Skip to main content

The Mighty Wurlitzer is a bit off kilter, with seemingly dozens of excuses making the rounds for why the Republican leadership would allow a sexual predator to continue preying on teenagers despite knowledge of the danger.

But my favorite is this one:

Tony Perkins of Dobson's Family Research Counsel was on CNN earlier and I think we are hearing the contours of the Christian Right's argument. They are going with Newt Gingrich's formulation: Poor Denny was afraid of being called a gay basher so he didn't say anything.

This from the party that has made gay-bashing a key and recurring component of its reelection strategy. As Digby notes:

Since when has the GOP been afraid to be called homophobic or gay bashers? They positively revel in it. In fact, just a couple of months ago 202 Republican House members voted for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. (It failed to get the required 2/3rds for passage.) Somehow, I don't think the Republicans are quaking in their boots at being called anti-gay.

And if they were so afraid of being called anti-gay that they allowed a 52 year old congressman to stalk 16 year old boys on the internet, then they are much too timorous to be running the government. These guys are charged with making laws and running wars, for gawd's sake.

This line of defense is cute and quite ballsy, no doubt, but they'd be better served simply throwing Dennis Hastert overboard. But cross your fingers that they're too stubborn to pull that off.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:31 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Wall Street Journal (24+ / 0-)

    says exactly the same thing in tomorrow's editorial page.

    Disgusting people.

    •  It seems there (9+ / 0-)

      is a lot of confussion out there.  There is sex between consenting adults and then there is grooming a 16 year old boy.  The repulsives want to keep it to homosexual sex and the rest of us see it as something bordering on Pedophilia condoned by the House leadership.

      That being said, I can guess that some 50% of the population is going to end up blaming gays in general and the kid to boot.

      Fuck 'em!

      No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. --Edward R. Murrow

      by craigb on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:40:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gay=Pedophile to GOP (13+ / 0-)

        I think part of the blindness of the GOP in handling this issue is their bigotry against gay men and thinking that ALL gay men are always trying to 'convert teenage boys to their lifestyle'. They see Foley being gay as the aberrant behavior, not the trolling for boys which is what the Dobsons of the world think being gay is all about. The bigoted House GOP thought providing cover for their closeted members was already involved covering for Foley's behavior because the House GOP thinks all gay men are out of control freaks.

        Their bigotry towards homosexual behavior made them blind to criminal behavior. Far from being sensitive, they were being ignorant bigots who excused criminal behavior out of their own prejudices against gays.

        "There is no reason good can't triumph over evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the mafia." - Kurt Vonnegut

        by joejoejoe on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:16:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  are you serious? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah

      Can we get some letters to the WSJ editor out there?  Personally I never read their crap.

    •  LOSING FOCUS PEOPLE.................. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HStewart, chimpwatch, boofdah

      Once again IRAQ is fading from the headlines......

      throw a Democrat into the scandal - more pages coming forward....... - and you'll have a nice big mud-slinging match with everyone ignoring the larger issues.....

      yeah, this is disgusting but it serves as a great diversion......

      I can't help but think this is a Machieavellian set-up.......

      •  What the hell? (0+ / 0-)

        Foley just blew himself and his career and his family and the Party a month before the elections because he loves George W. Bush SO MUCH!?

        That's delusional.

        Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

        by angrytoyrobot on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 09:13:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  fuck the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board (5+ / 0-)

      for not understanding how offensive it is to gay people to use this kind of excuse! I'm incredibly offended.

      In those emails, the ones the WSJ Editorial Board hasn't deigned to examine, Foley complimented the body of "Will," another Congressional page serving that summer, before asking the 16-year-old Louisiana intern for a "pic". Now come on, that would be a red flag for any parent!! The emails were so patently alarming, in fact, that CREW referred them directly to the FBI on July 21, 2006, the day they received them. The page himself called the emails "sick sick sick sick sick...."

      But 11 months before, Hastert and his GOP leadership cronies saw those emails and decided to do absolutely nothing about them, because they thought they could get away with doing nothing about them.... Did they even think about questioning pages about Foley? Apparently not, despite the fact that the page even mentioned (by name) a girl in the program who had conveyed a rumor about a gay Congressman who hit on male pages. The young man was obviously upset that he hadn't been warned, in particular, about Foley.

      The Wall Street Journal thinks this is all just fine, just business as usual. So what if someone's kid gets screwed up or screwed over in Washington? Oh, we'll just say the GOP did nothing for fear of offending gays! Ironically, in the very month Foley began writing email to the page in Louisiana, the Wall Street Journal was praising Karl Rove as a "whistleblower" for having leaked Mrs. Wilson's CIA identity to Matt Cooper (and then lied about it). Rove, you see, is a GOP hero -- the very embodiment of the Journal's values and principles. So what if he helped destroy Valerie Plame's career, and the careers of those who worked with her undercover? So what if the White House denied his involvement, promised to fire anyone involved, and reneged on the promise? If you are lying for a greater cause, like GOP tax cuts, or a war with a lot of fat no-bid contracts, you're a hero in the eyes of the Wall Street Journal....

      When you have made a political (or editorial) decision that there is not a single American life that is not worth destroying in the name of GOP interests, it's simply a no-brainer. What do kids matter? What do gay people matter? Hell, what does anyone matter!?!? The Wall Street Journal is turning a blind eye to child predators and to the people who enable them, inventing excuses and scapegoats at every turn. I'm sorry, that's sick, sick, sick, sick, sick....

    •  Lucky thing he's gay. (5+ / 0-)

      Imagine how many people they'd insult if he was having those illegal IM sessions with 15 and 16 year old girls? They really dodged that bullet!

      It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. -Al Gore

      by kitebro on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:49:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the Wall Street Journal is saying the same thing (23+ / 0-)

    link via TPM

    But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

      •  You're speaking of rational people (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Trix, Subterranean, RickWn, boofdah, Red Bean

        of course.

        The amount of crap that people had bought from this cult has always astouded me.

        Why should this be any different.
        They believe because they want to believe.
        They believe because they've never been taught otherwise.

        The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. - Henry Wallace V.P. 1941-45

        by BoxerRebellion on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:49:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Jeez! Every new defense they offer (6+ / 0-)

          for their indefensible behavior is worse than the last! They must be taking their cue from the George Allen Campaign.

          •  worse things than sexual predators (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NealB, boofdah
            the terror war is worse.

            world hunger is worse.

            global warming is worse.

            many things are worse.

            car drivers kill far more people than sexual predators or even al qaeda members. (i know its because there are far far more car drivers).

            is car driving ok because people kill accidentally? it is not innevitable that 100 americans must die every day driving. we can solve our transportation nightmare before greenland melts, (well maybe).

            did you know we are in iraq for the unrefined gasoline?

            our whole culture is built on expoitation of children. wall street has built fortunes on it. we get some of the trickle down wealth and slightly cheaper products, (AND FOOD).

            You will lie to your grandchildren when they ask what you did to prevent climate change.

            by Peter Pan on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:18:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Worse? Yes. However, this mess resonates... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              boofdah, darthnul

              with the public and is the capper to a disgraceful Congressional session.

              The Republicans have been reduced to being the:

              party of failure in Iraq, the causes are manifold;
              party of torture;
              party of Outsourcing, under-employment, and poverty;
              party of cut-and-run in Afghanistan now;
              party of crony corruption, criminals, and crooks who have raided the treasury, wrecked the military, instituted ruinous economic policies all in the name of some miasmic, cockamamie ideology;
              party that has forfeited any claim now to being able to protect us, these weenies can't protect the congressional pages for cripes sakes, hoow can these dopes protect YOU and me?

              America is enduring the worst Presidential administration and the worst Congress EVER.

              Bush's lies kill American troops. Any questions?

              by boilerman10 on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 04:13:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Cover up excuses (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            boofdah

            I love how they're trying to cover all their bases now.

            "We didn't cover up anything but if we did it was because we didn't want to be anti-gay."

            "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

            by gsbadj on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 02:17:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I heard this excuse (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boilerman10, kitebro, boofdah

        on NPR yesterday.  after I stopped laughing, I forgot all about it.  95% of the voting public will either be laughing at this or seething mad.

        If anyone here is frightened by this line of defense.  I have four words for you.

        No need to be.

        It comes nowhere near passing the smell test.  and it still makes me giggle.


        Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps. - Emo Philips

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:36:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Apparently (4+ / 0-)

          Eugene Robinson of the WaPo agrees with you:

          Former speaker Newt Gingrich suggested over the weekend that House leaders may have worried last year that if they pursued the Foley matter, they'd be "accused of gay-bashing." Clearly, in terms of his spinning skills, Gingrich has lost a step. The issue was whether a congressman was having improper communications with a child, not whether the congressman was gay; it would have been just as troubling if the e-mail had been sent to a female page. And anyway, it's a little late for the Republicans to denounce gay-bashing after raising it to an art form.

          I don't know whether the Republicans will lose control of the House this fall, but I know that they deserve to.

          "Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence; Conservatism is distrust of the people, tempered by fear" Wm. Gladstone

          by lcbo on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 06:39:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  kuh-zackly (0+ / 0-)

            The way I judge spin, is if it makes my ass twitch, there may be something to it.  If I need to come to DKos to get reassured that there's nothing to it, then there probably IS something to it.

            If I laugh for three minutes, shake my head and say, "Newt, Newt, Newt...........ohhhhhh, Newt, you're losing your touch, buddy."  And then forget about it, then it's  B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.


            Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps. - Emo Philips

            by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 09:11:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  OK, this is simply disgusting. (39+ / 0-)

      The WSJ is shameless.  Gay scoutmasters?  Are you kidding me with this shit?  This is completely endorsing equivalency for gay=pedophile.  Completely unacceptable and not relevant in the case at hand.  

      Trust me, if this were a Democratic Congressman exchanging "naughty e-mails" with teenaged pages, the Family Research Council, Newt, and all the Christo-fascists would be on TV with their heads exploding asking for blood.  Fuck them all and their unbridled hypocrisy.

    •  holy shit - (8+ / 0-)

      takes some brass balls to go there.  

      And nobody buys it.  This one hits home, hard.

    •  Wow (8+ / 0-)

      Evan that dipshit Erick at RedState scrubbed his "gay scoutmaster" counter-attack on Friday.  I guess the WSJ is all out of ideas on this one.

      "In time you can turn these obsessions into careers."

      by looking italian on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:44:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm picturing Alec Baldwin on SNL.... (10+ / 0-)

      playing the part of the pervy scoutmaster.

      Gay scoutmasters is not what comes to mind, though, when I think about the Foley thing.

      What comes to mind is Catholic Priests using their position of power to coerce youngsters into sexual activities.

      This is about a powerful person who thinks they can get away with what they do because they think nobody will call them on it.

    •  Wow. (9+ / 0-)

      Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters?

      That is so low they could put on a top-hat and walk under a snake.  

      That is rancid in its venality.  The Wall Street Journal, for all the world to see, proudly displays itself to be more willfully ignorant, more despicable, more peevishly petty than a pig playing king-of-the-hill, all alone, atop a pile of shit.

      Just to sell a few papers?  For shame, WSJ.

      "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

      by LithiumCola on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:55:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In fact (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tomjones, aerdrie faenya

        In light of the fact that the BSA stated, in the Dale case, that its ban on gay scoutmasters was specifically not based on concerns about inappropriate interactions with boys, and that there was no evidence that gay scoutmasters would be any more likely to engage in such conduct, anyone who cites the BSA ban as a way of protecting youth from advances is saying that the BSA perjured itself in front of the Supreme Court.

    •  I'm sorry, did I miss something? (11+ / 0-)

      Which Democratic leaders said we must be tolerant of relationships between men and young boys?

      Transferring data from profound.sig.com... Done.

      by cowgirl on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:02:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cowgirl

        that really nails it. Straw men again (Baldwin on the hay bale illustrates it well).

        "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." — Mark Twain

        by tonyfv on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:17:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The sick part... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sinlady, boofdah, cowgirl

        ... is that this defense is (IMHO) the GOP's last ditch attempt to GOTV of the Fundies.  

        On its most sick day, the WSJ isn't clever enough to devise the arguments set forth here.  This is WH-inspired all the way.

        They'll claim that, even though there are a few bad apples in their party, at least they're not the party that condones and enables this type of behavior, that it's the Dems who have enabled this sort of perverted stuff to happen.

        And with the far right Fundies, it'll work.

        "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

        by gsbadj on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 02:24:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ha! I Predicted This! (8+ / 0-)

      Over on The Poorman, another commentator named "Thomas" noted that the not-wanting-to-be-labeled-gay-bashers meme had been peddled by Newt Gingrich over the weekend.  It was the first I'd heard of it.  Here was my response early on Monday morning:

      Hadn’t heard that one, Thomas. Gotta hand it to Newt, however, ’cause that’s a politically brilliant brand of bullshit.

      Think about it from a crazed wingnut perspective (you know, someone who already thinks teh ghey = child abuse). The GOP really, really wants to do the right thing, but they are prevented from doing so, yet again, by the evil reign of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! If only they didn’t have to worry about “gay bashing,” they would have gotten on this and nipped it in the bud. But that damn LIBERAL MEDIA prevented them from doing the right thing.

      Which is why a wingnut GOP Congressman abusing interns and a widespread Republican coverupt prove that libruls favor child abuse. QED.

      I think I was kidding when I posted this.  Turns out, I shouldn't have been.  Please note: nothing in Thomas's post (or, so far as I know, Newt's statement) said anything about "PC"; I just thought that would be a particularly ridiculous place to go with this ridiculous claim.

      It has really gotten impossible to distinguish between the wingnuts and parodies of the wingnuts.

      For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

      by GreenSooner on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:08:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's going to be Limbaugh's line (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gsbadj, boofdah

        tomorrow - just watch.

        "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." — Mark Twain

        by tonyfv on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:18:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Fat old white Republicans...please! You are doing (3+ / 0-)

        such a fine job of making complete asses of yourselves that the sane citizens of America can simply sit back, and watch you implode!

        You now want to equate gays with pedophiles?  And when, exactly, did you become so very concerned about the politically correct aspect of dealing with gays in America?  

        Last I heard, Republicans wanted to deny all rights to gays, and used gays as a wedge issue to stir up the fundie nutball base at every opportunity.

        Dennis, really, you and your overfed, overpaid, overstaffed, overrated, under performing, underwhelming fat white friends in Congress need to start packing for the long trip back to reality!

        An election is coming. Universal peace is declared....and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry. ~T.S. Eliot

        by maggiemae on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:22:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here is Perkins speaking on CNN today (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boofdah

        I did not see a link, but here a youtube I uploaded of Tony Perkins on CNN today.
        Great quote at about the 2.00 mark.

        •  I saw the Perkins interview (0+ / 0-)

          and I think it's important to note that Perkins is NOT blaming this on homosexuality. He's blaming it on liberalism. And when I say 'it' I mean the coverup, not the original misbehavior by Foley.

          Perkins' position on the underlying scandal, i.e. Foley's behavior, wasn't discussed in detail. He agreed that it was certainly a bad thing that Foley did and not something that could be defended. Perkins' realized there is no realistic hope of defending Foley.

          The real meat in Perkins' interview was a discussion of Hastert's failure to do anything until the scandal hit the media. Perkins' didn't blame that on homosexuality. He blamed it on liberal tolerance of homosexuality, which is different. Basically, he took it for granted that homosexuals act the way Foley did, but it is the fault of liberals that Hastert didn't know what to do and was afraid to be labelled a gay basher.

          Yes, it's complete bullshit. Hastert has never worried what liberals think, and he wasn't about to start worrying about it when he found out what Foley was up to. But that's the red meat for the right, people. If it weren't for all those damn liberals who tolerate homosexuals Hastert would have immediately done the right thing and had Foley arrested.

    •  THAT is gay-bashing, folks. (5+ / 0-)

      What pure crap. Grasping at straws. A thin argument that will not hold water.
      I guess to many, the end justifies the means. And mean they are, to no end.

      "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." — Mark Twain

      by tonyfv on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:15:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Foley's gay now? (9+ / 0-)

      I thought he was straight, as far as the Republicans were concerned.  Or did that change once the public, if not the Republican leadership, found out he was preying on the pages?  I'm confused.  Is there a timeline of some sort?

      Otherwise, I'm not surprised that the Republicans have decided to play the "gay scoutmaster" card.  Because the difference between Foley and the editors of the Wall Street Journal is the sex of their prey, not the age.  Any straight man who believes you can't leave a gay man alone with a teenage boy is a straight man you can't leave alone with a teenage girl.

      I'm just sayin'; parents, don't let your babies alone with Republicans.

      •  It's like you've been inside my head (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YetiMonk

        or something.  I've been confuzzed about the very same thing.  Since when did Foley admit to anyone, especially his colleagues, that he was gay?

        Transferring data from profound.sig.com... Done.

        by cowgirl on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:33:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The gay bashing continues (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah, Cottagerose

      They are already gay-bashing when they equate gays with pedophilia as implied in the editorial. It is a way to create an excuse and try to keep the conservative base (which has an inaccurate view on gays in general) not to buy the obvious Katrina-like moment of professional and moral failure of the Republican leadership.

    •  Holy crap, the WSJ just lobbed a fat one (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Trix, AlyoshaKaramazov, ptmflbcs

      I'm hoping for an avalanche of LTEs knocking this one out of the park. Even a shortstop with a lifetime .223 average is capable of doing that.

      "All men having power ought to be mistrusted."--James Madison.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:37:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gods Own Party vs. Grand Old Preditors (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cottagerose

      Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

      Right lets remind the Democrats that they are the ones who object to assuming all gays are unsafe with boys.  It just seems nuts that the establishment would really try this spin.  But there is a method to it.  Of course this will not fool many people, but the ones who will be willing to buy into it are the anti-gay religious right who have to be convinced once again that GOP stands for God's Own Party and not Grand Old Preditors.

      We already know that people like that are very able to fool themselves about these sorts of things.  I suppose that if they can be somehow convinced this is all the fault of Nancy Pelosi and her Gay Scoutmasters then the GOP's fundamentalist foot solders  will once again rally round the flag.  It think that they are kidding themselves but who knows.  Denial is what this election will be all about.

    •  Oh for crap's sake (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah

      How could anyone seriously think that the GOP leaders were doing anything else than trying to hold on to power.

      Jesus.

      But this is the classic Rovian style - they were covering up something, so let's make it that they were covering up because they didn't want to offend - the Democrats! "Boo, hiss! HILLARY!!!" (shakes scary voodoo doll.)

      Let's say this ridiculous reason was valid. That would make Hastert and Boehner the biggest, to use a technical term, punk-ass bitches ever to stride the Capitol streets. Should be grounds for removing on sheer punk-assery, right there.

      BUt of course, it's better to be nice punk-ass bitches than evil, characterless punk-ass bitches...at least for the rubes that aren't already going to vote for you no matter what.

      "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

      by jbeach on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:55:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  OMG, I hope they go with this excuse! (0+ / 0-)

      Because, ultimately, it doesn't matter what we think of it.  The fact is that their base is going to hate it. Now, let me get this straight(you should pardon the expression), Hastert let a child predator roam the Hill unchecked because he was afraid of being called a gay basher?!  Not only is that one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time, on the radical right where gay bashing is the most popular sport in town, they are never-ever going to buy it.

      Oh, I hope they stick with this meme.  For everyday they use it, thousands more wingnuts decide to stay home on election day.

    •  Nice try WSJ (0+ / 0-)

      They were afraid of gays?  Yeah, right!  The WSJ must not have very high regard for the intelligence of its readers if its editors think people will buy that bullshit.

  •  It's kind of like how (7+ / 0-)

    if Dems oppose a hard-right judge, it's automatically because they're racist.

    Nobody ever has a righteous motive for any decisions they make, apparently.  At least in the eyes of the Republican leadership - which is telling about their own motives.

    •  exactly... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ptmflbcs, ourprez08, boofdah, PatsBard

      ...but if a republican opposes a moderate conservative judge who gives a ruling they don't like it's because they're saving the country for out of control activist judges who don't know their place in the constitution.

      What Morons. (rolling eyes)

      They don't even have a double standard anymore, they're in a whole double reality!

      If a democrat demands accountability in the Capital and no one covers it, does he make a sound?

      by DawnG on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:34:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! (8+ / 0-)

    The laughs keep coming! OH Man!  I'm gonna split a seam at this rate. LOL!

    If a democrat demands accountability in the Capital and no one covers it, does he make a sound?

    by DawnG on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:32:34 PM PDT

  •  Gingrich said this on Fox Nes (25+ / 0-)

    too.  As John Stewart said tonight, implying that being gay and being a pedophile are the same thing, that's gay bashing.

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:32:42 PM PDT

    •  The media... (14+ / 0-)

      The media assume gays equal to pedophiles all the time and NO ONE ever slaps the pundits for it. They need to be slapped and slapped hard.
      If a man loves a woman does that mean he automatically will make moves on a little girl?
      Of course not. It's silly, hateful, ignorant, and somewhat perverse to think it. So why is the same stupid generalization, from gay to young boys, being made without any challenge.
      Somebody in power PLEASE attack them on this.

      "We're the people who live. They ain't gonna wipe us out. Why we're the people--we go on." -Ma Joad in "Grapes of Wrath"(Steinbeck)

      by Ma Joad on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:39:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Alcoholism and pedophilia? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boofdah, Coherent Viewpoint
        Also they seem to be trying to conflate alcoholism and pedophilia.
        Drunks are not sexually interested in young boys.
        Everything cannot be blamed on too many drinks.

        "We're the people who live. They ain't gonna wipe us out. Why we're the people--we go on." -Ma Joad in "Grapes of Wrath"(Steinbeck)

        by Ma Joad on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:48:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's not the joke i know (0+ / 0-)

          which goes
          "what's the difference between a straight guy and a gay guy?"
          "a six pack of beer"

          •  ? (0+ / 0-)

            ? joke ?

            "We're the people who live. They ain't gonna wipe us out. Why we're the people--we go on." -Ma Joad in "Grapes of Wrath"(Steinbeck)

            by Ma Joad on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:56:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is a term for it in the gay community (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Coherent Viewpoint

              "beer queers".

              This refers to people whose latent/repressed homosexuality emerges after a few drinks.  I can attest from personal experience that's true - I've been on actual dates where I've been pawed and kissed less than by a couple of "straight" female friends of mine who've drunk too much during happy hour.  (The term "beer queers" applies to both men and women; it happens with both genders.)

              However, let me emphasize - this happens when someone has latent/repressed homosexual feelings.  Drinking does not CREATE a certain type of sexual feeling.  Truly straight people are not going to be interested in sleeping with someone of their same gender no matter how many beers they have; truly gay people are not going to be interested in sleeping with someone of the opposite gender no matter how many beers they have.  Most of my female friends are straight, and they do not try to kiss me no matter how drunk they are.  Nor have my gay male friends ever tried to get it on with me no matter how drunk they are.  Drunk or sober, they are Not. Interested.

              Alcohol may or may not have contributed to Foley acting on inappropriate feelings.  But alcohol certainly did not create those inappropriate feelings.

              •  Yes... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                redfox1

                as we've noted. Pedophilia is not the same as gay.
                There is no relevance here because Foley's crime is not gayness.
                So drunkenness to latent gay connection has no importance here.

                Wanda Sykes said it best on Leno last night.
                Drunkenness does not make you a pedophile.

                We need to stop discussing gayness here and concentrate on the perverted pedophilia. Gayness is not the issue at all.

                "We're the people who live. They ain't gonna wipe us out. Why we're the people--we go on." -Ma Joad in "Grapes of Wrath"(Steinbeck)

                by Ma Joad on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 11:30:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Allen + Rove have this play in place (5+ / 0-)

      Ban Gays from the WaPo as the scandal broke:

      Va. Ban's Reach Is At Center Of Fight
      Same-Sex Marriage On November Ballot

      By Chris L. Jenkins
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Monday, October 2, 2006; Page B01

      Backers of a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage contend that the measure wouldn't change life for Virginians, gay or not, one iota.

      So why are they asking voters to alter the state's 230-year-old Bill of Rights -- a document that served as a model for the U.S. Bill of Rights -- for the first time in a decade?

      Supporters say action is needed to protect the commonwealth's laws against same-sex marriage from state judges who could rule that they are unconstitutional, as happened in Massachusetts in 2003 and in Maryland in January when a circuit court judge ruled that a law banning same-sex marriage was discriminatory.

      And as this article makes clear, gay bashing may be the only card Republicans have left to play. The other stuff isn't working. Needless to say, these fuckers will do anything to cling to power.

      Which brings us to....

      Compound F has an excellent diary on the list that explores how an Iran attack could change the entire playing field.

      •  yes, as a gay man, (3+ / 0-)

        I have always felt the warmth and tender embrace of the Republican Party.

        Like, when Pat Buchanan called me a cross dresser on prime time TV in 1992.

        And, when Bob Dole made a big show of returning money from the Log Cabin Republicans.

        Or, when Pat Robertson said I was to blame for 9/11.

        Then, when they voted to write me out of our country's founding document, saying I should just shut up... or go away... or repent (whatever that means)... or get "cured".

        And now I'm to believe it was their sensitivity that led them to ignore Foley?

        These people have not a shred of decency left.

        "You do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism." -- George W. Bush, September 29, 2006. A dangerous idiot unfit to be President.

        by jimsaco on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 05:25:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately for all of us, gay folks are likely (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sinlady

          to be targeted in any Republican push-back.

          I just spent the last hour or so reading different press reports citing anonymous Republican aides.

          "The place could burn down" , if it turns out that Hastert and the leadership knew.

          My guess is that Republicans are conferencing right now to decide who gets the axe and how the attack will be managed.

          Without doubt, a narrative is being crafted that will show that gay Dems created a "culture of corruption" in D.C. And that before Foley got to Washington, he was fine.

          Barney Frank is the Republican's favorite whipping boy.

          Stage 2 will likely occur during some kind of scripted event with the religious right, a question from the "audience" will ask Allen or Santorum whether God really is mad at the Republican party for "tolerating" gay folks in positions of authority.

          Guess what the answer will be?

          You'll find plenty of support here, jimsaco. And perhaps a few gay Republicans will realize that Bush and Rove are perfectly willing to whip up anti-gay bigots to absolve themselves from their own crimes.

          It's a disgrace.

        •  They never had any decency to shread! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kidneystones

          Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear. - Ambrose Redmoon

          by MNW on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 09:24:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Newt has his own reasons... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jbeach, cowgirl, Coherent Viewpoint

      to play the gay card.
      Someone might bring up the fact that he was in a sexual relationship with his high school geometery teacher while he was still a minor and ask him his opinion on high school teachers having sex with students.
      He eventually married Jackie Batty once he enrolled in college and she became the first of his string of wives,although as in all his relationships this marriage was doomed.
      The sex with minors issue has everything to do with power and control regardless of gender and that does not fit the Republican agenda whereas it's so much easier to blame Clinton's penis or The Gays in order to deflect responsibility.

      LINDA TILTON: They were out at Fort Benning, making out secretly. They had to sneak around because she was a teacher, for heaven's sakes. And so it got time to go home and they got caught in a tank trap out at Fort Benning! Couldn't_ couldn't get the car out! And I think they walked, finally, till they got to a telephone, called Jim and a bunch of kids went out and rescued the car. But that was_ that was big trouble. I mean_

        PETER J. BOYER: Newt falls in love.

        KATHLEEN GINGRICH: Uh-huh.

        PETER J. BOYER: Except he falls in love with his math teacher.

        KATHLEEN GINGRICH: Right.

      http://www.pbs.org/...

  •  From the WSJ editorial (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, Monique Radevu

    But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

  •  Yeah, so its OK when a 16 year old asks (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, Sassy, PatsBard, Ma Joad, Iowa Boy, Sarea

    for helo, to be "afraid of being accused of gay bashing." That's the best they can do!

    What is so abhorrent to me is that he asked for help to keep a predator away. The responsible leadershipignored it, covered it up, etc.

    The kid went to adults and asked for help!

    Look what he got from the Keepers of Family Values.

  •  Damn. They're just thrashing around now. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, Sassy, kidneystones, Iowa Boy

    The GOoPerz look as if they're running in circles trying to dind a narrative line that will fly with Joe Sixpak.  

    It's looking less likely and more desparate all the time.

    Impeach. Convict. Imprison. End this REIGN OF MISERABLE FAILURE.

    by whl on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:34:47 PM PDT

    •  exactly (0+ / 0-)

      that's exactly what they're doing.  any time a big story blows up on them and they're unsure how to approach it, they throw out a bunch of different excuses, see which one plays well and then that becomes the song that the might Wurlitzer begins to play.

  •  Barf (10+ / 0-)

    This stuff makes me wanna throw up. The GOP has taken gay-bashing to a new level. They are masters at defaming and demeaning anyone who is outside their skewed view of the real world.

    I really expected better cunning from the GOP and its emissaries. They really are scraping the bottom of the sewer if this is the best they have.

    -7.38, -5.23 One day we ALL will know the truth about the 2000 presidential election. God help us all.

    by CocoaLove on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:35:08 PM PDT

  •  Wrestling coach (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subterranean, ourprez08, PatsBard, Sarea

    You know, none of this is funny, really, but to see the hypocrisy of these people get exposed so starkly, it's hard not to laugh.

    I'm still waiting for people to point out that Hastert coached wrestling.  There've gotta to be some really good pictures.....

  •  Holy Shit (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlyoshaKaramazov, Sassy, LithiumCola

    I just fell off of my chair!!!!

    Afraid to be called a gay basher?

    All I can do is shake my head.

  •  Dennis is here to stay, these guys reward fuckups (4+ / 0-)

    not punish them!

    And it would take a modicum of integrity for him to go, so it's a safe bet that he'll be here until he gets frog-marched out (hopefully before Nov. 7).

    The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. Somerset Maugham

    by verasoie on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:37:37 PM PDT

    •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buckeye Hamburger

      I'm sure as we speak the WH is trying to find some way to give Hastert a Medal of Honor.

      Black by popular demand!

      by fabooj on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:39:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  $10 says he'll step down before this time ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buckeye Hamburger

      ...next week. The pressure from the Xtian Right is building rapidly. The GOP needs those folks in November as never before.

      •  I'll take that action, MB (4+ / 0-)

        You may be right, but it's a good bet, and I'll take you up on it. So, with all assembled Kossacks as my witnesses, you're on:

        I hereby bet Meteor Blades $10 that Dennis Hastert will still be Speaker of the House of Representatives by Tuesday, October 10th, at 2:49:38 AM EDT (one week from when MB posted the comment).

        I got no clue about how to work out the payoff, but we'll figure it out.

        Why would I take this bet? Never forget that there are no limits to the hypocrisy of which the Christian Right are capable. Already we're seeing their attempt to push back and rationalize Hastert's actions, and even though the "gay-bashing" angle is utterly preposterous, it doesn't matter to them if it's utterly preposterous. Nothing is ever too ridiculous for them to rationalize hanging on to power -- absolutely nothing.

        Remember what John Dean wrote about the 25% or so who are incorrigible authoritarians, who cannot be dissuaded from their beliefs by anything at all. The Republicans want all of that 25% to vote for them. They'll come up with the most cockamamie, hare-brained excuses you can imagine, and still the 25% will go for it.

        As the Rude One put it yesterday, with his ever-brilliant foul-mouted vituperation:

        God, if they would allow tens of thousands of people in Florida to vote for someone they knew was getting his rocks off in a definitely unethical and probably illegal way, what wouldn't they do? If they knew that Mark Foley cut open illegal Ecuadoran immigrants and fucked their still pumping aortas, they'd probably say, "Well, it's not like he's fucking the hearts of voters."

        Note also that kicking out the Speaker of the House would mean admitting that there are Republicans who did something wrong, and they will never, ever do that. Well, they'll do it for someone like Foley who actually has the live boys or dead girls in his closet, but for something like lying or covering up? Nah. Hell, that's small potatoes compared to sending 2700 men and women in the services to their death for screwball reasons. They wouldn't admit error even if the election were way far away; and they certainly won't weeks before an election in which the GOP is likely to get creamed. It is a fundamental tenet of Rovian electoral strategy and Bushian childishness that you never admit failure or weakness of any kind, because you lose elections when you do. For three election cycles, that's worked out very well for them, and they won't change now.

        And like I keep saying, somehow they'll find a way to blame Bill Clinton for the whole thing. Of course that doesn't make any sense, but it never does, and they always do it anyway. The point being: there are no bounds to the irrationality of which they're capable.

        So do we have a bet, MB? You may be right, I think it could go either way, which makes it a fun wager. I figure I can't lose. If Hastert goes, I will rejoice and gladly pay up; if he stays, I get ten bucks.

        Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

        by Buckeye Hamburger on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:52:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Denny's Presidential Medal of Freedom (0+ / 0-)

      Tenet and Bremer got one, so why wouldn't Bush give one to Hastert? Of course, after this week it looks like Tenet at least might have got his Medal to buy his silence; but then maybe Dubya and Rove need to keep Denny quiet as well.

      They'll make up some story about how Hastert sternly stood up to gay-bashing, got hounded by the evil liberals and unfair media and vituperative bloggers, but stayed resolute even though everyone turned on him, even Laura Bush and her dog; when, after all, it's all Bill Clinton's fault (it always is). That's just the kind of thing that Dubya thinks is badass.

      Has Dubya himself said anything about Hastert, and does he owe him any allegiances? We've seen that Bush will hang on to any idiot, because he's too much of a wuss to ever admit a mistake. We learned this week that he stuck with Rummy even when his wife wanted him out. But Hastert's not necessarily Bush's guy, he could conceivably dump him and keep his distance. OTOH, I think Dubya's childishness about always being right extends so far that we wouldn't turn on a Republican Speaker, even in a situation like this. Does anyone know where Bush stands on Hastert?

      Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      by Buckeye Hamburger on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:18:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Or more accurately (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sinlady, PatsBard, Sarea

    made gay-bashing a key and recurring component of its reelection strategy.

    honed it to a fine art.

    Minority bashing, bigotry and prejudice are now PC in America.

    Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) 1-800-787-3224 (TTY)

    by Sassy on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:37:51 PM PDT

  •  It also makes the false assumption (10+ / 0-)

    That being a pedophile is the same as being gay.

    Why would they be accused of gay-bashing for (privately) investigating someone accused of innappropriate sexual behavior towards minors?

  •  I saw that on CNN (19+ / 0-)

    At first I could only think of how bizarre it was.

    But then it got me thinking that this could lead to possibly the funniest exchange in the history of the Hill:

    Reporter : Speaker Hastert, is it true that you didn't investigate Foley because you were afraid of being labeled a gay-basher?

    Hastert : Yes, yes it is true.  I knew that if I made Foley's behavior public, I would be labeled a gay-basher.

    Reporter : So you admit that you knew about Foley's behavior, and that it should have been investigated?

    Hastert : I didn't say that.

    Reporter : Yes you did.

    Hastert : Well, if I did, it was only because I didn't want to be labeled a gay-basher.

    Reporter : So you feel that gay people are child-molesters?

    Hastert : I didn't say that.

    Reporter : Yes you did.

    Hastert : I'm no gay basher!

    Reporter : Yes your are.

    Hastert : I don't want to be labeled.

    Reporter : Well you've got a steamer-trunk of labels, now.

    "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

    by LithiumCola on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:38:35 PM PDT

  •  Although (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MackInTheBox, PatsBard

    It does kind of remind me of some of the ahem "adaptations" of obvious racism and sexism to more discrete whining about "political correct" workplaces (and so on and so forth)

  •  this is just the "politicization of pedophilia" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PatsBard, DC Scott

    nothing to see here... move along.

    :-p

  •  Notice how they're always "Attack, attack,attack" (7+ / 0-)

    against their domestic "oppostion" -- all meant to silence, marginalize and, eventually, imprison any real obstacle to their power grab.

    The real enemies are never the terrorists -- their straw men -- but their neighbors "the Democrats", who won't kowtow to them.

    We are in a civil war.  We need to act like it, or not be surprised when we are rounded up.

    This is one of the first times they are really on the defensive, unable to figure out how to attack us, and it feels good.

    I hope there is momentum and instruction to be taken from this, and we don't let the initiative slip away.

    Remember, it's not the "issues" -- it's the battlefield audacity and strategic comprehension we allow ourselves...

    If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State...

    by HenryDavid on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:39:34 PM PDT

    •  Yup (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      offgrid

      "We are in a civil war.  We need to act like it, or not be surprised when we are rounded up."

      "We're the people who live. They ain't gonna wipe us out. Why we're the people--we go on." -Ma Joad in "Grapes of Wrath"(Steinbeck)

      by Ma Joad on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:41:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yes, but its a fraction of the Republican party (0+ / 0-)

        A certain segment of the Republican party would like to paint those who disagree with them as disloyal, criminal, terrorists, morally deficient, etc.

        I think that even a simple minded examination of this situation will show the truth of the matter - that wing of the  Republican party is disloyal to our pluralist democracy. We are pluralist and we have to tolerate their presence, but the rest of the voters must remain awake and focused to constrain these fanatics or we'll get drug into another poorly planned, poorly executed adventure in Iran.

       Disgusting, isn't it? But we can't disenfranchise them or we become them. Swat yourself on the nose with a rolled up copy of the U.S. Constitution until you can mask your revulsion :-)

      "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise" - U.S. Constitution author and fourth President James Madison

      by Iowa Boy on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:46:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "FOLEY FIVE" for "FITZMAS" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    begone, Monique Radevu

    Who would have thunk!  If we continue to be very good boys and girls, we may get the FOLEY FIVE for FITZMAS.

    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. -- Oscar Wilde

    by KeithCPA on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:41:23 PM PDT

  •  Figure it out now (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pyrrho, jxg, fabooj, PatsBard, Magnifico, offgrid

    what I've known for a while. It's Gingrich in 2008. He's the scorched earth candidate, and scorched earth is the plan from here on out.

  •  Clearly a bipartisan scandal! [/snark] (7+ / 0-)

    Seriously I am kind of impressed.  As the scandal was breaking I remember reading quite a few comments, on this blog and others, wondering how the right wing noise machine was going to manage to blame liberals for this one.  I enjoyed the snark...except clearly it wasn't snark after all.  How shameless can these people get?  And how stupid?  I mean seriously how lame, vicious and homophobic is this defense?
    "A Republican cruised for underage pages, and many Republicans covered it up, but the Democrats are fag-lovers so really it's their fault!!??" WTF?  

  •  now THAT'S funny (3+ / 0-)

    really, they have no shame left.

    Ever wish there were One Big Wiki-Style Clearinghouse for all the GOP Scandals? Well now there is.

    by thereisnospoon on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:42:58 PM PDT

  •  Disgusting (4+ / 0-)

    They were worried about gay bashing? Which party blasted the SCOTUS decision in Lawrence v. Texas? Which party voted to ban gay marriage? Which party says that gays marrying is the equivalent of marrying dogs? (I'm looking at you, Santorum). These Dobson-Falwell-Robertson jerks will say anything to defend a Rethug.

    "Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?"

    In case those Einsteins over at WSJ missed it, the scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts v. Dale SCOTUS case wasn't 52 and did not ask 16 year olds about their masturbation habits. In fact, the Scoutmaster in question had not done any harm to any boy, nor tried to hit on any of them. Morons.

    Kicking a Rep out who has committed a federal crime is not gay bashing. Denny would have kept it a secret if it was a 16 year old girl also. Too bad Foley wasn't caught on Dateline.  

  •  BREAKING: Foley's EMails to Iraqi Teens... (6+ / 0-)

    ...is a heading made up by me as a reminder that there are real matters of life and death going on in the world, and teenagers who will never see another instant message.

    And they die every day, and how many here know their names?

    "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." -- Ernest Hemingway

    by spread the word IRAQ NAM on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:43:21 PM PDT

  •  so who (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Monique Radevu

    is going to shove this back down their throats?
    I'm so sick of them getting away with this bullshit.

    Somone in a public role needs to hit back hard about the hypocrisy that the party that has branded themselves as anti-gay is somehow afraid of being called gay bashers.

  •  Awesome- Dennis Hastert Death Watch: (4+ / 0-)

    I'll pick 12 days (about Harriet Myers right?)

    let's start a pool

  •  Okay, I'm confused (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda

    Why don't we want Hastert to resign? Because of who they might replace him with or some other reason?

    Republicans: They can't protect our youth. They can't protect our country.

    by PatsBard on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:44:24 PM PDT

    •  so he/they can twist in the wind for a while -n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, PatsBard, DC Scott

      "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." — Mark Twain

      by tonyfv on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:53:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think we should scream for his resignation ... (0+ / 0-)

        I think we should scream for his resignation at the top of our lungs.  Then there'd be no way he'd resign.

        "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." - Nelson Mandela

        by Bearpaw on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 07:56:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, because the longer they hold out, (5+ / 0-)

      the worse they look for covering it up to begin with and for being arrogant fuckheads with no sense of decency.

      •  But what we DO want are lots of people ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Coherent Viewpoint, DC Scott

        ...calling for his resignation, like the WashTimes does Tuesday. More calls to resign + with stubborn unwillingness to do it = Dem advantage.

        Here's some tidbits from Tuesday's WaPo on the subject:

        Leaders from about six dozen socially conservative groups held a conference call late yesterday afternoon, and participants were described as livid with House GOP leaders.

        "They are outraged by how Hastert handled this," said Paul M. Weyrich, a conservative activist who participated in the call. "They feel let down, left aside. How can they allow a guy like [Foley] to remain chairman of the committee on missing and exploited children when there is any question about e-mails?"

        Vin Weber, a GOP lobbyist close to the White House and to congressional leaders, said many Republicans outside of Washington are echoing Bossie.

        "From what I hear, it is resonating badly and our candidates are on the defensive about this," Weber said. "The maddening thing about this is if they had done the right thing" by informing Democrats early on and investigating it fully, "there would be no political fallout," he said.

        Top GOP strategists said party leaders will concentrate on trying to keep the focus of the unfolding story on Foley, rather than on how House leaders responded when informed about his contacts with former pages.

        "I don't know of any race ever where the action of one member has impacted the race of another," said Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

        Republicans are bracing for ads that link previous scandals with the Foley case and ask, "Had enough?" Several strategists said this could be devastating in tight races. The most optimistic scenario offered by GOP strategists is that no new information surfaces and the controversy ends in the next five weeks.

        •  Candidates (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cowgirl

          Thanks MB, now I'm all riled up.  I'm going to be very interested to see how this plays with the media.  Whenever random black person makes a statement, the press is quick to ask random black political person if that's true.  They do the same with Democrats, "Hey, some Dem. in another state, holding a lower office did this.  What is your stance on it, even though you probably have no idea what I'm talking about?"  

          Now.

          Will they do this to the Reps.?  Will the press hang the Foley albatross on every stinkin' Rep. to step up to a mike or sit across a desk?  

          Black by popular demand!

          by fabooj on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:57:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lost the end of my post (0+ / 0-)

            ...because I didn't see them doing this with Allen.  There was no, "Rep. Senator, you've served with Allen, what do you think of this racist thing he seems to have?"  

            Black by popular demand!

            by fabooj on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:58:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  There IS such a thing as doing "the right thing" (0+ / 0-)

        Which in this case is waterboarding the fuckers (Oops! We lost one! Aw shucks), but until I'm put in charge, I'd settle for immediate resignations. By this line of argument, the longer the Bushes stay in charge, the better off we'll be in the long run - the twins will be eligible in 2016, right after Jeb's two terms are up.... RRRHHGG! Sxxk, sx...

        "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush

        by David Mason on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 02:12:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Now THERE's an excuse . . . (6+ / 0-)

    . . . that's really going to galvanize their base!  I can see all those Christian-right types now, running to the polls to re-elect the party that condoned child-molesting so they wouldn't look like they were gay-bashing!

  •  This excuse is not for us... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sinlady

    It's to hold their religious/values base in line so they don't bolt from them because of all this. My sisters are their base; they have kids and would be very likely to be repulsed by the Republican leadership's allowing of Foley's actions. But, framed like this, I can see all THREE of my sisters thinking, "That's right...our society is so immoral and decadent, that criticizing a gay man will harm you with the dreaded label of being politically incorrect, so the leadership felt compelled back off..."

    They will end up feeling SORRY for Hastert et al, and angry once again at our immoral society for FORCING the Republicans to unwittingly aid and abet a predator...Gingrich REALLY knows what he is doing...

    •  Will they really buy it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      masslib
      Seriously...

      I see the frame... and they will push it, but will anyone realy buy that lame-ass excuse?  

      After all, Republicans are supposed to not care or worry about such things.

      Thanks,

      Mike

      •  As I said above (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tonyfv

        I can see it being bought by the truly homophobic among their followers.

        The Repugs can sell anything to people who just can't look beyond the next spin zone.

        The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. - Henry Wallace V.P. 1941-45

        by BoxerRebellion on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:56:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Right, this may not go over well (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, fabooj, tonyfv

        Let's even assume the Relig. Right believes this crap.  What are they going to think of their weak-kneed men in Congress who didn't want to offend the gays?  No, I do not think this is going to please them one bit.  I mean, what they are saying is desperate and ridiculous (we were so afraid of looking like gay bashers that now we are equating a sexual predator with any gay), but even if the base bought it, would they accept it?  I don't think so.  But you never know with those nutjobs.

      •  My sisters will... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Coherent Viewpoint

        They get their political information from their fundamental and/or strict Roman Catholic churches and Fox News; this will be an easy answer for them to hear once and say to themselves "yeah, that's right" and move on to the next thing on their list of things to do or think about for the day. Not homophobic (though they "hate the sin but love the sinner") or stupid, just too busy to think for themselves when their churches provide all the answers they need to continue to vote Republican. Really.

  •  Kos: You don't want Hastert to Resign? (0+ / 0-)

    I think that would be great for the Democrats!

  •  Buy my new video (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    matt n nyc, OLinda, goodasgold, Ma Joad

    Congressmen Gone Wild!

    (Bush) believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. -- Colbert

    by makemefree on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:46:55 PM PDT

  •  liberals made them sensitive. its all their fault (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fabooj

    thus the power of liberalism, even in exile.

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:47:06 PM PDT

  •  Afraid to gay-bash = DOMA? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fabooj, cwaltz

    Yes, clearly the biggest thing on Republican minds for the past several years has been to avoid even the appearance of gay-bashing.

    God knows they haven't done anything that could even remotely... huh? they what? Defense of what?

    Never mind.

    Bring the Troops Home. Restore Constitutional Government. Take Back Your Nation.
    Justice Holmes: "When you strike at a King, you must kill him."

    by khereva on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:49:09 PM PDT

  •  The tactic was the best light they could find (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joejoejoe, begone

    to shine on Denny.  Too bad it's puke green.  The public will not buy it.  

    •  I agree, the public WILL not buy it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Monique Radevu

      Even some of the 30%-ers are folding now, what with the
      Fristian crapola.

      I think & hope their memes (God, I hate that term) are melting,
      melting: Wicked Witch of the West Red.

      I want Hastert out. What happens after then, we'll deal with well.

      It's our momentum now. I have more hope than ever in the last
      5 years.

      Looks as if we can deal with surprises, huh?

      Bush takes the "tort" out of torture (homage to pb)

      by begone on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:55:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I share your optimism (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ignacio Magaloni, begone

        ...
        Oh the fishes will laugh
        As they swim out of the path
        And the seagulls they'll be smiling.
        And the rocks on the sand
        Will proudly stand,
        The hour that the ship comes in.

        And the words that are used
        For to get the ship confused
        Will not be understood as they're spoken.

        For the chains of the sea
        Will have busted in the night
        And will be buried at the bottom of the ocean.

        A song will lift
        As the mainsail shifts
        And the boat drifts on to the shoreline.
        And the sun will respect
        Every face on the deck,
        The hour that the ship comes in.

        Then the sands will roll
        Out a carpet of gold
        For your weary toes to be a-touchin'.
        And the ship's wise men
        Will remind you once again
        That the whole wide world is watchin'.

        Oh the foes will rise
        With the sleep still in their eyes
        And they'll jerk from their beds and think they're dreamin'.

        But they'll pinch themselves and squeal
        And know that it's for real,
        The hour when the ship comes in.

        Then they'll raise their hands,
        Sayin' we'll meet all your demands,
        But we'll shout from the bow, "your days are numbered!"
        And like Pharaoh's tribe,
        They'll be drownded in the tide,
        And like Goliath, they'll be conquered.

        -Bob Dylan (the Arlo Guthrie version is excellent, btw)

        Copyright 2006 the author's moral rights are here asserted. "Reason w/o fear; and love w/o failing." - Monique Radevu

        by Monique Radevu on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:17:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Brillianteen (0+ / 0-)

    That line of defense serves their purposes perfectly as it plays right into the Dobson/Bauer/Falwell/Robertson propaganda that gays are child molesters.  It is sickeningly brilliant.

  •  Whatever (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DC Scott

    How quickly did the Foley rumors start in '03 to chase him from the Senate race?

    "In time you can turn these obsessions into careers."

    by looking italian on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:51:26 PM PDT

    •  Who saved the '03 IMs? (0+ / 0-)

      The email that started all of this is from '05.  The IMs (sent by Foley to more than one page) are from '03.  There was a diary here a day or so ago about Foley sliming his way into and cozying up with the Page Class of 2001-2002, so it looks at least possible he was cybering with one of those kids.  (My read of the couple of IMs that I read is the kid was trying to fend off the persistent and aggressive lech, but didn't know that he really could say  "fuck off, Congressman.")  

      So who saved those nasty IMs from '03 and brought 'em out now?  

      Had enough? Vote Democrat, 2006.

      by DC Scott on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 07:46:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Have Been Sitting Here for Several Hours (5+ / 0-)
    Convinced that yesterday's attack on the Amish schoolgirls was the most cowardly thing I've ever heard of. Who could possibly be less threatening than Amish schoolgirls?? Just how cowardly does an asshole have to be to attack them with multiple guns??

    That guy sure didn't manage to hold the Title for long...

    There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.

    by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:51:36 PM PDT

  •  Gay does not equal pedophilia! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Island Expat, begone, Ma Joad, tonyfv

    To say that Hastert was afraid of being a gay-basher or homophobic, in order to shield a pedophilia, makes absolutely no sense.  It is an offensive argument.  Being gay in NOT pedophilia.

  •  The Republicans are afraid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, begone, radio waves

    of offending the greatest threat to Western Civilization.

    Whether it's gays or Osama bin Laden.  All depends on your perspective.  Paging Rep. Musgrave?

  •  H Y P O C R I T E S & D E M A G O G U E S (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    begone

    Let's see how many other news outlets follow this line. It will get them nowhere but further down the old "slippery slope".

    "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." — Mark Twain

    by tonyfv on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:56:05 PM PDT

    •  Demagogues. Now that's a vocab word. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, MarketTrustee, tonyfv

      My students had that last week, & I knew I couldn't define
      it by saying, well, all the names I COULD say. So we went at
      it generally, but some of them got it. Some of them got that
      there might be a big load of demagoguery going on right now.

      Bush takes the "tort" out of torture (homage to pb)

      by begone on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:59:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I had always hoped that when (4+ / 0-)

    the Republicans went down in flames, it would be a joyous occasion, and I would go out and celebrate.  I'd scream my 'I told ya so's' and knock back a few cocktails.  Then I would come home and happily blog (while buzzed) about it.  

    But that just isn't the case.  I can't even think about what this scandal means for the election.  Because after all is said and done, they're doing everything they can to save their fucking jobs, and nobody gives a shit about the victims.  The constant spinning is almost as bad as Foley's emails and IM's.

    Transferring data from profound.sig.com... Done.

    by cowgirl on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:57:33 PM PDT

    •  it may be a joyful thing yet... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Coherent Viewpoint

      I remember Watergate pretty well, and it was much the same ALL THE WAY through, all the way up to the day Nixon resigned, and it even stayed a confusing mess during Ford's term. The Repubs actually tried several times and in a zillion ways to rehabilitate Nixon's reputation, rewriting the history, all the way up to and BEYOND his death. These scum do not give up. Keeping the GOP car on the track and pushing it onward is big big money for the best slime-masters in politics. The big hidden money behind the GOP lures the very best and brightest rightward and away from what we all know to be the only honest position to take; the position
      of moderation and cooperation. It's class warfare, and nothing short of that. If you peel back the many layers of demonization applied to Karl Marx you'll find a lot of truth.

  •  Fox Distracts by Attacking Murtha for ABSCAM. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, begone, MarketTrustee

    Yep its true.

    I went to the Fox web site today (I'm a glutton for punishment I know) to see how the ole gang was covering the Foley story and Woodward's new book.

    Imagine my surprise to see that they are trying to get mileage out of attacking John Murtha for NOT being indicted almost 30 years ago in the ABSCAM mess.

    Totally ridiculous.

  •  Foley and Hastert (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, hhex65, Basil, begone

    are clearly on the same page.

    /snark

  •  Gay Bashing is not the issue (4+ / 0-)

    The issue is a man his age hitting on underage pages. Exploiting children in other words. I could care less if Mark Foley is gay. What would they say if Barney Frank did what Foley did?

  •  Please (0+ / 0-)

    Denny Hastert that prince of sensitivity and person who is so in touch with his kinder, gentler side is about as afraid of offending anyone as he is of those twenty brautwursts that he ate for lunch. Denny, it's called coverup if you forgot the name of the game. The verb is to enable, to turn your eyes the other way, or to let the children beware. When children are in danger, politics should end and we all should rise to the occasion and do the right thing. Maybe the Republicans have been doing the wrong things for so long, they forgot what is right. They can claim that they forgot what morality is. Isn't that just great for Amertica and the rest of the world?

  •  Well, they have to say something.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    ...it's just like a lawyer defending an obviously guilty clinet... they come up wtih something.  These guys have to defend their own, somehow, so they scratch their heads and come up with something.  It's lame, but  a few people might buy it...  better than zero.

    But, yeah, I expect the right wing blogs and such to go nuts over it... tryng to blame us for the mess... politics of distraction... the republicans are good at it...

    Not sure if it's really going to work this time, though.  It just is too in their face.  It's really hard to spin out of this one... really hard...

    Thanks,

    Mike

  •  This is ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

    They keep digging themselves into a deeper hole on this issue.

    http://www.keen.com/jiacinto For DC related travel advice, please visit that link.

    by jiacinto on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:08:51 PM PDT

  •  Okay, it's immature but.... (0+ / 0-)
    Denny Bastert?

    Corruption Now King!

    by Jim P on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:09:57 PM PDT

  •  I'm loving these excuses (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pyrrho, hhex65, cowgirl, tonyfv
    1.  We didn't know.
    1.  Clinton
    1.  They were just "overly friendly" emails.
    1.  Clinton
    1.  Studds (this I learned today is from 19-fucking-83)
    1.  Clinton
    1.  Who leaked these emails and why now?
    1.  Clinton
    1.  Barney Frank (apparently the deal here is not the brothel thing, but he's [whisper]openly gay[/whisper]
    1. Clinton
    1. Age of consent
    1. Clinton
    1. Was there actual penetration?
    1. Clinton
    1. They didn't want to appear gay-bashing
    1. Clinton
    1. Positive hope that there's more to this.  Not more victims, but more Congressmen and they're sure to be all Democrats.
    1. I'm sure this will be Clinton

    Now, I'm on the verge of just praying for a Dem. to be caught just so I won't have to witness any more stupid-ass excuses from the GOP "leadership".  5 years and they did nothing and this is the best they could come up with.  The party of lying for the sake of lying can't even come up with anything almost plausib.e

    Black by popular demand!

    by fabooj on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:10:10 PM PDT

  •  Wonder what.... (0+ / 0-)

    David Dreier is thinking....

    I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

    by jillian on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:10:59 PM PDT

  •  A thought (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarketTrustee, Ma Joad

    Since it was ABC that broke the Foley story - some things to ponder

    It seems that Brian Ross has had the information on the House Pages for some time -

    I think that the uproar and fury so many of us had towards ABC because of Path to 9/11 might have had some impact on ABC.

    They must have realized that they paid a high price kissing the "uber reicht" - that their timing and refusal to do anything to fix the mess have cost the company dearly.

    So friends - speaking up - getting together - letting ABC know how wrong they were - might have had consequences that we never imagined - in this case positive for us - as I am sure that ABC must have looked for something that would calm the waters on our side.

    Proud to be a Bleeding Heart Liberal

    by sara seattle on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:11:52 PM PDT

  •  HUNTER THOMPSON'S EXPOSE OF DC PEDOPHILES (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Trix, bosdcla14

    Hunter Thompson was working on an expose of Washington pedophiles at the time of his murder or suicide.

    http://www.cosmiciguana.com/...

  •  Not all the GOP "values (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DC Scott
    voters" are so forgiving (link):

    Leaders from about six dozen socially conservative groups held a conference call late yesterday afternoon, and participants were described as livid with House GOP leaders.

    `Let down, left aside'
    "They are outraged by how Hastert handled this," said Paul M. Weyrich, a conservative activist who participated in the call. "They feel let down, left aside. How can they allow a guy like [Foley] to remain chairman of the committee on missing and exploited children when there is any question about e-mails?"

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:13:57 PM PDT

  •  It's just a modified version of the Iraq argument (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dunkerque, DC Scott
    Not just the Iraq argument, but righty "logic" on many issues. A core GOP principle is to always find a scapegoat. And often it works like this: "we couldn't do the right thing because Dems would have complained about it." Here's a variation: "we couldn't do the right thing because Dems got in the way."

    Here are examples of how it often comes up regarding Iraq: "Bush couldn't send the right number of troops because Dems would have complained." Or "Bush couldn't use the proper amount of force because Dems would have complained."

    And here's the Vietnam argument that we'll be hearing for coming years and decades: "Bush couldn't finish the job in Iraq because Dems wouldn't let him."

    So back to Foley: "we didn't do the right thing about Foley because we were afraid the big mean nasty Dems were going to say mean things about us."

    Digby as usual gets right to the core of what this really means: the GOP is announcing how weak and gutless and spineless they are. They have the terrible rhetorical disadvantage of being in power. They have no excuses. Even though they're in charge, they're helpless to do the right thing because they're afraid the opposition is going to say something that will hurt their feelings! In other words, they are passive, timid whiners.

    Whether the subject is Iraq or Foley, we will run into this "logic." And we should always expose it for what it is: a confession of weakness, morally and in every other way.

    A high priority for the GOP is to maintain the illusion that they are the party of strength. When they go down the road discussed in this thread, they hand us a chance to puncture that illusion.

  •  The rebuttal is simple (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hyperstation, tonyfv

    It's this:  So if it was a male Congressman sending disgusting emails and instant messages to the GIRLS who are pages, that would be any different?  The Republican leaders would have acted immediately?  

    Their record suggests otherwise.

    So: It's not about the sex of the pages.

    It's about sex -- or the threat of it -- WITH pages.

    It's about sex -- or the threat of it -- with children of either sex.

    And the Republican leaders attempted a cover-up, rather than do something to stop it.

    Period.

    "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

    by Cream City on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:17:12 PM PDT

  •  Let's take a trip down recent memory lane (4+ / 0-)

    ages/sexual orientations are just relative to the GOP spin

    1.When Bush was still alcoholic at age 40, GOP referred to as "youthful" indiscretions --excuse me, "youthful" at age 40?

    1.  Monica Lewinsky was 21 when involved with Clinton, I remember she was referred to by the GOP as practically a child.
    1. The current issue isn't "gay" it's child sexual predator.

    I still can't understand how the Catholic church ended up defending/protecting a worldwide pedeophilia ring and get away with any credibility.  And telling Catholics to vote "pro-life" (eg GOP) What bullshit.
    Now Foley, GOP protecting a pedeophile?  How the hell do they spin this stuff?  

    Really folks, as if we can't tell the difference between what consenting adults do in private and these piece of shit monsters preying on children?

    Since Bush took office I feel like we're stuck in the Twilight Zone.

    by Shappy on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:21:00 PM PDT

    •  I'm just waiting (0+ / 0-)

      For the political cartoon of Hastert in bishop gear.  That's what it's spinning like right now.  Someone earlier wanted to see a political cartoon of Hastert and "The Church" commiserating, but I think it's time to kick it up a notch.

      Black by popular demand!

      by fabooj on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:24:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't forget Henry Hyde (0+ / 0-)

      He confessed retroactively to a "youthful indiscretion" when he was a definitely un-youthful 40 years old. And it wasn't a one-night stand after too many pitchers of Old Style.

      "All men having power ought to be mistrusted."--James Madison.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:42:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Complacent not Compassionate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tonyfv

    OK, here's the theme for the upcoming midterm elections...

    Conservatives... Complacent not Compassionate!

    Complacent Conservatives.

    (Complacent on Iraq, Complacent on Global Warming,
    Complacent on Energy Policy, Complacent on Katrina response and now Complacent on Foley-Gate!)

  •  Newt Said This Too! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dunkerque, hyperstation, radio waves

    "that would have offended gays"

    um... the funny part is Newt said this right after saying that leadership only read the first "overly friendly" emails.

    He totally forgot THOSE WERE NOT HOMOSEXUAL, insofar as the claim is they were not SEXUAL at all!

    Lol.

    It was an admission that they knew the real story... using facts about the whole story to defend not investigation the part they claim was all they knew!

  •  A lot of people will fall for this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dc 20005

    This takes the message away from complicated thoughts (can we trust Republicans) and towards an easy path of thought for those who are too lazy and bigoted to know better (everyone is terrified of the gay agenda, it's all the fault of gays, they must be taken down, Republicans are not to blame).

    I expect to see this in more and more of the right wing media, and they will try their best to use this to increase turnout among their hatemonger following.

  •  Eugene Robinson in Tuesday's WaPo ... (7+ / 0-)

    ...notes:

    Former speaker Newt Gingrich suggested over the weekend that House leaders may have worried last year that if they pursued the Foley matter, they'd be "accused of gay-bashing." Clearly, in terms of his spinning skills, Gingrich has lost a step. The issue was whether a congressman was having improper communications with a child, not whether the congressman was gay; it would have been just as troubling if the e-mail had been sent to a female page. And anyway, it's a little late for the Republicans to denounce gay-bashing after raising it to an art form.

  •  Duck and cover! -n/t (0+ / 0-)

     title=

    "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." — Mark Twain

    by tonyfv on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:49:34 PM PDT

  •  My bet is that Bush will attack Iran this... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BENHOGAN

    sunday or the next, depending on how fast this ball of shit rolls. He MUST get something bigger out to the media to drown out all these other minor stories. My guess is Iran will attack us somehow.

  •  Get Larry Flynt on this story! (0+ / 0-)

    STAT!

  •  Pages not officially warned (0+ / 0-)

    Palm Beach Post:

    But another former page, who asked not to be identified, told The Palm Beach Post on Monday, "The program in no official capacity warned us about it."

    Mother Nature bats last.

    by pigpaste on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:02:17 AM PDT

  •  Afraid to offend gays? Since when? (4+ / 0-)

    Was that before or after they told gays they weren't human beings who deserved the right to marry their life partner.

    In fact... was that before or after they said gays weren't even really anything but sick mentally disabled people who aren't welcome in Heaven?

    Afraid to offend gays? As if... Republicans are lining up to offend gays. What the hell are they talking about?

    The Republican Party and their entire platform is offensive to gays. That's how they win political points.

    If the pedophile had been a Democrat, Republicans would have outed him before the instant message had even been received. The NSA would have plucked it out of the air and redirected it to the FBI who would have picked the guy up in a black van headed for Cuba.

    They wouldn't have been able to wait to out the perv... and if he had been gay... oh man. It would have been a witchburning.

    Afraid to offend gays? No.

    Afraid to offend voters. Like every single American voter.

    And they have.

  •  Republican "Leadership" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fabooj

    What a day for the GOP: Poor Denny is afraid of the mean Liberals and Frist wants to make nice with the Taliban.

  •  Bushies want to talk Iraq War before they didn't (0+ / 0-)

    want to talk about it and they want to talk about anything except the dirt under the carpet issues.

  •  stick a fork in 'em, they're done (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fabooj

    The dems should be pounding the shit out of them on the issue of credibility. Any dem spokes person should be stressing how the republicans have lost all credibility, no matter what the subject they are addressing.

    They cannot be believed, they cannot be trusted : with your money, with your privacy, with your healthcare, with your security. Just look at the record.

  •  This is all perfectly understandable (0+ / 0-)

    if you are a Republican and you have no morals, no values, and no respect for the commandment "thou shalt not bear false witness".

    In one stroke, they get to provide what is for their rabid base a plausible explanation for their actions (or lack thereof), and lash out at liberals and the dirty gays they support.  It's truly brilliant.

    To a large part of the wingnut base, it really is all the gays' fault, and by extension, all the liberals' fault.  And by "it" I mean everything.

    If you listen to wingnut propaganda we are responsible for the dissolution of good Christian marriages all the way up to "God's wrath" for natural disasters.

    So I think that this will play well with the far right base of the Republican Party, though it may give the latte sipping Conservative set pause (those are the ones who shrug their shoulders and blame everything on Clinton).

    Help keep America a one party state - vote Republican! (-6.25, -6.92)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:14:03 AM PDT

  •  that's like saying... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, fabooj

    The KKK didn't want to be accused of being anti-Black!!!!

    If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own...FDR

    by Finnegan on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:14:40 AM PDT

  •  Rush Limbaugh convinced me! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Coherent Viewpoint

    All thru the Clinton years, I thought a persons sexual life was thier own business and Rush and his cohorts said it affected their public lives. Well he convinced me..it does!

    If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own...FDR

    by Finnegan on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:21:36 AM PDT

  •  Daily Show poked fun for this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DC Scott

    John Stewart nailed Gingrich for saying that the Republicans were afraid to publicly discipline Foley (or report him to authorities) because that would make them look like they were gay-bashing. Stewart said comparing trolling for 16 year-olds with being gay is why Republicans are accused of gay-bashing....

    'Twas a fair cop....

    "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

    by FischFry on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:26:53 AM PDT

  •  Nothing but lying, name calling hypocrites (0+ / 0-)

    I was watching that interview with him, I thought my head was going to explode. I cannot believe that they would stoop to this. Wait, yes I can, I just shouldn't have to believe it.
    These people are supposed to represent us, what a joke! They only care about protecting their own and to hell with everyone else.

    I don't know if anyone heard, but smarmy Scarborough was going on about how Foley was his friend for 12 years and how bad he feels for him. Wow!! Talk about misplaced sympathy!

    Afraid to be called gay bashers indeed....they fucking love to bash the gays, hell..they have made a living from it. Bastards!

    The greatest mistake you can make is to be afraid of making one.

    by WI Dem on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 01:10:33 AM PDT

  •  is like one of those killer death robots... (0+ / 0-)

    in a logical crisis, or when you pour water on it, or something.

    Does Not Compute...Does Not Compute...Does Not Compute...Arghhhh...Urghhh

    the past keeps knock knock knockin' on my door. and i don't want to hear it anymore. (Lou Reed)

    by Boreal Ecologist on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 01:17:11 AM PDT

  •  Don't talk about stealing: it will offfend Republ (0+ / 0-)
    same logic..
  •  Don't talk about corruption it will offend Repubs (0+ / 0-)
  •  Call a spade a spade. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DC Scott

    This isn't about homosexuality. Its about pedophilia.
    The GOP wasn't protecting a gay man. They were not quiet to not offend gay people. The GOP was protecting a pedophile. A potential child rapist (by legal standards).

    America's GOP: They'll either send our young men off to die for wars based on lies or try and f^*# them before they even become young men.

    =my harsh 2c worth

    BC

  •  Difference between Foley and Clinton? (0+ / 0-)

    I have a serious question, and I'm sure this has been discussed much already but I haven't been following the comments on this scandal closely. So if anyone who has a good answer for this and has thought about it wants to respond, I would appreciate it.

    I ask this because I know this is a GOP talking point already, so I'm honestly wondering how people respond to it. i'm not a troll so please don't flame me for asking this.

    What is the difference between this and Clinton/Lewinsky?

    Re the behavior part...

    Why with Clinton was it said that it should be considered a private matter, and for Foley it demands his immediate resignation?

    I think we can agree, in the context of this diary, that the gender of the  participant should have nothing to do with it.

    Is it age? Or the age difference?

    Foley and page(s): 54 and 16
    Clinton and Lewinsky: 49 and 22 (I think)

    16 is the age of consent in DC as I understand, so aside from the Internet side of it, what he did may not have been illegal.

    As an earlier diary pointed out well, 16 is not a "child" and we're not actually talking about pedophilia here, which is attraction to pre-pubescent children.

    From a legal standpoint, in both cases we are talking about consenting adults.

    Is it because Lewinsky is a few years older so she seems more like an adult? Is it a matter of degree where 16 seems obviously out of bounds, even though not illegal, and 22 seems okay, and somewhere in between we cross a line that isn't legally defined but at which point it becomes a private matter between adults?

    Is it about abusing a position of power?

    In both cases it is an older man in a position of power engaging in sexual conduct (or discussion of such) with a much younger person in his employ.

    Is it about the consent?

    Lewinsky obviously consented, but if one of the page(s) consented to discuss sexual matters with Foley, does that suddenly make it all okay?

    Is it about the law?

    The irony of course is that the Internet part was illegal because of a law he helped craft and pass. Is the difference strictly one of lawbreaking,  that Clinton did it in person and Foley did it via IM after he had passed a law against that?

    Was it marital status or adultery?

    No. Clinton was married and Foley was single (nod nod, wink wink - MP via TDS).

    Is it because of the serial nature of the behavior?

    Foley was apparently doing this over a period of five years or more. Clinton is believed to have had other affairs but perhaps none with much younger women in his employ. So it is a matter of numbers? That Clinton only did it with one person?

    Is it the office?

    Clinton was president, the highest office in the land, but we have 435 representatives so having one of them resign isn't a constitutional affair, so to speak?

    Is it the hypocrisy?

    Well, that is a distinction between the two, but one doesn't usually resign public office over hypocrisy, last I checked.

    And re the coverup part...

    Clinton may not have had other people who knew covering for him, so the larger question with the R house leadership isn't relevant to my question, but in terms of Clinton himself, he lied about it and covered up, and what he actually got busted for was perjury, not the behavior itself.

    Conservatives and the media were outraged at the behavior of Clinton, which to them obviously should have led to his resignation (and impeachment for the perjury). While liberals largely though it was really bad, but his private business.

    Liberals and the media are obviously outraged at the behavior of Foley, which to us must obviously leads to his resignation (and prosecution for the Internet soliciation). While conservatives are, mostly, quiet, or pointing at Clinton and others (9/11 and Foley - see, it's all his fault!).

    I honestly have this same reaction myself.

    At the time of Clinton's scandal, I was thinking mostly how blown (excuse me) out of proportion it was. So the president got a blow job from a 22-year old intern. Bad for his marriage, bad for his moral standing, really really stupid politically, but not that big a deal in the context of all the other issues facing the country. And I think a lot of people on the left felt that way.

    But a Congressman sending lewd IMs to 16 year old pages in his employ? It seems like a bigger deal to me, and "Not that big a deal" is not the reaction I'm hearing from liberals.

    So I really honestly am not quite clear what the difference is, and would have a hard time explaining it to someone else.

    Perhaps it is the age difference, that 16 is just considered too young, even though legal, and 22 is considered more adult, less able to be taken advantage of, and that there is a subjective matter of degree in there somewhere.

    Perhaps it is the legality of the internet solicitation.

    Or perhaps it is a combination of several things taken together.

    Or maybe it is something else I'm just completely missing. But the more I think about it, the less I understand what the difference is, and this is a question liberals need to be able to answer, unless we're hypocrits, too.

    Why was going after Clinton a witchhunt and going after Foley is protecting young people from a predator?

    •  Answers to some things... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Coherent Viewpoint

      The difference is that what Foley did was against the law. The Republican leadership of the House knew about it and DIDNT inform the democratcs. The Republican pages were warned NOT the Democratic pages.

      The age of consent does not come into play here because the Internet predator law says that under age 18 it is illegal to solict sex over the internet. Its a Federal law which has priority over any state or local laws.

      •  that makes sense, but... (0+ / 0-)

        i think that if those internet predator laws had not been passed, there would still be uproar about it, so i don't think it is simply a matter of legality. if he had had these conversations in person instead of over IM, that would not have made them any less dangerous, but they would have been legal.

        and i'm not so much comparing the house leadership who covered it up. I'm just looking at the behavior itself.

    •  I think it's that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Coherent Viewpoint

      A 16-year-old page, while legally able to consent to sex, doesn't yet have the full rights and privileges of adulthood and therefore the power imbalance between him and someone who has the potential to make or break his future political career is really apmplified.  For example, he's not free to speak out if his parents don't want him to (which they may very well not if the politician is capable of threatening their political standing).  He can't, under most circumstances, file a lawsuit on his own behalf.  In short, he's limited in the ways he can "fight back" if the politician is trying to take things too far.

      •  that makes sense, too (0+ / 0-)

        is it the age of 18 that makes the difference then? if monica had been 18, and the pages 17, then there would have been only one year of difference, but she would have been a legal adult able to speak out on her own or fight back legally, whereas the pages would not be able to.

        if i put together both answers (yours and druidbros1 above), it seems that the difference is 1) that they were under 18, and while legally able to consent, they were still minors, and 2) the fact that part of his behavior was illegal because it was done online.

  •  What does the gay community say about comment (0+ / 0-)

    I would like to know what the gay community
    has to say about being identified with
    child abusers by the republican party.

    How is the gay community going to treat gays who are republicans and have allowed this comment?

    •  If your gay and republican, (0+ / 0-)

      isn't that kind of like being a Jewish nazi?

      It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. -Al Gore

      by kitebro on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 04:17:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  so far, (0+ / 0-)

      nothing from HRC on this.

      I think they should ask that their donations to Foley be returned, for one thing.

      At this point I can't see how any self respecting gay person can remain Republican.

      "You do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism." -- George W. Bush, September 29, 2006. A dangerous idiot unfit to be President.

      by jimsaco on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 05:32:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  GOP religion: "if he broke a law, its ok for me" (0+ / 0-)

    This really is how they live their lives.  
    In everything they do, the fundamental
    reason for their behavior is " someone
    else did, I can too"

    It is based not on God's direction for man, but on man's own decisions about right and wrong and man's allowance for failures of his own behavior.  The so
    called religions that they subscribe to are
    not at all based  on God as far as I can see based on their conduct.  

    It was Delay's reason for his behavior " someone else did so why not me?"

  •  GOP equates Gay to Child Preditors? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DC Scott

    Once again the 'Christain Right' show their ignorance. What they do not understand they condemn.

  •  At The Risk of Echoing.... (0+ / 0-)
    previous posts, Boy Girl, WTF does it matter, a Child Predetor is still a Child Predetor!  End of Story!  Once again they think we are stupid beyond the Beltway!
  •  straw in the wind (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DC Scott

    In the past three days, I've seen two op-ed columnists, almost polar opposites ideologically, use the same quotation re: Congress.

    Oliver Cromwell to "Rump Parliament" in 1653: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

     

  •  Unbelievable (0+ / 0-)

    The WSJ is really is going to print that?

    It reminds you of some moronic right-wing uncle drunk at a party: "Well, FIRST you tell me that we have to be tolerant of "gay lifestyles", right? Right?

    THEN, you tell me no, not this one, just because it involves a 52-year-old pursuing 16-year-old boys! I mean, how the heck can I follow anymore....!"

    Actually I take it back. The most moronic right-wingers I can even think of in real life aren't that stupid, even when drunk.

  •  I suggest that we Progressives be... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chimpwatch

    quite careful here, least we fall into another GOP trap...

    I saw Perkin's interview. He is already spinning this as a consequence of tolerance, a Liberal virtue that he and his ilk deplores....

    And now the GOP is lumping pedophilia together with homosexuality...

  •  STUPID FUCKS (4+ / 0-)

    GAY DOES NOT EQUAL SEXUAL PREDATOR
    GAY DOES NOT EQUAL SEXUAL PREDATOR
    GAY DOES NOT EQUAL SEXUAL PREDATOR
    GAY DOES NOT EQUAL SEXUAL PREDATOR
    GAY DOES NOT EQUAL SEXUAL PREDATOR
    i could go on and i thought about it...

    Keep Religion in Church

    by titotitotito on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 02:43:10 AM PDT

  •  FUCK YOU TONY PERKINS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    waitingtoderail, DC Scott

    This isn't a "gay" issue.

    Foley is a child predator and statistics prove the majority of child molesters are straight, married men -- not gay men.

    People like Foley give gays a bad name. They live the lives on the "DL," in the shadows and as a result of living unauthentically, make bad choices that wind up harming people around them.

    MEMO TO PERKINS: Do a better job of policing your own.

    And by the way, your gang as used gays as a wedge to divide people for years.

  •  EVERYBODY KNEW (3+ / 0-)

    The LATimes
    has a must read story out this morning.

    Apparently, the question is no longer who knew, but rather who didn't.  This is amazing.  I feel like I'm watching a nuke go super-critical in slow motion.  The LATimes has a piece out calling Foley's attractions to young male pages AND interns an "open secret."

    What's more, this attention was apparently unwanted by many of them and many are STILL afraid to go on the record for fear of retribution.

    Foley's predilections were so well known that they apparently had him assigned a chaperone to keep him out of trouble.

    But wait, it gets better...

    Who WAS that chaperone?

    None other than Kirk Fordham.

    Check it out:

    Beck-Heyman, the former page, said several other male pages in his class also had been approached by Foley. "Mark Foley knew he could get away with this type of behavior with male pages because he was a congressman," he said.

    Another former staffer said it was an oft-repeated story around Capitol Hill that Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, would sometimes accompany the congressman to keep him out of trouble.

    Fordham represents a link between Foley and House GOP leaders. Shortly after leaving Foley's office last year, he became chief of staff to Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

    Wow.  What can you say to that but "wow"?

    This thing just got a lot bigger and shows no signs of slowing down.

    I hope that somebody has enough message discipline to draw attention to the Condi-Rice-Lying-Through-Her-Teeth-About-Her-Total-Incompetence-And-Arrogance scandal, which by rights ought to be bigger than pederasty.  Nevertheless, I think this thing is about to define the election.

    Here's hoping  the Dems are clean because I don't think anybody is going to talk about anything else for the next couple of weeks at least.

  •  Stop the pedophile hysteria and give it a rest. (0+ / 0-)

    Iraq and torture are the real issues. A sad little closet case who sends dirty emails to 16 year old boys is not a "threat to our children," and Iraq, not this sordid little affair, is the key to victory in November.

    "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

    by chimpwatch on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:18:44 AM PDT

    •  if you don't like it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kitebro

      don't read it.

      In fact, go write your OWN diary about Iraq.

      k?


      Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps. - Emo Philips

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:57:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Denial and Lying. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Coherent Viewpoint

      These permeate the WH and Congress.  The Repubs have set it up so that no one can confront them with the truth.  The consequences of this system are horrific, rather writ large via our foreign policy or on the most personal of levels, with a Congressman stalking your underage son or nephew or brother.  

      Yeah, Foley's a sadsack loser.  But he took the power of his fucking office, paraded it in front of a bunch of kids who reasonably felt they were learning about all that's good about America, and whammo . . . cruising to Morton's for dinner in a BMW with followup emails about "spanking it" in the shower when Mother's not around.  

      Not a stretch to draw an analogy can be drawn to our Commander in Chief.  Same MO.  Use the office to pursue your personal agenda while wrapping in the flag, but putrid to the core.  

      If this country had made it clear that it wouldn't tolerate Bush's lying on 9/11, Iraq, the courts, etc. and doled out consequences through a different President in '04 or impeachment, I'll bet Foley would've been quite a bit more careful about using his post to muscle kids into his life.  I'll bet he at least wouldn't be groping interns in public bathrooms in DC gay hotspots.  READ ABOUT THREE DOWN.

      When someone says "rotten to the core," I think it's all about the freaking lying.  It metastisizes and destroys everything it touches, big and small.  They even begin to believe their own lies.  

      And here we are.  

      Had enough? Vote Democrat, 2006.

      by DC Scott on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 08:04:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The glee on this thread is revolting. (0+ / 0-)

    Using one's authority to prey on teenagers is a very bad thing, but this is not "pedophilia," sexual urges do not make one a "pervert," and expressing glee about this human tragedy is unseemly, if not immoral. More importantly, every minute that we spend talking about this, instead of Iraq, will help the GOP in November.

    "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

    by chimpwatch on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:36:21 AM PDT

    •  I believe (0+ / 0-)

      that we can multi-task. Our opposition does!

      It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. -Al Gore

      by kitebro on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 04:14:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  People will lap it up, but it won't hurt the GOP (0+ / 0-)

        Impeachment didn't hurt Clinton. In fact, it helped him, because the GOP went too far....

        "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

        by chimpwatch on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 04:19:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It hurt Gore. (0+ / 0-)

          We have a president named Bush because of the GOP's attack. There are other diaries on this site. Check them out.

          It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. -Al Gore

          by kitebro on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 04:24:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gore defeated himself, because he was weak. (0+ / 0-)

            Gore was too frightened and compromised by his corporate sponsors to raise the issues that might have won the election for him: economic inequality and health care. If Democrats lose in November, it will be because they are too cowardly to take a stand on Iraq, torture, and the phony "war on terror."

            "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

            by chimpwatch on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 04:34:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  BS. Pure and simple (0+ / 0-)

              Gore's "People, not the Powerful" caters precisely to the populist themes you mention.


              Together, let's make sure that our prosperity enriches not just the few, but all working families. Let's invest in health care, education, a secure retirement and middle-class tax cuts.

              ...

              It's just wrong to have life-and-death medical decisions made by bean-counters at HMOs, who don't have a license to practice medicine, and don't have a right to play God. It's time to take the medical decisions away from the HMOs and insurance companies and give them back to the doctors and the nurses and the health care professionals.

              ...

              And what are those changes? At a time when most Americans will live to know even their great grandchildren, we will save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, not only for this generation but for generations to come. At a time of almost unimaginable medical breakthroughs, we will fight for affordable health care for all, so patients end ordinary people are not left powerless and broke. We will move toward universal health coverage, step by step, starting with all children.

              ...

              GORE: All of this -- all of this is the change we wish to see in America. Not so long ago, a balanced budget seemed impossible. Now our budget surpluses make it possible to give a full range of targeted tax cuts to working families; not just to help you save for college, but to pay for health insurance and child care, to reform the estate tax so people can pass on a small business or a family farm, and to end the marriage penalty the right way, the fair way...

              ...

              GORE: There's one other word that we've heard a lot of in this campaign, and that word is "honor." To me, honor is not just a word, but an obligation. And you have my word: We will honor hard work by raising the minimum wage so that work always pays more than welfare

              Excerpts from: Gore's convention speech

              .

              Where do you people pull these lies from (Nader in 2000 was a good example for this kind of mischaracterizations and lies).

              Post this by your PC/bed: Don't forget! I MUST make time to PUNISH #^*@ Disney & ABC today!!

              by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:34:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Let me add one more item (0+ / 0-)


              GORE: I do. I think that in this 21st century we will soon see the consequences of what's called global warming. There was a study just a few weeks ago suggesting that in summertime the north polar ice cap will be completely gone in 50 years. Already people see the strange weather conditions that the old timers say they've never seen before in their lifetimes. And what's happening is the level of pollution is increasing significantly. Now, here is the good news, Jim. If we take the leadership role and build the new technologies, like the new kinds of cars and trucks that Detroit is itching to build, then we can create millions of good new jobs by being first into the market with these new kinds of cars and trucks and other kinds of technologies. You know the Japanese are breathing down our necks on this. They're moving very rapidly because they know that it is a fast-growing world market. Some of these other countries, particularly in the developing world, their pollution is much worse than anywhere else and their people want higher standards of living. And so they're looking for ways to satisfy their desire for a better life and still reduce pollution at the same time. I think that holding onto the old ways and the old argument that the environment and the economy are in conflict is really outdated. We have to be bold. We have to provide leadership. Now it's true that we disagree on this. The governor said that he doesn't think this problem is necessarily caused by people. He's for letting the oil companies into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Houston has just become the smoggiest city in the country. And Texas is number one in industrial pollution. We have a very different outlook. And I'll tell you this, I will fight for a clean environment in ways that strengthen our economy.

              ...

              GORE: Well, that vote wasn't exactly -- a lot of the supporters of the Kyoto Treaty actually ended up voting for that because the way it was worded. But there's no doubt there's a lot of opposition to it in the Senate. I'm not for command and control techniques either. I'm for working with the groups, not just with industry but also with the citizen groups and local communities to control sprawl in ways that the local communities themselves come up with. But I disagree that we don't know the cause of global warming. I think that we do. It's pollution, carbon dioxide, and other chemicals that are even more potent, but in smaller quantities, that cause this. Look, the world's temperature is going up, weather patterns are changing, storms are getting more violent and unpredictable. What are we going to tell our children? I'm a grandfather now. I want to be able to tell my grandson when I'm in my later years that I didn't turn away from the evidence that showed that we were doing some serious harm. In my faith tradition, it is -- it's written in the book of Matthew, "Where your heart is, there is your treasure also." And I believe that -- that we ought to recognize the value to our children and grandchildren of taking steps that preserve the environment in a way that's good for them.

              You know what, I believe that for that last blod quote: "I want to be able to tell my grandson when I'm in my later years that I didn't turn away from the evidence that showed that we were doing some serious harm" is the reason Gore will run, wage a powerful consensus building campaign, win in a landslide and chart a new course for the nation and planet.

              Here is a youTube video for the readers:

              Gore's 2000 campaign ad 'Matters'.

              Post this by your PC/bed: Don't forget! I MUST make time to PUNISH #^*@ Disney & ABC today!!

              by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:43:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Doing a dozen things and failing at all of them (0+ / 0-)

        isn't multi-tasking. It's incompetence.

        If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

        by jhecht on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 05:26:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Cyclical Ignorance: (0+ / 0-)

    Pertaining to ignorant statements that represent a separate ignorance.

      I.E. Statements that imply pedophilia = gay.

    I feel bad for all of the gay Americans who have been made to endure this talking point. I hope that they freak the hell out about it.

    :::

    "Let's put a shoe in there!" ~ Haywood Nelson

    by nowheredesign on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:42:22 AM PDT

  •  Don't want to be the skunk at the neck tie party (0+ / 0-)

    ...but a 16 year old is not a "child," having sexual urges about 16 year olds does not make one a "pervert," and this whole sad and sordid affair is beginning to make us look like the Democratic equivalents of Kenneth Star.

    "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

    by chimpwatch on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:49:15 AM PDT

    •  Is this story too close to home? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Coherent Viewpoint

      He sure as hell is a pervert.

      pervert

      n : a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior [syn: deviant, deviate, degenerate] v 1: corrupt morally or by intemperance or sensuality; "debauch the young people with wine and women"; "Socrates was accused of corrupting young men"; "Do school counselors subvert young children?"; "corrupt the morals" [syn: corrupt, subvert, demoralize, demoralise, debauch, debase, profane, vitiate, deprave, misdirect] 2: practice sophistry; change the meaning of or be vague about in order to mislead or deceive [syn: twist, twist around, convolute, sophisticate] 3: change the inherent purpose or function of something; "Don't abuse the system"; "The director of the factory misused the funds intended for the health care of his workers" [syn: misuse, abuse]

      If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

      by jhecht on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 05:34:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  there is so much wrong about this (0+ / 0-)

    one, that it stops my brain.

    Cognitive dissonance.

    Perhaps that's what they're going for?  It would stop us from being able to find our polling place on November 7th, if our brains stopped working.


    Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps. - Emo Philips

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:54:08 AM PDT

  •  Foley's replacement: Joe Negron-- he's a keeper (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitebro

    This'll get Perkins' heart racing again, though Foley's name will stay on the ballot.

    1. Representative Joe Negron supported the interests of the Christian Coalition of Florida 100 percent in 2005-2006.
    2. Rep. Negron believes that our rights and freedoms do not come from the government, but instead are granted to us by our Creator through our Constitution.
    3. On the Schiavo ordeal: "It was wrong," Negron said in June, "for a judge to say you can’t put water on the lips of a citizen of Florida."
    4. "We are not a nation of the common good," says Rep. Joe Negron. "We are a nation of individuals."

    Foley Replacement Named

    Rattlesnakes don't commit suicide...

    by hhex65 on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 04:03:25 AM PDT

  •  Jon Stewart Said It In A Nutshell (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitebro, Desert Biologist

    "Is it possible that (the GOP) equating pedophilia with being gay ......... is the reason they're accused of being gay bashers?"

    "Hell, I'll say it, gimme that fuckin' microphone!!" (imaginary Keith Olbermann quote)

    by Detroit Mark on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 04:10:02 AM PDT

    •  Was Mr. Foley interested in teenage boys because (0+ / 0-)

      Was Mr. Foley interested in teenage boys because he was gay, or because he was seriously repressed and damaged by a political party that engenders hatred of self in gays who happen to unfortunately be stuck in its web?

      Who would he have talked to in the Party?  Who could he have asked for help among his peers?  It is truly a pity that the Congressman chose to seek power in
      a party whose members publicly oppose any rights for gays and truly seem to hate us.

      He made a truly Faustian bargain with the extreme right, and it and his predilection has destroyed him.

      This Wall Street Journal "editorial" seemed to wish to smash all gay men into the same boat.  We aren't going to put up with it.  We are as different as
      heterosexuals, with the same human problems and failings and strengths.  We will not go back into the closet, we will not support the Republican hate-mongers, we will live our lives and we will be happy and the Republicans and religious bigots will not prevail over us.  None of the out, healthy, gay men I know are interested in children any more than any healthy heterosexuals I know are.

      Those that have an "interest" in children, gay or heterosexual, should be helped, pitied, and watched.

      Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

      by angrytoyrobot on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 10:35:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How can they fight terrorists, if they're scared (0+ / 0-)

    of gays? These are the same people who didn't go in their bathtubs for a month after they saw "Jaws".

    If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

    by jhecht on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 05:15:37 AM PDT

  •  That's an absolute freaking howler. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Desert Biologist

    Had enough? Vote Democrat, 2006.

    by DC Scott on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 05:19:24 AM PDT

  •  This really doesn't make it better (0+ / 0-)

    Say, on the face of it, it were true--That the GOP did not act on this guy because they didn't want to look anti-gay.

    THAT'S STILL THE SAME FUCKING PROBLEM!!!

    The problem is that they didn't want to lose political points by doing the right thing.  They took the easy way out.

    Not investigating the guy because you are afraid of what you will find is exactly the same as not pursuing somebody because you are afraid it will look bad in the press.

    And the GOP is so stuck in political machiavellianism that they don't even realize that there might be an ethically correct position to take.  They, apparently, only view things in the perspective of how it will play in the next election.

    Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

    by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 06:15:54 AM PDT

  •  gays, pedophiles, etc. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    angrytoyrobot

    First, I think we need to clear up some confusion. It's the wurlitzer more than their own prejudice. This has been the tactic of the Catholic leadership, saying that the problem is homosexuality, not bad behavior. This damage control works for some people in the base. It's not a serious assertion. It just provides a response.

    However, I think we muddy the waters when we talk of pedophilia. Pedophilia traditionally referred to attraction to pre-pubescent children, not older adolescents. I would dare say most adults find at least more fully developed 16 year-olds attractive in an essentially adult way. However, most adults realize that acting on those attractions is not appropriate, particularly when we get to ages like 53, particularly when they rely on us in some sort of mentor role. Most of us, gay and straight, are not out of control. We don't even treat adults in protege roles in this way.

    What the priests and Foley did was wrong because it was a breach of trust, a taking advantage of power and knowledge in imposing (at minimum) unwanted attentions. But when we talk about it being pedophilia, we make no distinction between what Foley did and what someone who seduces an 11 year old does.

  •  And now for something completely different... (0+ / 0-)

    Kos said:

    The Mighty Wurlitzer is a bit off kilter

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    Why yes, it seems to be.

    ...no hell below us, above us only sky.

    by rightiswrong on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 06:28:45 AM PDT

  •  This is disgusting (0+ / 0-)

    This particular strain of power-grab Republicans are not only homophobic, they are also classist, racist, misogynist, and the list goes on.

    And women, queers, and people of color who call themselves proud members of the GOP suffer from internalized self-hatred and delusions of grandeur/power that, while unfortunate and confusing, is inexcusable ... and unforgivable.

    "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush

    by RevJoe on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 06:46:59 AM PDT

  •  Newt for President (0+ / 0-)

    This Foley outrage is going to do a lot of Republican damage before it's done. But it's still a relatively contained implosion (unless Republicans really are all a gang of closet boy rapists, which is certainly possible).

    The tea leaves we're given to read in this branch of the story is the war between Frist and Gingrich to capture the ChrisTaliban vote. It looks like Gingrich won this news cycle. Hopefully Democrats will use Frist's surrender to Afghan Taliban at the right time to hand each of those two theofascists unuseable fragments of a demoralized Republican faction.

    Otherwise, when Frist loses his Tennessee empire to Ford and spends the next couple years running for president without those "Buckle on the Bible Belt" favors to distribute, Gingrich will have to be balanced against Giuliani to keep them from coming back "cleansed".

    This is a good time to talk about how even marriage didn't keep Gingrich and Giuliani from betraying their families' trust. "They cheated on their wives - they'll cheat the country."

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 06:51:54 AM PDT

  •  heterosexuals are pedophiles! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    angrytoyrobot

    The Wall Street Journal and its ilk love a chance to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia.  And the talking head media titans lap it up without question.  The pedophilia problem in the church?  It's a gay problem!  Heterosexuals can be pedophiles, also, and probably are in greater numbers. Yet when a little girl is abducted by some sicko, or stalked on the internet, no one says there is a problem with heterosexuality.

    Or maybe they're just afraid of being insensitive to straight people.

  •  That is a defense about as effective as... (0+ / 0-)

    ...a screen door in a submarine.

    Tony Perkins of Dobson's Family Research Counsel was on CNN earlier and I think we are hearing the contours of the Christian Right's argument. They are going with Newt Gingrich's formulation: Poor Denny was afraid of being called a gay basher so he didn't say anything.

    One supposes that this idiot Tony Perkins, from the fields of Dobson, thinks the Republican position on marriage backed by lock step votes and the rational use to justify the position was not gay bashing and /or offence to gays; cut us a break you moron...

    This line of defense is cute and quite ballsy, no doubt, but they'd be better served simply throwing Dennis Hastert overboard. But cross your fingers that they're too stubborn to pull that off.

    I suspect there is a second shoe yet to drop in this mess, it’s hanging in the air like mountain fog. Personally I think Hastert is none too fast on his feet and as long as the Republicans hold the majority in the House I’m happy to have him as Speaker. The Republicans have some much nastier and politically adroit choices they can set in Hastert’s shoes.

    Integrity is the doing what is right in the absence of witnesses and with no other gain in mind.

    by Bobjack23 on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 07:54:18 AM PDT

  •  Next Up - There is No Global Warming (but) (0+ / 0-)

    gays have caused what looks like global warming because they open the Gates of Hell on Earth to Demonic Forces.  Demonic Forces are exceedingly warm because they come from the center of the Earth, and that's why we have hurricanes.

    Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

    by angrytoyrobot on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 09:09:56 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site