digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Hastert: Foley Scandal Is Conspiracy To "Get To Me" & "Affect Our Election"

thinkprogress.org — (Audio) Interviewed by Rush Limbaugh today, House Speaker Hastert said Mark Foley ’s inappropriate behavior was "a political issue" and promised Rush that "we are going on offense."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • flernk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38It's like the ultimate edition to NBC's "To Catch a Predator" series.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -9/+45Good God, now they're trying to turn Foley into a Martyr?

      I might NOT vote conservative this election. If they keep pulling this $hit, I'm voting Libertarian.
    • TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6Come ON denny, the guy resigned as soon as there was even a HINT of impropriety.
    • poxonyou, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33skyshock21: "I might NOT vote conservative this election" Out of curiousity, why will you still vote Republican? How much further and worse can it get before you decide it's enough?
    • monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"a HINT of impropriety."

      ?

      I didn't see him resigning while what's exposed was just "overly friendly"

      but then the word "HINT" and "improper" might be too vague for republicans.
    • danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13It's pretty obvious that a conservative person does not have any other options. The two party system is breaking right before our eyes, and there is not a third party with enough influence to stand up and fill the void. Libretarians are the only ones with a hope.
    • reeder, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Libertarian, seriously? Most libertarians are just Republicans pretending to be cool. If they were really libertarian, they wouldn't vote for their pocketbooks over everyone else's social freedoms.
    • adb22791, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5If you all watched the Colbert report you wouldn't be so mis-informed. I pity you. To redeem yourself, watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HsZqKe_mek

    • zeiben, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Libertarians are a little whacky, if you ask me. I think the only hope for a third party is for it to spawn out of one of the existing parties in a bid to return to traditional party goals and eschew corporate influence (which maybe rules out this coming from the republicans). Anyway, a Dem 2.0 or a Rep 2.0 party would have a good chance
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"It's pretty obvious that a conservative person does not have any other options. The two party system is breaking right before our eyes, and there is not a third party with enough influence to stand up and fill the void. Libretarians are the only ones with a hope."

      Third parties can only form between the two existing parties. They need to be moderates and need to be able to win votes from both existing parties. The libertarians are too extreme on their economics and too extreme on their social issues for them to win any serious size of support.

      (Not to mention that as the absolute ideological opposite of communists, their ideas are every bit as unlikely to work when exposed to the complexities of the real world.)
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@Bioshocker:
      Liberty is simple. Liberty works. The only thing that screws is up is government overstepping their bounds.

      It's not complicated. It's easy to get. It's not doomed to fail like communism. Communism is doomed to fail because it requires a big government. A big government will fail. Libertarians want small government and the rest is voluntary interaction between individuals and stopping the enforcement of vice crimes. We also believe the most good happens when money is voluntary given to the needy instead of taken by force and redistributed as the politicians decide. Oh yeah that's so extreme!!
    • jhelmer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0> Out of curiosity, why will you still vote Republican? How much further
      > and worse can it get before you decide it's enough?

      How much worse? Well, they could be Democrats! I am no fan of the modern Republican party - they need to get back to what's important (smaller government, personal freedom, national defense) and get away from the religious nonsense and the idiocy of trying to win moderate votes by spending like Democrats. The religion obsessed retards in the Republican party are a real problem for me.

      On the other hand, our only other choice is a party that is ruled by wacky special interests. The Democrats are an unholy alliance of socialists (surely you can live on 40% of your current income if the government makes up for 25% of that loss by giving out more food stamps and piss poor medical coverage), unions (progress is evil - I insist you allow me to fail some more!), enviro-nazis (that butterfly over there is at least twice as important as you are) and the peace-at-any-cost losers (gee, let's just quit fighting - I'm sure the other side will do the same). In addition, I would guess a full 1/3 of the Democratic party has just completely lost their damn mind. Those gullable dip-***** watched "Loose Change" and "Fahrenheit 911" and are convinced that Bush was responsible for 9/11. Seriously, how can I in good conscience support these nut-jobs.

      Yeah, I have a real problem with the Republicans... It's just a fraction the size of the problem I have with the Democrats... It really is too bad the Libertarians are not a viable alternative.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6bioshocker:

      >(Not to mention that as the absolute ideological opposite of communists, their ideas are every bit as unlikely to work when exposed to the complexities of the real world.)

      Amen brother! It's a simplistic philosophy that covers everything in economic terms and can't reflect communal, societal benefits at all. The Mona Lisa? An expensive photo that has no value beyond it's monetary one. Polluted rivers? Hey, if it's a problem some private company will fix it. Monopolies? Stick your fingers in your ears and yell that they don't exist. Public schools? Why, teaching to benefit the next generation is theft! Etc. etc.
  • hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32If they're "the insulation" to protect this country then we're all in deep sh$$. Hastert still just doesn't get the fact that he protected a predator to save a House seat. To blame it on election year politics is just sickening..but not unexpected coming from this dirtbag.
  • shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30umm if it was an attempt to get Hastert, then why didn't Hastert himself turn this pedophile in when he learned about the situation at least months ago?

    Fact is a lot of congressmen are rightfully going to burn, because not only was Foley a pedophile, many of these assholes have known about it for an extended period of time (pages were warned 2001 about foley for christsakes!!!). Concealing a crime is also a crime.
    • danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11This is the most perplexing thing of all. Why now? What happened that caused the pages to wait. I think the Pages are a lot smarter then people are giving them credit for. They realized this guy was creepy from the initial emails saw that the corrupt politicians weren't going to do anything about it. So one or two of them faked interest in the congressman and saved the IM's and released right before election thus screwing the perp. and the scumbags that should have been protecting them. I applaud them if this is the case.
    • shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11daniel, I'm sure most were too embarrassed or afraid to say anything, so its more likely that one of them finally leaked something to the press and now that the cat is out of the bag, others are willing to come forward with their story (though most are remaining anonymous because again, there is shame and fear involved with this, just like any other molestation or rape victim).

      Also, they were children when this happened, even if they were 16-17, and now they are early twenties or so and probably more willing to come forward.
    • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Why now? Because Foley resigned after a news story was published about these suspected e-mails and IMs. Like I've said in other threads, these 16-year-olds were pages, and know something about the politics of the politicians better than someone who hasn't been immersed in this situation, and are likely to either respect or fear the power of these politicians.

      On top of that, it has been seen in many, MANY past cases that the victims of such crimes have a difficult time ever coming forward about it, no matter who the perpetrator is. The news story and resignation is just an opportunity to talk about something that many thought they never had.
    • Saccharin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why now? Perhaps they thought nobody would believe them until now.
    • zydeco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah. It's not like some major news outlet like Fox News had this information up until now...um...oopsnevermind.

      http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_kim_gong_061003_fox_news_failed_to_i.htm
  • chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27All this spinning by the right is making me dizzy.
  • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Classic, it's the "if you force me to resign, the Terrorists have WON" defense :)) :))
  • poxonyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+36Oh no, he caught on to the conspiracy! The pro-terrorist, anti-American, family hating, Satan worshipping Democratic party set this whole thing up to bring Hastert and the Republican party down. Foley was actually an undercover Democrat. The liberals carefully worked with Brian Ross, and the editors of major newspapers (who knew of it before but did not publish the information), to release all of this information 5 weeks before the next election. They forced Hastert and the other Republicans who knew about it many months ago to stay silent. [/sarcasm if you didn't figure it out]
    • Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Now they can practice their witchcraft freely! Babies will be killed by the hundreds in the streets and their fetal heads put on stakes in the front yards of Christian families! Women will be faced with options, get JOBS, put shoes on, and never come back to your 'tradition'-loving ass! Gays will foricate with the top spires of all our most famous landmarks, cleaning the offage from their glistening bodies with, alternately, the tatters of Lewenski's dress and the once-proud American flag! Clinton and Gore will laugh and burn down churches with low-cost, efficient bio-fuels!

      Worse still, bums who capitalize on spreading blind partisan hatred while pretending that this is somehow doing GOOD for the U.S. will be out of work, and have to get their prescription meds like the rest of us do - through their FRIENDS.

      Christ Almighty! What IS a boy to do?
      (ThismessagehasbeenapprovedbythepeoplewhoGodwouldvoteforifhewasn'tsobusytellingourPresidenthowtowinthegloriouswaragainsttheA-rabs)
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i heard the dems greased up the pages to make them more of a temptation for foley
    • xlocust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hahaha. I read posts not unlike poxonyou's every time I visit www.freerepublic.com but those people are dead serious (and to be fair, people are almost just as crazy at the freerepublic's counterpart, the DU). I suggest to anyone that goes there to get in on the 'prey for president Bush' thread and join the 'gay agenda' ping list. Be Careful what you post though, they are not as forgiving and open to debate as on digg.
    • poxonyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Fox News, mistake or not, has been displaying "(D-FL)" next to/under "Mark Foley." I don't sit around and watch Fox News all day, so I'm not sure how often this "mistake" has occured.
      http://tinyurl.com/zaajm (JPG image)
      http://tinyurl.com/jl2u7 (article discussing this)
  • fnaqzna, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Hastert should have considered that before he decided to aid and abet a criminal.
  • patience, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10These fools should have gone on "offense" a long time ago and rooted out this pervert.

    To take the sports analogy further:
    They have had their turn on the field. Its time to try a new team. One in which desiring the waterboys is not tolerated.
  • thoughtcancer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33Wow. This guy has some huge balls. "Our Election"?? "Going On The Offense"?? Dude, your party is full of moralizing pedophiles, soulless demagogues, and power-mad sociapaths! You have no right to go on any offense whatsoever! Oh, and btw, it's not "your" election; it's OUR Election, and your ass is getting voted out!
    • mikemac, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, I believe he meant "Our Election" in the manner befitting a citizen of the United States, in the inclusive "Our freedoms" sense, not the exclusive "Our toy truck and you can't play with it" sense.

      Going on the offense is almost definitely a distraction. Odds are, they'll pull up their "November Surprise" a month early. Mark my words, this will be gone from the public conciousness within a month. I only hope the Democrats have something up their sleeves for November.

      While I applaud anything that takes a child molester (and a Republican) out of the House, I have to truly wonder just how much of this is righteous outrage and how much is political jockeying. Seems to me that the Dems are just smelling blood in the water and attacking with everything they've got. Those of you who are truly livid about this, try to remember that this is only a minor weakness in the GOP, and it will not grow much bigger. Don't distract yourselves from the real issues.
    • loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The Dems should play this for all its worth. It worked for the Republicans with their self-righteous outrage over Clinton. Hell, they're still blaming Clinton for ***** like this.
    • Marmot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If it were just that Foley were a pedophile, then it would only be about him. Now that there's the air of a wider coverup, it's about the party as a whole. To paraphrase, it's not the pedo, it's the coverup.

      Even if the pedo thing blows over in a couple of weeks, the damage is done. I'm sure the Democrats are putting together ads even as we speak. They'll portray the Republican party as corrupt and power hungry--even if it means covering up a story about a pedophile. At least if they're smart, they will... I'm sure they'll find a way to get outfoxed though.
    • spisska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@mikemac
      "Going on the offense is almost definitely a distraction. Odds are, they'll pull up their "November Surprise" a month early. Mark my words, this will be gone from the public conciousness within a month. I only hope the Democrats have something up their sleeves for November."

      If Denny Hastert was smart, he'd resign while denying responsibility -- essentially saying that 'I understand that I could have done more to stop these despicable acts, even though I really had no idea it had gone so far. We had information and did not perform a thorough investigation. I accept full responsibility for failing to catch Foley and act earlier.'

      That's what a real leader would do. And had he done that, it would distract everybody (particularly socially conservative voters) from the scandal, make Hastert and martyr, make Foley a victim, and make the whole thing blow over rather quickly.

      By stonewalling, he guarantees that this will spin out far longer and be far more damaging to the Republicans than it might have been.

      Once the focus is no longer on Foley's diddling of underage boys but rather on who knew what and when, and why didn't they do something, then there are a whole lot more people in trouble.

      This will not be forgotten in November, and Hastert will not be the last one implicated. Based on the nature of DC, expect a few more Members of Congress, from both parties, to be accused of diddling and covering up in the next few weeks.

    • CoolWind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Marmot. "They'll portray the Republican party as corrupt and power hungry.." Come on. Nobody's going to believe that.
  • flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"Affect OUR Election"

    wtf? since when do they think they control the election. Sounds a little smug to me.
  • reed311, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Guys, Republicans are always the victim; even when they control every facet of the government and media.
    • flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7yeah, look at the war on christmas, they lose every year.
    • GeneralFailure0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not this year. This year we've got the Blitzkrieg Against Grinchitude.
  • EvilDr.X, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5OK, believe me, I'm the last guy to defend any of these pricks, but I wish people would quit throwing words like "pedophile" and "predator" around. There's a world of difference between what Foley is (a stupid, stupid man who likes younger guys) and a pedophile (a sick, sick individual who likes young children). There's not a whole lot of difference between what Foley did and what Clinton did, I think what people are hanging up on is the homosexuality.
    • michaelfitz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Foley has proven himself that he is a pedophile. That needs no debating.
    • EvilDr.X, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5He's no more a pedophile than the millions of straight guys who were jacking it to Britney Spears before she turned 18. He had sex with a minor, yes. It's illegal, but that doesn't make him a pedophile. John Mark Karr is a pedophile, Foley is not. Believe me, I don't want to defend this prick, but quit getting carried away by the artificially imposed definition of what a child is.
    • tiroger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Pedophile: an adult whose primary sexual interest is in children

      Last I checked, these kids were all under 18. Clinton received a blowjob from a consenting adult. If you think these are the same, then you're either an idiot or in denial.
    • shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@ EvilDr.

      god you are stupid. Clinton had an extra-marital affair with an adult. No one gives a ***** about the homosexuality, Foley was sending explicit material to underage boys...guess what? That's pedophilia, or to make it simpler for you to comprehend, child molestation.

      What Clinton did is legal, only his perjury was illegal. Everything Foley did here, and in fact all of the congressmen who knew about it and did nothing, is criminal and illegal. Child molesters are usually killed or beaten in prison, because even among hardened criminals it is considered absolutely disgusting.

      Please point me to the last time someone was jailed in America for having an affair?
    • PabloIV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Dude, no, no NO!

      Monica Lewinsky or any of the other Clinton women were at the time of his shameful infidelity to his wife, at least in their 20s and as such intelligent consenting adults.

      As far as what has been reported all of Foley's advances were directed at under aged boys, not younger men or guys or whatever BOYS!!! If the guy wants to hit on his 23 year old intern well that's another story, I don't mind that he's gay. I mind that he likes kids.

      The guy gets the title... PEDOPHILE!
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12In the state of Florida that IM message would be a crime. I think the clinical term is pedophilia. The page was a 16 year old boy, gay or not he's targeting under age boys.
    • poxonyou, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I have to agree. It's creepy and sick, and I'm not defending what happened, but as far as what we know so far, it's not *pedophilia*, "psychosexual disorder in which there is a preference for sexual activity with prepubertal children." Also, "In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also sometimes used to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent." Age of consent varies between 16 to 18 in the US. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Consent.png
    • EvilDr.X, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Again, a world of difference between a 16-17 year old and a young child, and if you think differently, then your head is up your ass.

      Honestly, I'm a died-in-the-wool, bleeding-heart, Islamofascist-appeasing liberal, and I hate Hastert and the whole lot. I'm glad to see this ***** coming down, but this disingenuous, "think of the children" ***** is just crazy.
    • EvilDr.X, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4OK, I concede. If under the legal age of consent = pedophilia, then that's what it is, but can you honestly say that there's not a difference between a prepubescent child and an almost legal hottie?
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@EvilDr.X - dude your crazy, when you have a 16 year old daughter and a 50 year old is trying to have sex with her you'll think A LOT... A ***** LOT differently.
    • EvilDr.X, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yeah, I may see it differently under such circumstances, but tell me you weren't attracted to Britney Spears or Lindsey Lohan before their 18th birthday. I'm sure their fathers would have been pissed at all the over 18 guys wanting to have sex with their children, do you think that they stopped feeling that way the day after their daughter's birthday?

      Like I said, I'm glad to see this ***** happening, but at the same time, I don't want my dislike of the other side turning me into a rabid idiot.
    • poxonyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7EvilDr.X: You're right about people being attracted to younger (but not pre-pubescent) popular stars, such as Britney Spears (when she first became famous). I think you and people responding aren't seeing eye to eye. You're talking about strict legal definitions (like what I pasted), they're seeing it from what specifically happened in this situation and what is acceptable in our society. In this case, it was a much older man in a position of extreme power directly targeting teens.
    • EvilDr.X, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yes, exactly. I'm not arguing that he was wrong, I'm just saying that there's a difference between a pedophile and this idiot. The cries of "sicko!" and "pedophile!" smack more of partisanship than anything else.

      Oh, and thanks for being reasonable and not just calling me stupid.
    • infopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5People who're still hung up on Foley himself are missing the point. Foley's long past being the issue. The issue is the cover-up. And that, regardless of who says otherwise, is 115% fair game, & deserves to be played "up to Green River," as us ol' country boys say. }:)

      (For city kids not familiar with the analogy, "Green River" was a well-known knife-maker a century or so back. If you were involved in a knife fight & somebody said to the other guy, "Give it to him up to Green River!", it meant you were about to get a shiv in your gut all the way up to the hilt, where the maker's trademark was. ]evil grin])
    • piznut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We only know what Foley got busted for. I dont think it's a huge leap of faith to draw the conclusion that a man with that sort of power with a taste for young boys wasnt able to actually live out his fantasies...time will tell.
  • michaelfitz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4COPS: DC edition. that's all I can say.
    and it's sequel: COPS: Republican Senators.
    :-)
    • PabloIV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Representative, the guy's a dirty ass douche, but you should still get the title right.
  • timla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Purely form a political standpoint,

    Hastert sat on this item, hoping he could cover it up until the elections were done. He made this an election issue by not dealing with it months ago when they had enough time to deal with it and do damage control and move on (The attention span of the American electorate is very short)

    Now they are caught up in this thing 35 days before the mid-term elections, looks like they did this to themselves.
    • infopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Dang right, brother. "Hoist on their own petard," as the old saying goes. }:)
  • michaelfitz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7more bull from Limbaugh?
  • Breakdown05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9sick pedophiles in gov't. This is the same kind of stuff that happened years ago, but the children were scared to go to jail or even for their lives if they spoke up against a political power.

    And I only knew this because the supposedly burned last copy of the Discovery Channel program was leaked on the internet.
  • RatTrap, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4STFU about foley already hes a ***** pedo and should be put in jail, ok we get it.
  • rustycarmelinas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Come on everyone. Isn't it obvious by now that liberal Democrats have implanted their own perverted sexual thoughts into the brains of decent, God-fearing Congressmen like Foley, forcing them to seduce young boys against their will? Clearly now is the time to cut taxes on all billionaires and then invade Iran!
  • jron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3are you sure? what isn't political in the lives of politicians? thank you Rush! grrrrrrrr.
  • TSK06, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1People, you know Hastert is correct, right? You don't actually think that this thing which has been going on for years just randomly came out right before an important election? Of course not, the reporter for ABC who got this story out knew about it from at least August, from his own admission. He did not tell the world about it then, instead he waited for a good time. The timing of this scandal is not a coincidence, which is all Hastert, he did not deny Foley is a scum bag or anything. In-fact, he is pushing for a full investigation into who knew about this beforehand and why it wasn't reported to the proper authorities.
    • Jack9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6And the fact that someone is capitalizing on the criminal act means what? That it didn't happen? Why are you caring that it's before an election? It's either a criminal act by an official or it's not. It is? Ok then, out he goes and out go anyone who helped him. You should be THANKFUL that this is being brought out during election time, or else there's no chance of ANY fallout given the 3-second memory of the american people. Rule by the masses! LIKE IT OR LEAVE IT
    • tslag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5August was not a long time ago. Probably long enough to fact check a big story.

      On the other hand, 2005 was a long time ago, which is when Hastert knew about it.

      And if it was a timed release, why wouldn't they wait another 2 or 3 weeks, leaving less time for the whole thing to blow over?
    • infopro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Hastert knew about it a damn sight longer than that, had all the time in the world to do something about it, & willfully chose to do nothing. In the real world they put people in jail for that, y'know -- Something about "accessory after the fact" & "obstruction of justice," I believe they call it. }:)
    • TSK06, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@ Jack9

      It may do you some good to read what I said, I quote myself "he did not deny Foley is a scum bag." Never did I say that because ABC profitted from this case, it did not happen; but don't you think ABC are also scum bags for delaying it and allowing this to continue? I care that it is right before the election because the ABC reporter was sitting on it, basically. ABC is A) being partisan B) prolonged pedophilia by not telling the information to the proper authorities. Neither the Republicans nor ABC told anyone until the right time came, ABC's right time just happened to come sooner and they were the first to tell everyone.

      @ tslag

      August is three months ago. That is by his own admission, it is very likely it was longer than that. You also have to wonder, who told him about this? Probably a Democrat, wonder how long that guy was sitting on it?

      Hastert did not know about this in 2005, he found out late Q1 2006.

      They did not wait a couple weeks because news takes some time to reach the people and let them think about it. Had they waited three weeks, it would also be 100% certain this was a timed release, where as now it is only 99.99% certain.
    • TSK06, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ infopro

      Check your facts. Hestert knew only a couple months more than the reporter did, and the guy who told the reporter probably knew at least as long as Hestert did. What Foley did was not illegal at the time that he did it. The only legistlation about sex offenders that he passed was part of Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which is what all these organizations seem to be crying, that he'll fall under his own legislation. The incident happened mostly in the summer of 2005, and totally stopped before the above act was passed as law. Ever heard of no ex-post facto law? When he did it, it was very likely legal, he cannot be punished for it now that it is illegal. Since it was legal, Hestert did not obstruct justice, there was no law against it. Hestert and the Republicans however did tell him not to talk to the kid again and never to repeat this crap, they took appropriate action in my mind, at least as much as you can expect them to when it is their own party; Democrats would do no different,
    • kerrle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@TSK06
      Having actually worked at a newspaper, I'd say that, rather than "sitting on it", it's much more likely that the reporter was simply working to get independent confirmation.

      Going to press with a story that big and evidence or testimony from only one person is professional suicide.
    • graphictruth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would be assuming that ABC would be double-checking everything for Karl Rove's fingerprints before going public with this - and if the timing happened to work out, a little "even" along the way ain't a whole lot to ask.
  • jeremycobert, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0i am still shocked that there is a gay republican in office!!!! or was in office.
    its kind of like the time i found out there are people over 30 who vote democrat.....
    too bad the libertarians cant run a real candidate to contend for the position.

    on topic: if the FBI didn't find anything to investigate, how was hastert supposed to take care of anything ? I'm still waiting for Barny franks and bill Clinton to resign, oh wait ... never mind.
  • kcmcgruff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5R
    E
    S
    I
    G
    N
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Of course this is all about politics. Look how many Digg stories have been spawned by this issue. Do you think this would have even made the front page of Digg if this guy was not a congressman?

    It's pretty naive to think that the timing of the release of the evidence to the press a month before the election was a cooincidence, especially since the evidence is a year old.
  • kulinarisk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's damage control. Foley is just one seat! Thought about Iraq lately?
  • galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So what if this is also (not all) about politics. The Dems would be ultra stupid to not politicize this sex-affair of a member of the moral majority party. Or does anyone think the Republicans would be hush-hush about this if the situation were reversed? Especially if they could exploit it before an election? Please, they, together with their massive propaganda machine (MSM), would be 1000x as loud. They would already discuss how this lead to the shooting of Amish children...
  • kulinarisk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1or torture?
  • StinkyHobo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I said this on another website, but it bears repeating. The thing that gets me about Rush's hinting that it must have been a set-up by the Dems is that it absolves Foley of his responsibilty in the situation. Even if the Dems did orchestrate this (and really, is this the kind of thing they're focusing their attention on?), certainly, if Foley weren't a pedophile, he wouldn't have fallen into the trap.
    • TSK06, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ StinkyHobo

      "(and really, is this the kind of thing they're focusing their attention on?)"

      Uh, yes? Ever heard of mud slinging. Nobody is saying Foley is not a pedophile, what people are saying is that the Democrats sat on this and did not tell anyone for a long time just like the Republicans did, except the Democrats did it in order to gain a political advantage at the right time.
    • Jolls, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=age+of+consent+maryland&btnG=Search

      Age of Consent in Maryland is 16. Thus all Foley was doing was hitting on a younger man. not a child.

      However, I do by in no way think that a relationship between a 16 year old man and a 50 whatever year old man is right and think its disgusting. However, in Maryland Foley did nothing illegal, just immoral.
    • Marmot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@TSK06

      '...what people are saying is that the Democrats sat on this and did not tell anyone for a long time just like the Republicans did, except the Democrats did it in order to gain a political advantage at the right time.'


      Wouldn't you say that the Republicans knew about this too, but covered it up in order to protect a political advantage?
    • benhocking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Marmot,TSK06: See, that's the thing. There's ample evidence that the Republicans knew about it. There's wild speculation that the Democrats also knew about it. If the Republicans thought that the Democrats might know about it, wouldn't they have made sure the information was released at a less damaging time (e.g., when Foley's name could be taken off the ticket)? So, clearly the Republicans didn't think the Democrats might know about it. This doesn't prove that the Democrats didn't know about it, but it does mean that wild speculation is very wild unless there's some actual evidence supporting it.

      Is there? Other than "convenient" timing? Also, with regards to ABC sitting on it - remember Fox also knew about it far earlier and didn't release it either.
  • kulinarisk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1or Diebold?
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i really think most of america doesnt give a crap if this guy was outed now or a month from now, he is a sick pedo bastard.. it really doesnt mater to me what party he belong to, that is ssecondary. It does matter to me the comitee he belong to.
    I honestly dont think of Foley as a sick republican bastard, i just think of him as a sick bastard. As much as I hate Bush and Cheney, i cant blame this on them either. Yeah it sucks for the GOP he wears the republican moniker, but honestly i think it hurts the gop far more to try to spin this away.
    Come down hard on foley
    get out the vote for the new guy
    have him come down hard on foley.
    come out and say you wont tollerate this crap in your party (you can even add like the dems do, if you want to spin it but leave it at that, dont protest too much). BEsides for the one seat and as long as noone else is guilty of anything i dont see how this could hurt the gop if they act on it correctly and rein in their spin dogs like rush.

    every congressman that trys to justify this or trys to say the dems did it too , is losing votes everytime he opens his mouth.
  • Jolls, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0oh, and I am in no way saying he should keep his office. He should definetly resign due to inapropriate behavior. Just clarifying the whole thing about people calling him a pedo when he isn't

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=age+of+consent+maryland&btnG=Search
  • kulinarisk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bush has asked for the right to torture, and it has been given to him. And your not angry! But a politician stalking a page. All hell is lose...
  • pawchikapawpaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4yeah, Hastert? hi. also? *****.

    give it up, Enabler. fact is, foley is still a perverted mess, and the fact that you are even trying to deflect this issue as a conspiracy to get to you is just pathetic and outrageous. don't even try. you knew about it, and you're copping your way out of this mess. you knew about foley and instead of apologizing to your base on your knees, and most of all, apologizing to the teenage intern's psyche and his family, you are making this about you? ***** off. get out. and take your sorry ass boyfriend foley's assbeads too.

    other majority leaders have been expelled for a much, MUCH lesser offense. you should be ashamed of your actions.

    under the bus, both of you.
  • Jack9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@TSK06
    You obviously read what I wrote so I wont treat you with idiot your own idiot disdain. What you wrote in response was ... completely irrelevant. ABC (who does not matter in this as they have no responsibility to simply accuse people of crimes without evidence and only 3rd-4thhand knowledge) has actually taken action at a time when it will make an impact, which is appropriate. Thx for the attention.
  • MadN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"we are going on offense."

    Mission Accomplished; I am deeply offended
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5After hearing all these supposedly family-value right wing organizations come out to defend Hastert and even Foley at times, the republicans are alienating conservatives who actually care about things like family values vs getting republicans elected. Hastert, who sat on this for a year in order to not damage his party, should not talk about such things.

    Just how stupid is the GOP? Hack off some heads, Foley, Hastert, then move on. The coming election is will be a losing one for the GOP, it doesn't matter anymore. What matters is the presidential election at this point. All this spin is hurting the GOP. It's a downward spiral until they do the right thing vs crying about democrats, conspiracies, etc.
    • CoolWind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"It's a downward spiral until they do the right thing vs crying about democrats, conspiracies, etc." BRAVO!
  • bluesbyrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't Digg Foley stories!!!

    Clearly, the GOP would rather people focus on Foley than on Bush, Rice, Woodward, and
    the TRUTH about Iraq, 9/11, and all that that is beginning to surface on the web.

    Digg the RELEVANT stories people, not the diversions of our attention from what is most
    important!!!!

    Digg Woodward! Digg what Bush et. al knew before 9/11, Digg the truth, and the exposes
    of the lies!!!

    Diggs are powerful - use them wisely!!!

    Digg the truth!!!

    bluesbyrd
    • infopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can digg it. Matter of fact, I believe I already have. }:)
  • inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Let's see if I've got this straight. One of you Republicans want to check my math here?

    When there are no Republican scandals hitting the headlines, then the differences between Republicans and Democrats are vast and obvious.

    When there are scandals, the two parties are exactly the same.

    Do I have your thinking correct on this one?
    • infopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Looks like a fair assessment to me -- 11.4 out of 10 for clear thinking, good sir!
  • winkler1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hDP9UKyQ7A&eurl= - re-enactment of the IM transcripts.
  • infopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Per TSK06: "Check your facts. Hestert knew only a couple months more than the reporter did,"

    I have. You obviously didn't. };) And BTW, the man's name is Hastert. If you'd typed "Hsstert" or "Hdstert" I wouldn't have corrected it. But "a" is two rows over *&* one down from "e". Even with *my* frozen fingers I don't make typos like that. [eg]
  • infopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Per poxonyou: "Fox News, mistake or not, has been displaying "(D-FL)" next to/under "Mark Foley." I don't sit around and watch Fox News all day, so I'm not sure how often this "mistake" has occured."

    Damn, they obviously think their viewers are even dumber than we do. [lol]
  • infopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Per kerrie: "Having actually worked at a newspaper, I'd say that, rather than "sitting on it", it's much more likely that the reporter was simply working to get independent confirmation.

    "Going to press with a story that big and evidence or testimony from only one person is professional suicide."

    Exactly right. Plus I don't see how TSK can say with such certitude that H*a*stert just recently found out about it -- all he has to go on is Hastert's say-so, after all. If we buy into that line of thinking, then Boehner is a liar. If we believe TSK & Hastert, then Boehner is one. As honorable upstanding GOPers, they can't *both* be saying the exact opposite & both still be telling the truth, so the inescapable conclusion is that one or the other is either a liar or has at best semi-competent memory. This being as big an issue as it is, Occam's Razor being what *it* is, it's obvious what the logical answer is. }:)
  • jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Fear and panic is all the GOP has right now.
  • piznut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The correct response here would be reperation and mitigation....not justification and accusation.

    But then again, id love to see the G(reedy) O(ld) P(erverts) lose the house. So yes, please do go on the offense. Try to tread the political quicksand and watch as you are revealed for the chickenhawk scumbags that you are.
  • Jazzmetony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I definitely agree, the G(reedy) O(ld) P(erverts) Republicans should lose the both houses of congress for blowing out national debt and mismanaging the war on terror.
  • graphictruth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Foley: Gross Old Pervert. May or may not be technically legal - I'm betting not every single convo was, thogh. Still, he's just one pervert. It seems we have a whole bunch of even more powerful panderers - people more than willing to twist a Gross Old Perv's arm to run for re-election when he didn't really want to in order to maintain a safe seat and a very NON-independant vote. Far better to have people in the House that you have dirt on than actual honest politicitions.

    Shall we rattle a few more closets to see what falls out, in a fine, impartial and non-partisan way? I frankly do not give a crap if the House ends up below a *****' QUARUM!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.