They aren't pulling his card, really. They are making a lot of political hay over the fallout, though. I measure this by the amount of grandstanding of late.
I have no sympathy for the GOP, even in light of the opportunistic Democrats.
The democrats are not being opportunistic. conservatives are actually making this their issue. The GOP is acting like Foley's conduct is the worst thing to ever happen to American politics and they have bum-rushed the media with condemnation of him. Which is not surprising...they have to, take a look at their base.
On the other hand, democrats are only discussing Foley because it appears that republican members of the house (including the speaker) were trying to hide this under the rug. If Foley was just another disgraced politician, dems would not even be mentioning this. This entire controversy is actually helping republicans (imo) as it is temporarily distractign people from all of bush's failures. If you don't believe me, I would bet that if a Foley thread didn't exist, we would have a thread on Condi Rice lying her ass off this past weekend.
Maybe I'm not up on all the issues, but how is Foley getting his card pulled an opportunistic move by the Democrats? The fucker was doing some low-down maneuvers and he got caught.
"HOW DARE THOSE DEMS CATCH US RED HANDED DOING SOMETHING TERRIBLE AND HAVE THE NERVE TO LET THE AMERICAN PUBLIC KNOW!!!!"
Remember that conversation we were having yesterday about how there is no wrong and right in politics anymore, only republican and democrat? this is a prime example; this wasn't a fucked up individual preying on underage kids, this was a republican doing something that opportunistic democrats may be able to feed on.
there are only 2 acceptable views in the world of politics now
Just asking... What is the age of consent in this case?
Also, since Vitamin brought up Gerry Studds. Wasn't Gingrich jumped on as a gay basher when he asked for both Studds & Crane to be expulled???
Don't get me wrong. Anyone who's involved should be kicked out.
age of consent isn't an issue like in the Studds case, because nobody has alleged that Foley got with any of these pages. maybe he will get stuck with "corrupting a minor", if that's the case i'm sure 16 is below the age of consent in dc, florida, or wherever else they choose to prosecute. Studds had a consensual relationship with a 17 year old intern, but in massachusetts, the age of consent was 18.
Just to clarify...I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about the transcripts because that was what people were reacting to first.
And the question was raised (I forget by who): "why would you want to read it?"
My reply, some what jokingly, was that we live in a society ruled by prurient interest in the sexual behavior of our public officials. That's why we read the Lewinsky transcript, supposedly in rapt horror and moral repugnation but nonetheless, we read it because on a basic level, we were curious.
I think the same thing is relevant with Foley - people are at least initially curious of what a middle aged Congressman is saying to try to holler at 16 year old teens. I'm not offended by people who chose not to give into their prurient impulse but nor am I offended by those who do. Personally, while I find sexual abuse (or even the hint of it) between adults and children - and by children, I mean pre-pubescent/young adolescent children - to be morally repugnant, I think we enter into a much more gray area when we're talking about people who are within a year or two of the age of consent (if not over in certain states).
I'm not saying we should condone or accept that behavior (though, as a culture, we tacitly, if not explicitly celebrate the sexualization of teens to the point where 16 vs. 18 becomes strictly a legal issue but not a cultural one). But it just strikes me as a little odd that people are treating Foley's transcript as being akin to the worst kiddie pron you could imagine whereas we laugh and chuckle (albeit maybe uncomfortably) at the idea that 20 and 30 year old men are trying to swap sexy emails with "myspace sluts" who might also be the same age as the pages we're talking about.
What I was saying before is that if Foley were sexually harassing 30 year old women who work in his office, I'd find that problematic too though I very much doubt there would have been pressure on him to resign. That's why the Clinton example is apt but not equal - I think Clinton fucked up badly but an impeachable offense for a standing President? No.
If I found out Bush was fucking someone on the side besides Laura, I don't think he should be impeached for that either. All the other shit in his administration...well, sure. If Bush was trying to holler at 16 year boys on IM...at that point, it wouldn't matter what I think. Just like Foley, he'd be done.
The democrats are not being opportunistic. conservatives are actually making this their issue. The GOP is acting like Foley's conduct is the worst thing to ever happen to American politics and they have bum-rushed the media with condemnation of him. Which is not surprising...they have to, take a look at their base.
On the other hand, democrats are only discussing Foley because it appears that republican members of the house (including the speaker) were trying to hide this under the rug. If Foley was just another disgraced politician, dems would not even be mentioning this. This entire controversy is actually helping republicans (imo) as it is temporarily distractign people from all of bush's failures. If you don't believe me, I would bet that if a Foley thread didn't exist, we would have a thread on Condi Rice lying her ass off this past weekend.
I don't even know how to handle your existence at this point. Picking John Edwards--a man who lived in a time when "lascivious carriage" was on the national consciousness--for your avatar. OK...
Um dude. . . . what does that mean?
And I thought it was pretty funny to pick John Edwards (impressed that you could pull that out) as an avatar on a discussion about such lacivious matters.
I have this feeling that you are a fake id for a former nemesis. Reveal yourself, heathen.
The democrats are not being opportunistic. conservatives are actually making this their issue. The GOP is acting like Foley's conduct is the worst thing to ever happen to American politics and they have bum-rushed the media with condemnation of him. Which is not surprising...they have to, take a look at their base.
On the other hand, democrats are only discussing Foley because it appears that republican members of the house (including the speaker) were trying to hide this under the rug. If Foley was just another disgraced politician, dems would not even be mentioning this. This entire controversy is actually helping republicans (imo) as it is temporarily distractign people from all of bush's failures. If you don't believe me, I would bet that if a Foley thread didn't exist, we would have a thread on Condi Rice lying her ass off this past weekend.
I agree with most of what's said above - the GOP are hammering this as hard, if not more, than anyone on the Left but best believe, the Democrats are probably besides themselves in joy that this has happened and they are definitely trying to focus on the idea that Hastert and others may have covered this up.
But yeah, the staunch conservatives are going after Foley tooth and nail too. This isn't purely a partisan issue.
If I found out Bush was fucking someone on the side besides Laura, I don't think he should be impeached for that either.
I do. The GOP has totally debased the political process under Bush and they made a mockery of the impeachment process under Clinton.
But to take the moral high ground under such a circumstance, and refrain from impeachment just because the Dems raised such a fuss when Clinton was being impeached, would be politically stupid.
Morally admirable perhaps, but politically stupid (and spineless). I dream of Bush being caught in an exta-marital affair. I would fully support impeachment in such a case. Why? Because the GOP made it acceptable to impeach for some dumb shit. Not to use such a weapon if it were at the Dems' disposable would be stupid.
We gotta fight fire with fire. Fuck the bullshit.
(Of couse all of this is occuring in my mindgarden, so carry on.)
If I found out Bush was fucking someone on the side besides Laura, I don't think he should be impeached for that either.
I do. The GOP has totally debased the political process under Bush and they made a mockery of the impeachment process under Clinton.
But to take the moral high ground under such a circumstance, and refrain from impeachment just because the Dems raised such a fuss when Clinton was being impeached, would be politically stupid.
Morally admirable perhaps, but politically stupid (and spineless). I dream of Bush being caught in an exta-marital affair. I would fully support impeachment in such a case. Why? Because the GOP made it acceptable to impeach for some dumb shit. Not to use such a weapon if it were at the Dems' disposable would be stupid.
We gotta fight fire with fire. Fuck the bullshit.
(Of couse all of this is occuring in my mindgarden, so carry on.)
Ahh...Clinton was impeached and disbarred from practicing law for giving false information under oath to a grand jury.
I have no sympathy for the GOP, even in light of the opportunistic Democrats.
The democrats are not being opportunistic. conservatives are actually making this their issue. The GOP is acting like Foley's conduct is the worst thing to ever happen to American politics and they have bum-rushed the media with condemnation of him. Which is not surprising...they have to, take a look at their base.
On the other hand, democrats are only discussing Foley because it appears that republican members of the house (including the speaker) were trying to hide this under the rug. If Foley was just another disgraced politician, dems would not even be mentioning this. This entire controversy is actually helping republicans (imo) as it is temporarily distractign people from all of bush's failures. If you don't believe me, I would bet that if a Foley thread didn't exist, we would have a thread on Condi Rice lying her ass off this past weekend.
You have to be a little naive to believe that. The reason the GOP has focused on this is pre-emption, plain and simple.
You have to be completely naive to think that if this was another politician or politically connected person, the Democrats would ignore this. Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Ken Lay... it's always pin the tail on the Elephant/Donkey.
For real peoples, I'm not even sure what the debate is here. BOTH sides of the aisle are dog-piling on this b/c it's in their political best interests to do so. Whether it's damage control or exploiting a controversy, everyone's got something at stake.
I have no sympathy for the GOP, even in light of the opportunistic Democrats.
The democrats are not being opportunistic. conservatives are actually making this their issue. The GOP is acting like Foley's conduct is the worst thing to ever happen to American politics and they have bum-rushed the media with condemnation of him. Which is not surprising...they have to, take a look at their base.
On the other hand, democrats are only discussing Foley because it appears that republican members of the house (including the speaker) were trying to hide this under the rug. If Foley was just another disgraced politician, dems would not even be mentioning this. This entire controversy is actually helping republicans (imo) as it is temporarily distractign people from all of bush's failures. If you don't believe me, I would bet that if a Foley thread didn't exist, we would have a thread on Condi Rice lying her ass off this past weekend.
You have to be a little naive to believe that. The reason the GOP has focused on this is pre-emption, plain and simple.
You have to be completely naive to think that if this was another politician or politically connected person, the Democrats would ignore this. Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Ken Lay... it's always pin the tail on the Elephant/Donkey.
"Why don???t GOP congressman use bookmarks? They don???t need to; they simply bend over the pages. "
Oh, shit-- that was one of my favorite jokes in the 80s, when there was a much bigger scandal with congressmen and pages. I forget how many people resigned behind that one, but there was a lot of fucking going on.
in the 80s, when there was a much bigger scandal with congressmen and pages. I forget how many people resigned behind that one, but there was a lot of fucking going on.
The '83 scandal involved a Dem....but since they're not the Anti-Gay Family Value party, at least that guy wasn't a hypocrite????
Ahh...Clinton was impeached and disbarred from practicing law for giving false information under oath to a grand jury.
C'mon, the entire moral crusade against Clinton was 'cause he lied? THAT'S why he was denounced on the Senate floor by moralistic hypocrites like Lieberman? Be serious.
I gotta say, this is one of the rights craftiest dodges yet. The fact that we're sitting here, as a predominantly liberal group discussing whether were homophobic is almost comical in its irony. I have to agree with whoever said that Dolo's characterization of us as being against gays shows the dangerous conflation of "gay" and "paedophilia." Its a classic Republican dodge, look at how Family Research Council came right out and said the GOP didnt pursue this for fear of being called "anti-gay", turning the whole thing around on the permissive liberals. Again, the idea in these dodges is to always point back to what you perceive is the "real" problem with America. Support a party because they shun gay people, then blame the people who don't when one of your own is revealed as gay himself.
Personally, while I find sexual abuse.. between adults and children...to be morally repugnant, I think we enter into a much more gray area when we're talking about people who are within a year or two of the age of consent (if not over in certain states). I'm not saying we should condone or accept that behavior (though, as a culture, we tacitly, if not explicitly celebrate the sexualization of teens to the point where 16 vs. 18 becomes strictly a legal issue but not a cultural one).
Odub, I gotta say, while I agree that the consent of a 16 year old is up for debate, advocating a legal grey area is wrong. If it should be 16 fine, but if the law is actually changed to 16, then where does the grey area end, 14? 13? The law should be black and white, and while I agree the power issues are almost more important, the fact is the law creates a difference between a 16 year old boy, and a certain consenting 21 year old WH intern. For me, that seems about right.
I came to the conclusion I did because of two factors:
1. The age of the pages
2. The furthest any of this appears to have gone, at least from the information thus far released, is cybersex.
I cant see a similar furore being generated should 16 year old girls have been the subject of foley's attention. Incidentally since youve moved on to criticising fox(over something which is almost certainly a simple error) I wonder what the reaction wouldve have been had fox aquired aim transcripts of a democrats sexually explicit conversations with young boys and decided to drip feed their release in the run up to an election. Much speculation over rovian plots id guess.
Incidentally since youve moved on to criticising fox(over something which is almost certainly a simple error)
Dolo, sorry man, but there is NO WAY in the history of fuck-ups that listing a KNOWN REPUBLICAN as a Democrat beneath his picture on television is a "simple error". Think about it - a producer or video editor actually had to key that in. It's not happening like that. Don't kid yourself. And if you still have any doubts, look no further than the source.
I like how the party of self-reliance and personal responsibility always, I MEAN FUCKING ALWAYS, tries to diffuse their OWN responsibility and accountability by making relative comparisons.
Interesting Countdown clip re-edit from the the past few days.
Comments
Also, since Vitamin brought up Gerry Studds. Wasn't Gingrich jumped on as a gay basher when he asked for both Studds & Crane to be expulled???
Don't get me wrong. Anyone who's involved should be kicked out.
The democrats are not being opportunistic. conservatives are actually making this their issue. The GOP is acting like Foley's conduct is the worst thing to ever happen to American politics and they have bum-rushed the media with condemnation of him. Which is not surprising...they have to, take a look at their base.
On the other hand, democrats are only discussing Foley because it appears that republican members of the house (including the speaker) were trying to hide this under the rug. If Foley was just another disgraced politician, dems would not even be mentioning this. This entire controversy is actually helping republicans (imo) as it is temporarily distractign people from all of bush's failures. If you don't believe me, I would bet that if a Foley thread didn't exist, we would have a thread on Condi Rice lying her ass off this past weekend.
Remember that conversation we were having yesterday about how there is no wrong and right in politics anymore, only republican and democrat? this is a prime example; this wasn't a fucked up individual preying on underage kids, this was a republican doing something that opportunistic democrats may be able to feed on.
there are only 2 acceptable views in the world of politics now
age of consent isn't an issue like in the Studds case, because nobody has alleged that Foley got with any of these pages. maybe he will get stuck with "corrupting a minor", if that's the case i'm sure 16 is below the age of consent in dc, florida, or wherever else they choose to prosecute. Studds had a consensual relationship with a 17 year old intern, but in massachusetts, the age of consent was 18.
Just to clarify...I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about the transcripts because that was what people were reacting to first.
And the question was raised (I forget by who): "why would you want to read it?"
My reply, some what jokingly, was that we live in a society ruled by prurient interest in the sexual behavior of our public officials. That's why we read the Lewinsky transcript, supposedly in rapt horror and moral repugnation but nonetheless, we read it because on a basic level, we were curious.
I think the same thing is relevant with Foley - people are at least initially curious of what a middle aged Congressman is saying to try to holler at 16 year old teens. I'm not offended by people who chose not to give into their prurient impulse but nor am I offended by those who do. Personally, while I find sexual abuse (or even the hint of it) between adults and children - and by children, I mean pre-pubescent/young adolescent children - to be morally repugnant, I think we enter into a much more gray area when we're talking about people who are within a year or two of the age of consent (if not over in certain states).
I'm not saying we should condone or accept that behavior (though, as a culture, we tacitly, if not explicitly celebrate the sexualization of teens to the point where 16 vs. 18 becomes strictly a legal issue but not a cultural one). But it just strikes me as a little odd that people are treating Foley's transcript as being akin to the worst kiddie pron you could imagine whereas we laugh and chuckle (albeit maybe uncomfortably) at the idea that 20 and 30 year old men are trying to swap sexy emails with "myspace sluts" who might also be the same age as the pages we're talking about.
What I was saying before is that if Foley were sexually harassing 30 year old women who work in his office, I'd find that problematic too though I very much doubt there would have been pressure on him to resign. That's why the Clinton example is apt but not equal - I think Clinton fucked up badly but an impeachable offense for a standing President? No.
If I found out Bush was fucking someone on the side besides Laura, I don't think he should be impeached for that either. All the other shit in his administration...well, sure. If Bush was trying to holler at 16 year boys on IM...at that point, it wouldn't matter what I think. Just like Foley, he'd be done.
Um dude. . . . what does that mean?
And I thought it was pretty funny to pick John Edwards (impressed that you could pull that out) as an avatar on a discussion about such lacivious matters.
I have this feeling that you are a fake id for a former nemesis. Reveal yourself, heathen.
I agree with most of what's said above - the GOP are hammering this as hard, if not more, than anyone on the Left but best believe, the Democrats are probably besides themselves in joy that this has happened and they are definitely trying to focus on the idea that Hastert and others may have covered this up.
But yeah, the staunch conservatives are going after Foley tooth and nail too. This isn't purely a partisan issue.
I do. The GOP has totally debased the political process under Bush and they made a mockery of the impeachment process under Clinton.
But to take the moral high ground under such a circumstance, and refrain from impeachment just because the Dems raised such a fuss when Clinton was being impeached, would be politically stupid.
Morally admirable perhaps, but politically stupid (and spineless). I dream of Bush being caught in an exta-marital affair. I would fully support impeachment in such a case. Why? Because the GOP made it acceptable to impeach for some dumb shit. Not to use such a weapon if it were at the Dems' disposable would be stupid.
We gotta fight fire with fire. Fuck the bullshit.
(Of couse all of this is occuring in my mindgarden, so carry on.)
Ahh...Clinton was impeached and disbarred from practicing law for giving false information under oath to a grand jury.
You have to be a little naive to believe that. The reason the GOP has focused on this is pre-emption, plain and simple.
You have to be completely naive to think that if this was another politician or politically connected person, the Democrats would ignore this. Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Ken Lay... it's always pin the tail on the Elephant/Donkey.
Oh, shit-- that was one of my favorite jokes in the 80s, when there was a much bigger scandal with congressmen and pages. I forget how many people resigned behind that one, but there was a lot of fucking going on.
The '83 scandal involved a Dem....but since they're not the Anti-Gay Family Value party, at least that guy wasn't a hypocrite????
C'mon, the entire moral crusade against Clinton was 'cause he lied? THAT'S why he was denounced on the Senate floor by moralistic hypocrites like Lieberman? Be serious.
H2>Fox News Lables Foley As Democrat During O'Reilly Factor/H2>
Source
This isn't going to help in that FL election though, where in order to vote for the new republican candidate you will have to tick off Foley's name...
This is beautiful in its shamelessness.
WOW!
Odub, I gotta say, while I agree that the consent of a 16 year old is up for debate, advocating a legal grey area is wrong. If it should be 16 fine, but if the law is actually changed to 16, then where does the grey area end, 14? 13? The law should be black and white, and while I agree the power issues are almost more important, the fact is the law creates a difference between a 16 year old boy, and a certain consenting 21 year old WH intern. For me, that seems about right.
Jesus Christ. No level is too far to stoop for Fox News. How can this shit be legal?
The age of consent in Massachusetts is/was 16.
The REAL beauty is in how clearly it demonstrates FOX's contempt for it's own audience.
1. The age of the pages
2. The furthest any of this appears to have gone, at least from the information thus far released, is cybersex.
I cant see a similar furore being generated should 16 year old girls have been the subject of foley's attention. Incidentally since youve moved on to criticising fox(over something which is almost certainly a simple error) I wonder what the reaction wouldve have been had fox aquired aim transcripts of a democrats sexually explicit conversations with young boys and decided to drip feed their release in the run up to an election. Much speculation over rovian plots id guess.
Dolo, sorry man, but there is NO WAY in the history of fuck-ups that listing a KNOWN REPUBLICAN as a Democrat beneath his picture on television is a "simple error". Think about it - a producer or video editor actually had to key that in. It's not happening like that. Don't kid yourself. And if you still have any doubts, look no further than the source.
Interesting Countdown clip re-edit from the the past few days.