dfg872

Yeah, but even with the story that got him impeached, he had great control on what the press reported. He lied, and cheated, and did some awful things, but remained popular and well liked. Really the mastermind was James Carville. He was the carl rove of the left.

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dfg872

SmokingTarpan

He (Foley) only went after the page because the clergy molested him when he was young. We should be mad at the priests, not him. :P

All this republican vs. democrat pedonecrobeastiality aside, is there anything we can't blame on being touched in the no-no's by a priest as a child? Seems like a common thing whenever someone's life takes a dive.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

leejo

@ Ramrod

Uh huh. I see you're following the democratic talking points on this matter:

Pay no heed to the distinction between the e-mails and IMs. There's no evidence (yet) that any Republican leaders knew about Foley's cybersex IMs. There's plenty of evidence that they knew how uncomfortable the "overly friendly" e-mails made at least one page.

@dfg - yes and this is one reason why I'm amazed at the hypocrisy in play right now. I left the party because of this sort of expediency. Like 'em or love 'em, you'll be hard pressed to find a republican associating himself with Foley these days, or in the future. Clinton remains the Teflon President, beloved by the very people who are so outraged by Foley's behavior. Do they really care, or do they think they see a wedge they can exploit? You never really know.

leejo

I keep thinking about Michael Jackson's cover of that Elton John song "Don't Let Your Son Go Down On Me"

Yeah the priest/alcoholism story is pathetic and poorly-timed. Slink away quietly dude. Write a book. See if Oprah will talk about it.

Steeler

Ok, couple things. "Overly friendly?" Have you read any of them? Downright creepy. They were obviously suspect since Boehmer reported them to Hastert. Anyone denying that there wasn't something wrong with them is doing so for political cover. The emails were not even the first time that Foley's relationship with pages had come up as an issue. The response from the Republican leadership has been one lame excuse after another. There was clearly a lot of wink wink nudge nudge going on.

Second, I find it hard to believe that you find the Lewinsky fiasco on the same footing as this scandal. Foley is a predator who likes underage partners. A pedophile (straight, gay, doesn't matter). Clinton is an adulterer, but at least the pair involved in that sorry episode were consenting adults.

I really have trouble understanding why you're defending pedophilia. Just doesn't seem like a winning argument.

__________________

leejo

You would have to be the numbest skull on the planet or a liar to claim that I have been defending pedophilia.

Steeler

I'll admit, that was snarky, and it was meant to be. Now you know what it's like to be accused of arguing something that you are not claiming. It's called a straw man, and I properly withdraw my statement. It is, after all, a dog of a case to champion.

__________________

leejo

Fun read: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp

carRamrod

I guess Roy Blunt is a partisan Democrat too...

Come on. These guys played politics over the welfare of children.

leejo

Pure expedience. Like you give a rat's ass what Roy Blunt says. You're playing politics with that kid's welfare.

It may turn out to bite his ass, but Hastert's story is reasonable: the page's parents didn't want to go forward with the story. Maybe they realized that once this got out of the bottle, their son's name would eventually leak as well. You can count the days 'till that happens. But hey that's cool. It's fine to trash some poor kid's life if it suits your agenda, right?

Maybe they didn't know about the IMs either. I don't know. I DO know that I'm glad Foley was run out of town, and I'm glad to see how utterly souless and expedient the Dem party remains.

carRamrod

I was hoping to find common ground in this thread on all sides of the political spectrum by condemning the House leadership for covering up for a pedophyle. I guess some things are too much to ask for.

carRamrod

I bring up Roy Blunt because if I bring up anyone else you scream "liberal bias".

And don't you dare accuse me of playing politics over the welfare of kids. I'm a father of two boys and this whole thing sickens me. If you can't defend these guys - stop trying.

leejo

Why not? You're flailing around trying to accuse anyone and everyone with an R after their name of whatever suits YOU. You are playing politics with this issue.

I have said before, if facts show that if there was a coverup, then people should be in trouble. Wait a few weeks for the facts to roll in. This isn't going away.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out how hypocritical and expedient your position is.

Trooper

^ what he said

carRamrod

I'm not the one doing any accusing. I have no position other than the reported facts. The facts that seem to upset you are that the House Leadership chose to ignore evidence that 52 year old Mark Foley was having improper communications with a 16 year old boy. Your attacks on me cannot change that.