Hastert should resign?

[FinanceDude]

Intersting thread..............

I always keep in mind the following "rules"

1)If a Dem does something very wrong, he is "troubled", "has problems", and we "support him"..........

2)If a GOP member does something wrong, it's "hang him high", "I'm livid", and "They should ALL resign"..........

Thanks for clarifying things.............where's the Independent party signup??

 

[brewer12345]

OK, I withdraw my statement. I was wrong. The outspoken Liberals on the board would not agree what Studds and Frank did was wrong.

My bad. I just didn't know you would support those guys.

Studds appears to have been a sleaze who should have been hung up by his priates, with some handy pinata bats left nearby.

Frank? Looks like an adult who had a relationship with another consenting adult. His partner was not exactly a good choice, but I think we could say that about lots of elected officials. How do you equate a relationship between two consenting adults with a perv Congressman molesting the under-age pages? Shut off the Rush Limbaugh once in a while and think for yourself.

Oh yeah, I forgot: its all Clinton's fault!

 

[FinanceDude]

Studds appears to have been a sleaze who should have been hung up by his priates, with some handy pinata bats left nearby.

Frank? Looks like an adult who had a relationship with another consenting adult. His partner was not exactly a good choice, but I think we could say that about lots of elected officials. How do you equate a relationship between two consenting adults with a perv Congressman molesting the under-age pages? Shut off the Rush Limbaugh once in a while and think for yourself.

Oh yeah, I forgot: its all Clinton's fault!

Hey brewster, when are you appearing on Letterman? I'll get the Tivo ready to roll...............

 

[ladelfina]

The reason Foley is different is the fact that, not only did other Republicans know and cover it up.. but that he was the BIG MAN on the Republican bandwagon w/r/t child porn / Internet / sex offender database and so on. That was Foley's whole political shtick and they continued to go along along with it even though they knew the fox hawk was guarding the chicken coop. Studds was not put in charge of officially investigating child pornography that I recall... nor do I remember any particular outpouring of "support".

FinanceDude, take a look at Foley who's now scrambling to position himself as a victim: he's going to "re-hab" (apparently with the Scientologists!).. his lawyer now says he was molested by a clergyman... I don't want to cast aspersions or say that he didn't have these problems, but isn't this from the "typical liberal whiner" playbook of excuses? Will Republicans chime in with: "he is "troubled", "has problems", and we "support him"?

It's not a matter of one creepy guy or another.. it's the whole climate of denial, hypocrisy, and delusion that the Republicans cultivate that makes my blood boil. When rumors circulated that he was gay, Foley said they were "revolting and unforgivable." Gingrich said no-one did anything about Foley because it might have been construed as gay-bashing (!) Matt Drudge says 16-years olds are "beasts". (!!!)

I just don't get this current generation of Republicans.. are they all closeted gays and pedophiles? Several years back it was crucial to our national interest to be able to examine photos of Clinton's penis..

 

[FinanceDude]

The reason Foley is different is the fact that, not only did other Republicans know and cover it up.. but that he was the BIG MAN on the Republican bandwagon w/r/t child porn / Internet / sex offender database and so on. That was Foley's whole political shtick and they continued to go along along with it even though they knew the fox hawk was guarding the chicken coop. Studds was not put in charge of officially investigating child pornography that I recall... nor do I remember any particular outpouring of "support".

FinanceDude, take a look at Foley who's now scrambling to position himself as a victim: he's going to "re-hab" (apparently with the Scientologists!).. his lawyer now says he was molested by a clergyman... I don't want to cast aspersions or say that he didn't have these problems, but isn't this from the "typical liberal whiner" playbook of excuses? Will Republicans chime in with: "he is "troubled", "has problems", and we "support him"?

It's not a matter of one creepy guy or another.. it's the whole climate of denial, hypocrisy, and delusion that the Republicans cultivate that makes my blood boil. When rumors circulated that he was gay, Foley said they were "revolting and unforgivable." Gingrich said no-one did anything about Foley because it might have been construed as gay-bashing (!) Matt Drudge says 16-years olds are "beasts". (!!!)

I just don't get this current generation of Republicans.. are they all closeted gays and pedophiles? Several years back it was crucial to our national interest to be able to examine photos of Clinton's penis..

A couple bad apples, and now ALL Republicans are gay? That is a stretch.........

Per usual, on Capitol Hill, the two parties have nothing to do but fight like rival frats............because that's what to me Congress is...........a bunch of frat boys trying to outdo each other................

I can always count on things getting interesting in EVEN NUMBERED YEARS:

2000, 2002, 2004, 2006.....................

I actually hope the DEMS win Congress, so they can find out how whacked the whole system is, and then I'll sit back and watch..............

 

[ladelfina]

I read somewhere yesterday that NRCC chair Reynolds (who convinced Foley to run again) personally tried to cut a deal with ABC: exclusive interview if they didn't go public with some of the stuff.. can't find it now.. but Foley did contribute $100k to the NRCC at the end of July!

Edit: oops! sorry it was not Reynolds, but Reynolds' chief of staff Kirk Fordham (who had been Foley's chief of staff):
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

On Friday afternoon, a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley tried to cut a deal with ABC's Brian Ross.

The correspondent, who had dozens of instant messages that Foley sent to teenage House pages, had asked to interview the Florida Republican. Foley's former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.

"I said we're not making any deals," Ross recalls. He says the Internet made the story possible, because on Thursday he posted a story on his ABC Web page, the Blotter, after obtaining one milder e-mail that Foley had sent a 16-year-old page, asking for a picture. Within two hours, former pages had e-mailed Ross and provided the salacious messages. The only question then, says Ross, was "whether this could be authenticated."

And FOX News? IDs Foley as a Democrat! now THAT's Fair and Balanced ™!

---
No, "all Republicans" are not gay.. but I think a certain number are.."conflicted". A lot of the recent right-wing issues circulate around sex: no gay marriage, abstinence over condoms, no morning-after pill, sodomy laws.. in TX/NC they keep working hard to ban dildos! (your tax dollars truly at work!) They seem interested beyond a reasonable measure in the private sexual conduct of Americans.

Of course, as Hastert says and Sean Hannity agrees: the Foley flap is all a big liberal conspiracy..

 

[youbet]

but I think a certain number are.."conflicted".

And there does seem to be some truth to that ladelfina. For example, while I strongly disagree with Studd's activities with the 17 year old page, I have to admit Studds stood right up and defended, rather than denied, his actions. There didn't seem to be, at least in the Wikepedia version of the story I read, any remorse or guilt. He did something he thought was, and continues to think is, OK. No conflict in his mind. And he was rewarded with being re-elected. No doubt about where he stands.......

In the cases of Crane and Foley, they do seem conflicted. They did the deeds despite an outer pretention of being above that sort of thing. At first discovery of their deeds, they resign, run and hide. Shame and guilt. Now Foley is coming out with some other defense but, just the same, there does seem to be conflict between what they say they stand for and what they did.

I am not supporting any of these activities and am 100% against them.

 

[FinanceDude]

Its from wherever mickj's mom is from, wherever that is. She was also talking about this "Dirty Sanchez" thing, but I don't go in for those Republican sexual practices.

How did a nice Dem like you get in the Wall Street game? Seems like a lonely place for a lib................

 

[eridanus]

For example, while I strongly disagree with Studd's activities

In the cases of Crane and Foley,

You, apparently, are more concerned with obfuscation than the current scandal.

The pages of years past were WARNED about Foley. Nothing happened. It's been going on for years.

Are you more interested in partisan politics or are you more interested in protecting the pages and making sure it doesn't occur again?

 

[ladelfina]

despite an outer pretention of being above that sort of thing.

Youbet: EXACTLY.. and not just "being above it" but actually going through the pretense of rolling up their sleeves, digging into the muck and getting that dirty job done for us.. THAT's where I see the Big Lie!

The Democrats IIRC did not make excuses for Stubbs. When the dust settles, where will most Republicans come down..? That is the question. Fair Lady Katherine (Harris) wants to go after "the media". What a surprise.

 

[ladelfina]

I looove Glenn Greenwald:

Mark Foley and the Unmasked Republican Party
Denny Hastert is smack in the middle of one of the tawdriest and ugliest sex scandals in American political history. As a result, he has been the target of aggressive criticism, even from a few members of his own party, and, by all accounts, is desperately battling to keep his job.

In need of moral absolution and support from a respected and admired figure who possesses moral authority among Hastert's morally upstanding Republican base, to whom does Hastert turn? A priest or respected reverend? An older wise political statesman with a reputation for integrity and dignity? No, there is only one person with sufficient moral credibility among the increasingly uncomfortable moralistic Republican base who can give Hastert the blessing he needs:

Rush Limbaugh. And so that is where Hastert went yesterday in order to obtain the Decree that He Did Nothing Wrong.

As much as I tried -- and, trust me, I really tried -- I couldn't expunge this picture from my mind yesterday because, in all its visceral hideousness, it really illustrates what I think is the principal reason why this Foley scandal is resonating so strongly. This is the real face of the ruling Republican party, and it has been unmasked -- violently -- by the exposure of Mark Foley and his allies who protected and harbored him.

If the term "moral degenerate" has any validity and can be fairly applied to anyone, there are few people who merit that term more than Rush Limbaugh. He is the living and breathing embodiment of moral degeneracy, with his countless overlapping sexual affairs, his series of shattered, dissolved marriages, his hedonistic and illegal drug abuse, his jaunts, with fistfulls of Viagra (but no wife), to an impoverished Latin American island renowned for its easy access to underage female prostitutes.

Tell it, brother!

 

[sgeeeee]

Intersting thread..............

I always keep in mind the following "rules"

1)If a Dem does something very wrong, he is "troubled", "has problems", and we "support him"..........

2)If a GOP member does something wrong, it's "hang him high", "I'm livid", and "They should ALL resign"..........

Thanks for clarifying things.............where's the Independent party signup??

Always seems exactly opposite this to me.

 

[sgeeeee]

I don't get you on that one. "Takes too long to matter?" I would think that an investigation could be done in a few weeks, no? . . .

In Washington D.C. you think that an investigation could be done in a few weeks? Let's ask the attorneys on the board if they think that could happen knowing how many attorneys would be working for any guilty parties doing everything in their power to drag the process out to beyond the election. I don't think Washington could even get committees appointed and scheduled to meet to talk about the shape of the table in two weeks. Then they would have to talk about the camera placement in the committee room, what color microphones to use. . . I'm thinking an investigation would take at least 3 months -- if the case is simple enough.

 

[youbet]

you more interested in protecting the pages and making sure it doesn't occur again?

Yes

 

[kathyet]

Always seems exactly opposite this to me.

It seems to me that when ever any of them do something wrong they go to rehab... their all sick and we voted them in!!!! :

Kathyet

 

[ladelfina]

Greenwald again.. couldn't agree more.

Mark Foley was literally at the center of virtually every activity and law and program over the last 10 years ostensibly designed to battle the evils of Internet sex and minors. Mark Foley spent 12 years in Congress and it is not an exaggeration to say that he basically devoted his whole Congressional career to adding decades of imprisonment on to the mandatory punishments for those who use the Internet to talk about sex with children. He didn't just condemn that which he was doing. He made the crusade against it his life's work, in the most vocal and public way possible.

Mark Foley isn't some isolated case of shocking hypocrisy. Quite the contrary. People who have a publicly and vocally expressed obsession with other people's moral behavior and who want to use the power of the Government to enforce that obsession -- the Rick Santorums and Rush Limbaughs and Newt Gingrichs and Jim Bakkers and Ralph Reeds and Mark Foleys of the world -- are almost always fighting their own demons, not anyone else's.

 

[Martha]

After a number of complaints--sorry I didn't get to them earlier, I deleted from this thread the unnecessary and insulting posts.

Back to the show. . . .

 

[Cool Dood]

My two cents:

-It's always great to see a moral crusader, particularly one who made a career -- a career full of power and money -- by selling "but what about the children?!?!" to a dim-witted or crusading populace, get destroyed by his own peccadilloes, particularly in such a delightfully deserving way as this jerk.
-It's also somewhat amusing, though far less so (and in an unfortunate way), to witness "liberals" who used to fight for personal liberties now picking on a guy for being homosexual and interested in young adults, threatening to "out" other sexual "deviants" in politics, and generally being intolerant of sexual diversity.
-What actually makes this creature such an a**hole, in my opinion, isn't that he was gay or that his interest was in young adults, but his manipulative abuse of individuals under his authority -- and, on top of that and for good measure: his belief that he was above the law, his aforementioned moral crusading, and the all-around pathetic display he put on during and after his imbroglio.

(There, now everyone should hate me! ...except, of course, other rational non-partisan folks, but I know there aren't many of us.)

 

[donheff]

My two cents:

-It's also somewhat amusing, though far less so (and in an unfortunate way), to witness "liberals" who used to fight for personal liberties now picking on a guy for being homosexual and interested in young adults,

So dude, what liberals are picking on him for being gay or interested in young adults? He is being picked on for pursuing teenagers - 16 years old to be exact. Which sex isn't even an issue - at least not for liberals. I did hear Paul Weyrich on NPR today saying that Foley should have been bared from the page committee because he is gay and it is a well known *fact* that homosexuals are preoccuppied with sex. If Weyrich is what you mean by liberal ignore the rest of my rant.

 

[Nords]

So dude, what liberals are picking on him for being gay or interested in young adults? He is being picked on for pursuing teenagers - 16 years old to be exact.

So, when a blonde schoolteacher pursues a 14-year-old boy it's hot, and when an old white guy pursues 16-year-old boys he's a pedophile?

There's an inconsistency somewhere... it's a shame Cut-Throat's not here right now to help us clarify our thinking.

http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=9524.0

 

[bpp]

So, when a blonde schoolteacher pursues a 14-year-old boy it's hot, and when an old white guy pursues 16-year-old boys he's a pedophile?

There's an inconsistency somewhere...

No inconsistency: Foley is not blond. Should have dyed his hair if he wanted to stay out of trouble.

 

[Caroline]

There's an inconsistency somewhere... it's a shame Cut-Throat's not here right now to help us clarify our thinking.

Not that I could ever match Cut-Throat for wisdom and flair, but since he's gone let me give it a shot...

The inconsistency here and in the thread you referred back to, Nords, is due to folks letting (wanting) tangential issues (gender, politics, sexual orientation, personal memories and experience, etc.) cloud the only real issue in the present circumstance.

That issue is INFORMED CONSENT.

It doesn't matter who is gay, who is Republican, who enjoyed it or who thinks (s)he might have enjoyed it when (s)he was younger. Doesn't matter who initiated it, who reported it, or who's trying to make political hay out of it.

Underaged individuals are mentally immature and unable to give informed consent. That's true whether they're engaging in sexual activity or signing a contract to buy a car. An adult who is sexually involved with them in any way is taking advantage of a power / knowledge imbalance for his / her own sexual gratification. Doesn't matter whether the minor really WANTED the car, or really WANTED to do his or her teacher / priest / congressman.

Period.

 

[donheff]

Caroline said it all.

 

[Cool Dood]

donheff and Caroline:

I had written somewhat detailed responses to both of you. I reconsidered my post several times before hitting submit, and then I decided I would first PM Nords with my draft before submitting it, just to get someone else's feedback and be sure that I would avoid being disruptive. However, right before doing that, I decided that I wouldn't even go ahead with PMing Nords; I feel like my comment would have run a high risk of leading into an endless flamewar, and regardless of that it would have been generally orthogonal to the purpose of this forum, and on the whole it would have been just plain disruptive.

So, I've decided to spike my comment. In person I really enjoy getting into long, sometimes heated debates, but I just feel like it would accomplish too little here, and in the end cause too much annoyance to ourselves and to other posters. Maybe I'm being too cautious, and maybe I'll still get involved in other Internet WankeryTM on the ER forum (ok, undoubtedly I will) -- but I think this time I'll just bow out, and let my wicked repartee go unspoken. I apologize for getting started and then just leaving things off, but as I said I think I was veering too far into off-topic and flamefest territory, and I think it's best if this time I just avoid even the semblance of picking a fight. (Not that my post was intentionally caustic -- it wasn't -- just that it seemed like a minefield that would inevitably set something off.)

Once again, sorry for any disapointment. I hope you guys don't mind too much!

 

[sgeeeee]

donheff and Caroline:

I had written somewhat detailed responses to both of you. I reconsidered my post several times before hitting submit, and then I decided I would first PM Nords with my draft before submitting it, just to get someone else's feedback and be sure that I would avoid being disruptive. However, right before doing that, I decided that I wouldn't even go ahead with PMing Nords; I feel like my comment would have run a high risk of leading into an endless flamewar, and regardless of that it would have been generally orthogonal to the purpose of this forum, and on the whole it would have been just plain disruptive.

So, I've decided to spike my comment. In person I really enjoy getting into long, sometimes heated debates, but I just feel like it would accomplish too little here, and in the end cause too much annoyance to ourselves and to other posters. Maybe I'm being too cautious, and maybe I'll still get involved in other Internet WankeryTM on the ER forum (ok, undoubtedly I will) -- but I think this time I'll just bow out, and let my wicked repartee go unspoken. I apologize for getting started and then just leaving things off, but as I said I think I was veering too far into off-topic and flamefest territory, and I think it's best if this time I just avoid even the semblance of picking a fight. (Not that my post was intentionally caustic -- it wasn't -- just that it seemed like a minefield that would inevitably set something off.)

Once again, sorry for any disapointment. I hope you guys don't mind too much!

Hey cooldood, You better develop a thicker skin than that if you hope to contribute to this board. This is a group of meanies.