media in July of this year?

[Topsecretk9]

OH...this gets even better...StopsexualPred - after all his trolling and "SHOCKING""KEEP THEM COMING" "LET"S FOCUS""I HAD SO MANY MEDIA INQUIRIES"

Has -- like a whiny little titty baby (isn't that Atrios says? sounds sorta preddy like) has suddenly turned into a shrinking violet concern troll -

Can you say subpoena and F B I ?

[stevesh]

anon/October 5, 2006 at 12:11 a.m.
-------------------------------------

Macsmind blog (I believe) reports that the author of The Hill story is a former assistant to David Corn at The Nation. Grain(s) of salt advised.

[Dave]

anon and Clarice have been pushing this idea: "CREW does in fact seem to have been the party behind the IM's, as per the story at NR"

As JM Hanes has pointed out, that's a misreading (accidental or otherwise) of the underlying source. TAT points to NRO which points to WSJ, which says this:

... Brian Ross ... said a nonpartisan source provided the "tamer" emails that the network posted ... Within hours of that posting, "numerous" former House pages emailed ABC with additional allegations about Mr. Foley, Mr. Ross said.

Two former pages ... offered ABC texts of sexually explicit instant messages purportedly sent by Mr. Foley. ...

Mr. Ross declined to identify any of the sources by name. He described the first tipster [Note: meaning the source of the emails] as a "Capitol Hill source" -- though not an aide or congressional official -- who was "aware of the pages' complaints" and "concerned about kids and pedophiles." This person, Mr. Ross said, is "involved in public-policy issues" but isn't affiliated with either political party. ...

Mr. Ross said CREW wasn't his initial source for the emails and that he wasn't aware that the group had them.... [Note: it's entirely possible that CREW passed the emails to another "nonpartisan" entity which then passed them to Ross.]

... posting them [the emails] on the Internet allowed the network to tap what Mr. Ross described a "general outrage" among former pages about Mr. Foley. "We only got it because we ran the first kind of denial...For him to say he was overfriendly...that somehow aggravated them," Mr. Ross said.

In other words, Ross is saying again that the IMs came from pages. This is consistent with what his reporter Sauer said here:

So we published that story [about the emails], and then almost immediately we began receiving emails from former pages, some going back as far as five years, who said this is the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more here. And Thursday night, I started reaching out to them by phone and email and talking to them Thursday night and Friday morning. And Friday morning, I received transcripts from two different former pages that were instant messages between former pages and the congressman, and they were very sexually explicit, and they were very similar. Both of them contained similar language, similar requests that the congressman had asked the young boys to do.

Here's what Sauer said about how he got the emails: "They were passed to a colleague of mine from a source, not someone from a Democratic campaign, a source on the Hill." This is exactly consistent with what Ross just stated via WSJ: a "Capitol Hill source."

[Dave]

vnj ----------- "It is now being reported that the correspondent with Foley was 18 at the time of most, if not all of the offending instant messages and is now 21"

A bunch of people are making this mistake. Unfortunately, you should probably keep the champagne on ice a little longer. You are making the common, but unfounded, assumption that there is only one party on the other end of Foley's IMs. Not so.

Above I cited an interview with Sauer. He said this:

"I had let him know that I had obtained two transcripts from two different former pages, regarding internet messages with former pages. ... I have talked to, now, I would say, almost ten former pages from different years, a few of whom have had direct email interactions with the congressman that were like this, a couple of whom are just friends of people that had these experiences"

So you're not in a position to say "the correspondent." There was more than one.

[Dave]

sara ----------"the Dems refuse to and have made their lives a living hell with their son receiving death threats and being subjected to teasing and taunting by his peers. A fate at 17 worse than death."

It's really ironic that you would make a big fuss about the privacy of one of the young people involved, at the exact same moment that you are gleefully promoting the outing of one of the other young people involved. That's a disgrace.

The blogger who poked around the ABC site to dig up information that should have been hidden is smarter than the people at ABC, but much less moral. Likewise for you.

[Dave]

MayBee -------------- "CREW moved the PDF and altered their redactions"

Thank you for answering a question I had been asking. As far as I can tell, the CREW material is properly redacted. But maybe I didn't notice an earlier version that was not properly redacted. Anyway, I'm glad they fixed it.

ts ------- "Well, I have their originals."

I hope you'll do the right thing and keep it to yourself, notwithstanding the execrable example set by certain other people.

[Dave]

anon ----------- "is this the same Fordham who said 'I had no inkling that this kind of blatantly reckless - just obscene - behavior was going on behind our backs.' "

I agree that Fordham has to explain this apparent discrepancy. And I think he will, maybe as follows: "I warned leadership years ago because I had a feeling that things could get bad; I just didn't know that it had gotten as bad as this."

[anonymous]

... to date we have no evidence of sex ...

Posted by: clarice feldman | October 04, 2006 at 11:09 PM

And isn't that really the problem, Clarice ?

[Dave]

Clarice ------- "I've explained what I consider to have been a minor error"

When something is 4 days old, claiming it's a year old is not "a minor error." Given the context of this "error," the distinction is highly material. You're trying to claim that Dems have been holding relevant evidence for a long time, and you're inventing phony proof in the interest of promoting that narrative.

"based on a credible post"

I realize your favorite method of covering your lies is to tell more lies. This is the same excuse you tried floating a few days ago, when you said: "I took that from an earlier post on this Board..I think by Rick which I believed to be accurate."

You're suggesting that there's "an earlier post on this Board" that claims this Kos diary is a year old (as if that would excuse not noticing the date clearly cited both at the top of the diary and in its URL). Small problem: there is no such "earlier post on this Board". I know, because I checked.

In other words, you're repeatedly telling a fib, in a lame attempt to cover for another fib.

"It is inconsequential to the story whether kosniks rejected the claim 4 months or one year before."

And speaking of fibs, I see you can't help throwing in another one. You're trying to create the impression that I'm beefing about the difference between 4 months and 12 months. I'm not. The diary wasn't 4 months old. It was 4 days old.

So instead of taking responsibility for your mistake, you insist on spreading more misinformation. Typical.

"The point is before the story broke someone posted the essence of it on kos and even they rejected it as improbable so how can the left now suggest Hastert should have done more."

This silly question has several very obvious answers, which I gave here.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Dave you are beginning to sound obsessed, bordering on the possessed.

Why don't you go check Rick's board. I believe she means Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse.

[MayBee]

Dave-
I realize there are a lot of comments here, but one of your questions has already been answered. Per the WSJ:

Two former pages — one who had been sponsored by a Republican member of Congress and one by a Democrat — offered ABC texts of sexually explicit instant messages purportedly sent by Mr. Foley. Mr. Ross said the network then tracked down the original recipients of those messages, using a page yearbook, and got firsthand confirmation of their authenticity. Mr. Ross said he thinks one of the original recipients was a Democrat and the other a Republican.

The people that gave ABC the IMs were not the original recipients of the IMs.

Furthermore:
blockquote>Mr. Ross declined to identify any of the sources by name. He described the first tipster as a "Capitol Hill source" — though not an aide or congressional official — who was "aware of the pages' complaints" and "concerned about kids and pedophiles." This person, Mr. Ross said, is "involved in public-policy issues" but isn't affiliated with either political party.

[MayBee]

sorry

[anonymous]

This looks like a job for that intrepid and "fearsome blogger"
topsecretK9.

Isn't this where she rushes in shouting:
"I larwyn'd the thread!"

[MayBee]

Oh wait! I see you knew the information that I posted, you just cleverly inserted an ellipsis in your excerpt.

Come on, Dave. I'm trying to assume you have good will here.