Republican underage sex scandal

[Fruitloop]

You see? They are beyond parody!

 

[Masseuse]

Apparently Fox mistakenly referred to him as a democrat in one broadcast.

A "mistake" eh?

 

[kyser_soze]

According to the ex-head of Fox News, it's just a few 'saucy emails' and the boys were the ones at fault...

 

[nino_savatte]

According to the ex-head of Fox News, it's just a few 'saucy emails' and the boys were the ones at fault...

Ah, the auld "Satan, disguised in the form of a boy, tempted me" schtick. Ye gods! Can't these people take responsibility for their own actions?

 

[kyser_soze]

Hey, it's the age old question:

How do you stop paedophilia?

Stop kids looking so damn sexy.

 

[nino_savatte]

Hey, it's the age old question:

How do you stop paedophilia?

Stop kids looking so damn sexy.

 

[slaar]

Ah, the auld "Satan, disguised in the form of a boy, tempted me" schtick. Ye gods! Can't these people take responsibility for their own actions?

Gerard Baker, not normally somebody I agree with very much, has a good piece (until it gets to the liberal-bashing) today on the hypocrisy between the quarter-century republican push for a moral position grounded on individual responsibilty (as opposed to underlying causes which is wishy-wash liberalism) and their own position whenever they are at fault:

"Like Orwell's Pigs, the Grubby-Minded Republicans are as Bad as the Others"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2391074,00.html

On Monday this staunch defender of personal responsibility took the well-worn American route of the outed scoundrel and announced he was checking into an alcoholism rehab unit. On Tuesday, as the storm deepened, his attorney announced that Mr Foley had been sexually abused as a child by a priest. By the weekend it is expected that he will be urging the FBI to hunt for the real culprit in this tragedy — his mother.

Republicans came to power in Congress 12 years ago to complete the conservative revolution begun by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. But a decade or more later the Republicans are, like the pigs in Animal Farm, barely distinguishable from the rulers and the governing values they displaced. They have come, not only to tolerate big government, but to enthusiastically accept and garnish it, dispensing large public programmes in health, education and domestic security with a verve that makes their Democratic forebears look miserly.

Republicans have embraced a corrupt culture of swapping dubious legislation to favour special interest groups for large campaign donations. This is often done in hidden clauses in Bills, reminding us too that, as someone once said, in Washington the truth is merely another special interest, and a not particularly well financed one at that. Worse still, a number of Republicans have enriched themselves personally through accepting bribes.

It is in this context that the moral failings of the Foley scandal need to be considered. Having buried the conservative virtues of small government, honesty and truth beneath an avalanche of self-serving, self-aggrandising big government liberalism they have finally embraced the last defence of the moral liberal — “I cannot tell a lie: someone else did it.”

If Baker is saying this then the Republicans must really be in trouble.

 

[nino_savatte]

Gerard Baker, not normally somebody I agree with very much, has a good piece (until it gets to the liberal-bashing) today on the hypocrisy between the quarter-century republican push for a moral position grounded on individual responsibilty (as opposed to underlying causes which is wishy-wash liberalism) and their own position whenever they are at fault:

"Like Orwell's Pigs, the Grubby-Minded Republicans are as Bad as the Others"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2391074,00.html


If Baker is saying this then the Republicans must really be in trouble.

Intersting article, slaar.

Those who bang on about sexual propriety doth protest too much.

Public prudery, private sordidness.

 

[slaar]

Absolutely.

Over-quoting Orwell is tedious. This comparison however is spot on.

 

[elevendayempire]

http://suicidegirls.com/news/politics/18497/



SG

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thing is, common sense suggests that if he's been doing this since at the latest, 1995, then in stands to reason that he's scored at least a few times.

That means eventually, some former page (ideally now a drug-addicated rent boy someplace in North Dakota) is going to show up with an expensive lawyer and say, "That Representative Foley (Republican) sodomised me and those lying bastards on TV circle jerking every night with GW Bush and saying that they didn't even know Foley, paid me ten thousand dollars to keep my mouth shut."

Ideally he'll have video evidence

 

[TomUS]

The US media is in a feeding frenzy over this thing. It's kind of a silly scandal really. But it could be a real blow to the Repubs in the midterms. Speaker of the House Hasert may be knocked off his perch. Kind of fun to watch. They're saying this thing has overshowed Bush's war on terror tough guy blitz.

 

[rhod]

Of course, not only has the weasel trotted out the usual "but I'm an alcoholic" defence, but also "I was abused by a Priest as a kid".

Only thing is, a victim support group is demanding that he reveal the identity of the Priest who abused him, living or dead.

Since Foley has volunteered to go public with this information, there shouldn't be a problem in bringing his abuser to justice, should there?

I mean, he can't have made it up to garner sympathy, could he?

 

[nino_savatte]

The US media is in a feeding frenzy over this thing. It's kind of a silly scandal really. But it could be a real blow to the Repubs in the midterms. Speaker of the House Hasert may be knocked off his perch. Kind of fun to watch. They're saying this thing has overshowed Bush's war on terror tough guy blitz.

Why is it a "silly scandal", Tom? I think it's rather serious; a person, a legislator, stands up and claims he is protecting the rights of children in his capacity as a member of a committee. It later transpires that he is actually preying on young people in order to satisfy his carnal desires. That sounds pretty damned serious to me. Particularly when the congressman in question is a member of a party, which likes to portray itself as occupiers of the moral high ground.

It's hypocrisy writ large.

 

[spring-peeper]

Why is it a "silly scandal", Tom? I think it's rather serious; a person, a legislator, stands up and claims he is protecting the rights of children in his capacity as a member of a committee. It later transpires that he is actually preying on young people in order to satisfy his carnal desires. That sounds pretty damned serious to me. Particularly when the congressman in question is a member of a party, which likes to portray itself as occupiers of the moral high ground.

It's hypocrisy writ large.

I suppose that if he had a hand in writing the legislation, then he would know where the loop holes or grey areas are. It's much easier to exploit the rules if you are the one setting them.

 

[ZAMB]

The US media is in a feeding frenzy over this thing. It's kind of a silly scandal really. But it could be a real blow to the Repubs in the midterms. Speaker of the House Hasert may be knocked off his perch. Kind of fun to watch. They're saying this thing has overshowed Bush's war on terror tough guy blitz.

The Clinton sex scandal was 'silly' - and the GOP built it into something. This seems more like a real problem covered up for years by Repubs. and now being passed off as not important - with the help of pseudo-Dems like Lieberman. Why doesn't he just join the Republicans and get it over with?

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=1AA9EDC6-E0C3-F090-AC5F1442B0A2DB6C

 

[nino_savatte]

The Clinton sex scandal was 'silly' - and the GOP built it into something. This seems more like a real problem covered up for years by Repubs. and now being passed off as not important - with the help of pseudo-Dems like Lieberman. Why doesn't he just join the Republicans and get it over with?

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=1AA9EDC6-E0C3-F090-AC5F1442B0A2DB6C

Exactly, what Clinton did was no different to what other politicians do...with the possible exception of Dick Cheney, of course....ticker problems an all that.

And Clinton didn't prey on Lewinski either. If anything, Lewinsky pursued Clinton.

 

[TomUS]

Why is it a "silly scandal", Tom? I think it's rather serious; a person, a legislator, stands up and claims he is protecting the rights of children in his capacity as a member of a committee. It later transpires that he is actually preying on young people in order to satisfy his carnal desires. That sounds pretty damned serious to me. Particularly when the congressman in question is a member of a party, which likes to portray itself as occupiers of the moral high ground.

It's hypocrisy writ large.

I think it's being blown way out of perportion. Smells too much like the monica "scandal." I'm glad to see the Repubs tearing each other up over it though & them trying to explain how their leadership covered it up. The party of families & children...delightful politican hypocracy.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The US media is in a feeding frenzy over this thing. It's kind of a silly scandal really. But it could be a real blow to the Repubs in the midterms. Speaker of the House Hasert may be knocked off his perch. Kind of fun to watch. They're saying this thing has overshowed Bush's war on terror tough guy blitz.

It's not that silly. It's about a guy who was big in getting child protection laws passed, but who also wanted to get his hands down the pants of whatever 16 year old boys he could find in the halls of Congress.

 

[ZAMB]

I think it's being blown way out of perportion. Smells too much like the monica "scandal." I'm glad to see the Repubs tearing each other up over it though & them trying to explain how their leadership covered it up. The party of families & children...delightful politican hypocracy.

It's nothing like the lewinsky scandal, for one thing, it's underage boys, not consenting adults, and for another, the republicans are trying to cover it up, not publicise it. So I don't see how it's being blown out of proportion - hasn't the state an obligation to protect kids against sexual predators?

 

[Julie]

In any event, what a sick bastard.

Yep.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think it's being blown way out of perportion. Smells too much like the monica "scandal." I'm glad to see the Repubs tearing each other up over it though & them trying to explain how their leadership covered it up. The party of families & children...delightful politican hypocracy.

Hmmmm, I don't think it is and I don't think it looks anything like the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton wasn't preying on Lewinsky, whereas Foley was preying on young adolescent males. See the difference? Lewinsky pursued Clinton, not the other way around.

The Republicans are prudes in public and when no one is looking they are indulging in their sordid fantasies. Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and it was a Democratic congressman facing these allegations? The Repubs would be all over the story like a rash. And Coulter would be wheeled out to defend the victim and spew her usual nonsense all over the press.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Washington Post is running a story confirming that senior Republicans have known about Mark Foley taking a reprehensible interest in the genitals of young boys since at least 2003 and that the Republican leadership have been covering this whole sordid business up, contrary to all of the frantic lies that are currently spewing from their orificies and spattering the US media.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

The staff member said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley's behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy.

The staff member's account buttresses the position of Foley's onetime chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who said earlier this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or earlier to intervene, after Fordham's own efforts to stop Foley's behavior had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful figures in the House of Representatives, met within days to discuss the allegations.

Washington Post