Update [2006-10-10 21:37:38 by MyName]:Changing my title, as the important thing is the Silverstein article...
I wrote this to Drudge a bit ago (and I don't rely on them as a reliable source - just an occasional one):
I no longer consider DrudgeReport a reliable source of information, as you have blown your credibility with your misleading headline saying, "Reporter: 'Democratic operative' gave me Foley e-mails last May..." when the actual text of the article clearly states "the source was not working in concert with the national Democratic Party."
Shame on you! You are in the same category of "news" as Fox, who has recently been listing Foley and other scandalized Republicans as Democratic... shame on you!
Contrary to the misleading headline/link, this article to which he linked had some great quotes, such as this one (more below the fold):
The Republican leadership is lying when they claim that Democrats have engineered an "October Surprise"; there was never a plan undermine the G.O.P. or to destroy Hastert personally, as the speaker has vaingloriously suggested. I know this with absolute certainty...
More quotes from an article we all should be quoting (except, obviously, Drudge):
In May, a source put me in touch with a Democratic operative who provided me with the now-infamous emails that Foley had sent in 2004 to a sixteen-year-old page. He also provided several emails that the page sent to the office of Congressman Rodney Alexander, a Louisiana Republican who had sponsored him when he worked on Capitol Hill. "Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously, This freaked me out," the page wrote in one email. In the fall of 2005, my source had provided the same material to the St. Petersburg Times--and I presume to The Miami Herald--both which decided against publishing stories.
It was a Democrat who brought me the emails, but comments he made and common sense strongly suggest they were originally leaked by a Republican office. And while it's entirely possible that Democratic officials became aware of the accusations against Foley, the source was not working in concert with the national Democratic Party. This person was genuinely disgusted by Foley's behavior, amazed that other publications had declined to publish stories about the emails, and concerned that Foley might still be seeking contact with pages.
Congressman Alexander's office declined to comment on the matter, apart from issuing a brief statement emailed to me on May 31 by press secretary Adam Terry: "When these emails were brought to our attention last year our office reviewed them and decided that it would be best to contact the individual's parents. This decision, on behalf of our office, was based on the sensitivity of the issue. Our office did, in fact, contact the parents, and we feel that they (the juvenile's parents) should decide the best course of action to take concerning the dialogue outlined in the emails." I had a number of other questions I wanted to ask--for example, although the ex-page's parents were understandably concerned about their son's name coming out in the press, didn't Alexander's office have an obligation to make sure that Foley was not hitting on other kids?--but Terry did not reply to further requests for comment.
Among those who received information about the story but declined to pursue it were liberal outlets such as Talkingpointsmemo.com, Americablog.com, and The New Republic (The Hill, Roll Call, and Time magazine also had the Foley story, though I'm not certain when it came to their attention.) [Update, October 10, 2006 2:00PM: Talking Points Memo did not have access to the emails--and it's possible that other publications named here did not either--but all, at minimum, were aware of the salient facts of the case.] Ironically, it was ABC--which just weeks ago was being defended by Republicans and attacked by Democrats for airing The Path to 9/11--that finally ran the story. The network obtained the emails from a person who is scrupulously non-partisan.
If this was all a plot to hurt the G.O.P.'s chances in the midterm elections, why did the original source for the story begin approaching media outlets a full year ago? If either of the Florida papers had gone to press with the story last year, or if Harper's had published this spring, as the source hoped, the Foley scandal would have died down long ago. A stronger case could be made that the media, including Harper's, dropped the ball and inadvertently protected Foley and covered up evidence of the congressman's misconduct.
Oh, and by the way, I have never relied on Drudge for "reliable" information - but have gotten some good stuff there sometimes... I was too naive, though, in discerning their distortion - ne'ermore!