Powered by TypePad

« Foley And The Law | Main | The Times Throws Condi A Rope »

October 02, 2006


clarice feldman

Isn't that something? I was just on the phone with my editor who'd stuck that "warning" in my article asking him to remove it because Loraditch had not said that today.

What to make of the NYT article's tone--so different than ABCs?

Can I suggest that the NYT sees what the Dems are missing:A strong shiff of homophobia in the entire matter.

clarice feldman

**Whiff of homophobia*********

Other Tom

Note that Tradesports GOP House majority has dropped lock a rock since this thing broke. (It hardly moved at all after Clinton's outburst.)

quercus albus

From last night, apparently, http://stopsexpredators.blogspot.com/ is still up and not updated.

http://stopsexualpredators.blogspot.com/ is the site we went to in order to see that the former was "gone".


"NOTE: The link above is to the site “Stop Sexual Predators” not Stop Sex Predators. I apologize for the mixup. Someone sent me an incorrect link."

All that page grabbing for not.

clarice feldman


Here's Tom Lifson On the political implications:



**Shiv of homophobia*********?


A shiv (from the Romany word chiv) is a slang term for a sharp or pointed implement used as an improvised knife-like weapon.

Patrick R. Sullivan

If there was any uncertainty about what ABC news is up to, it's been removed now by George Stephanopoulis. They've got him breathlessly claiming that the House leadership will have to resign if it turns out they were aware of what Foley was up to and covered it up.

Btw, anyone but me remember the Jason Leopold phony Thomas White Enron e-mails from 2002?



Matthew Loraditch...later saw sexually explicit text messages that Mr. Foley had sent to two former pages after they left the program.

At least one page had shared IM's with Loraditch. Perhpas more. I kinda doubt the kids would share them with each other, might be embarrassing. But who knows.

It could have been ::speculation alert:: Loraditch who gave them to ABC..or someone in his office who knew about them?

clarice feldman

Good catch, Syl..I scanned that to see what he'd said about the "warning" and missed that.


Mr. McDonald and another former page said they later became aware that the lawmaker might have a darker side. Mr. McDonald said he learned that Mr. Foley had sexually explicit Internet conversations with several pages who had left the program.

Those IMs made the rounds.
Two pages got the messages, and at least two other pages knew about them (or saw them).


Now that the Pages, their parents, their supervisors, and House members have all been alerted to this "problem", there is no need to rush any investigation. To do so would be to play into the hands of the Democrats. Let's take a breath, investigate at the appropriate speed, and move onto the real election issues. Such as keeping our country safe from terrorists.


The Loraditch kid said that 3 other pages in his class had showed him lewd IMs

My take on the NYT vs. ABC--they are taking Rove's advice and not getting too far out on the story.

The Repubs are in the fight of their lives now. They are not going to take this without a very hard hit back. And Major Garrett is now reporting the "back story" on Fox!

When it comes out that the FBI can't charge him because he did nothing illegal, and that the Soros hit men sat on this stuff for months, Pelosi is going to look like a big fat homophobe to much of her base--and a total hypocrite to repubs. Think about the implications. Think about all the gay men who interact with teenagers. How are they going to be effected by all of this--especially if the record indicates that Foley corresponded with dozens of kids, and only got dirty with a few, all above the legal age of consent, who seemed to take a mutual interest in that sort of thing.


The discrepancy between the WaPo and NYT reports is curious.

These two papers regularly collude. For this reason, I conclude they're playing a "Good Cop, Bad Cop" game with this.

I predict that the papers' editors will slowly merge their disparate messages under a pretense of objective "discovery" to arrive at a predetermined conclusion:

"Hastart and (by association) all House Republicans, are soft on pedophilia = Culture of Corruption"

They'll come at the same conclusion from opposite ends, claiming what their editors will tell us, after a long and difficult "deliberation," is the "Center." Then from the parapets of their sand-castle's parapets, they'll lob waves after wave of stories on the topic.

Shades of Abu Ghraib. Just you watch.

JM Hanes

So many Foley threads, so little time!

I'm not sure it's clear that the IMs were making the rounds. In the longer quote from the Times in Tom's earlier thread, it refers to "the disclosure of his sexually explicit Internet and cellphone messages to pages."

The reference to cellphones surprised me. I wonder if this is something new, or if the Times is just confused about what Instant Messages actually are.


--"Hastart and (by association) all House Republicans, are soft on pedophilia = Culture of Corruption"--

Well, then John Kerry is too, because he took Studds money.


--The reference to cellphones surprised me. I wonder if this is something new, or if the Times is just confused about what Instant Messages actually are.--


Could mean TEXT message, there a like a 100 ways to communicate these days, so...


The two-tone message...wouldn't be surprised if the NYT's is aware of the possibility of a similar situation on the left side of the aisle and so are strike a more neutral pose...let's face it, politically connected or not homosexuals are not checking ID's at the clubs.

T Miller

The House Page Board is supposed to comprise 3 persons (2 Republicans and 1 Democrat) but so far only the Chairman has been involved. The House leadership is making a big mistake by keeping this a 1-party situation. They still don't get it.

Nor does Tony Snow, who today rallied his radio-talk show base but alienated other Republicans and moderates by smilingly refering to the problem as "simply naughty emails"


Jeff Gannon, the receipent of homophobia McCarthism of the left says...

...Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid need to be careful in their pursuit of this matter. There are enough closet doors on Capitol Hill with a “D” on them that just might pop open if this becomes a partisan witch-hunt.


Carol Herman

THE AGE OF CONSENT, in DC, for males, is 16.

And, the whole "page" system is a bonus tree for congress critters. Where, I wonder, WHY ARE WE WASTING THIS MONEY?

On the other hand, ambitious high schoolers, who have parents with political influence in their own communities, seem to be able to travel to DC. (Ah, yes. Monica Lewinsky. Peppered with money from her dad. Buying pizza for Bubba. Who can forget?)

What a swamp!

Las night on DRUDGE, it turns out; the LAW BROKEN is one just written. And, it has to do with the INTERNET. It is now, suddenly, against the law, to post "sexually explicit" IM and email messages. You knew this? Glad Drudge mentioned it.

Because, when I was young, Lenny Bruce was forced to commit suicide by the "thought police" who forbid him to say "sexually explicit" words. DIDN'T QUITE HOLD, THOUGH, did it? Given what comics can say, today.

And, yes, Clarice. Homosexuals can't escape the general population's contempt for their "love that dare not speak its name."

Reminds me. I've suspected since Mark Felt came out of the closet; that the chance meeting Mr. #2 at the FBI had with the 27 year old (and dressed in a Navy Uniform), had eyes ... at the White House ... clicking at each other.

That's what took out Nixon!

But this time around? Looks like Woodward's book just bombed. While we're designing our "communications system," to be less communicative.

Bush wins by not talking to the press.

Will claims that Foley broke the law actually fly? Smells like another RatherGate to me. With subsequent consequences to follow.

Let's see. The democraps no longer want the Jewish vote. Nor, the youth vote. Where this subject, of curtailing what can be said on e-mails, will hit a brick wall.


Carol, like your idol the President, you too are in denial. But I love reading your posts.


I still think it's crap that the "evidence" presented so far seems to be faxes of photocopies of cut and pasted emails.

clarice feldman

Who needs evidence--or law for that matter--when you can flash the red cape and scream "pedophilia"?

The Unbeliever

"Hastart and (by association) all House Republicans, are soft on pedophilia = Culture of Corruption"

Culture of Corruption, hmm, seems to ring a bell... that was 4 slogans back, right? Or was it 5? So hard to keep track of the Dems' national messages these days. It's practically a full-time job trying to remember the many ways they've discovered to produce numerous Powerpoint slides without actually saying anything.

I wish they'd just release the 2-disc "Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's Greatest Non-hits" collection already and be done with it.


"Well, then John Kerry is too, because he took Studds money."

Hey TS that's not the same JF'n Kerry that served in Vietnam and won 3 medals, is it?

Dale in Atlanta


I don't think the problme is a "whiff" of homophobia on the part of the Leftists, vis a vis Foley.

Leftists have already proven, that their morals/ethics/values are built on a firm bedrock of QUICKSAND, if they can use it to destroy Republicans!

Witness their abandoning 30 years of Feminism and Woman's Rights, as soon as Bill Clinton's zipper got them in trouble!

So, the fact that Foley is "homosexual" or "gay", or whatever he is, is no impediment to them suddenly attacking gays!

No, for me, the "whiff of homophobia" was FELT by the Republicans!

The Republican leadership knew what Foley was up too!

But because of 40 years being labelled "homophobic" by the Left, Republicans were almost undoubtedly reluctant, if not downright enabling of Foley, because:

a) they didn't want to be labelled "homophobic"

b) the wanted to keep a "gay" person in the Republican party!

In otherwords, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, and 40 years assault on family values, religion, and ANY TYPE of values, morals, ethics, by the LEFT, the ACLU, etc., have so browbeat the Republicans, that they no longer feel confident in standing up for what is right!

That's the real issue...


Dale, the point about "keeping a gay person in the Republican party" is ridiculous. There are other gay House Republicans. The difference is that there is no reason to suspect the others of any inappropriate behaviour.

Dale in Atlanta

Marianne: frankly it is NOT ridiculous!

Despite the fact that I'm a registered "independent", and have voted for candidates from both parties; the fact that I'm former Military, a Marine, gets me IMMEDIATELY labelled by Leftists, all the time; without knowing a DAMN thing about me!

As soon as I'm ID'd as "Marine", by Leftists, I'm called (you choose which one you want to use!): "crazy", "pyscho", "baby-killer", "murderer", "homophobe", "sexist", "racist", etc.

That's usualy within about 5 seconds after they find out I was in the Corps!

So I categorically KNOW, that "Republicans" feel pressure, not to be labelled "homophobe", and I'm sure that the hands-off approach because of that, is part of the reason!

NOTE: that I'm in NOW WAY excusing any potential "cover-up" for that reason, nor accepting it; but I'm not a "politician"!

If I'd been Hastert, I'd have kicked him to curb years ago; but then again, I could never be in Hastert's position, because I have no tolerance for PC bullshit, nor do I accept PC crap from others!

clarice feldman

What test would you use Dale?

Make all contenders for the party watch homoerotic films with wires attached to their genitalia?


Dale, I didn't attack you or categorize you, I only criticized your comment. Don't be so defensive!

clarice feldman

Well the tongue tied Reps have finally wised up about political speaking:

Nice and simple. They NEVER saw the IMMs, the emails were innocent.

How hard was that to get out and make clear?

Dale in Atlanta

Clarice: I'm not arguing with you, and I'm not even hinting at the ludicrous suggestion that you mention.

Nor did I ever even hint that the Republican party should be PURGED of Homosexuals, or any other minority!

I never said anything like that, and I never hinted at it!

All I know, is when I was in the Corps, we were the social experiment of US Society, usually forced on us by Leftists in Congress, thru Appropriations and attached riders to the Defense Spending Bill; we were a convenient target for their PC social engineering, because they couldn't get Leftists judges appointed to the Judiciary fast enough, to enact all their Leftist agenda.

I was undergoing "sensitvity" training in race relations, treatment of women and minorities, and "gays"; while Bill Clinton was groping Kathleen Wiley, raping Juanita Brodderick, and wearing out Monica Lewinsky's kneepads!

And I'm telling you, it has an effect on you, after awhile.

I saw many cases, in the Military, my last years in, where Commanding Officers just decided to go with the flow, and give up, and adopted two entirely different sets of standards (informally of course); because if it ever emerged, that they had discrimminated against "miniorities" of any kind (black, women, etc.); their careers were over.

So, there were the standards for the White, Anglo-Saxon white guys, and the standards for everyone else!

I saw Women Officers in the Corps, violate repeatedly, the Marine policy of "Fraternizatioin" i.e. screwing the enlisted guys, and they never punished, and were promoted; and the moment a Male Officer was caught, doing the same with female enlisted, his career was DONE!

Something like 2500+ Officers, in all the Military, were Court Martialed, or offered the chance to "retire", during the Clinton years, for doing the exact same thing that Clinton turned into an artform, but it's funny, you never heard the Feminists standing up for them!

Anyway, my point Clarice, is that you just don't know the pressures that can be brought to bear, to "conform" on people on that type of stuff; and sadly, human nature is, that after awhile, you just give up, and accept the fact that a bifurcated system is in place, and enforce it!

Is it RIGHT? NO! But trust me, it happens.

In my civilian life, for the past 10 years, I've seen it time and time again, too; but it's so inculcated into the IT world in which I inhabit, that it's not even considered controversial any more, it's just considered "payback" for the previous 200+ years of WASMP "domination"!

I've had that told to my face, numerous times, with no hints of irony or hypocrasy!

Dale in Atlanta

Marianne: point taken, and understand, and appreciate it.

Also, do not take it that I'm yelling at YOU, or mad, or defensive!

Posts, and emails, are so black and white, that you can read them with any intonation you want, and they all come across PISSED!

It's a discussion, and a discussion only; unfortunately, I like to EMPHASIZE my points with !!!!!!! and CAPS to make POINTS!

Not to Yell or get defensive!


clarice feldman

I , too, get your point and appreciate it , Dale.

It's just that when arguing the Hastert shoulda done more with rabid traditionalists, I lose my temper, and if I did that with you, I apologize. You deserved better.

clarice feldman

Macs got a long post up with several indications sprinkled in it that the Dems knew about the IMs earlier than ABC did. (Oh, what a surprise that would be to my tender sensibilities!)


I heard a report on ABC news radio that was different than these two. It seems no one can keep this straight. Democrats need to be careful here as well as Republicans. Republicans need to deal with it in the open and Democrats need to stop doing their little snoopy dance. It looks so mercenary.

Dale in Atlanta

Clarice: you owe me no apologies; I have skin like an elephant, despite the fact that Marianne thought I was being defensive.

I get passionate too though, when aruging these points across the boards, how could we not!

But in the scheme of things, I'm a nobody, and you are a somebodey, and I read as much of your stuff as I can, here, at Capt Ed's, American Thinker, etc.

You don't have to apologize.

And I can tell the last few days, you, and Rick Moran, have been a bit frustrated, understanbably.

My little Leftists friends at work here, have let me know for 5years plus, that the relentless attackes on Bush, are "payback" for Clinton's impeachment, and the 2000 Florida election fiasco.

For us, it seems that 9/11 should've overcome all of that, and we should've united as a society and country, to confront the real enemy, the Islmaofascists!

But that's not good enough for the rotten Jacobites!

They seriously, want to take Bush down, not because they believe any of the crap they spew, but just as PAYBACK! Just as for political GAIN! And that is just SOOOO wrong on so many levels, besides being akin to societal suicide!

I wish one of you people, with a forum, like Rick, or you at American Thinker, would address the REAL issue that this causes, which I've seen written about nowhere else, but which is what turned me from pretty much an Apoltical "independent", into a RAGING "anti-Lefists", and that is this:

and by the way, this is the main reason that I've despised John Kerry for the past 30 years!

John Kerry is literally THE reason that the "Vietnam complex" affected the US, US Foreign Policy, and the US Military for decades, up until the Gulf War!

His callous seizing upon, and capricious using of, with encouragement and enabling by his mentor Ted Kennedy, of what was a pretty nascent anti-War/anti-Vietnam/anti-establishment/peace/hippie/drugs/free love movement, and Maturing it, and molding it, with help from Jane Fonda and the rest, into a Legitimate Democratic Party plank, that spawned the McGovernites; in reality, AFFECTED THE WAR MAING, MILITARY USING ABILITY OF US PRESIDENTS FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS, AND I DON'T MEAN AFFECTED POSITIVELY, BUT NEGATIVELY AS IN "VIETNAM COMPLEX"!

I mean, look how it even affected Colin Powell, and Bush Sr., and their conduct of the Gulf War; they wanted a quick in/out, and that was it, with minimum casualties for both sides, which just enabled Saddam for another 12 years!

Now, the relentless attacks, for 5 years, on Bush, by the Left, which is about to again totally gain control of the Democratic party, will again, accomplish the same thing; with some of the SAME players, like Kerry, and Fonda, and some of their children like Sean Penn, etc.


We may as well call it the "Iraq War complex"!

Because they've almost succeeded; with their attacks on everything from the Iraq War, to renditions, to SWIFT, to the NSA program, to GITMO; they've almost effectively removed every tool a President could utilize effectively, against this enemey, now, and into the future!

And, in so doing, what they're telling the American people, is that: we, the LEFTIST, are willing to accept, a HUGE amount of YOU, as CASUALTIES, to terrorists and terrorism, in effort to make partican political gains!

That's what they are saying, and doing, by their actions!

So, they're telling you Marianne, or you Clarice, or ME, that me, or one of your kids, or one of our "partners", who happen to be in a bldg somewhere, or on a plane somewhere, or in a nightclub somewhere, are ACCEPTABLE AS CASULATIES, because they are unwilling to do what needs to be done, in order to bring this President down!

Don't you wish you could convince President Bush, to give that EXACT Speech, to the American people, and then let them decide in the upcoming elections?



Dale, this is really off topic, but exactly what tools have been denied to the President to fight terror? It seems (1) that he got almost everything he wanted, and (2) that he is using those tools effectively. What else does he need?

“Very exciting.

I am glad my work on this is finally coming to fruition. I spoke with Bill Burton at the DCCC about this and I’m so glad you guys were able to jump in on the heels of my work.

Obviously we didn’t have a chance of winning this seat, so this is great.

Good Job!

Mike Rogers

Posted by: Mike Rogers | September 29, 2006 09:55 PM

Why is the DCCC deleting Mike Roger's comments...did someone pay this guy and in turn did he pay people? this is wierd...

Sara (Squiggler)

Full public support, Marianne.


It's possible that concerns about looking homophobic may have caused Republican leadership to play it strictly by the book. At this time any suggestion of enabling or cover up is vile. Quite sure if they knew anything like this was out there Foley would have been retired pronto. Any other insinuendo would imply Republican leadership is as craven as Democrat, which Democrats surely believe but I don't.

Dale in Atlanta


a) NSA surveillance program: GUTTED, and rendered ineffective, because of frontpage NYT leaks, and the Judge's ruling that gives the Program Seven more day, before it must CEASE, because of the ACLU's lawsuit; subject to appeal of course

b) SWIFT: GUTTED, and rendered ineffective, because of frontpage leaks, and Europe will no longer cooperate, because of leaks..

c) "Renditions": GUTTED, no longer effective/used; because Europe no longer will cooperate, because of leaks.

d) "Secret" detention centers: GUTTED, no longer possible, because Europe and North African and Asian countries will no longer cooperate, because of leaks.!

e) GITMO: GUTTED; will soon have to be shut down, due to bogus stories of treatment of prisoners, and relentless attacks my the MSM and Leftists...

f)Extreme interrogation tactics: GUTTED; the President got his bill, last week, to severely question people, and that's it. The US has NEVER used "torture"; "torture" is what you do, when you BEHEAD somebody like the Jihadis; waterboarding, and doing to "detainees", which is done to our Pilots in SERE school, is NOT "torture"; but thanks to the Leftist attacks on the President, even those measure, have now been mostly outlawed by the new bill, even though out Pilots and Intelligence personnel, will still be going thru the same stuff at SERE school, and our college freshmen pledging to a Fraternity will be undergoing WORSE!

Those are just the ones I can think of, off the top of my head.

I'm not aware of any others, because they haven't been LEAKED yet; but they will be, if they can damage the President with it, and then that program, whatever it may be, will be rendered ineffective and Gutted!


Thank you.


Clinton pardoned a dude that had sex with a teenage girl and democrats reelected Studds after he got his 16 old page drunk and had sex with him...so apparently the Democrats message here...that's OK, but want a special counsel when a republican emails and IM's?

Dale in Atlanta

TS9: Please do NOT try to inject Rational and Logic into this debate! It won't work!

Besides, equivilancy only works, one way!????

Dale in Atlanta

Now Foley is in "rehab"!

What is he "rehabbing" from?

Alcohol and/or drugs?

Why, how does that fit?

Is he implying that he is gay or a sexual predator because of drugs and/or alcohol?

That's a novel approach!

The "progressives" have been telling us for the past 30 years, ".....people are born that way...."

What does that do to this argument?

Is he already foreshadowing his "defense" that the alcohol and/or drugs, "made" him do it?

Sounds like Victimhood status already!

I told you all yesterday, he was a closeted DEMOCRAT!


It seems this black bag job was selected due to the exact PC problem everyone knows about.

The Reps were placed in the between a rock and a hard place.

There are enough skeletons in congress for a whole lot of shock and awe, but out of desperation to get power back, the Dems are the one who crossed the unspoken line in the sand and may now wish they could put the Genie back in the bottle.


this is on the Wild Bill radio guy's site

Thanks for the pointing out the additional discrepancies. Mark Foley or the person from the emails and/or the different person from the IMs need to come out and clear up some of the faulty reporting from the main stream media. I have the name and screen name of the person that was IMing Mark Foley and have contacted people in the media about the information I have. It is no surprise that the MSM does not want to contact me to help them find the person that can verify the story. I guess the MSM has the story they want (full of holes and links that don't exist.) If the MSM does not contact me by Wednesday I might give the information that I have out on my radio show. I really think someone needs to contact the person from the IMs (he is older than 18 now) and get his side of the story.
Wild Bill | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 12:28 pm | #

T Miller

Is the 1983 Studds case "equivalent" because the Democrat was with a boy page, as opposed to Republican Daniel Crane who the same year was caught with a girl page?

And did any of the House leaders who were initially lenient with Foley even know about the 2 previous examples?


Here is his addy



Democrats need to stop doing their little snoopy dance.

I just loved that mental image. Thanks!!;)


Capital Hill Blue has the following story

Republican leaders said Sunday they expect state Rep. Joe Negron of Stuart, Fla., to be named Mark Foley's replacement in the District 16 House race when state party leaders meet Monday in Orlando.

Also they say

His run for attorney general earlier in the year gives him some name recognition in every county in the district and campaign funds he can draw on, said Susan Auld, chairwoman of the Martin County Republican Executive Committee.

His experience as a state legislator is another plus, said Fran Hancock, state committeewoman of the Palm Beach County Republicans. Hancock said she plans to vote for Negron at the meeting.


Can they go after Foley in court without releasing the name/names of anyone he had contact with? Won't all this have to be authenticated somehow?

clarice feldman

No (ist question)and yes(on 2d).

Dale in Atlanta

Clarice: do you have any comment on my 12:08pm post?

I do think this would be a good topic to write about...


AJ Strata has breaking news on the story


Mike Rogers Knew Of Gay Intern In Folely Office

Mike Rogers has tried to cover his tracks and what he knew about Rep Folely - and how long ago. A lot of his posts have seemed to have disappeared. Seemed to have - but on the internet nothing is really lost. I have found a June 14th, 2005 post where Rogers notes he has a lead on a Gay intern in Folely’s office:


Nice and simple. They NEVER saw the IMMs, the emails were innocent.

How hard was that to get out and make clear?

Extremely hard. I have been reading all over the mixing of emails and IMs. Deliberately by some of the Dem talking heads on TV.

So glad lucianne linked up to clarice's latest to help explain this quadmire.

ts....Yep on Culture of Corruption. I commented on this campaign the same week it was launched on Hardball. Betcha they had this little ditty in their bag then. Notice that Foley and 400+ Abramoff WH contacts hit the same week.


Also commented on, actually I believe AJ gave in the credit at Mac Rangers site


UPDATE II: They’re may be a possibilty that the one who runs Blog Active.com, and the one who runs Stop Sex Predators may be one in the same. That may be Mike Rogers, the infamous Gay Republican Outer.

Also quoting Rodgers

Rogers seemingly isn’t ashamed to take the credit, per a post he made at the DCCC before it was deleted:

“Very exciting.

I am glad my work on this is finally coming to fruition. I spoke with Bill Burton at the DCCC about this and I’m so glad you guys were able to jump in on the heels of my work.

Obviously we didn’t have a chance of winning this seat, so this is great.

Good Job!

Mike Rogers

Posted by: Mike Rogers | September 29, 2006 09:55 PM

clarice feldman

Dale, it would be a good topic--

clarice feldman

A friend sent me the best argument on timing to demonstrate why the Dems had to be involved--the disclosure in ABC was made just one day after Fley's name could no longer be replaced on the ballot.

Appalled Moderate

Looks like the NYT is more correct than ABC. See this


Mike Rogers is targeting Gay republicans for being against Gay Marriage...I'm wondering if his stratergery has the potential to do the opposite...

His crusade is to get Dems. elected in order to legalize Gay Marriage...ie IF Dems are elected they WILL legalize Gay marriage.

That may be part of why they are trying to scrubb/airbrush all of Roger's comments -to keep that theme from catching on


Rogers posted a threat of outing a senator on Jan 30 2006 for a vote the following day Jan 31 2006, the day of the Alito vote


This post will be read by thousands and thousands of people... It's directed at ONE person.

Mr. Senator:

Tomorrow you will be faced with a vote that may have the longest aftereffects of any other you have cast in your Senate career.

Tomorrow you will decide if your political position is worth more than doing what is right for others like you. For others like you, Mr. Senator, who engage in oral sex with other men. (Although, Mr. Senator, most of us don't do in the bathrooms of Union Station!) Your fake marriage, by the way, will NOT protect you from the truth being told on this blog.

How does this blog decide who to report on? It's simple. We report on hypocrites. In this case, hypocrites who vote against the gay and lesbian community while engaging in gay sex themselves*.

When you cast that vote, Mr. Senator, represent your own...it's the least you could do.

Michael Rogers

Sara (Squiggler)

I posted this in the other thread. Four threads on the same subject are three too many, BTW.

Via: Foleygate: What Stunk Like a Rat, Was a Democ-Rat!

Here are the threats and plans to destroy Mark Foley printed at a Leftist-haters blog back in March of 2005:

Birds of a Feather
Two haters, one picture:
Gay-bashing straight man John Ashcroft and Gay-bashing gay man Mark Foley

This is United States Congressman Mark Foley
He voted this week for a law to allow hate groups to fire gay and lesbian people at will
The law he is supporting will overrule ANY local laws on the matter.





Please to support our educational and advertising campaign against this right wing hypocrite, click here and join the battle for true lesbian and gay liberation.

**COMING MONDAY ON BLOGACTIVE:** The entire Mark Foley story...Read about my recorded discussions with staff members and former staff members of Rep. Mark Foley...Read about how Mark Foley hit on men less than half his age at the Republican convention...Read about how Mark Foley voted to remove protections from those same young gay men and lesbians and anyone else violating a local discrimination law!!!

And back in 2004 there were open threats in the Washington Blade by Rogers targeting Foley:

20 offices said targeted
Not likely, say Mike Rogers and John Aravosis, the two men loosely heading an ongoing outing campaign on the Hill. As the date nears for a Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban gay marriages in the Constitution, Rogers said the outings have picked up steam — from 13 documented offices to nearly 20 currently on a target list provided by Rogers to the Blade.

In addition to Tolman, Rogers and Aravosis, working in tandem but not together, claimed in the last week to have outed via the Web Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Republican Congressman Mark Foley of Florida.

While Tolman confirmed he is gay, the Mikulski’s office refused to comment on speculation she is a lesbian, something Aravosis implied last week on his site.

A spokesperson for Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.) also declined to comment after Aravosis specifically asserted that Foley is gay on his Web site last week.

Both members of Congress have long been the subject of rumors about their sexual orientation.

I'm sorry, but this really pisses me off. This is all about a militant gay group going after Foley because he was supportive of their cause.

Sara (Squiggler)

Sorry, because he **wasn't** supportive


Crane's act of 1980 was not accepted by his peers, he apologized on the House floor, and his base did not re-elect him, career over.

Foley has apologized and stepped down, career over.

Stubbs did not apologize and never has, and his liberal base re-elected him time and again - a closeted gay man who solicited sex AND HAD SEX, with an underage male page. He retired 23 years later.

Your right - Studds act is not equivalent since he actually had sex with a 17 year old. But of course liberals don't give a s--t about that. The theory here is to gain votes in November.

The destruction of man through innuendo is Democratic Talking Point number 10.


Clarice, your AT article today says that there was a Kos diary on this subject a year earlier than the ABC story. That's incorrect. The Kos diary was 4 days earlier.

"the disclosure in ABC was made just one day after Fley's name could no longer be replaced on the ballot"

I think you and/or others have hinted that CREW is somehow wrapped up with the SSP blog. If that's true, and if your timing rationale is correct, then why did SSP make a big effort to promote this story prior to the deadline? Why not wait a few days?

One more question. Some people seem to be convinced that CREW had IMs (not just emails) long before the rest of us saw them. Maybe I missed it in the hundreds of comments, but where is there any information to support that supposition?


But another page, who asked not to be named told The Palm Beach Post, "The program in no official capacity warned us about it," and he said that Loraditch had posted an explanation for his comments to ABC on the college social network, Facebook.com.

Loraditch's Facebook.com statement said: "I have received several heated responses from my fellow pages about media involvement in the current situation. I want to respond with a few points and thoughts.

Wonder how many pissed off pages there are at Loraditch?



Can't go this site I guess unless you are a user? If that is the case, why'd he put his comment there after he toos down his forum site?

Thought too many pages would show up and call him out?

clarice feldman

Clarice, your AT article today says that there was a Kos diary on this subject a year earlier than the ABC story. That's incorrect. The Kos diary was 4 days earlier.
I took that from an earlier post on this Board..I think by Rick which I believed to be accurate
"the disclosure in ABC was made just one day after Fley's name could no longer be replaced on the ballot"

I think you and/or others have hinted that CREW is somehow wrapped up with the SSP blog. If that's true, and if your timing rationale is correct, then why did SSP make a big effort to promote this story prior to the deadline? Why not wait a few days?
My point about SSP is that it is an obscure blog with no readership and nothing to read until it posted the emails. I think it unlikely that the claim the ABC ran with the story because Mahoney saw it there an demanded an investigation is true. I think Mahoney, SSP, the Dems and ABC put the story out using this amateur deflection to hide the source of the information.
One more question. Some people seem to be convinced that CREW had IMs (not just emails) long before the rest of us saw them. Maybe I missed it in the hundreds of comments, but where is there any information to support that supposition?

CREW has not indicated that it had or passed on the IMs. Nevertheless are you suggesting the FBI investigation was sought on the basis of emails asking hot stuff like "How was your vacation?"

T Miller

Speaker Hastert returned to Washington to give a news conference. He could have spared himself the trouble. We all accept that he doesn't condone what happened. But he was the one in a position to deal with it, and chose not to. And now he wants an investigation of whoever leaked the emails, but not an investigation of why he and his colleagues didn't address the problem. He still doesn't get it. Does he seriously expect to be Speaker again? Or maybe House Minority Leader or just a Representative?


Mayfair there are foley post all over Kos the one you want is this one


Congressman Mark Foley Emails to Intern
by WHInternNow
Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 11:25:31 AM PDT

Back in Sept not 4 days ago


You're being disingenuous. The thomas white emails were never proven to be phony.

clarice feldman

Ah, tanya--Well, we know where you're coming from. Still waiting at the water cooler for unsealed v unsealed to be opened..LOL



WhInternNow had one dairy (blog thread) and one seperate warning post on kos see here for the tied together story


Sara (Squiggler)

T Miller -- Hastert did deal with it. He turned it over to Shimkus who was the person in charge of the Page Program and he spoke to the parents of the 16 year old. The parents asked him not to take it any further. So get a grip.


Mary K Ham has a post over at Townhall


about Hastert

scroll all the way to the bottom for the info on Rodgers, and his posting on the SSP blog comments and his longterm fight with Foley


Gateway pundit has much more read it all


T Miller

Hasterts and Shimkus' way of dealing with the complaint against Foley does not rise to the level that one would expect of persons responsible for the well-being of 72 high school students. Maybe they (as well as Boehner and Reynolds) are simply naive. Maybe none of them are worldly enough to recognize the overtones of Foley's email - at least whoever of those 4 actually took the 1 minute of time needed to read the message.


TMiller:Maybe none of them are worldly enough to recognize the overtones of Foley's email - at least whoever of those 4 actually took the 1 minute of time needed to read the message.

If memory serves me, they never read the e-mails. The parents insisted that they remain private, and they were not allowed to see copies.


The timing of all this stinks. It comes out a day after Foley's name can't be removed from the ballot? Come on;we are not that naive. Still waiting for Rove'a October surprise.


Seems to me if the republican leadership cared about the seriousness of this they would have investigated it despite the parents wish to keep it quiet. (The parents request cannot be a reason to let a sexual predator continue working in Congress.)
And if they investigated it they likely would have found the damaging IM logs. They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by giving a damn in the first place and dealing with the issue.

If democtrats sat on the information until a politically opportune moment, that stinks a whole lot less than someone ignoring the problem and letting this guy continue to sexually harrass people.

T Miller

Rep. Shimkus saw the email, according to an interview he gave last Friday. He did not share the email or any other information with the other 2 members of the House Page Board.


"f democtrats sat on the information until a politically opportune moment, that stinks a whole lot less than someone ignoring the problem and letting this guy continue to sexually harrass people."

This means that the Democrats were also "ignoring the problem and letting this guy continue to sexually harrass people."

I'm sure one of the lawyers here will explain that if an offence has been committed,the Democrats are accessories if they knew and kept silent.


What R leadership knew: "How was your vacation, send me a pic"

What D leadership knew: "I'd drive a thousand miles for a hot young stud like you"

So who was allowing "abuse" ???


T. Miller:

The emails did not have anything sexual in them, they were just too familiar and Shimkus did approach Foley and tell him to cut that out. The problem is that there was just not that much they could do with that kind of information. They could not censure or espel a member for asking for a picture or for being gay as far as that is concerned. And if the parents refused to let it go further then there was no way they could really do anything.

Now if they had the other communications, the IM's I think Hastert would have asked for Foley's resignation just to get rid of him asap.

I am not crazy about Hastert, he was never a favorite of mine, but given what they were dealing with there was not really that much they could do at the time.



No, that is not true. We have this disconnect where teenagers are concerned. On one hand we want to treat them like children, and on the other we want to give them a car for their 16th birthday. That boy's parents were the people to decide whether or not that email would be seen by anyone else or used. They had legal possession of both the kid and the email. It was their call. Foley did not break any law by writing that email so there was nothing to investigate in a legal sense.

Now it can be argued that someone should have been more aware of what the man was doing, but then again someone should have been more aware of what Bill Clinton and Gary Condit were doing too.

T Miller

The only way for Hastert to survive will be to throw Shimkus under the bus. How this goes down with the rest of the caucus will determine who leads the Party in the next Congress.


Clarice, thanks for your response.

"I took that from an earlier post on this Board..I think by Rick which I believed to be accurate"

Are you serious? Your 10/2 article ("Investigate This") says this:

How it is that ABC ran with a story based on this blog when a year earlier even the BDS-afflicted Daily Kos rejected as improbable the story that Foley was a predatory troller of interns.

I've preserved the links in that quote. Your first link ("Daily Kos rejected") is a link to Tom's 10/1 post ("How The Foley Story Broke - I Find This Puzzling"). That post, in turn, contains a link to a Kos diary dated 9/24/06.

Your second link ("improbable") is a link to a piece of yours dated 10/2 ("Foley Blame Game Updates"), which quotes from River City Mud Bugle, which in turn links to the same Kos diary.

In other words, you have repeatedly pointed to this Kos diary, directly and indirectly. You have claimed is was written "a year earlier" than the ABC story. But 9/24/06, the day that diary appeared, not a year earlier than the ABC story. It's 4 days earlier.

It's amazing that you could make such a blatant factual error. What's even more amazing is that once I brought the error to your attention, instead of correcting it you post a very lame excuse.

If you can't get the most basic facts straight, and can't be bothered to fix an obvious error that's brought to your attention, why would anyone but a fool take you seriously?

I'll respond to your other points in a separate comment.

Sara (Squiggler)

T Miller -- Would you quote with a cut and paste from the email what it is that you think was out of line or harrassment? I cannot find anything.

Congress people keep in touch with former interns and young campaign workers all the time. My boss did and I see it all the time on campaigns. Some become mentors. Others become almost like substitute parents. This is one reason the issue is complicated, because the emails sound like thousands of others written every day to keep up with former workers or students in the districts.

Until you see them with the knowledge of the IMs in your brain, there is no warning there. And this idea that any Republican would override a parent on something like this is ludicrous. Repubs do not think it is their job to raise other people's kids the way dems do with their stupid "it takes a village" BS.


only way for Hastert to survive will be to throw Shimkus under the bus

Somebody like Rev Falwell might make the argument that "How was your vacation, send me a pic" from a suspected gay congressman constitutes probable cause but liberal democrats look like phoney hypocrits the louder they screech.

Rick Ballard


You're right about the boy's parents. There is an additional factor that has been unmentioned to this point. The page positions are political payoffs in more than a few cases. It would be nice to have a name so that the parents political situation could be fully understood.


Of course you all know how disgusting it is to see you spinning the predatory behavior of a pedophile
congressman. So I guess you are honing your skills for the day when you will be spinning the trial of our war criminal president. Good luck with that!

See the Foley IMs at:




I saw that post from Daily Kos myself, but I do not remember who came up with it at first. It is not just something clarice came up with.

T Miller

Rick B, Are you suggesting that the parents of the page from Rep. Alexander's district should be identified? The boy's identity would then be known, and both he and his parents have made it obvious they don't want to be identified.

Sara (Squiggler)

BTW, you are hilarious.

Pedophilia is the inappropriate sexual interest in prepubescent children. Bring me one example of a prepubescent college student. Some, I agree, and you are a perfect example, speak like prepubescent mouthbreathers, but I don't think the IMer falls in that category.



I am not spinning anything and it remains to be seen if Foley is a child molestor. That young man he sent the IMs to was old enough to join the military and go to Iraq. If it can be shown that he did indeed molest children, then lock him up. But no one has even accused him of touching anyone so far, much less abusing children.

I think the point is that someone had this information for some time and set on it, who and why?

Besides all that what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander.

Cecil Turner

Seems to me if the republican leadership cared about the seriousness of this . . .

Oh please. One poofterpunkophile gets outed and quickly booted, and the Dems want to play "what did they know, and when did they know it?" Risible nonsense--past cases of Dems having actual sex with pages and interns didn't even merit a resignation--and nobody seems to care. This strikes me as a fundamentally unserious issue, and unlikely to distract the national voter from the black hole where a Dem national defense strategy ought to be. Good luck with it.



Source of Foley e-mails identified? Update: dKosopedia entry on Gerry Studds mysteriously changes!

SHOCKED, the Left needs to airbrush their history rewarding , in order to suddenly be outraged about Foley behavior, but more of the same

The comments to this entry are closed.