shotbanner.jpeg

October 06, 2006

Who's Spinning?

I, like a lot of conservatives, have been writing a bit about the Foley scandal. Like every credible conservative, I've condemned Foley's actions. I've taken a certain amount of the usual gratuitous abuse one takes for defending a Republican in this state, including a droogalanche from the Daou Report (side note; boy, was that an eye opener. I'd always figured Salon was like the NPR of the leftyweb. So - was I wrong about Salon? Or do all lefty sites attract packs of drooling philistines?).

So let's get this straight (since so many of my critics have been unable to):

  1. Mark Foley sent one or more pages a number of emails starting up to three years ago. These emails were unethical, harassing and disgusting - but not illegal. House leadership learned about them.
  2. IMs were going on at the time - but House Leadership didn't know about them. There is no credible evidence that the House GOP leadership knew anything about the IMs.
  3. The emails made it to the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald nearly a year ago - and they didn't run the story.
  4. The House leadership dealt with the emails by reprimanding Foley - last November.
  5. The IMs "somehow" found their way to ABC and others news outlets just in time to come out in time for the election, at a time when the Democrats were starting their traditional home-stretch fade.
  6. The IMs later turned out to be a prank.
Patty Wetterling's ad notwithstanding, there was no coverup. Wetterling's lies notwithstanding, the story begins and ends with Foley.

Dean Barnett says it well:

At the end of the day, Foley will be revealed as one very weird guy. And the Democrats will look more bilious and impotent than ever, spewing anger at Republicans about deeds done in the past while having no plans they’re willing to share about the future.
Let's just...moooooove on.

Moooooooooooooooooooooove on.

Posted by Mitch at October 6, 2006 07:14 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Step aside, Angryclown, I'll handle this one.

Suuuuure, Mitch, you'd like that wouldn't you! Because we've got you and your precious Repervican party over a barrel! Waka! "Over a barrel!" Get it?

Posted by: Brian Jones at October 6, 2006 07:47 AM

Yeah, the P in GOP stands for Pervert! Making moves on innocent pages when they should have been stopping Bushitler from starting a war of choice when there were no WMD.

This DAOU rant is surprisingly easy.

Posted by: Kermit at October 6, 2006 08:06 AM

Of course it's easy, Kermite. Spinning Masturgate against the Democrats is what's hard. Keep trying though!

Here's a question you guys would know the answer to. Does your party registration include free Nambla membership or is that a separate fee?

Posted by: angryclown at October 6, 2006 08:25 AM

I think Dems' strategy to suppress conservative turnout will backfire, like it did for Kerry when he "outed" Cheney's daughter in an '04 debate.

A reminder to you libs: People in glass bathhouses shouldn't throw hot stones...

http://www.humanevents.com/lists.php?id=17357

Posted by: NL at October 6, 2006 08:57 AM

Surely, Mitch, you're not reporting "later turned out to be a prank" as FACT, are you? It looks very much like that's turning out to be Drudge's wishful thinking, with no attribution and no attempt to obtain confirmation or denial.

Plus, three more pages have turned up, reporting sexually explicit e-mails and IMs from Foley.

I love your use of quotation marks around the word "somehow." It's so artful, so pregnant with implications! If you believe someone in particular provided them, I think you should come right out and say it. But in the meantime, I don't think it much matters who the messenger is when the message is true.

"Well, sure, he propositioned teenagers for sex, and we didn't do enough about it, but Democrats are evil because the scandal broke a month before the election!" isn't a terribly credible message, and that's just about all I'm hearing right now from Hastert and his crew.

Posted by: Beeeej at October 6, 2006 09:37 AM

"If you believe someone in particular provided them, I think you should come right out and say it."

I did. I said - earlier in the week - that everyting about this story screams "October Surprise". And playing "October Surprise" with something like this - minors' safety - is worse than dirty politics.

Posted by: meeyotch at October 6, 2006 09:40 AM

Yeah, *everything*, except, you know, a single actual fact.

Actually I think it's just the Republicans who are screaming "October Surprise." Possibly "whimpering" or "whining" would be closer to the mark.

Posted by: angryclown at October 6, 2006 09:46 AM

Yeah, I've gotta go with AC on this one, Mitch. "Someone in particular" means a name, an organization, a trail, some evidence, a fact - not speculation based on the timing and on other speculation.

The only thing worse than Hastert pointing baseless fingers at Soros, Clinton, ABC, and anybody but himself is the fact that there are people out there dumb enough to believe him.

Posted by: Beeeej at October 6, 2006 09:59 AM

Let's see.... North Korea claims to be preparing to conduct an underground nuclear test and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared economic sanctions won't stop Iran from enriching uranium. Naturally, the civilized world could use a clear expression of support and determination from the American political establishment right about now, but noooooooo.....the Democrats are consumed with Congressman Foley's 1995 e-mail traffic and internet chatter exposing his lifestyle choice, which up until a week ago, they wholeheartedly and unabashedly supported and embraced coast to coast.

For most voters, the primary issue in this November's election is national security and how it is defined by each party. The GOP defines it as a bunch of maniacal nutjobs out there who have murdered and terrorised millions of people and who are threatening to do worse on an even more unimaginable scale. For the Dems, the great threat to our national security is the alternative lifestyle of some members of Congress, which they used to defend or excuse but only until now, 30 days before an election, when on second thought they have decided it is an unacceptable outrage and foretells their return to power in order to better protect the country -- from members of Congress.

This is the new strategy?? This is the change of course we've been promised?? We're supposed to vote for Democrats because of Mark Foley's e-mails and internet rumors of illicit gay sex? Is that it?? This is the plan??

Good luck with that.

Posted by: Eracus at October 6, 2006 10:18 AM

Eracus, the Democrats are not concerned about his sexual orientation, just his interest in 16 year olds. Yes yes we all know that is the legal age in DC, but all agree it is morally wrong. The problem is Hastert, instead of apologizing and admitting a mistake, denied any wrong doing, then blamed others. Even if there is no cover-up (which i don't really think there is) his actions did not reinf0rce that notion.

And NL, puleeze...Cheney was the one who first who "outed" his daughter's sexual orientation for a political advantage.

Posted by: Fulcrum at October 6, 2006 10:34 AM

Beeeej,

Of course I have no name.

But while I'll buy "coincidence" in dating, shopping, sports, or just about anyplace else, in politics it's usually a pretty low-percentage guess.

Posted by: mitch at October 6, 2006 11:15 AM

"Yes yes we all know that (16) is the legal age in DC, but all agree it is morally wrong."

Uh, then why is it legal? And, why is 16 legal in so many other U.S. states if it's morally wrong?

Posted by: Ryan at October 6, 2006 11:19 AM

Been hitting up the high schools again eh Ryan?

Posted by: Fulcrumn at October 6, 2006 11:35 AM

Yes, Fulcrum, that's exactly what I was implying. Your reading comprehension continues to astound and amaze. I also enjoy cornholing puppies that are less than a year old, for that good 'ole young puppy feeling I've grown so fond of.

Way to dodge the question by making a joke insinuating that I doink high schoolers, though. How very liberal-esque of you.

Posted by: Ryan at October 6, 2006 11:59 AM

Ryan, you are so obtuse you are square. Your question was ridiculous, but to answer your question:

Yes i think it is morally wrong for a 52 year old person to make sexual advances to a 16 year old. Disagree?

Posted by: Fulcrum at October 6, 2006 12:15 PM

Foley - emails & IMs talking about diddling an intern: resigns in shame (as he should)

Clinton - diddles an intern: FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Democrat hypocrisy: Priceless.

Posted by: Dan S. at October 6, 2006 12:32 PM

Fulcrum, I agree.

But you're also being obtuse. The reason I asked the question is because I'm curious at what age it becomes skeevy to make a LEGAL advance on a 16-year-old. Would it be okay for a 20-year-old? A 25-year-old? What is the magical pervert age? I'd like to know so I can mark it on my calendar and celebrate my Perv-Day with a cake and ice cream.

Posted by: Ryan at October 6, 2006 12:43 PM

Geez Fulcrum, don't be so difficult! Ryan's updating his Haley Joel Osment Countdown Clock and he needs to know.

Posted by: angryclown at October 6, 2006 01:00 PM

Haley Joel is 18. I think he even had a DWI arrest not that long ago. I keep up on such things because I like to stick my peener in young boys.

Posted by: Ryan at October 6, 2006 01:08 PM

"Yes i think it is morally wrong for a 52 year old person to make sexual advances to a 16 year old. Disagree?"

Howzabout a 49 year old married prez getting a hummer from a 22 year old intern in the oval office? Exactly at what age disparity & level of sexual contact does justified moral outrage become blue-nosed prudery, fulcrum?

Posted by: Terry at October 6, 2006 01:44 PM

Interesting historical question, Terry. So we'll put you down as pro-gay-child-molester too?

Posted by: angryclown at October 6, 2006 02:29 PM

wait i am confused terry, was the moral outrage about the adultery and subsequent lies, or were was it about the age difference?

I think in general a 22 year old college graduate who has lived on his/her own, and has a full time job can make decision as to who they decide to have sexual encounters with, a 16 year old does not.

Posted by: Fulcrum at October 6, 2006 02:42 PM

And yet 16 is still the legal age of consent in many states. Go figure.

Unless Fulcrums advocating that 22 should be the legal age of consent. . .

See? I can intentionally misread stuff for disingenuous effect, too! It's fun!

Posted by: Ryan at October 6, 2006 03:02 PM

Fulcrum, you're forgetting that the Clinton fiasco was all about perjury for the right. See the impeachment articles if you don't believe me. On the other hand, it was the left that pushed the "it was all about the sex" line. Oh, how the dems have changed their tune since '98!

Posted by: Terry at October 6, 2006 04:02 PM

No terry, I didn't forget, but your initial question seemed to imply a moral outrage to the affair based upon the age difference, hence my question on the following post. So how exactly have the Democrats changed their tune?

Posted by: Fulcrum at October 6, 2006 04:24 PM

Fulcrum-
Changed their tune as in "If the prez has sex with an intern it's his business. Only those sex obsessed republicans think otherwise!" became "A congressman has exchanged dirty love notes with a page. Off with his head! And anyone in congress who had the slightest inkling that this might be going on must be investigated!"
Clown-
The gay thing makes it icky but hey, when I was twenty I had a sixteen year old girl friend. I didn't feel like a perv. I didn't even try to hide our shameful secret. Surely some other perv on this thread will back me up that it's okay for a twenty year old man to have sex with a sixteen year old girl. Anybody? Doug?
Damn! Now that I've admitted that in print I'll have to take it on the lam. Maybe I'll hide out in San Francisco. Wait! Curses! That's Nancy Pelosi's district! Her sex cops will be on me like a psychic on a rich widow! Looks like I'm going away for spell. Nice rappin' with you fellas. Remember -- don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Posted by: Terry at October 6, 2006 05:02 PM

Another thing the left does is pick and choose when to call children "children" and when to call them young adults able to make their own decisions (like kill their offspring). They are either helpless lambs or savvy "young people" ready and able to make their own decisions in life. Which is it when it comes to a 16 yr old male page? When I was 16 there is no way in hell anyone could "harass" me more than once. Most girls know they can shut that down instantly. "Boys" should too.

Posted by: colleen at October 6, 2006 11:11 PM

So Colleen is also pro-molester. I guess if Foley had tried to get it on with a fetus, you'd think *that* was wrong.

Posted by: angryclown at October 7, 2006 06:20 AM

AC said,

"I guess if Foley had tried to get it on with a fetus, you'd think *that* was wrong."

Come on AC...

Their little hearts may beat at 18 days but their little fingers and toes are still webbed. They wouldn't be able to type IM's and besides using a ruler would be next to impossible invitro so Foley wouldn't be interested.

Posted by: Doug at October 7, 2006 11:10 AM

Oops, I mean in utero...

Posted by: Doug at October 7, 2006 11:12 AM

Don't you *dare* tell me that fetuses can't IM, Doug! Oops, gotta run. Just got a blackberry message from Terry Schiavo.

Posted by: angryclown at October 7, 2006 03:10 PM

Yeah, that's hilarious "boys". Make fun of babies that are killed for convenience sake and get all up in arms about a homo congressman sending crappy mesages to boys that are old enough to take care of themselves. When, if it were a Democrat, it would be fine and nobody's business. I wish I really were scary, Angry Clown. You need some scaring. Your soul is ugly.

Posted by: colleen at October 7, 2006 03:31 PM

That's pretty sick, clown. Poor Terry Schiavo, struck down in her youth,lying in a hospital bed for decades, her brain damaged, dependant on others to act in her best interest and keep her alive. And you mock her suffering to make a cheap political point.
So long, clown. underneath that makeup there's a nest of maggots. You are no longer worth even the most minimal exercise of attention. You are BANNED. But I will pray for you.
God bless you, you poor old drunken sot.

Posted by: Terry at October 7, 2006 11:53 PM

Terry said,

"You are no longer worth even the most minimal exercise of attention.

but then he said,

"You are BANNED. But I will pray for you."

Further proof that Republicans can't follow through on their commitments...

Posted by: Doug at October 8, 2006 12:50 AM

Actually Doug I'm registered as an independant. Always have been.

Posted by: Terry at October 9, 2006 02:51 AM

Fine with me, Terry. Bill Frist just watched a video of you and diagnosed you as brain-dead.

Posted by: angryclown at October 9, 2006 09:00 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi