Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) has resigned following disclosures of his sending intimate e-mails to teenage male pages. An astounding hypocrisy considering that:
This might or might not throw that seat to the Dems, specifically to Foley’s opponent [“Might not” because [url=http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/FL16_109.gif]Florida’s House District 16](]Tim Mahoney.[/url) is heavily gerrymandered and safely Republican, and there might be time to put forth another Pub for the seat. But will this have any effect on other races, or the Congressional election as a whole?
Is this the only thread on this? I presume time zones are involved, I twas on tis news here when I woke up.
Well, we really need a Nelson Mutz ‘Ha! ha!’ to start off with. It has more than a few funny aspects. Next we get to see the GOP go through the motions of trying to change the ballot.
I seem to recall a Republican guy on the talk shows a couple of years ago when some Democrat (in New Jersey?) had to resign. ‘The Democrats cannot keep naming candidates until they find on e who wins.’ What’s good for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And one last Simpsons reference. "Won’t somebody think of the children?’
The report I saw said that Foley’s name would remain on the ballot, and his votes would be counted toward the new Republican candidate, who will be picked by the party(Link Here) .
That would be Jim McGreevey, who was on The Daily Show this week to promote his new book. (I love America!)
To be fair, Foley appears to be an ephebophile, which is psychologically rather a different thing from a pedophile. (Hey, you’ve never had your head turned by a 16-year-old girl? ) Not that that helps. McGreevey might be able to reinvent himself as a gay martyr but I don’t think Foley is going to have as much luck as a boyloving martyr.
Say, this is interesting – from [url=]Politics1.com:
The bigger question is: How long did the Republican leadership know that Foley was chasing pages and what were they doing about it? Preliminary news reports suggest that the House leadership may have known about the situation since last November.
Maybe they investigated and didn’t have enough evidence to do anything. Maybe they took some sort of reasonable action that will come out as we know more about the story. But right now it smells a lot like a cover-up.
If the senior Republicans in the House were covering for Foley while he fooled around with teenaged boys, this scandal will be a lot bigger than one representative resigning in disgrace.
How about repercussions for Dennis Hastert, who was apparently informed about the situation this past spring??? And House Majority leader John Boehner, and John Shimkus, a representative who knew about it even earlier than Hastert and Boehner?
Where’s the outrage (or even desire for further inquiry) over this?
As I understand it, the appropriate committee made a hush-hush enquiry into the matter. It was not public as a child was involved. They asked the congresscritter if he did it, he said, ‘nope.’ End of investigation.
Someone was on the radio this morning saying that Foley did not answer truthfully when asked.
Pelosi demanded an ethics investigation of this affair and the Republican leadership’s response to it, which was squelched; instead, the Republican leadership formed (and got unanimously passed) a referral of the affair to the Ethics Committee. A subtle distinction; we’ll have to see how the Ethics Committee handles matters.
A responsible handling will mean that they’ll consider media reports, and that they’ll strongly condemn anyone who moved to suppress this matter (even if they didn’t know all the details, I think it’s pretty uncontroversial that inappropriate contact with pages ought to be further investigated, not dismissed with a “don’t do that!”). An irresponsible handling will limit itself to Foley only, and will condemn any calls for a wider investigation as partisan politics.
Anyone disagree with that paragraph?
On another note, supposedly some elections won’t be won by the opposition absent a dead girl or a live boy. ATTENTION DEMOCRATS: HERE’S YOUR LIVE BOY.
Actually, I think Paul in Saudi was referring to Bob Torricelli, who decided not to run for reelection after the deadline to put someone new on the ballot, but the Democrats managed to persuade the state supreme court to allow them to swap Frank Lautenberg in anyways.
Absolutely. If I were the DNC I’d be prepping an ad RIGHT now to further nationalize the election.
It would be along the lines of ‘The Republican Party and its leadership is SO concerned with staying in power that they’d cover up the fact that one of their members is trying to rape children!’ Along with pictures of all involved if possible in poor light.
A few points in many districts could be important.
Pochaco has it right, the important issue will revolve around who knew and when they knew it. Frankly, I don’t see how Hastert can survive this, Dems don’t even have to be able to spell “accountability”, just pronounce it in tones of solemn gravity.
The Pubbies have made their first move, hoping to shuck this off to the Ethics Committee for a thorough investigation. Of course, while such an investigation is ongoing, it would be wrong for any of them to make any public comment until the investigation is concluded, which might be concluded before November (quick check: are monkeys currently flying out of your ass? Then yes.)
The Dems should probably echo that sentiment, on the presumption that the shocked! shocked! main stread tedia will carry the ball. Again, concerns about families and morality expressed in tones of somber gravity. No giggling. Giggling is right out! Happily, I am not in a similar position, I can state without qualm that I haven’t laughed so hard since they shot Ol’ Yeller. That, and I’m currently rethinking my opinions as to a just and loving Goddess.
A chubby intern, a blowjob and a cigar? Piffle. Instant Karma gonna get you!
This non-American has a stupid question. Of course such a scandal can end a political career but did he do anything illegal? The articles that I’ve read didn’t make that clear.
You may well be right. First it was looking kinda like Boner was looking for the right spot to stick the shiv, saying he told Hastert about it a long time ago, now he’s backpedaling furiously.
Did he do that? I thought so far, he’s just a perv who likes to flirt with and talk dirty to minors. I don’t think being a dirty old man is a crime.
However, using the internet to be a dirty old man is increasingly a crime in and of itself. I’m not a lawyer, I just watch Dateline NBC catch-an-internet-predator shows.
) Not that that helps. McGreevey might be able to reinvent himself as a gay martyr but I don’t think Foley is going to have as much luck as a boyloving martyr.
