Is this technically an October Surprise? The story more-or-less broke on 9/29, so I’m not sure. Anyhoo, if so, it’s gotta be one for the history books.
I would say the Repubicans became the Party of Pedophelia about the time Rep. Mark Foley [b[(R)** asked an underaged boy on the internet if he was horny. That would have been around the same time they were lying to start a war in Iraq. How’s that little project going for you? But it wasn’t until earlier this year, when Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert “took care of” reports that Foley was soliciting underaged boys on the internet that the Republicans became the party of pedophilia enablers everywhere. But hey, after you’ve lied to start a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in order to obtain midterm electoral advantage, covering up a little pederasty is nothing. Anything to stay in power when you’re waist-deep in a river of blood.
50 more bodies found in Baghdad this weekend, most with signs of torture. Oh yeah, the Republicans are for torture, too. Pederasty, torture, lying, looting, lawlessness and endless war.
Well, not yet. The damage control teams are working furiously, but they’ve already started out flat-footed, what with Pubbie leaders trying to backstab each other, then trying to seek a modus that lets them all of the hook.
Best bet: get an official inquiry started, and then refuse to comment since an inquiry has been started. Of course, that only works as far as making them talk when they’d druther not. Not going to shut up everybody else, and they’ll still have to keep an eye on each other, because the first rat to jump overboard is usually the best swimmer.
And, of course, such a “Can’t talk, investigation underway” dodge worked dandy for GeeDubCo. Since that was about a relatively dull topic, Plamegate, it may not work so well for Buggergate.
This was along the lines of my initial bias, and I was indeed wrong about that. The story, and the suspicion of a coverup, is now on all the front pages, and you’ve got the likes of Joe Scarborough (though he’s admittedly quite a reasonable fellow compared to some of his peers) expressing righteous indignation aimed at no less than Hastert himself. I guess I underestimated the response of at least some of the Republican constituency and punditry. I think they want to see action.
Just have to watch Bill Orally and Han Insanity tonight. Just gotta!
The sad thing is, Republicans will pin it all on Democrats and a non-insignificant number of wishy-washy democrats will believe it and vote Republican. Republicans, haven’t heard anything. “What are you all jabbering on about?”
You simply can not buy the mindless hegemony Republican’s enjoy. It’s magical, and Mark Foley will quickly fade from memory. Republican’s will refuse to talk about it. Democrats will be too polite to talk about it. I haven’t seen the world press talking about it at all.
Just wait 'til the next Democrat gets a blow-job though. Then we’ll find our moral outrage.
OK, so a Republican House member asking an underaged boy on the internet if he was horny makes the entire GOP the Party of Pedophelia. Fair enough.
My question to you remains: what does a Democratic House member actually having sex with an underaged boy make the Democrats? Surely you agree that was worse than merely chatting on-line - yes?
Hmmm. Maybe I should turn on the TV? I no longer get the paper (for reasons too long to go into here). And basically, if I don’t drive my car, I don’t get my news(NPR car junky, but strangely, I don’t listen in the house). Pathetic? Yes, but I’ve been out of town and then home with a nasty URI.
I doubt the GOP cares much about this. But I have changed my thinking on this. It gives them a chance to show just how moral they are. What do you bet Foley is hired as some kind of political consultant in a year or two? (if he’s not in jail, that is). It’s a perfect scandal for them–“look how we clean house!” they can cry. “Look how repenetant he is! See, we powerful guys have our weaknesses, just like you, Mr Common Man!” (unlike Mr Common Man, they get to enter an irrelevant rehab and hide away from their bad behavior, but I digress). Iraq ain’t working for them, so let’s talk “family values”. What have we here? A homo! A pedophile! (sadly, there still lingers the thought that the two are intertwined) Get thee from me, Satan! etc. Lather, rinse and repeat. The washing machine is stuck on the spin cycle…levdrakon is right. There is no scandal, if no one admits to such.
The nice person in me says that whomever helped this Foley guy by looking away, be they donkeys or elephants, should all swing. The pragmatic political person in me says that the Dems should call for blood, loud and long. The cynic in me says business as usual in Washington and not much will happen, period. <sigh>
Bricker -you’re such a lawyer. Yes, you did indeed then post that Foley committed a crime. I even went and read that thread. I bet you have great jokes.
In the other thread, someone pointed out in one of those forehead-smacker moments that the relevant Federal law wasn’t on the books when Foley wrote the damning IMs. Maybe he’s not in any legal trouble after all, I just don’t know anymore.
Which Democratic House member has had sex with an underage boy?
This is a misquote, Bricker.
They were both at that press conferance, and it was that page who said that their activity was consensual, and nobody else’s business, not Rep. Studds.
And he went on to campaign for Rep, Studds in later re-election campaigns. And the voters re-elected Rep. Studds to 5 more terms.
P.S. That was in 1973, not 1983. The ‘underage page’ was 27 at the time of that press conferance. He celebrates his 50th birthday this year.
I knew it was the Democrats. Can we move on to our next political issue, please?
It’s worth pointing out that the boy in question was 17, and that the age of consent in DC is 16. Ergo, he did not have sex with an underaged boy. The sex also happened thirty years ago, and when it came out (twenty years ago) that sex had been had, both parties maintained it was consensual.
Now. I don’t know enough about the relationship to know if the power dynamic came in to play; was the “boy” in question one of said Democrat’s pages? If so, that’s mildly skeevy to me, but not in the same ballpark as what we’re seeing here.
Wow. Neither of those posts were there when I composed mine. Cool.
No one’s really addressing the important point here. Were these pages hot?
See page 2 of this thread. A man named Studds in 1983. Yep. Bricker dragged out a 20+ year old scandal to prop up his GOP as the party of high moral values or something like that.
here-I’ll try to link to it. (i suck at this)-never mind, it’s post #169 in this thread.
Man, I feel no need to exonorate Stubbs. Parents send their kids to what is essentially a boarding school in D.C. to have a great experience learning about and serving their democracy. I’m pretty sure none of them are terribly keen on the idea of their kids getting fucked by Congressmen.
Dayum-y’all post quick round here! And I stand corrected (or I stand corrected on referring to Bricker’s misinformation post).
anyway, it was irrelevant to the matter at hand and just what the GOP will do-throw enough shit in the air, and people become more concerned with where it lands, rather than why the shit is there in the first place. As a political tactic, it’s a superior weapon.
Gerry Studds, in 1983. What Bricker fails to mention is that there was also a Republican Congressman, Dan Crane, involved, with a female page, so it’s not as if there’s some sort of balancing of the scales here, that Gerry Studds somehow balances out Mark Foley.
They sure were. 451 degrees, to be precise.