Foley - An Open Secret

The LA Times fails to surprise with this:

The current and former congressional staffers interviewed by The Times, who are from both parties, said it was well known within the Capitol's gay community that Foley was interested in young men.

"Among the gay political community, there was a pretty wide understanding that he had an eye for the interns and the younger staff," said one former congressional staffer.

The staffers said Foley — who was elected to the House in 1994 and is not openly gay — would seek out the young men in bars, restaurants and even around the Capitol.

[Let's get pages in the mix with "interns and younger staff", just to avoid any misunderstanding:

In interviews with the Los Angeles Times, several current and former congressional employees and others said they recalled Foley approaching young male pages, aides and interns at parties and other venues.

"Almost the first day I got there I was warned," said Mark Beck-Heyman, a San Diego native who served as a page in the House of Representatives in the summer of 1995. "It was no secret that Foley had a special interest in male pages," said Beck-Heyman, adding that Foley, who is now 52, on several occasions asked him out for ice cream.

Another former congressional staff member said he too had been the object of Foley's advances. "It was so well known around the House. Pages passed it along from class to class," said the former aide, adding that when he was 18 a few years ago and working as an intern, Foley approached him at a bar near the Capitol and asked for his e-mail address.]

As noted, there are some gay Democrats as well as gay Republicans in Washington.  Yet no one came forward to Protect The Children!  Well, not until five weeks before an election...

Regardless, the logical next step would be for enterprising reporters to round up gay Congressman and staffers and ask the "what did they know and when did they know it" question.  What did those in the know report to Hastert, Pelosi, and the heads of the page program?

Sure, that'll happen.  And after Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker she will personally lead a crusade to clean up the gay community in Washington and make sure no one ever again cruises the sixteen and seventeen year olds.  Never.

HUH?  This surprises me:

"Almost the first day I got there I was warned," said Mark Beck-Heyman, a San Diego native who served as a page in the House of Representatives in the summer of 1995.

Foley came to the House in the Class of '94, and would have been sworn in in January 1995.  He must have gotten a rep pretty quickly.

Comments

[Rick]

Has uber-genius Glenn Greenwald weighed in on this close-to-home issue? Or, failing that, has Ryan or Ellers pronounced on the tempest?

Cordially...

[Other Tom]

Whether it's fair or not, it appears that this thing is hurting the GOP pretty significantly--maybe a sort of tipping-point effect.

I find myself wondering just what Hastert and others could have done, but if the guy weren't gay, and he had been hitting up on sixteen-year-old female pages, I have a hunch they would have found a way to put a stop to it.

[MayBee]

I find myself wondering just what Hastert and others could have done, but if the guy weren't gay, and he had been hitting up on sixteen-year-old female pages, I have a hunch they would have found a way to put a stop to it.

Really? Because in my imagination- informed only by having once been a 16-year old girl- I imagine the female pages get hit upon and nobody stops the casual hitters.

[Other Tom]

MayBee, when you read some of those IM's, I think we're no longer talking about casual hitters. If anybody sent any of those to a sixteen-year-old girl he'd be gone in a hearbeat, and rightly so.

[boris]

you read some of those IM's

The casual "hitting" here is the "send a pic" email, not the mutual masturbation IMs.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Tom, I'm sure some Dems did know that Foley was a closeted gay man, perhaps even a gay man who was attracted to young men (by young I mean 20s). But there's been no indication so far that any Dems knew that Foley was hitting on underage congressional pages. And it appears that Hastert and company went out of there way not to share that information with the Dems.

Had any Dems known about that, it's hard to believe they wouldn't have gone public with it, if for no other reasons than to make politic hay.

There's a huge difference between knowing that someone hits on young men/women and knowing that they hit on underage interns. For instance, suppose you knew that your middle-aged colleague routinely tried to score with young women at bars. You might think that was pathetic, you might disapprove, but you wouldn't feel compelled to do anything about it. But if you knew that same person was hitting on underage high school interns at your company, you'd probaby feel differently.

You shouldn't conflate those two situations. The Republican leadership was apparently in the second situation, but so far there's no reason to think that any Dems were in anything but the first situation.

[boris]

The Republican leadership was apparently in the second situation

The evidence so far slants the other way.

CREW and ABD is not Republican friendly organizations.

[boris]

CREW and ABC are not Republican friendly organizations.

[Bob]

Tom, I'm sure some Dems did know that Foley was a closeted gay man, perhaps even a gay man who was attracted to young men (by young I mean 20s). But there's been no indication so far that any Dems knew that Foley was hitting on underage congressional pages. And it appears that Hastert and company went out of there way not to share that information with the Dems.

AL... you must be joking right! The LATimes is stating that the word was out on Foley. To suggest that this info wasn't known widely is disingenuous at best!

[Dave]

"The casual "hitting" here is the "send a pic" email"

I'm confused. I thought the email was "innocuous." Is casual hitting now "innocuous?"

I'm just trying to keep up.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

AL: I might agree with you if today was Sunday. Unfortunately I have since learned that Democrats did know about this story prior to ABC's publication. That is, if you believe the word of Mike Rogers of Blogactive, bottomfeeder extraordinaire. Rogers claims he was in contact with a high level staffer of the DCCC. The staffer even sent communications back to Rogers about it.

I can't excuse the Republicans for their actions. That's why I think there are two stories here. One is about the failure of the Republicans to take this matter seriously and bring in the proper members of the House, the Page Committee members, to inform them that they might have a larger problem they need to explore. The issue should have been the safety and protection of the pages. Were there others, etc? The second issue is the politics of the timing of the release. That story should be clear by now and only gets conflated more with each day.

I do think that Foley's alleged homosexual tendencies may have something to do with the burying of this story. However, since minors, high school students, are involved, I think it clearly transcends those sympathies.

[boris]

I'm just trying to keep up.

Try harder.

[boris]

Because in my imagination- informed only by having once been a 16-year old girl- I imagine the female pages get hit upon and nobody stops the casual hitters.

Never having been a 16 yr old girl, my assumptin is that one would consider a request from an older adult male to be "casual hitting".

Could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Probably not the last. Mark it on the calendar though.

[boris]

would consider an email request for a pic from an older adult male to be "casual hitting".

[PeterUK]

"Among the gay political community, there was a pretty wide understanding that he had an eye for the interns and the younger staff," said one former congressional staffer."

This says "Gay Political Community",not Republican GPC or Democrat GPC.Of course everyone in the GPC knew, as probably did the MSM,nobody reveals these things,on the basis of "There but for the Grace of God go I", unless it is politically expedient.
Most adult communities are like this,otherwise a can of worms is well and truly opened,adultery,drink,drugs,lying,cheating,all the human foibles are up for grabs,so mostly nobody wants to cast the first stone.

[Tom Maguire]

But there's been no indication so far that any Dems knew that Foley was hitting on underage congressional pages.

versus:

Among the gay political community, there was a pretty wide understanding that he had an eye for the interns and the younger staff," said one former congressional staffer.

I suppose one might argue that "interns and younger staff" does not specifically include pages.

Of course, elsewhere in the LA Times story is this:

In interviews with the Los Angeles Times, several current and former congressional employees and others said they recalled Foley approaching young male pages, aides and interns at parties and other venues.

..."Almost the first day I got there I was warned," said Mark Beck-Heyman, a San Diego native who served as a page in the House of Representatives in the summer of 1995. "It was no secret that Foley had a special interest in male pages," said Beck-Heyman, adding that Foley, who is now 52, on several occasions asked him out for ice cream.

...Another former congressional staff member said he too had been the object of Foley's advances. "It was so well known around the House. Pages passed it along from class to class," said the former aide, adding that when he was 18 a few years ago and working as an intern, Foley approached him at a bar near the Capitol and asked for his e-mail address.

I think we can fault Anon Lib for failing to follow the link (although there can be a registration roadblock at the LA Times), and me for not providing the juicy excerpts.

[sbw]

I find the political hay being made as distasteful as overtures to innocents. That said, there is a journalistic issue here as well. Major press outlets might be well-served by examining in advance the political affiliations of those who, like Mark Beck-Heyman, comment on politically-charged stories on the off-chance they might have a second or different reason for making such statements.

[Geek, Esq.]

People tend to blame, you know, the people in charge.

With power comes responsibility. Capitol Hill's gay community wasn't responsible for administering the page program. Dennis Hastert was.

[Sparky]

Ah yes, the children. We have to protect the innocent, delicate children. Look around people, there are plenty of sixteen year olds who are mothers and fathers, and not through adoption. Lots of very worldly, completely sexualized teens in this mass-media driven culture of ours.

Pages are in congress because of a deep personal interest in the second oldest profession, politics, which of course is as pure as the driven snow, and very protective of their delicate innocence.

Look, making gay or straight advances to anyone significantly younger, adult or late teen, is tacky and maybe creepy. Foley had a problem, and lots of people coulda shoulda blown the whistle or put a stop to him.

Like, for instance, all the younger guys who could have told him to buzz off, loudly and publicly, if it really offended them. Like all the interested and disinterested parties who observed, but said nothing. And if you read some of those IM exchanges, a couple of the delicate children were not exactly offended.

This is turning into yet another disgusting episode of the favorite Washington sport of Gotcha. Hey, who else can we make look bad today?

[Gabriel Sutherland]

The Washington Post quotes an FBI official in confidence that was familiar with the July 21st referral of the emails by CREW.

the field office concluded that the e-mails "did not rise to the level of criminal activity."

I'd agree with that assessment assuming the emails released by CREW are identical to the ones they received and sent to the FBI.

[Forbes]

All right, this is slightly O/T, but why does Congress still have a program employing teenagers as Pages? This practice is a relic from the 19th century, where completing high school prior to entering the workforce was optional.

Obviously I'm not making this observation as some lame excuse or explanation for anyone's lecherous (or worse) behavior--but the use of teenager labor strikes me as that of a long ago, bygone era. (And don't tell me about the invaluable experience of such a position.)

And a second observation--in the wake of Bill Clinton's intern problem, who would want to get out far ahead of a similar story--one that produces no heros and many goats?

[Anonymous Liberal]

I think we can fault Anon Lib for failing to follow the link (although there can be a registration roadblock at the LA Times), and me for not providing the juicy excerpts.

I actually did read the LA Times piece, though perhaps not as carefully as I should have. It does seem a little ambiguous to me though. It states that Foley's predelictions were a bit of an open secret among the pages themselves, but it's not as clear that the same was true of the non-intern crowd. As you point out, "interns and younger staff" doesn't necessarily mean "pages." There are a ton of +18 interns on the Hill.

Moreover, there's a difference between hearing rumors that someone is hitting on pages and having emails in your possession substantiating such conduct. It's problematic to act on rumors, but much less so when you have actual evidence presented to you.

There's been no evidence presented so far that any Dems were presented with evidence and ignored it. Moreover, it's hard to see why they would have.

[verner]

Geek:With power comes responsibility. Capitol Hill's gay community wasn't responsible for administering the page program. Dennis Hastert was.

Oh BS. If they knew, they were responsible to pass it along. If not, they are accessories.

As for Hasert, what is he suppose to do? Put a GPS chip and a wiretap on every single member of congress? Something kind of tells me that Hasert doesn't hang out in gay bars, so how would he know what Foley was up to?

[boris]

actual evidence presented to you

Should such "evidence = send me a pic" be evaluated on the basis of sexual orientation? Can see where it might be more suspicious for hetrosexual older male with 16 yr old girl and homosexual older male with 16 yr old boy and less for hetrosexual older female with 16 yr old girl and hetrosexual older male with 16 yr old boy . At what point does suspicion of gayness become part of the equation? If part of the page program is establishing contacts and networks then making all contact "suspicious" would seem to remove some of the purpose.

[anon]

There are some rather conflicting accounts floating around, aren't there? A little further down the page here, pages are describing Foley as a nice and caring man, and Loraditch is rejecting the idea that he was warned about him.

It seems likely that within the "gay culture" in DC Foley was widely known, but not so much outside it.

[Rick Ballard]

Forbes,

If I recall correctly, abolishment of the page program was suggested when Studds diddling of a page came to light. There was a bit of discussion and then it faded away. The page appointments are nice little plums to offer in return for 'help'. The kids involved know it as evidenced in some of the email/IM exchanges. It makes a nice line on their CV and lets college admission boards know that they're connected.

If the Dems are concerned about deviants they need to propose a set of norms so that we can get beyond 'I know it when I see it.'
Surely they have the skill to do so and I can't wait to see their proposal.

[clarice feldman]

Rick, I've stolen from TM--and am now proposing the Dems' new new campaign message:"We'd make better sex cops"..Have your girl call mine to arrange for new posters, t-shirts, etc.

We've got a winner this time, I think.

[anon]

Anon Lib

Which actual evidence are you taking about? Based on the emails there is not much that could be done.

In fact, even based on the IM's its not clear what can be done. Having an affair with a teenage page is not a crime, or Studdes (sp?) would be in jail instead of living with his boyfriend.

[Rick Ballard]

"Democrat Poofter Patrol" has a better alliterative ring and avoids the nasty word "cop".

[Neo]

Why didn't CREW make a referral to the supervisors of (Republican and Democratic) pages directly or indirectly to make sure that the pages were protected when they came into the IMs and e-mails 3 year ago ?

Sounds pretty unethical for an ethics organization.

[anonymous]

Something kind of tells me that Hasert doesn't hang out in gay bars, ...

Posted by: verner | October 03, 2006 at 10:48 AM

What makes you so sure?

[Bob]

Over on Drudge

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html>New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote

[Bob]

"We'd make better sex cops"

That's perfect clarice... it even fits on a bumper sticker! It's almost as good as "truth to power"

[boris]

Something kind of tells me ...

What makes you so sure?

Perhaps English isn't your first language.

[harmonygold]

Studds was in office until 1996, and his actions were well-known. Has anybody interviewed Democratic members of Congress who worked with him all those years about their opinions of him, and why they tolerated this person in their midst all those years?

[Neo]

Team Democrat -- Sex Police

[bgates]

The age of consent in DC is 16, so I have trouble understanding why we're not being urged to Move On.

How is this worse than what Clinton did, other than that Foley is a Republican?

[Other Tom]

I don't go along with the cries of "you have to question the timing." That's been the reaction of the left so often that it's almost a caricature. I don't question the timing at all: I assume it was timed for political benefit. So what? That's the way the world works. I'm not concerned with the timing, I'm concerned with the behavior and (perhaps) the leadership's reaction to it, about which I don't know quite enough to make a judgment.

[anonymous]

It was a serious question, boris. I was hoping you had an answer.

[clarice feldman]

Why? So you could rewrite it with lots of ellipses to make it say the opposite of what was posted? LOL

[anonymous]

My apologies," boris." The question was to "verner."
(I don't know what would have made me think you had an answer for anything.)

[ed]

Hmmm.

1. Does this hysteria by the Democrats undermine their arguments in favor of gay Boy Scout leaders in charge of minors on remote camping trips?

2. Considering that there have been several scandals associated with Congressional pages why the hell do we still have them? What purpose do they serve exactly? What? Nobody in Congress owns a damn blackberry? A cellphone? Has a couple aides?

3. The moral outrage is rather amusing from the liberal-lefty set. I seriously doubt Foley is the only gay representative that's done this sort of thing, particularly since Democrat Barney Frank is still in office, so the opportunity is now with the Republicans to really go through and hammer the House right to it's knees.

Open a House investigation on any and all allegations of wrong-doing by any member of the House against underage pages. Even if there are couple more Republicans caught there will certainly be a bunch of Democrats. This will spread the agony somewhat and give an opportunity to have the Democrats hang themselves with their own paid-for rope.

And besides. I'm sure there's plenty of people who absolutely deserve being kicked out.

[boris]

(perhaps) the leadership's reaction to it

This is the real debate. That's why the timing is relevant. The leadership investigation petered out for lack of "evidence" which may have been withheld to construct a hit.

Apparantly whoever had this "evidence" could have had Foley's resignation at any time. You are welcome to your POV, but that's what the rest of us are discussing.

[clarice feldman]

Ah, Bob..Ross proves the point I made last night..this stuff will be dripped one a drop at a time thru the election to make it sound worse . The IM was from 2003. It adds nothing to what we alreay know of the story except to tabloidize it even more.

[anonymous]

Something kind of tells me that Hasert doesn't hang out in gay bars, ...

Posted by: verner | October 03, 2006 at 10:48 AM

The question is: What is the "something" and how did it "tell" him?

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Off topic, but Republicans using Clinton as par is pathetic. Give me a break. Republicans should strive to achieve much higher than Clinton standards. It's one of these election winning assets that Republicans need to push.

Neo: CREW claims they only came into contact with the emails on July 21, 2006. They don't claim to have received the instant messages. The emails they did receive were from Foley to a New Orleans page.

CREW thinks the emails were enough, by themselves, to be brought to the attention of the FBI. Therefore, CREW thinks the email to a New Orleans page were criminal. If CREW thought the emails were relative to ethics, then they should have brought them to the attention of the House Ethics Committee, the House Page Committe, or to the Clerk of the House.

I think CREW knows more about the path of travel the emails have taken than they are making public.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

FYI: Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of CREW, was scheduled to appear on "Washington Journal" this morning. Her appearance would have been for 45 minutes taking phone calls.

I need to watch this.

[maryrose]

The only person at fault here is Foleyand he has resigned. If the page's identity is revealed that is a travesty. Some things in life like privacy of an individual trump politics. This page and his parents did everything they could to avoid publicity and detection. To try and score political points off of this via Rogers and CREW is deplorable. Dems should concentrate on policy or they will still be a minority party on Nov.8th.

[anonymous]

Open a House investigation on any and all allegations of wrong-doing by any member of the House against underage pages.

If only there was something like a 'House Ethics Committee;'
that might do the trick.

[Tom Maguire]

There's been no evidence presented so far that any Dems were presented with evidence and ignored it. Moreover, it's hard to see why they would have.

Well, Hastert was not presented with any evidence, either - just a report that the parents wanted the whole thing to go away.

I don't go along with the cries of "you have to question the timing." That's been the reaction of the left so often that it's almost a caricature. I don't question the timing at all: I assume it was timed for political benefit. So what? That's the way the world works.

If the Dems pulled a dirty trick in late Sept, good for them. of course, it makes the notion that their priority was protecting pages from a predator on the prowl implausible, but still.

But (I heard on the radio), Brian Ross, the ABC reporter who broke this, know about it in August but was distracted by other things. *His* timeing I can question.

[The Unbeliever]

it was well known within...

there was a pretty wide understanding that...

Wait a minute, didn't the left reject the "widely known" standard back when the non-secret in question was Plame's identity and/or employer? Or is it only applicable when it can hurt Republicans, and not serial liars named Joe?

[verner]

What makes you so sure?

Oooohhh. Are you scumbags gonna out Denny Hasert now! You know, he was a Wrestling Coach! He's gotta be.

Team Democrat--Sex Police!

[boris]

Republicans using Clinton as par is pathetic

Don't remember Clinton resigning? Did he? If he didn't (and that's my recollection) then illustrating how much higher our standards are would seem to be relevant.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

This is currently posted at ABC's "The Blotter".

When I was a Congressional Page in 1998, we pages were warned by former pages AS WELL as staffers in the house and page program to BEWARE and stay away from 3 GOP members of Congress due to past history and inappropriate behavior with other pages. Obviously Foley has resigned and we are grateful.

Although 2 members of Congress (at least that I know of and was warned of) still remain.

Let me say this: it doesnt end with the members of congress; high level staffers are doing the same thing!!

Posted by: Former Page - Summer 1998 | Oct 3, 2006 1:50:40 PM

[anonymous]

Some things in life like privacy of an individual trump politics.

A commonly used Conservative argument (particularly when discussing abortion or government surveillance of citizens) is that there is no Constitutionally-guaranteed "right to privacy."

[anonymous]

Gee, Verner, don't get your panties in a twist. I was only curious about how you could be sure of the Speaker's sexual orientation, and why you would comment on it.

[boris]

don't get your panties in a twist

What makes you so sure Verner wears panties?

[anonymous]

I have no idea what underwear "verner" favors. It's just an expression.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Well, Hastert was not presented with any evidence, either - just a report that the parents wanted the whole thing to go away.

Oh please, Tom. You've read those emails right? They're not a smoking gun or anything, but they should raise red flags for anyone reading them. As Bay Buchanan put it yesterday, the emails "have predator stamped all over them." The responsible thing to do would have been to investigate, to talk to pages, to ask relevant questions, etc. There's no evidence that Hastert or anyone else in the Republican leadership did that.

Moreover, ABC was able to break this thing wide open relatively easily. Surely Hastert and friends could have done the same had they given it any effort.

[verner]

Boris, I would tell you what kind of underware I'm wearing, but I'm not sure what age you are, and I wouldn't want some democrat thinking I was trying to solicit sex over the internet--thus giving them license to investigate my private life, and sic the law on me, mainly because I support the War in Iraq.

[boris]

Well ok, how about sending me a pic then?

[verner]

underware=underwear, LOL

screw em, white! LOL

[clarice feldman]

Gabriel, pls let us know what Sloane says.

Now their are rumors that emails and ims from both sides of the aisle are being looked at..

Maestro "Best Little Whorehouse In Texas Score,please"

Videographer: "Can you run that clip from Casablanca--you know Claude Raines' shtick about how he's shocked, shocked to find out there's gambling goin on at Rick's place"

And to think, this might have been a boring election about who was going to do more to protect us from the gathering storm of Islamofascism...Now it can be somethig the average illiterate Dem voter can grasp--slacious poppycock.

[verner]

Boris:Well ok, how about sending me a pic then?

I'll send you one for your birthday, how's that. Of course, you'll need to send me a pdf of your drivers license first--just in case.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

boris: bgates said, "How is this worse than what Clinton did, other than that Foley is a Republican?"

I was responding to that statement with my "Clinton is par" comment. Republicans have, and should, set their standards above that of Clinton.

[topsecretk9]

I have what I believe is the identity of the person that Rep. Mark Foley instant messaged.

I will be working on the story today and will present my findings tomorrow. I will put out a press release later today outlining what I will reveal on Wednesday October 4th at 4pm Central Time. I have contacted several bloggers to check my finding and verify that they are indeed accurate. I have also sent emails to major media and two United States Representatives. This will be a major news story and there is the possibility that this story will not be well received by the major news media. More updates throughout the day. Stay tuned to Passionate America for this breaking story.

http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/

[topsecretk9]

Ooops

The Headline:

Breaking News, Identity Of Person Rep. Mark Foley Instant Messaged Coming Soon.

[clarice feldman]

Ah, the party that respects PRIVACY

Jpod notes that the family of the boy with the original emails is appalled at this invasion of their privacy and the boy is now receiving death threats and passionate america wants to increase the pain of others.

Privacy indeed.

[boris]

They should raise red flags for anyone reading them.

They did for the youth in question, as in "sick, sick, sick, sick" but the FBI, the press and R leadership didn't find them actionable. Based on content there's not much there there, how much the "open secret" context should be weighed is very subjective.

If the story about the IMs is accurate the way they came to light was when ABC finally published the email story on their website. So given that it's not clear that a little more investigation would have found them.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

anonymous: You forgot an important caveat when referring to Republican talking points on privacy. Republicans are stressing when "criminal activity" is involved.

It's only a strawman if you allow it to be.

[anonymous]

Republicans have, and should, set their standards above that of Clinton.

Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | October 03, 2006 at 11:40 AM

Do Republicans plan to "set their standards above" Foley?
Or will they keep making excuses for him?

[Terrye]

The pages were warned about other memebers and staffers?

I am starting to feel like this is a sort of modern day version of the Salem Witch Trials. How many people were hanged on the testimony of the young girls?

I know how this sounds, but kids are not famous for keeping their mouths shut, why are we just now hearing about this and where were their parents if they were indeed children? As anyone come up with any kind of evidence other than the emails and IMs we know about?

[Ellers Ellison "Ellsberg" McWilson]

Jealous much?

Mark Foley has had his statements read on the floor of the House, has a law degree, and is author of the New York Times Best Selling Book “How Would A Pedophile Act?” His comments often become front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. And he has one of the most-read blogs on the Interent, after just 9 months of instant messaging. I love how all you super-important rightwing bloggers attack me, I mean him, just to get traffic.

I bid you GOOD DAY, sir.

[Terrye]

anonymous:

I have no heard anyone making excuses for Foley, he should have resigned a long time ago. But then again the undisguised hypocricy of the Democrats on this issue is nauseating. What is next? A lie detector test to flush out all the infamous members of the right wing gay community. How Stalinist.

[anonymous]

Republicans are stressing when "criminal activity" is involved.

It's only a strawman if you allow it to be.

Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | October 03, 2006 at 11:44 AM

But what "criminal activity" is involved when a woman is being treated by her doctor? Or when you are talking to your mother on the telephone?

[By the way, what you might be missing about the boy's reaction to Foley's E-mail -- the "sick sick sick" thing -- and why you don't have the same reaction to it, and call it innocuous, is that the boy knew Foley, and you don't,]

[Gabriel Sutherland]

anonymous: Now you're just a troll. If you have honest things to say them share them. But if you're just trolling for fights than you're worth barring from the conversation.

[anonymous]

Suit yourself, Angel. But, I have said nothing dishonest.

[boris]

you might be missing about the boy's reaction

What makes you so sure me be missing it?

Me be making de point that knowing Foley be the 'splanation.

[TallDave]

But what "criminal activity" is involved when a woman is being treated by her doctor?

Possibly murder, if one defines a person's existence as beginning at any point before their emergence from the birth canal.

Or when you are talking to your mother on the telephone?

If your mother is named Osama Bin Laden, and she's telling you a lovely new recipe for knocking down buildings, potentially a lot.

The other commenters are right, you're a bit silly.

[SlimGuy]

Hey all macsmind pointed it out and I checked and confirmed the SSP website is still there,
but ALL THE COMMENTS are gone

[Jane]

Well it's not like there is a requirement to IM another person, or reply to their IM's.

What a joke.

The moonbats have no ideas on how to fight terror, but they are all over this fighting sex thing.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

anonymous: Again, you are a troll because you're not reading anything posted here at all. Go read Froomkin. He writes about Bush rebutting his own made up questions. That's what you're doing here.

"Foley's emails are 'innocuous'".

It seems that the Speaker, the FBI, the House Page Committe Chairman, the boys Congressman, and the Parents all thought the emails were innocous. Therefore they requested it stop. The only people that thought it was criminal was the people at CREW.

[PeterUK]

Terrye,
"A lie detector test to flush out all the infamous members of the right wing gay community. How Stalinist."

The idiots have, not as yet, realised that the left wing gay community will be spiralling down the tubes with them.

[Tom Maguire]

Oh please, Tom. You've read those emails right? They're not a smoking gun or anything, but they should raise red flags for anyone reading them.

(1) Hastert didn't read them.

(2) "Raise red flags"? And then what? As best we kow, Foley isn't on the hook for any misbehavior after he was spoken to in early 2006.

The responsible thing to do would have been to investigate, to talk to pages, to ask relevant questions, etc. There's no evidence that Hastert or anyone else in the Republican leadership did that.

Track every rumor! The NY Times talked to pages, who told them Foley was a great guy. Should HAstert have made a special effort to poll the pages from 2002?

[SlimGuy]

I have reviewed all the comments since I have them saved and the only two of any import are the one from Rodgers at blogactive asking for contact and another from the Miami newspaper guy who writes a gay issues column.

[Rick Ballard]

I suppose Foley could have declared adherence to Democratic "Studds' Standard" and proclaimed that since he hadn't actually bagged a page, 'no harm, no foul'. Barney would have been right behind him all the way on that excuse.

[anonymous]

possibly murder, if one defines a person's existence as beginning at any point before their emergence from the birth canal.

I suppose, if you happen to live in a country where "one" can make up his own laws and rights, then no woman in America has a "right to privacy."

And I'm fairly sure your mother isn't Osama bin Goldstein, so tell me again why it's alright for the government to listen to your telephone calls?

And if I follow your argument, since Representative Foley was not involved in "criminal activity," since he was only using his position and authority to seduce teenage boys, the 'evil Democrats' are invading his "right to privacy."

Do I understand you now?

[norm d'plume]

@clarice
passionate america wants to increase the pain of others

maybe of the donk dirty-tricksters who planted this story. take a look at passionate america. he's not outing the page with the protective parents who recieved the emails. he's going to out the other page who gave abc the IMs.

[Semanticleo]

"Track every rumor! The NY Times talked to pages, who told them Foley was a great guy. Should HAstert have made a special effort to poll the pages from 2002?"

His resignation was instantaneous indicating
some agreement between he and Hastert as to
what should occur when this came out (so to speak).

[anonymous]

Barney would have been right behind him ...

Funny guy, Rick. But how do we know Mr. Foley hasn't "bagged a page" or two?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

If anybody sent any of those to a sixteen-year-old girl he'd be gone in a hearbeat, and rightly so.

If it was by mutual consent? Sixteen is above the age of consent in DC.

[boris]

But how do we know ...

... Any-non-mouse isn't a space alien from Uranus.

[clarice feldman]

Answer:anonymous is a particularly good example of mushy thinking, emotive argument, dishonesty (see last night's ellipse game), poor retention of fact, idiotic analysis and personal invective.
Question: How do you know anonymous is a lefty troll?

[SlimGuy]

Everyone should note that Rodgers at blogactive has stated he was involved in this whole mess because of his displeasure with Foleys voting record.
He admits to being a source for the media
He admits coordination with the DCCC with Burton as his contact.
He says he only was one of many involved in this.

Clearly this is a dirty trick setup by him and others to get Foley and the dems are trying to work it for more personel damage if they can spin it enough.

[Rick Ballard]

"But how do we know Mr. Foley hasn't "bagged a page" or two?"

Barney'd know - ask him. It's a tight little community and they all keep in constant touch.

[Walter]

Is it too late to say

"Censure...and move on"?

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Left or right, it doesn't matter. When a commenter enters a thread in order to hijack the conversation then they're a troll. It's simple enough to find areas where they can take a troll comment and make it part of the conversation. It's usually done by asking a question. But a troll just puts out statements to change the subject.

[AMDG]

Bggates says:
[I]The age of consent in DC is 16, so I have trouble understanding why we're not being urged to Move On.
How is this worse than what Clinton did, other than that Foley is a Republican? [/]

AMDG Responds:
We are not urged to move on because it does not serve the purpose of the Democrats.

The Democrats, enabled by the MSM, have no principles beyond the quest for power. Any action, whether it be putting the nation’s security at risk at time of war or allowing teens to be exposed to predators, is acceptable if it advances the quest for power. Furthermore, the Democrat base has complete buy in to this. The Republican base expects its political leaders to ‘walk the walk’. This is the way it is and it will not change.

One of the things that upsets me about the Republicans is that they are oblivious to this. This why we get things like the ‘Gang of 14 Deal’ (which will be gone once the Republicans lack the votes to change the filibuster rules – Thank you Lindsey Graham) and Hastert knocking the Jefferson story off the front page due to a concern about Congressional prerogative. Why are they always bringing a pocket knife to a gun fight?

Washington Republicans need to understand the following and if they can’t live by it they should quit:

1. As unfair as it may be the, the MSM holds Republicans to a higher standard of conduct. This will not change. Understand that there are people who are willing to lie, cheat and steal to ruin your life.

2. When the Democrats give an opening (Jefferson) go for the throat.

3. Do not cover up or delay – the story will come out at the most inopportune time.

4. Do not allow the media to turn the lie into conventional wisdom. At is conference yesterday Hastert should have done the following:
a. Condemn the action and apologize for not being more vigilant.
b. Provide a timeline for what he knew.
c. Provide a timeline for what the Democrats knew
d. Understand the difference between IM’s and E-mails. This is what should have been said “Unlike Mr. Roberts who knew about this in August and said nothing I was not informed of the IM’s until Friday. At that time I insisted that Mr. Foley resign immediately and asked the FBI to investigate not only his actions but the actions of anybody who, through commission or omission, did not bring the IM’s to the attention of the proper authorities upon their discovery. Anybody who played politics with this information has demeaned the institution and does not belong here . . . . ."
e. Take questions making sure that every answer gets back to why this information was held even though it placed people at risk.
f. There should have been people on every talking head show repeating those talking points.

[anonymous]

It's a tight little community and they all keep in constant touch.

Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 03, 2006 at 12:12 PM

Damn, Rick, you just keep slipping the funny stuff in.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
"Question: How do you know anonymous is a lefty troll?"

The slime stains on the carpet?