la cage aux Foley
It's interesting to see the Republican spin machine whirling out of control over the resignation of Florida Congressman Mark Foley. The GOP is trying to deflect the blame away from the self-proclaimed party anointed by God and the keeper of all values worth getting single-issue voters to pull the ballot box lever in their favor.
Rush Limpballs and Deny Hastert are weaving the ABC/Democrat wool of conspiracy over the eyes of FOX viewers and while Lush and Sean Hyenaity are providing the ear enemas. In fact, our fellow bloggers over at www.ontheborderline.net -- the ones with the front row seats during the 2004 Bush visit to Hudson (All the better to polish you boots, Mr. President.) -- are doing their part to do counter spin of the Foley exposure.
The OTBL Admin says: "I dare say that ABC was in cahoots with the DNC and only because of this glitch did the age of the individual come out."
Of course, we all know the OTBL Admin has deep connections into all the workings of ABC and the DNC. Right, I believe I also saw an ad on his blog for ocean front property in North Hudson. (Pssst, looks like the OTBL'ers gave up their quest for capitalist blog domination in the Valley. The ads have disappeared. They've ended their career as cheap prostitutes.)
The OTBL Admin also notes: "An ABC Online glitch led to exposing the identity of the Foley Accuser. Turns out the individual was of legal consenting age, 18 at the time of IM’ing with Foley."
Of course this is where the confusion comes in. In another OTBL post, BJohnson tells us: "As it is, Republicans deny knowing about the explicit text messages that Foley sent to a 16-year-old congressional page back in 2003. In repudiating Foley, House Speaker Dennis Hastert called the messages “vile and repulsive.”"
So what is it OTBL, 16 or 18? You need to get into OTBL hot tub and do a group huddle on this one.
OTBL's BJ goes on to tell us: "If anything, the episode reveals the Democrats’ hypocrisy about their own behavior. The fact that Foley resigned virtually within minutes of being told that ABC News had copies of his salacious e-mails and text messages indicates he at least felt shame for his actions. Can the same be said for Democrats?"
I'm not sure which Democrats he's talking about? Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Kirk Fordham. Oh excuse me, those guys are Republicans. I must have been watching FOX News. I believe they were calling Foley a Democrat last night.
Or maybe I was reading this comment by OTBL's ChoosingLife: "If the Republican Party required a signature at the bottom of the GOP Platform and Resolutions, they would be able to weed out the Democrats in Republican Sheep’s Clothing and cull out non-platform/resolutions adherents. This is such an easy solution to a vast problem within the Republican Party. Foley was a pro-abortion/pro-sodomite so-called Republican. There’s many more like him within the Republican Party. The Platform and Resolutions are there for a reason. Americans should expect a higher standard from the Republican Party members, but if we keep electing Republican Party under miners, we will be as low as the Democrats before long. Republicans should demand accountability from the Republican Party if we expect it from the Democrats."
ChoosingLife will probably be directing the Reich side of the chorus line at the 2008 Republican convention in St. Paul. And so it looks like the OTBL zombies have put away their NRA-ass-kissing posts for the time being and got out their bucket of white wash to help spruce up the unsightly stains that are continuing to seep through their stage costumes.
Limbaugh and Hastert baselessly suggested that Democrats orchestrated Foley scandal
Summary: Rush Limbaugh and House Speaker Dennis Hastert advanced a theory that Democrats and the media instigated the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley to aid the Democrats in the midterm elections, ignoring ABC News reporter Brian Ross's statement that the sources for his reporting on Foley are, if at all politically affiliated, Republicans.
Read more and hear the audio at Media Matters.
Original cartoons complients of PO'd Toons. Thanks Fat Jon!
35 comments:
This past week my wife listen to an author talk an Barns & Nobel. Jim Wallis discussed his book "God's Politics". I've since started to read it. As a Christian, and as a citizen I think the book put an interesting light on all political parties, and politicians in general. No one party has ownership in God. I doubt that Christ would give a hoot what political party anyone of us were from, but more so how we live our lives. As there are christians that happen to be Republicans, there are Christians of a wide variety of political opinions.
Cato:
So it's alright for the party of moral values to sin as long as they can point back to a Democrat who has sinned? I noticed that Barney Frank didn't resign. He hung around and took his censure like a man. Evidently, Foley's problems are pretty deep, judging from his quick exit from the scene. The unfolding Foley story is about political power trumping protection of vulnerable children by powerful adults in a position of authority.
From you take on this, it's just like allowing grade schoolers the right to conceal and carry a gun. I believe you are saying the adults should have the right to prey on innocent children, because there is no such thing as "innocent children."
Evidently your libertain argument runs from the cradle to the grave. Protection of children's rights, I suppose, is just another example of socialism gone bad. Of course, you would like the repeal of child labor laws...as you've stated before. Physical and mental development are just touchy-feelly concepts that those liberals waste tax dollars on...I suppose.
Cato, You are so predictable. It is just sad. Your argument is just as weak as the post-caught Foley's attempt to get pitty.
I find it very telling that Foley blames his homosexuality on being abused. Funny how that fits right in with his party platform that being gay can not be inborn, but was forced upon him. Now there is some accountability. His attorney is a joke. Never make a statement without asking yourself the obvious next question. Like when he stated that Foley only contacted the paiges when intoxicated, which meant that he also voted while intoxicated. Didn't they expect those dots to be connected? Your defending him by comparing him to Franks sets the bar pretty low for someone claiming to hold the torch for the moral high ground. We are all "stupider" for having heard your argument.
Cato, Do you deny that your original comment bringing up the Franks issue resembles nothing more than the attempts made by the drudgereport to down play the latest Republican bungle of the day? I have read many of your comments and I thought you were a little above that. One can always find something in history to make a case of "oh yeah, but remember when x did y&z, what about that?" as an attempt to spin perception.
That is what I would call a dumbing down of the responsibility we should expect of each other. Not just politicians. Don't you agree that a path such as that does not square with your platform for life? And saying that all politicians have sold their soul is a huge generalization. If you take that track, you might as well say that all humanity has sold thier soul. I suppose that would include everyone but you.
Any person using their position for sexual gain is committing a crime. Whether the act was committed or not, the issue is the use of electronic communication, position, material, and influence.
The concern should not be political party, but victimizing anyone. I would be highly suspect that this act were only committed once. "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is a duck". For the most part Pedophiles are drawn to a specific stimuli (Age, appreance ect....). The same holds true for most serial killers.
Though deceptive, they are predators.
The other point is the willingness of males to come forward. In our society we have much more negative stigma with male victims of sexual assaults. It is very traumatic for any victim of a sexual assault to come forward, and much more so for males.
I don't know that I would deny that "Foley" may also have been a victim at some time, there is some consistency to victims (untreated)becoming victimizers. Ultimately pedofilia is difficult to change, and requires long term therapy.
In the end, there is NO justification to excuse any person based on their party line, or to cover these type of actions up based on ANY PARTY LINE.
CATO said:
"Firstly, do you mean to imply the Republicans are the "party of moral virtues"? They are politicans and have sold their soul long ago."
They have certainly sold themselve as such to the value voters that are the swing component to make them a majority.
As for bringing up the Franks incident. I think I'm with CATO on this. If what he said is true and he engaged in illegal sexual conduct with a minor but was not forced to resign, there is indeed a double standard. And as CATO points out. Foley never had actual contact, only inappropriate speech.
Don't get me wrong, I'm relishing the GOP imploding at present. But it's not unfair to point out a similar misdeed on the part of a Democrat.
This has Karl Rove written all over it. Only you'd expect him to come up with this kind of GOP "explaination" much quicker.
Cato says: "Look, all I know for certain is that Franks actually did sleep with a page while Foley fantasized about it, and Franks kept his office."
Advice to Mr. Cato: Don't be so f*cking "certain" unless you are God - and I think you fall quite short of that standard. Clearly, what Mr. Foley did in Congress with the page-boys over the last 11 years is a secret that has yet to be fully revealed.
I am open to the possibility that he did more; all I know for certian at this point is that he fantasized about it, while Franks actually had sexual relations with at least a page.
Please learn to read. Also, profanity is not appreciated.
Andy, I am amazed that you are siding with cato on his bringing up the Franks issue as a means to downplay Foley. He says it is not his intention but come on. He may be trying to frame the issue and I can understand that, it is just that it sounds like textbook Drudge Report when coming from someone as black and white (except when it suits him to be gray)as cato.
boris:
ATBL is a place for open discussions and open minds. I think CATO brought up a comparison that is entirely valid, another Congressman who had inappropriate relations with a page. Isn't that the issue here? Are you going to give a Democrat a pass for the same type of misconduct as Foley is being accused of only because he's a Democrat?
I think what has people outraged is Foley's and the Republican's hypocracy of portraying themselves as the family value beacons of Truth and Rightiousness while acting in an
entirely contradictory manner and they deserve every bit of political fallout they are currently receiving.
I don't agree with CATO on much. I find his philosophy of life apalling and anathema to me, but if he presents a comparison that is obviously valid, one's political persuasion shouldn't be used to deny reality. If CATO were bringing this up to promote the Republicans he might be "framing". But CATO has criticized the Republican's almost as much as the Democrats.
I think if the mid term elections were not just on the horizon, this story wouldn't last more than a day.
It is obvious that the current political situation colors the actual deeds emmensly.
I don't think Barney Franks gets a free pass. Who was in charge of the House and Senate them? Didn't he face censur and get repremanded?
Foley resigned two hours after the Republican leadership confront him with the details of the e-mails. He didn't have to resign. That was his choice. Obviously, Foley understood who deeply he had penatrated the hypocrisy zone.
I see in todays paper there are now allegations about Foley back in 1997. Common now, how much denial will there be, lets blindly follow the REPUBLICAN PARTY as does the OTBL, and excuse some ones conduct because a Democrat did it before? The point is this guy apparently did some bad stuff on a consistent basis, and some of his buddies may have covered it up for the sake of THE PARTY, most certainly not for moral reasons. Yet while he was being a bad boy he also was preaching out of the other side of his mouth in opposition to exactly what he was doing!
That doesn't excuse other people, but it does not excuse him either. Sex crimes often are progressive. Take an example of a voyer, there is a frequency of progression from passive fanaticizing, to actually acting out in some manner. Don't think for a moment that if Foley didn't have the opportunity, something wouldn't have happened. Unfortunately, we'll most likley never know.
Cato:
I would think your stand would be that it is alright for anybody to have sex with anybody else where ever and whenever they want. That's personal freedom and the pusuit of happiness.
Lets see, he has been tracked back to 1997..... Males typically don't report sexual abuse.... He was sending sexually explicit emails while in session... his correspondence was with young males, some possibly under 18.... He was in a position of power.... he was using federally owned electronics????
What did I say about blindly following a party line????
Perhaps Cato, you wish to minimize this, most reasonable people consider this conduct a line that shouldn't be crossed. But then they are only the masses, a unit.
I for one don't care what party he, or anyone else is from, Democrat/Republican.... I don't care, this is disgusting, and I suspect illegal....
As to party affiliation, I vote on candidates, not any one party.
Cato; the same case holds for Franks, I agree with you on that.
As for Foley, perhaps I'm more of a skeptic. The man resignes and checks into a treatment facility, says a lot to me. I don't disagree with that particular action, as I suspect that is where he needs to be.
CATO said:
"This, like with Franks, like any other sex scandal involving elected officals and their subordinates, is a vertical relationship devoid of consensuality and it is wrong. Of course, that is ASSUMING he actually did something."
It seems that it is not necessary to "do" anything to be in violation of a law against soliciting a minor. Have you ever seen any of the NBC Dateline reports where they have a group of adults pose as teenagers on the internet and entice (or entrap )
adults to meet with them promising a sexual connection?
As soo as they show up at the house where NBC is waiting for them , as well as the police, they are arrested.
As an asside: NBC must be getting really good rating on this kind of
"report" because they must have aired it 10-15 times, or more.
Just by coincidence, another report like this was aired tonight.
Well was there actually soliciting of a minor? It remains to be seen.
I am not a fan of laws that punish people's "intents" -- intents that we can only guess at. Intent doesn't matter. What you DID is what matters.
If there was solicitation of a minor, and it is indeed illegal, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I won't defend his actions in the least.
CATO said:
"I am not a fan of laws that punish people's "intents" -- intents that we can only guess at. Intent doesn't matter. What you DID is what matters."
I agree, it's not just to punish intent. But if authorities can't do anything until a crime is committed, there is no real protection or prevention of crime.
The government is not your bodygaurd, for many reasons, one being it's nearly impossible. We can't protect people in prison from other prisoners, and, while it is a large number of people who are there who apparently don't have problems with violating other people's rights (and such concentrations would not be in society in general), even in a society of a true Big Brother the government could not prevent all crime. You are the person responsible for your own saftey.
The preventive measure the government offers is fear of the law.
Ever read or see Minority Report? It's still a choice at the very end, seconds before you pull the trigger or whatever you plan on doing. We can only guess what that choice would have been. We can be fairly certian, but not sure.
Andyrand:
if authorities can't do anything until a crime is committed, there is no real protection or prevention of crime.
Andy this the point I made to a previous point. The protective side of governmetn is usually post de facto. Government prevention is a fairy tale.
Protection and prevention is best accomplished at the closest point of the source, the individual. Yet you still believe the answer to all problems is bigger and bigger government and its corollary of less individual rights.
The state of mankind has never fared for the better under the auspices of the state and never will.
CATO:
I am not really an advocate for bigger
government but rather effective government. What we are agreeing to is that often times law enforcement cannot act until a crime is committed.
But isn't the presence of law enforcement and the knowledge that if a crime in commited in the proximity of law enforcement a stiff penalty will occer a deterent to crime?
I think a better example is Government inspection of food.
When I was a kid I never remember hearing of food poisoning out breaks of like we have today. The USDA has been decimated since the Reagan years in favor of "self inspection". I think just the fear of fines for non-compliance to health safety standards is a deterant to becoming lax in sanitary standards. I think food inspection by an entity that does not have a financial stake in stopping production for health reasons is a better solution than self inspection. So in this case the private entity is more likely to be lax and look the other way if problems show up.
One of the few things governmentshould to is uphold the law and punish criminals. But it is impossible to prevent all crime or much crime at all.
As for the USDA... a finaincial stake like being sued for putting out a product advertised as safe, and the loss of buisness from the publicity? That's enough for me.
Back to Foley, I thought it was funny how he immediatley did whatever things possible to place blame on others like his dad and booze.
Opps, can't delete. I meant to say "priest and booze."
CATO:
"As for the USDA... a finaincial stake like being sued for putting out a product advertised as safe, and the loss of buisness from the publicity? That's enough for me"
I think law suits rarely bring justice and for sure never undo preventable harms. Besides the inflict incredible stress and hardship on all parties involved. The only winners are the lawyers. For this instance a return to the 1776 era may be in order recalling Franklin's quote that "An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
CATO, you opted for law suits numerous times in these conversations. Do you have a stake in promoting them?
CATO:
The link no longer has the story you seem to be referring to.
If you're talking about the voluntary recall of lettuce, I did see that and commend the company for doing the recall. However, there is incredible tempation to take a chance that there was no contamination to the actual product. Self policing only works for those with the highest ethical standards. You only need to browse your spam folder to find the hundreds if not thousands of companies that come nowhere near that level of ethics.
No, it was of meat. Since then they have tested the meat and nothing was wrong with it. THe company was out the money for 5,200 lbs of meat.
The linkis also here, and it worked:
http://tinyurl.com/pkln6
The government forced them to either loose money by the threat of the (illegal) USDA's recall or they made us all poorer by giving them restitution for their loss. Either way, that's money that was just plain lost, for no good reason.
CATO:
Out of 300 Million people in the U.S.
probably 1/2 of which pay federal taxes. HOw much poorer are you and I because of this incident. It's an insignificant amount. Perhaps you are right about the government over reacting in this incident. But would you like to be the one who purchased a tainted burger in Wisconsin if it had e-coli?
You naturally pick examples of waste like this because it supports your point of view.
Why is it that you are not bothered by other waste such as the TSA having to scrap a multi million dollar computer system to track terrorists because it just never worked. Or mercenaries (private contractors) driving empty trucks around Iraq to "earn" an outrageous per mile rate for Halliburton?
Or hiring Debold, a company with extraordinary ties to the Bush administration to design and build electronic voting machines with no paper trail?
A misstep in protecting our food source seems quite minor to me in relation to all the other waste that is occuring.
Cato:
Why would you call the USDA illegal?
The USDA makes sure the meat we eat is safe. The milk is not contaminated. The spinac h doesn't kill us. The eggs we eat don't have feathers in them.
Sure it's acting a Big Mother. In case you haven't noticed, less than 4 percent of the 300 million Americans live on farmers. The USDA is a buffer for our agriculatural ignorance.
Of course, big corporate farms have pumped lots of money into the pockets of our state politicians and the local municipalities can't fight the building of corporate farmers in the townships. The allows big business to pump concentrated loads of cow shit and piss into aquafiers. This of course would be good because it helps big business and we all know big business is looking out for everyone of use in the true free market sense.
Remember there is the guiding hand of capitalism and the intimates there is another hand. What do you think that hand is doing?
Cato:
What other things does our government do that are not in the Constitution? You seem to be anal retentive when in a Conctitutional sense. Are you saving that all the laws coming after the signing of the Constitution are illegal? YOu seem to be someone who doesn't like to follow the rules. Where I'm from, we call those kind of people outlaws.
CATO said:
Instead of bringing up fallacies by saying "why don't you criticize so and so?" (why do you assume I have not, by the way?) you should try to you know, make a reasoned argument as to how in the hell the USDA is legal.
Do you want to have a discussion or do you want to prove how right you are all the time?
Please don't tell me what arguement to make, and how to make it.
As far as the USDA being legal, that's a moot point they are operating they obviously have power to enforce laws, in my book that makes them legal. You are one of a handful of people arguing about them not being legal and if you are that serious about it take it to the courts and see if you will win.
If you want an opinion on the constitution that really matters
try this one, it will anger and astound you:
http://tinyurl.com/9d8fw
If your goal is to argue about the constitutionality of every government agency in existence, I'm not interested in wasting my time. Your mind is set in concrete on that ,there is no point.
On a different matter. I heard a promo for a TV news story that I'm sure I'd side with you on. Outdoor smoking bans. Unfortunately I nodded off before I heard the details. I find this to be an extreme intrusion on liberty and I'm not or never have been a smoker.
Finally, I asked:
"why don't you criticize so and so?"
because I never hear you criticize the issues I mentioned earlier. It's obvious that the USDA irritates you more than the corporate welfare doled out to Haliburton.
CATO said:
"Andy, you say that so long as the agency is operating it is legal. W-o-w. Let me ask you this: does the document known as the Constitution matter to you at all?"
Well let's see. From what I understand it's the United States Supreme Court not the CATO Court of opinion that determines the constitutionality of legislation and even exectutive actions like the Bush detainee program.
For example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/adetention
WASHINGTON -
President Bush has yet to sign into law Congress's new terror-detainee legislation, but defense lawyers are already asking federal judges to strike down key parts of the measure as unconstitutional.
Two suits were filed this week in US District Court here. At issue: Whether the new antiterror legislation retroactively strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear detainee cases, and if so, would that amount to an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Lawyers rushed to file suit before the measure, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was signed into law.
----------------------
So, here we have a challenge to the constitutionality of pending legislation. Do the opponents to pending legislation post on some blog site that the legislation is illegal and unconstituional and therefore it is? NO, they file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of key provisions of the pending legislation in federal court.
Now I ask you, are there law suits file challenging the consitutionality of the USDA inspecting the nations food supply?
I doubt it. So when you go around claiming that some activity or agency is engaging in their duties illegally and unconstitutionally what authority are you citing? The CATO Court of Privite Constitutional Interpretation?
If you truely belief all the activities you site as unconstitutional are truly unconstitutional then why not file suit and challege them in the courts instead of making statements on a blog feining the absolute correctness of you position?
So yes the Constitution means something to me but I trust the institutions established to determing compliance with the Constitution like the United States Supreme Court more than your opinion.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
I'm sure you'll INTERPRET this to mean something that suits your point of view.
My my CATO, you are certainly adament about being robbed.
You say: "I'm not the Supreme Court right?"
RIGHT you are not!!
All praise be to CATO The soverign interpreter of Constitutionality for the Ages.
Give me a break CATO. I have to say that statements like the previous do make you sound like you're full of yourself. I know no one claims to be smarter and wiser than those who are probably some of the most outstanding legal minds in the country (with the exception of Clerance Thomas who was appointed by a bigger fool ).
As I said waaaay back, I'm not a Constitutional expert, nor do I pretend to be one. If you say you are right about the Constitution so be it. That said. I'm certain I'll never see the day when you view of the Constitution will become established in law. I can sleep well knowing that fact.
CATO:
Playing the race card? I had more esteem for you than to expect that.
Let's be honest, did you name Thomas as your favorite justice? At least Roberts and Alito are legal intellectuals. I'd even say the same for Bork but not Thomas, and race has nothing to do with it.
"No need to bend laws for find "penumbras" or whathave you."
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to but I'm assuming it's discovering "rights" that are not deliniated in the Constitution.
I would even agree with you that former courts have abused this and twisted the Contitution into something it was not originally meant to be. But I don't believe that we can revert back absolutely to it's meaning the day it was ratified in the sense that there are issues that arise today that were unfathomable in that day. So my opinion for the little it is worth is some interpretation must be allowed but should be limited.
CATO, you realize debating the Constitution with me must be tantamount to shooting ducks in a barrel or batting against the littel league. I've said before this is not my area of expertise while obviosly it is yours. I am sincerely impressed with you knowledge of the subject but just can't agree with the outcomes of your reasoning.
Also you stumped me. Never heard of a krytocracy? Does it have to do with being appointed for life?
CATO:
I don't think I said Thomas was stupid, just not one of the greatest legal minds of the day. ( I could say less about myself).
Though I enjoy our arguments/discussions, Really, I don't know as much about Constitutional Law as you and don't have the same intense interest. I'm
not really qualified as I said before perhaps there's a more worthy opponent for you in that arena.
"By looking into what the law meant at it's time of adoption, we find what the law means today. Not what those who wrote it wanted it to mean "
Can we really fully understand what the law meant at the time? Perhaps in most cases, but I think we are limited being products of our age just as the founders were products of their's.
I think comment moderation was turned on because of an unruly interloper on another post.
Post a Comment